[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§ 31. For Debate]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 10382-10410]
 
                               CHAPTER 29
 
                        Consideration and Debate
 
             D. CONTROL AND DISTRIBUTION OF TIME FOR DEBATE
 
Sec. 31. -- For Debate

                            Cross References
Duration of debate, see Sec. Sec. 67 et seq., infra (in the House) and 
    Sec. Sec. 74 et seq., infra (in the Committee of the Whole).
Power of Chair over recognition for debate, see Sec. 9, supra.
Unanimous consent for control or allocation of yielded time, see 
    Sec. Sec. 29.30, 29.31, supra.
Yielded time charged to Member with the floor, see Sec. Sec. 29.5-29.7, 
    supra.
Yielding balance of time, see Sec. Sec. 29.9, 29.10, 29.16, supra.
Yielding by Members in control, see Sec. Sec. 24, supra (role of 
    manager) and 26, supra (management by reporting committee).
Yielding during special order speeches, see Sec. 29.18, 
    supra.                          -------------------

Yielding for Debate Is Discretionary

Sec. 31.1 Yielding time for general debate is discretionary with the 
    Members having control thereof.

    On Aug. 12, 1959,(15) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 8342, the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure 
Act, pursuant to the provisions of House Resolution 338, placing 
control of general debate with the chairman and ranking minority member 
of the Committee on Education and Labor. Chairman Francis E. Walter, of 
Pennsylvania, answered a parliamentary inquiry on the yielding of time:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 105 Cong. Rec. 15678, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Roman C.] Pucinski [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.

        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Pucinski: Mr. Chairman, in view of the disparity of time, 
    whereby the proponents of the Landrum-Griffin bill have 4 hours 
    while the proponents

[[Page 10383]]

    of the committee bill and the Shelley bill have 1 hour each, is it 
    possible under the rules for the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
    Kearns] who controls the time on the other side to share some of 
    that time with some of us here who would like to ask some questions 
    about the Landrum-Griffin bill?
        The Chairman: Of course, that is entirely possible, but that is 
    in the discretion of the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Sec. 31.2 A Member having the floor for debate may exercise discretion 
    in yielding to oth-er Members; and there is no rule of the House 
    requiring a Member having the floor in debate to yield to another 
    Member to whom he has referred during debate.

    The following proceedings occurred in the House on Aug. 2, 1984: 
(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 130 Cong. Rec. 22241, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry. Is it not within the traditions of the House 
    that when gentlemen on the floor are engaging in debate, and 
    engaging in debate in a way in which they make constant references 
    to particular individuals that they would then yield to those 
    individuals in order to be able to reply to the charges and 
    statements that are being made?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (17) There is no rule 
    requiring that a Member yield to another Member when that Member 
    has the floor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. John McK. Spratt, Jr. (S.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Walker: Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
        Mr. [William B.] Richardson [of New Mexico]: Reclaiming my 
    time, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The parliamentary inquiry has been 
    responded to.
        Mr. Walker: Further parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Richardson: I believe we should follow the rules of the 
    House. I believe I had explained my position for not yielding, and 
    it is based on similar treatment that I have received on the floor 
    of the House when in this kind of special order with I believe one 
    of the three gentlemen present I asked to be recognized and I do 
    not recall that I was recognized. In fact, I was not recognized.

Member Recognized To Debate Amendment May Yield

Sec. 31.3 A Member recognized under the five-minute rule in the 
    Committee of the Whole to debate an amendment may yield to another 
    if he so desires.

    On June 22, 1945,(18) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering a House joint resolution under the five-minute rule. 
Chairman Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, recognized for five minutes Mr.

[[Page 10384]]

Forest A. Harness, of Indiana, who then yielded his time to Mr. Fred L. 
Crawford, of Michigan, who had just consumed five minutes in debate. 
Mr. Wright Patman, of Texas, made a point of order on the ground that 
one Member could not yield another Member his time under the five-
minute rule. The Chairman overruled the point of order and stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 91 Cong. Rec. 6548, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Any Member can yield to another Member, or decline to yield, as 
    he desires.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Mr. Crawford had just consumed five minutes 
and Mr. Harness yielded to him to complete his remarks. Mr. Harness 
remained standing while Mr. Crawford completed his speech.

Sec. 31.4 A Member recognized to strike out the last word under the 
    five-minute rule may yield to another Member, even if the latter 
    has just spoken.

    On Mar. 21, 1960,(19) Chairman Francis E. Walter, of 
Pennsylvania, ruled that a Member recognized on a pro forma amendment 
under the five-minute rule could yield to another Member:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 106 Cong. Rec. 6162, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: The time of the gentleman from New York has 
    expired.
        Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent to proceed for 5 additional minutes.
        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman of Michigan: I object, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I move to 
    strike out the last word.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
    Celler].
        Mr. Celler: I thank the gentleman.
        Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: Just a minute. I make a point of order 
    on this.
        Mr. Celler: Mr. Chairman, deprivation of the State's ballot is 
    wrong.
        Mr. Yates: Mr. Chairman, I am entitled to yield to the 
    gentleman from New York.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Illinois was recognized, and 
    he yielded to the gentleman from New York. The gentleman from New 
    York is continuing in order.

Control of Time Where Time for Debate in Committee of the Whole Has Not 
    Been Fixed

Sec. 31.5 When the House resolves itself into the Committee of the 
    Whole for consideration of a bill without fixing time for debate, 
    the Member first recognized is entitled to one hour and may yield 
    such portions of that time as he desires (and after that hour 
    another Member is recognized for an hour).

[[Page 10385]]

    On Mar. 24, 1947,(20) Mr. Frank B. Keefe, of Wisconsin, 
moved that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole for 
the consideration of H.R. 2700, making appropriations for the 
Department of Labor and other agencies. He proposed a unanimous-consent 
request for the duration of general debate on the bill and the request 
was objected to. Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, then 
answered a parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 93 Cong. Rec. 2464, 2465, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Keefe: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Keefe: Mr. Speaker, do I understand that on the adoption of 
    the motion to go into the Committee of the Whole House on the State 
    of the Union that there will be 1 hour for general debate for each 
    side?
        The Speaker: Under the rule, whoever is first recognized is 
    entitled to 1 hour and, of course, the Member can yield such 
    portions of that time as he wishes. . . .
        Mr. [John J.] Rooney [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, is it 
    understood that the minority is to have an equal division of the 
    time for debate this afternoon?
        The Speaker: After the first hour has been used by the 
    majority, the minority then can have 1 hour under the rule.

Time Yielded for Debate Only--No Amendment Without Unanimous Consent

Sec. 31.6 A Member to whom time is yielded for debate only in the House 
    on a resolution reported from the Committee on Rules and who seeks 
    unanimous consent to offer an amendment is not entitled to have the 
    amendment read by the Clerk where another Member objects to the 
    offering of the amendment.

    The following proceedings occurred in the House on May 14, 
1985,(1) during consideration of House Resolution 157 
(providing for consideration of H.R. 1157, maritime authorization for 
fiscal 1986):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 131 Cong. Rec. 11713, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John Joseph] Moakley [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, by 
    direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 
    157, and ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution as follows:

                                  H. Res. 157

            Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
        resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
        XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
        Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of 
        the bill (H.R. 1157) to authorize appro

[[Page 10386]]

        priations for fiscal year 1986 for certain maritime programs of 
        the Department of Transportation and the Federal Maritime 
        Commission. . . .

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (2) The gentleman from 
    Massachusetts is recognized for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Dale E. Kildee (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Moakley: Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 
    30 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Lott), and 
    pending that, I yield myself such time as I may consume. . . .
        Mr. [Trent] Lott [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 
    such time as I may consume. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, I send an amendment to the desk and ask unanimous 
    consent for its immediate consideration. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
    Moakley) did not yield for that purpose. . . .
        Mr. Lott: This is a unanimous-consent request.
        Mr. Moakley: I object to the unanimous-consent request. . . .
        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Parliamentary 
    inquiry, Mr. Speaker. . . .
        What has the gentleman from Massachusetts objected to? The 
    amendment has not been read at this point.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: He is objecting to the offering and 
    consideration of the amendment, including the reading.
        Mr. Walker: It was my understanding that the gentleman from 
    Mississippi (Mr. Lott) simply asked unanimous consent that he be 
    allowed to offer an amendment. The Clerk was about to read the 
    amendment. Could not the gentleman withhold until the amendment at 
    least was read? . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair has very clearly stated that 
    the Clerk does not have to read the amendment. The gentleman from 
    Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) objected to the offering of the 
    amendment. The Clerk is under no obligation to read the amendment.

    Parliamentarian's Note: In this instance, the minority Member 
controlling debate time on the special rule sought unanimous consent to 
offer a (nongermane) amendment to require all Budget Act waivers 
recommended by that committee to be explained in the accompanying 
reports for the remainder of the 99th Congress.

Control of Time Where Time Under Five-minute Rule Has Been Limited and 
    Divided

Sec. 31.7 Where the time for debate under the five-minute rule in the 
    Committee of the Whole has been limited and divided by the Chair 
    among those seeking recognition, a Member who has been recognized 
    may retain the floor and yield to whomever he pleases.

    On July 22, 1965,(3) during consideration under the 
five-minute

[[Page 10387]]

rule of H.R. 8283, the economic opportunity amendments, Mr. Adam C. 
Powell, of New York, moved that all debate on the pending amendment and 
on amendments thereto close at a certain time, which was agreed 
to by the Committee. Chairman John J. Rooney, of New York, recognized 
Mr. John H. Dent, of Pennsylvania, under the limitation and Mr. Dent 
yielded to Mr. Arnold Olsen, of Montana. Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, 
objected and the Chairman stated ``The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 
the floor and he may yield to whomever he pleases.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 111 Cong. Rec. 17928-30, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 31.8 Where debate has been limited on a pending amendment to a 
    time certain and the Chair has divided the remaining time among 
    those Members desiring to speak, a Member may, by unanimous 
    consent, yield all his allotted time to another Member who may 
    while remaining on his feet yield back to that Member for debate.

    On June 24, 1971,(4) the Committee of the Whole was 
proceeding under a limitation on five-minute debate, and Chairman 
Thomas G. Abernethy, of Mississippi, had divided the remaining time 
among those Members desiring to speak. A point of order was made 
against use of such time by yielding:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 117 Cong. Rec. 21884, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John B.] Anderson of Illinois: Mr. Chairman, I thank the 
    gentleman from New York for yielding me his time. . . .
        Mr. [James H.] Scheuer [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, will the 
    gentleman yield?
        Mr. Anderson of Illinois: I yield to the gentleman from New 
    York (Mr. Scheuer).
        Mr. Scheuer: Mr. Chairman, I think it is beneath the dignity of 
    our great Nation to renege and welsh on its dues. There are many 
    gentlemen in this Chamber who have had more experience with 
    international organizations than I, but I have had some. Before I 
    was a Congressman, I attended international organization meetings 
    as a delegate on housing and planning----
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of 
    order that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Scheuer) is out of 
    order at this time.
        The gentleman from New York (Mr. Scheuer) yielded his time to 
    the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Anderson).
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that what happened was that 
    the gentleman from New York (Mr. Scheuer) yielded his time to the 
    gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Anderson). Therefore the gentleman 
    from Illinois (Mr. Anderson) has control of the time.

Sec. 31.9 Where debate under the five-minute rule has been

[[Page 10388]]

    limited to 10 minutes by unanimous consent, with the final five 
    minutes reserved to the committee, the Chair divides the first five 
    minutes among those Members indicating a desire to speak, and a 
    Member recognized during that time may yield to other Members for 
    debate.

    On May 18, 1972,(5) the Committee of the Whole agreed to 
a unanimous-consent request by Mr. John J. Rooney, of New York, that 
debate under the five-minute rule be limited to 10 minutes, with 
the last five minutes reserved to 
the reporting committee (Committee on Appropriations). Chairman Richard 
Bolling, of Missouri, ruled that a Member recognized during the first 
five minutes could yield to others for debate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 118 Cong. Rec. 18025, 18026, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: As one of the two Members standing when the 
    unanimous-consent request was agreed to the Chair recognizes the 
    gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates).
        Mr. [Robert L. F.] Sikes [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I had 
    hoped to get recognition.
        The Chairman: Time for debate has been fixed. Under the 
    unanimous-consent agreement, the Chair recognizes the gentleman 
    from Illinois (Mr. Yates) for 5 minutes.
        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates: Does the gentleman from Florida desire 
    to share my time?
        Mr. Sikes: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry. It was my 
    understanding that the time was fixed with the last 5 minutes 
    reserved to the committee.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Illinois yield for a 
    parliamentary inquiry?
        Mr. Yates: I yield for a parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Sikes: Mr. Chairman, it was my understanding the time had 
    been fixed, with the last 5 minutes to be reserved for the 
    committee. Presumably that time would be controlled by the chairman 
    of the subcommittee.
        The Chairman: There will be 5 minutes remaining after the time 
    of the gentleman from Illinois.
        Mr. Rooney of New York: Mr. Chairman, may I say it is my 
    understanding there would be 10 minutes.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from New York propounded a 
    unanimous-consent request that at the conclusion of the remarks by 
    the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Fascell) the time be limited to 10 
    minutes and that 5 minutes be reserved to the committee. The 
    unanimous-consent request was granted. There were two Members 
    standing, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates) and the gentleman 
    from New York (Mr. Rooney).
        The Chair has recognized the gentleman from Illinois, and the 
    time is now running. If the gentleman cares to yield to any Member, 
    that is his privilege.

Sec. 31.10 Where by unanimous consent debate on a pending amendment in 
    Committee of the Whole has been equally

[[Page 10389]]

    divided between the proponent and an opponent of the amendment, 
    those Members control all the remaining time and the Chair does not 
    divide the time among Members standing.

    During consideration of the military procurement authorization for 
fiscal year 1983 (H.R. 6030) in the Committee of the Whole on July 21, 
1982,(6) the Chair responded to inquiries regarding 
recognition for debate time. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 128 Cong. Rec. 17345, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I asked 
    the gentleman to yield for a unanimous-consent request. After 
    consultation with the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) and 
    with Members on our side, I would like to ask unanimous consent 
    that we agree to vote on the Dicks amendment and all amendments 
    thereto at 7 o'clock, with 1 hour of debate to be controlled by the 
    gentleman from Washington and 1 hour of debate to be controlled by 
    the Member from New York representing the committee.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (7) The request is for 2 
    hours of debate time equally divided between the gentleman from 
    Washington (Mr. Dicks) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
    Stratton)?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Les AuCoin (Oreg.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Stratton: That is correct.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from New York?
        There was no objection.
        Mr. Stratton: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry. . . 
    .
        [I]f time is to be controlled by the gentleman from Washington 
    and by myself, is it required that those who wish to participate 
    should stand at this time?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The recognition of Members is totally 
    at the discretion of the managers of the time.
        Mr. [Robert E.] Badham [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        Am I given to understand that on this side we have no time; we 
    are not able to have any time? . . .
        [T]he gentleman from Washington has 1 hour and the gentleman 
    from New York has 1 hour. I was inquiring as to what time this side 
    had.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Under the unanimous-consent request 
    the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) is recognized for 1 hour, 
    and under the same unanimous-consent request the gentleman from New 
    York (Mr. Stratton) is recognized for 1 hour.
        Both managers of time may yield to members of the minority or 
    members of the majority.

--Yielding Time Allocated Is by Unanimous Consent

Sec. 31.11 Where time for debate on an amendment and all amendments 
    thereto has been limited and the time remaining has been allocated

[[Page 10390]]

    by the Chairman to Members seeking recognition, a Member may, by 
    unanimous consent yield his time to another Member but a motion to 
    that effect is not in order.

    On June 25, 1975,(8) during consideration of the 
Departments of Labor and Health, Education, and Welfare appropriations 
for fiscal year 1976 (H.R. 8069) in the Committee of the Whole, Mr. 
Daniel J. Flood, of Pennsylvania, made a motion as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 121 Cong. Rec. 20839, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Flood: Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on this 
    amendment and all amendments thereto close . . . in 10 minutes.
        The Chairman: (9) The gentleman from Pennsylvania 
    moves that all debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto 
    close in 10 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania. . . .
        So the motion was agreed to.
        The Chairman: Members standing at the time the motion was made 
    will be recognized for approximately one-half minute each.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Downey).
        Mr. [Thomas J.] Downey of New York: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent to yield my time to the gentleman from Wisconsin 
    (Mr. Obey). . . .
        Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I object to any 
    yielding.
        The Chairman: Objection is heard.
        The gentleman from New York will be given the opportunity to 
    speak for 30 seconds.
        Mr. Downey of New York: Mr. Chairman, I move that my time be 
    given to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
        The Chairman: That is an improper motion. The Chair would 
    suggest that the gentleman from New York might yield for a question 
    to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
        Mr. [David R.] Obey [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, will the 
    gentleman yield?
        Mr. Downey of New York: I yield to the gentleman from 
    Wisconsin.

Unanimous Consent Required if Member Yielded to Speaks on Matter Not 
    Relevant

Sec. 31.12 A Member who has been recognized under the five-minute rule 
    may yield all or a portion of his time to another Member for the 
    purpose of debate, but a Member yielded to may speak out of order, 
    on a matter not relevant to the pending measure or amendment, by 
    unanimous consent only.

    On Apr. 28, 1983,(10) during consideration of House 
Joint Resolution 13 (nuclear weapons freeze)

[[Page 10391]]

in the Committee of the Whole, the following exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 129 Cong. Rec. 10432, 10433, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James G.] Martin of North Carolina: Will the gentleman 
    yield?
        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    already promised to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman 
    from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez) to speak out of order.
        The Chairman: (11) Without objection, the gentleman 
    from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez) is recognized for the balance of the time 
    of the gentleman from Wisconsin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Newt] Gingrich [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, reserving the 
    right to object, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Gingrich: Does the gentleman have the power to yield that 
    time out of order for that purpose?
        The Chairman: The Chair would advise that the gentleman may by 
    unanimous consent yield to another Member to speak out of order.
        Mr. Gingrich: I object, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: Objection is heard.
        The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Zablocki) has 4\1/2\ minutes 
    remaining. . . .
        Mr. [Henry B.] Gonzalez [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Gonzalez: Mr. Chairman, this request does not require 
    unanimous consent, does it?
        The Chairman: If the gentleman from Wisconsin yielded to the 
    gentleman from Texas, no unanimous consent is required, as long as 
    the debate relates to the pending amendment.

Two Members Shared Time Yielded

Sec. 31.13 On one occasion in the Committee of the Whole, two Members 
    were recognized jointly for general debate and shared the time 
    yielded them by the Members controlling the time, the acting 
    chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign 
    Affairs.

    On May 12, 1958,(12) John M. Vorys, of Ohio, Chairman of 
the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and Mr. Thomas E. Morgan, of 
Pennsylvania, the ranking minority member, yielded time as follows in 
general debate on a bill under their control:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 104 Cong. Rec. 8429, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Vorys: Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as may be 
    necessary to announce the next part of general debate.
        Our colleagues from the committee, the gentleman from Missouri 
    [Mr. Carnahan] and the gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. Merrow], 
    have gone all over the United States talking to thousands of 
    people, explaining with charts what this program is about. We asked 
    them to do it before our committee and we were so impressed that

[[Page 10392]]

    we have asked them to do it for the Committee of the Whole today; 
    and it is for that purpose I now yield 20 minutes to the gentleman 
    from New Hampshire [Mr. Merrow]. I understand a similar amount of 
    time will be yielded to the gentleman from Missouri, so that they 
    may give us this explanation from the charts that has been so 
    useful.
        Mr. Morgan: Mr. Chairman, I yield 25 minutes to the gentleman 
    from Missouri.
        The Chairman: (13) The gentleman from New Hampshire 
    is recognized for 20 minutes and the gentleman from Missouri for 25 
    minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Hale Boggs (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Missouri may proceed.
        Mr. [Albert S. J.] Carnahan: Mr. Chairman, of the 25 minutes 
    allotted to me I now allot to the gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. 
    Merrow], such part of it as he may use, and I ask that he now come 
    to the floor.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from New Hampshire has 20 minutes 
    time in his own right.
        Mr. Carnahan: Mr. Chairman, neither of us is going to use the 
    entire time allotted to us in one continuous speech. We are going 
    to talk back and forth and it is his intention to yield a portion 
    of his time to me.
        With the assistance of several charts we have here the 
    gentleman from New Hampshire and I will attempt to explain some of 
    the issues involved in the mutual-security program as we have been 
    attempting to explain the program in several sections of the 
    country. We are not going to speak simultaneously, although that 
    might be doing you a favor, for we would get through a little 
    sooner. At this time I yield to the gentleman from New Hampshire.

Yielding Time on Motion To Discharge

Sec. 31.14 A Member recognized for debate in opposition to a motion to 
    discharge a committee may yield a portion of his time to other 
    Members.

    On Dec. 13, 1937,(14) Mr. Edward E. Cox, of Georgia, 
recognized for 10 minutes of debate in opposition to a motion to 
discharge, yielded his full 10 minutes to another Member after Speaker 
William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, stated that he could yield all or part 
of his time, the proponents of the motion having the right to open and 
close debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 82 Cong. Rec. 1387, 75th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 31.15 A Member recognized to control half of the 20 minutes' 
    debate on a motion to discharge may yield any part of it.

    On June 15, 1960,(15) the House was considering a motion 
to discharge called up by Mr. T. Ashton Thompson, of Louisiana. Speaker 
Sam Rayburn, of Texas, stated he

[[Page 10393]]

would, pursuant to Rule XXVII providing for 10 minutes for and 10 
minutes against the motion, recognize Mr. Thompson and Mr. Edward H. 
Rees, of Kansas, for that purpose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 106 Cong. Rec. 12691-93, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to parliamentary inquiries, the Speaker stated that Mr. 
Thompson and Mr. Rees could yield any part of their 10 minutes that 
they desired.

Sec. 31.16 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,(16) Mr. Edward E. Cox, of Georgia, was 
recognized by Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, for 10 minutes in 
opposition to a motion to discharge a committee. Mr. John E. Rankin, of 
Mississippi, asked Mr. Cox to yield him the balance of his time and Mr. 
Cox stated he would so yield if no other members of the reporting 
committee desired time. Mr. Rankin then inquired of the Speaker whether 
he would be permitted to yield the time yielded him as he saw fit. The 
Speaker responded that Mr. Cox and not Mr. Rankin had control of the 
time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 91 Cong. Rec. 5892, 5895, 5896, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Previous Question Terminates Time Yielded to Minority

Sec. 31.17 The Member recognized to control one hour of debate in the 
    House may, by moving the previous question, terminate utilization 
    of debate time he has previously yielded to the minority.

    On Mar. 9, 1977,(17) it was demonstrated that a Member 
calling up a privileged resolution in the House may move the previous 
question at any time, notwithstanding his prior allocation of debate 
time to another Member:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 123 Cong. Rec. 6816, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (18) The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
    Bolling) is recognized for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Richard] Bolling [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 
    minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    Anderson), for the minority, pending which I yield myself 5 
    minutes. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, the other amendment that the gentleman offers 
    proposes to give the House the opportunity to vote up or down in a 
    certain period of time regulations proposed by the select 
    committee. What that does, and it really demonstrates an almost 
    total lack of understanding of the rules, is to upgrade regulations 
    into rules. The Members of the House will have the opportunity to 
    deal with all laws and 
    rules. That is provided in the resolution. . . .

[[Page 10394]]

        Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the resolution. . 
    . .

        Mr. [John B.] Anderson of Illinois: I have time remaining. Do I 
    not have a right to respond to the gentleman from Missouri?
        The Speaker: Not if the previous question has been moved, and 
    it has been moved.
        Mr. Anderson of Illinois: Even though the gentleman mentioned 
    my name and made numerous references to me for the last 10 minutes?
        The Speaker: The Chair is aware of that.
        The question is on ordering the previous question.

Member Who Offered Preferential Motion To Dispose of Senate Amendment 
    Does Not Move Previous Question

Sec. 31.18 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.

Yielding Yielded Time

Sec. 31.19 Where a Member is yielded time in the House for debate only, 
    he may not yield to a third Member for purposes other than debate.

    On Aug. 10, 1970,(19) Speaker Pro Tempore Chet 
Holifield, of California, answered a parliamentary inquiry on the 
yielding of time for debate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 116 Cong. Rec. 28005, 28006, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gerald R. Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: As I recollect, Mr. Speaker, the 
    gentlewoman from Michigan [Mrs. Griffiths] yielded to the gentleman 
    from New York only for the purpose of debate.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: That is right.
        Mrs. [Martha W.] Griffiths: That is right.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: Now, if the gentleman from New York yields 
    time to any one or more Members, is he yielding solely on that 
    basis as well?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that would be the 
    situation.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: In other words, the gentleman cannot yield 
    for any other purpose except debate?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that that is a 
    correct interpretation of the situation.

[[Page 10395]]

Sec. 31.20 The Member who controls the time under the hour rule may 
    yield a specific amount of time to another Member, and, although 
    the latter may yield for debate, he may not (except by unanimous 
    consent) yield a specific amount of time.

    On Feb. 27, 1963,(20) Mr. Samuel N. Friedel, of 
Maryland, called up at the direction of the Committee on House 
Administration 
a privileged resolution providing funds for another House committee. 
Mr. Friedel was recognized for one hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 109 Cong. Rec. 3051, 3052, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, answered a 
parliamentary inquiry on the control of time:

        Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: As I understand it, the 
    gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Friedel] has said that he would yield 
    time to Members on the minority side, and that is what we want. If 
    there is another minority Member who wants to be recognized at this 
    time, it would be in order under the rules for that Member to be 
    granted time in order that he might make such statement as he might 
    want to make.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that under the rules of the 
    House and pursuant to custom that has existed from time immemorial, 
    on a resolution of this kind the Member in charge of the resolution 
    has control of the time and he, in turn, yields time. The gentleman 
    from Maryland [Mr. Friedel] in charge of the resolution has yielded 
    10 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio. If the gentleman from Ohio 
    desires to yield to some other Member, he may do so but he may not 
    yield a specific amount of time.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See also 86 Cong. Rec. 4861-63, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., Apr. 22, 1940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Unanimous Consent Required

Sec. 31.21 A Member to whom a specific amount of time is yielded for 
    debate under the hour rule may, in turn, yield a portion of that 
    allotted time to a third Member, but only by unanimous consent.

    On Aug. 10, 1970,(2) Mrs. Martha W. Griffiths, of 
Michigan, recognized under the hour rule, yielded to Mr. Emanuel 
Celler, of New York, for 15 minutes, who yielded for seven minutes to 
Mr. William M. McCulloch, of Ohio, who yielded for five minutes to Mr. 
Charles E. Wiggins, of California.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 116 Cong. Rec. 28005, 28006, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Speaker Pro Tempore Chet Holifield, of California, ruled, in 
response to a point of order by Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, that Mr. 
Celler was in control of the 15

[[Page 10396]]

minutes and that specific times could be yielded to other Members.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentlewoman from Michigan has 
    yielded 15 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Celler). The 
    gentleman from New York has control of his 15 minutes. He may yield 
    to the gentleman from Ohio, and the Chair will notify the gentleman 
    from New York when the gentleman from Ohio has consumed 7 minutes.
        The gentleman from New York must remain on his feet, and he may 
    yield to whomever he wishes.
        Mr. Celler: That I will do, Mr. Speaker.
        Mr. McCulloch: That I will do also, Mr. Speaker.
        I now yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
    Wiggins).
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary inquiry is this: May 
    the gentleman yield to a third party?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that he may do so 
    only by unanimous consent.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. See also 86 Cong. Rec. 4861-63, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., Apr. 22, 1940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 31.22 The Member in charge of a bill yielded one-half the time to 
    a minority Member and the latter was permitted by unanimous consent 
    to allocate that time.

    On Mar. 12, 1963,(4) Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, 
asked unanimous consent for the consideration in the House of H.R. 
4374, bestowing honorary citizenship on Sir Winston Churchill. Mr. H. 
R. Gross, of Iowa, inquired under a reservation of objection whether 
some time for debate would be extended to the minority, and Mr. Celler 
assured him it would.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 109 Cong. Rec. 3993, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The House then agreed to the following unanimous-consent request by 
Mr. Celler:

        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 Member of the 
minority.

Sec. 31.23 While the minority member of the Committee on Rules to whom 
    one-half the debate time is yielded may customarily yield portions 
    of that time to other Members without remaining on 
    his feet, another Member to whom a portion of time is yielded may 
    in turn yield blocks of that time only by unanimous consent.

[[Page 10397]]

    On Jan. 29, 1976,(5) during consideration of House 
Resolution 982 (authorizing the Select Committee on Intelligence to 
file its final report) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 122 Cong. Rec. 1632, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                  H. Res. 982

            Resolved, That the Select Committee on Intelligence have 
        until midnight Friday, January 30, 1976, to file its report 
        pursuant to section 8 of House Resolution 591, and that the 
        Select Committee on Intelligence have until midnight, 
        Wednesday, February 11, 1976, to file a supplemental report 
        containing the select committee's recommendations.

        With the following committee amendment:

            Committee amendment: On page 1, after the first sentence, 
        add the following:
            ``Resolved further, That the Select Committee on 
        Intelligence shall not release any report containing materials, 
        information, data, or subjects that presently bear security 
        classification, unless and until such reports are published 
        with appropriate security markings and distributed only to 
        persons authorized to receive such classified information. . . 
        .

        The Speaker: (6) The gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
    Young) is recognized for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] Young of Texas: . . . Mr. Speaker, I have agreed to 
    yield 15 minutes en bloc to my distinguished friend, the gentleman 
    from Missouri (Mr. Bolling), on the Committee on Rules. Again I 
    say, I yield for the purpose of debate only.
        Mr. [Richard] Bolling [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I understood 
    the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Young) to yield me 15 minutes.

        I ask unanimous consent that I may be permitted to yield, for 
    debate, to other Members a portion of that 15 minutes without 
    remaining on my feet.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Missouri?
        There was no objection.

Sec. 31.24 A Member in control of time for general debate in Committee 
    of the Whole may yield a block of time up to one hour to another 
    Member, but that Member in turn may yield a block of time to a 
    third Member without remaining on his feet only by unanimous 
    consent.

    The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on 
May 4, 1981,(7) during consideration of House Concurrent 
Resolution 115 (pertaining to the Congressional budget):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 127 Cong. Rec. 8331, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (8) When the Committee of the Whole 
    rose on Friday, May 1, 1981, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
    Jones) had 2 hours and 59 minutes of general debate remaining, and 
    the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta) had 4 hours and 13 minutes 
    remaining.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Martin Frost (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Jones).

[[Page 10398]]

        Mr. [James R.] Jones of Oklahoma: Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 hour 
    to the gentleman from California (Mr. Panetta).
        Mr. [Leon E.] Panetta [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I yield 
    myself 3 minutes. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I yield 9 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
    (Mr. de la Garza), chairman of the Agriculture Committee.
        The Chairman: Without objection, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
    de la Garza) is recognized for 9 minutes.
        There was no objection.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The exception to this rule is in the case 
of general debate on economic goals and policies during debate on the 
first budget resolution, where the manager may yield for more than an 
hour to another Member, who may yield blocks of time to Members without 
remaining standing.

Sec. 31.25 Where all time for general debate in Committee of the Whole 
    is equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
    minority member of the committee reporting a bill, a Member to whom 
    a block of time is yielded may not in turn yield a portion of that 
    time to a third Member but must remain on his feet when yielding 
    (except by unanimous consent).

    During consideration of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 
1981 (H.R. 3982) in the Committee of the Whole on June 25, 
1981,(9) the following exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 127 Cong. Rec. 14093, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (10) Does the gentleman 
    from Florida wish to retain the floor?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles E.] Bennett [of Florida]: Yes, I retain the floor, 
    and I yield back as much time as I can to the Agriculture 
    Committee.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair will advise the gentleman 
    that if that is the case, the gentleman must remain standing. . . .
        The Chair will inquire of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    Simon): How much time has the gentleman granted to the gentleman 
    from Texas (Mr. de la Garza)?
        Mr. [Paul] Simon [of Illinois]: My understanding is that the 
    gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bennett) yielded his time to the 
    gentleman from Texas (Mr. de la Garza).
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Under the amended rule, all the time 
    is controlled by the gentleman from Illinois as a member of the 
    Budget Committee.

Sec. 31.26 Where a special rule adopted by the House divides control of 
    general debate in Committee of the Whole between the chairman and 
    ranking minority member of

[[Page 10399]]

    the committee reporting the bill, time yielded to third Members 
    must be utilized or yielded back and may only be reserved for 
    allocation by such third Members by unanimous consent.

    During consideration of the Olympic Coin Act (S. 1230) in the 
Committee of the Whole on May 20, 1982,(11) the following 
proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 128 Cong. Rec. 10766, 10767, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (12) Pursuant to the rule, the first 
    reading of the bill is dispensed with.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Elliott H. Levitas (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Under the rule, the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. St 
    Germain) will be recognized for 1 hour, and the gentleman from Ohio 
    (Mr. Wylie) will be recognized for 1 hour.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. St 
    Germain).
        Mr. [Fernand J.] St Germain [of Rhode Island]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    yield one-half hour to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Annunzio). 
    . . .
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Annunzio) has 
    consumed 12 minutes.
        The Chair would inquire of the gentleman from Rhode Island, 
    would he be amenable to yielding further at a later time to the 
    gentleman from Illinois?
        Mr. St Germain: I yielded the gentleman 30 minutes under our 
    agreement.
        The gentleman from Illinois may proceed and have his other 
    speakers speak. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair would observe from a procedural point 
    of view that the gentleman has been yielded 30 minutes which he may 
    use now or yield back as he so desires.
        Mr. [Frank] Annunzio [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve the 
    balance of my time.
        The Chairman: The gentleman is not able to reserve the balance 
    of the time yielded to him by the gentleman from Rhode Island 
    unless the gentleman from Rhode Island agrees to yield further at a 
    later time.
        Mr. [Chalmers P.] Wylie [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        What I had intended to do was yield 20 minutes to the gentleman 
    from Texas (Mr. Paul), who takes a similar position as the 
    gentleman from Illinois. I understand the gentleman from Illinois' 
    position and my parliamentary inquiry is, may I yield 30 minutes of 
    my time, which I had agreed to do, to the gentleman from Texas at 
    this time and allow the gentleman from Illinois to use his 30 
    minutes in exchange with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul)?
        The Chairman: The Chair in response would advise the gentleman 
    from Ohio that while he may yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from 
    Texas (Mr. Paul), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) may use that 
    time but may not reserve portions of that time for subsequent 
    yielding except by unanimous consent. . . .
        Does the gentleman from Illinois ask unanimous consent to be 
    able to yield portions of the remaining 18 minutes he has available 
    to him at subsequent times during the course of the general debate?

[[Page 10400]]

        Mr. Annunzio: Yes.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Illinois?

        There was no objection.

--Debate on Conference Report

Sec. 31.27 It is contrary to the usual practice for a Member in charge 
    of a conference report to yield time to other Members to be in turn 
    yielded by them.

    On July 27, 1939,(13) Mr. Compton I. White, of Idaho, in 
charge of the hour of debate on a conference report, attempted to yield 
to Mr. Charles Hawks, Jr., of Wisconsin, for 20 minutes, to be 
allocated ``on his side.'' Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 84 Cong. Rec. 10220, 76th Cong. 1st Sess. The current rule 
        governing division of debate time on a conference report is 
        found in Rule XXVIII, cl. 2(a), House Rules and Manual 
        Sec. 912a (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        It is contrary to the usual practice for the chairman of a 
    conference to yield time to other Members to be in turn yielded by 
    them. The gentleman may yield such time as he desires to individual 
    Members.

    Mr. White withdrew his yielding of time and yielded to Mr. Hawks 
for five minutes.

Offeror of Motion To Instruct Conferees

Sec. 31.28 Under a former practice, the Member moving to instruct House 
    managers at a conference had one hour of debate at his disposal and 
    could yield time as he desired.

    On Aug. 9, 1949,(14) the House adopted a resolution 
taking from the Speaker's table a House bill with Senate amendments, 
disagreeing to the amendments, and agreeing to a conference requested 
by the Senate. Mr. Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, then offered a motion 
to instruct the House managers to insist on disagreement to a certain 
Senate amendment. In response to a parliamentary inquiry, Speaker Pro 
Tempore J. Percy Priest, of Tennessee, stated that Mr. Cannon was 
entitled to one hour on his motion with the right to yield time as he 
desired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 95 Cong. Rec. 11139-45, 81st Cong. 1st Sess. This precedent 
        preceded the rule dividing time on a motion to instruct. See 
        Rule XXVIII, cl. 1(b), House Rules and Manual Sec. 909a (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 31.29 The offeror of a motion to instruct conferees controls one 
    hour of debate and may yield half of that time to an opponent.

[[Page 10401]]

    During consideration of House Joint Resolution 372 (public debt 
limit increase) in the House on Oct. 11, 1985,(15) a motion 
was made by Robert H. Michel, of Illinois, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 131 Cong. Rec. 27366, 27367, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Michel: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct 
    conferees.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Michel moves that the managers on the part of the House 
        at the conference on the disagreeing votes on the two Houses on 
        the joint resolution, H.J. Res. 372, be instructed to promptly 
        report amendments to the Budget Control and Impoundment Act 
        which provide mechanisms for deficit reductions, including 
        specific and mandatory budget goals for achieving a balanced 
        budget within the next 6 years.

        The Speaker: (16) The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    Michel) is recognized for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
            The debate on a motion to instruct is now divided by Rule 
        XXVIII, House Rules and Manual Sec. 909a (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Michel: Mr. Speaker, I would not expect to use the complete 
    hour.
        The Speaker: Will the gentleman yield a half hour to the 
    Democratic side?
        Mr. Michel: Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 15 minutes for 
    the moment and 15 minutes for our side and let us see where we go.
        The Speaker: Does the gentleman want to ask unanimous consent 
    that the debate be 30 minutes instead of 1 hour?
        Mr. Michel: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to do anything that is 
    going to upset some Members here, but if we can put a little bit of 
    restraint----
        The Speaker: Does the gentleman intend to yield equal time to 
    the opponents of the motion, if there is opposition?
        Mr. Michel: Mr. Speaker, I would certainly intend that the time 
    be equally divided.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Michel) is 
    recognized for 30 minutes and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    Rostenkowski) is recognized for 30 minutes.

Additional Time Is Obtained From Members in Control, Not by Unanimous 
    Consent

Sec. 31.30 During general debate in Committee of the Whole of a bill 
    being considered under a special rule providing that the time be 
    controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
    committee reporting the bill, additional time must be yielded by 
    the members controlling the time and may not be 
    obtained by unanimous consent.

    On June 2, 1975,(17) during consideration of the Voting 
Rights Act extension (H.R. 6219) in the

[[Page 10402]]

Committee of the Whole, the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 121 Cong. Rec. 16285, 16286, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Charging Time Yielded for Parliamentary Inquiry

Sec. 31.31 Where a Member to whom time has been yielded for general 
    debate poses a parliamentary inquiry, the time consumed to answer 
    the inquiry is deducted from his time for debate.

    On Sept. 25, 1975,(18) the Chairman of the Committee of 
the Whole responded to a parliamentary inquiry, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 121 Cong. Rec. 30196, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Edward J.] Derwinski [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I yield 
    5 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Buchanan).
        (Mr. Buchanan asked and was given permission to revise and 
    extend his remarks.)
        Mr. [John] Buchanan [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (19) The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. J. Edward Roush (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Buchanan: May I ask whether the making of this 
    parliamentary inquiry is taken out of my time?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that it will be taken out of 
    the gentleman's time.

Member Offering Motion To Recommend Striking Enacting Clause May Yield 
    Part of Time

Sec. 31.32 A Member offering a motion in the Committee of the Whole 
    that the Committee rise and report the bill to the House with the 
    recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken may yield part 
    of his time to another while he has the floor, but he may not yield 
    all of his five minutes of debate to another to discuss the motion.

    On Sept. 27, 1945,(20) Chairman Aime J. Forand, of Rhode 
Island,

[[Page 10403]]

ruled as follows on the yielding of time under the five-minute rule:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 91 Cong. Rec. 9095, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Andrew J.] May [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. May moves that the Committee do now rise and report the 
        bill, H.R. 2948, back forthwith to the House with the 
        recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken out.

        Mr. May: Mr. Chairman, I yield my 5 minutes to the gentleman 
    from North Carolina, if I may.
        Mr. [Robert] Ramspeck [of Georgia]: The gentleman cannot do 
    that, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: He can yield time while he is holding the floor.
        Mr. May: I yield part of my time, then, to the gentleman from 
    North Carolina.

Member Opposed to Motion To Strike Enacting Clause May Not Extend Time 
    Beyond Five Minutes by Using Yielded Time

Sec. 31.33 Debate on the preferential motion to strike the enacting 
    clause is limited 
    to two five-minute speeches, and the Member recognized in 
    opposition to the motion may not extend his time by using time 
    yielded to him by unanimous consent under an allocation of time on 
    the remainder of the bill.

    During debate in the Committee of the Whole on an appropriation for 
public works for water and power development and energy research (H.R. 
8122) on June 24, 1975,(1) the following proceedings 
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 121 Cong. Rec. 20618, 20619, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Joe L.] Evins of Tennessee: Mr. Chairman, I now move that 
    all debate on the remaining portion of the bill and all amendments 
    thereto conclude in 30 minutes.
        The Chairman: (2) The question is on the motion 
    offered by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Evins). . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Richard H. Ichord (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        So the motion was agreed to.
        The Chairman: Members standing at the time the motion was made 
    will be recognized for 40 seconds each. . . .
        Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    a preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Conte moves that the committee do now rise and report 
        the 
        bill back to the House with the 
        recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken.

        The Chairman: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts (Mr. Conte) for 5 minutes. . . .
        Mr. [Edward P.] Boland [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I rise 
    in opposition to the preferential motion.
        (By unanimous consent, Messrs. Perkins, James V. Stanton, 
    Moakley, and Burke of Massachusetts yielded their time to Mr. 
    Boland). . . .
        The Chairman: The time of the gentleman has expired.
        The Chair will advise the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. 
    Boland, that

[[Page 10404]]

    the Chair will now put the question on the preferential motion, and 
    after that time the Chair will recognize the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts (Mr. Boland) for the remainder of the time.
        The question is on the preferential motion offered by the 
    gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Conte).

        The preferential motion was rejected.
        The Chairman: The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts (Mr. Boland) for 2 additional minutes.

Member in Control Under Reservation of Objection May Yield

Sec. 31.34 Debate under a reservation of objection to a unanimous-
    consent request is controlled by the Member reserving the right to 
    object.

    On Sept. 30, 1976,(3) Mr. Jack Brooks, of Texas, made 
the following motion with respect to a Senate amendment to H.R. 13367, 
extending the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 122 Cong. Rec. 34080, 34085, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Brooks: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Brooks moves that the House recede from its 
        disagreement and concur in the Senate amendment to the House 
        bill (H.R. 13367) to extend and amend the State and Local 
        Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972 and for other purposes, with an 
        amendment as follows: . . .
            In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate 
        amendment insert the following: . . .

                    Sec. 5. Extension of Program and Funding

            (a) In General.--Section 105 (relating to funding for 
        revenue sharing) is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``or (c)'' immediately after ``as provided 
        in subsection (b)'' in subsection (a)(1): . . .

        Mr. Brooks (during the reading): Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent that the motion be considered as read and printed in the 
    Record.
        The Speaker: (4) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Texas?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Frank] Horton [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I reserve the 
    right to object.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) has reserved a 
    point of order against the amendment.
        Does the gentleman from Ohio desire to make the point of order?
        Mr. Horton: Mr. Speaker, I am reserving the right to object on 
    the unanimous-consent request to have the motion considered as 
    read.
        I wanted to ask the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brooks) whether 
    he is going to explain the motion to the House.
        Mr. Brooks: Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I look 
    forward to that opportunity to explain it as my distinguished 
    friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Horton) desires.
        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, my reservation of 
    the

[[Page 10405]]

    point of order relates to the fact that I have not seen the 
    amendment of the gentleman; and if suspension of the reading of the 
    amendment is to be undertaken, that is, if we are not going to hear 
    it, there will be some necessity for me, in order to be able to 
    make a point of order, to see the amendment or to hear an 
    explanation of it from the gentleman from Texas. I would like to 
    see the amendment, if I could.
        Mr. Brooks: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: I will be happy to yield to the gentleman 
    from Texas on my reservation of objection.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Texas can make his explanation 
    under the reservation of objection which has already been made by 
    the gentleman from New York (Mr. Horton), of the reservation of 
    objection of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown). . . . Does the 
    gentleman from Texas desire to make a brief explanation of the 
    amendment? If not, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) desires to 
    have the amendment read.
        Mr. Brooks: Mr. Speaker, as soon as I am recognized, I will be 
    pleased to explain the amendment in detail.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that at this time the 
    gentleman from Texas can be recognized only if the gentleman from 
    Ohio yields under his reservation.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: I yield.

Time Yielded Back Reverts to Member in Control

Sec. 31.35 A Member to whom time was yielded under the hour rule in the 
    House may not, except by unanimous consent, reserve a portion of 
    that time to himself; the unused time reverts to the Member 
    controlling the hour who may subsequently yield further time to 
    that Member.

    The following proceedings occurred in the House on Feb. 8, 
1972,(5) during consideration of House Resolution 164 
(creating a select committee on privacy, human values, and democratic 
institutions):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 118 Cong. Rec. 3181-84, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Ray J.] Madden [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of 
    the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 164 and ask for 
    its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution as follows:

                               H. Res. 164 . . .

            Whereas the full significance and the effects of technology 
        on society and on the operations of industry and Government are 
        largely unknown. . . .
            Resolved, That there is hereby created a select committee 
        to be known as the Select Committee on Privacy, Human Values, 
        and Democratic Institutions. . . .

        Mr. Madden: Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman 
    from New Jersey (Mr. Gallagher).
        Mr. [Cornelius E.] Gallagher [of New Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, may 
    I take 5 minutes now and reserve 5 minutes to the end of the debate 
    since it is my bill?

[[Page 10406]]

        The Speaker: (6) The gentleman may do that. Without 
    objection, it is so ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the 
    right to object . . . 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 . . . ?
        Mr. Gallagher: . . . 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 gentleman from New Jersey has consumed 5 minutes.
        Mr. Gallagher: Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
        The Speaker: . . . The gentleman from Indiana has control of 
    the time. . . .
        If the gentleman from Indiana desires to yield further time at 
    this time he can do so.

Sec. 31.36 Debate time yielded back by a Member to whom time was 
    yielded under the hour rule reverts to the Member in control of the 
    hour.

    During consideration of House Resolution 97 (to seat Richard D. 
McIntyre as a Member from Indiana) in the House on Mar. 4, 
1985,(7) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 131 Cong. Rec. 4277, 4282, 4283, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a 
    question of privilege.
        Mr. Speaker, I send to the desk a privileged resolution (H. 
    Res. 97) and ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                   H. Res. 97

            Whereas a certificate of election to the House of 
        Representatives always carries with it the presumption that the 
        State election procedures have been timely, regular, and fairly 
        implemented; and . . .
            Whereas the presumption of the validity and regularity of 
        the certificate of election held by Richard D. McIntyre has not 
        been overcome by any substantial evidence or claim of 
        irregularity; Now, therefore be it
            Resolved, That the Speaker is hereby authorized and 
        directed to administer the oath of office to the gentleman from 
        Indiana, Mr. Richard D. McIntyre.
            Resolved, That the question of the final right of Mr. 
        McIntyre to a seat in the 99th Congress is referred to the 
        Committee on House Administration.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (8) . . . The Chair 
    recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Alexander).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William V.] Alexander [of Arkansas]: Mr. Speaker, I move 
    that the resolution be referred to the Committee on House 
    Administration. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is entitled to 1 hour 
    under

[[Page 10407]]

    that motion, during which time the gentleman from Arkansas controls 
    the time. . . .
        Mr. Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I would yield 30 minutes for 
    purposes of debate only, to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    Michel). . . .
        Mr. Michel: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
    consume. . . .

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Illinois has 
    consumed 10 minutes. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Michel) has 
    20 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. 
    Alexander) has 10 minutes remaining.
        Does the gentleman from Illinois desire to yield additional 
    time?
        Mr. Michel: I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker. . 
    . .
        Mr. Alexander: How much time do I have remaining?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman has 25 minutes 
    remaining.
        Mr. Alexander: I thank the Chair.
        Mr. Michel: Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right with one remaining 
    speaker.
        Mr. Alexander: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman yielded back the 
    balance of his time.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Let the Chair state that the gentleman 
    from Illinois--the Chair understood the gentleman from Illinois to 
    yield back the balance of his time.

Majority Leader Recognized on Privileged Resolution Yielded One-half 
    Time to Minority Leader

Sec. 31.37 Where the Majority Leader was recognized for one hour of 
    debate on a privileged resolution creating an ad hoc legislative 
    committee pursuant to Rule X, clause 5(c), he yielded one-half of 
    the time to the Minority Leader.

    Proceedings in the House relating to consideration of House 
Resolution 508 (creating an ad hoc committee on energy) on Apr. 21, 
1977,(9) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 123 Cong. Rec. 11550, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James C.] Wright [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to 
    clause 5 of rule X, I offer a privileged resolution and ask for its 
    immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 508

            Resolved, (a) that pursuant to rule X, clause 5, the 
        Speaker is authorized to establish an Ad Hoc Committee on 
        Energy to consider and report to the House on the message 
        of the President dated April 20, 1977. . . .

        The Speaker: (10) The Chair recognizes the gentleman 
    from Texas (Mr. Wright).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (Mr. Wright asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
    his remarks.)
        Mr. Wright: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
    consume. This resolution authorizes the Speaker to appoint an ad 
    hoc committee to 


[[Page 10408]]

    receive the messages and the recommendations of the President of 
    the United States with respect to the energy problems of this 
    country. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, I now yield 30 minutes to the distinguished 
    minority leader, or such part of that time as he may consume, and 
    reserve to myself the remainder of the time. I yield to the 
    gentleman from Arizona for purposes of debate only.

More Than One Hour May Be Yielded Under Budget Act

Sec. 31.38 While normally the ``hour'' rule (clause 2 of Rule XIV) 
    prohibits a Member controlling the floor from yielding more than 
    one hour 
    to another Member, a statutory provision constituting a House rule 
    which specifically allocates larger amounts of time may permit more 
    than one hour to be yielded.

    Pursuant to section 305(a)(3) of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974 (Public Law 93-344, as amended by Public Law 95-523), a period of 
up to four hours for debate on economic goals and policies follows the 
presentation of opening statements on the first concurrent resolution 
on the budget by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on the Budget. Thus, the chairman of the Committee on the 
Budget (or his designee managing the resolution) may yield for more 
than one hour to another Member to control a portion of the time for 
such debate, which is equally divided and controlled by the majority 
and minority. The following exchange occurred on Apr. 30, 1981: 
(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 127 Cong. Rec. 8016, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (12) The Chair recognizes the 
    gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Martin Frost (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Richard A.] Gephardt [of Missouri]: It is my wish now to 
    yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hawkins) for a 
    discussion of the provisions of Humphrey-Hawkins which relate to 
    this entire debate.
        The Chairman: How much time does the gentleman from Missouri 
    wish to yield?
        Mr. Gephardt: It is my understanding under the previously 
    arranged rule that I yield 4 hours; is that correct?
        The Chairman: Two hours, under the statute. Two on each side.
        Mr. Gephardt: I yield 2 hours to the gentleman from California 
    (Mr. Hawkins).

    Parliamentarian's Note: Although section 305(a)(3) does not specify 
that the four hours of debate is equally divided and controlled by the 
majority and minority, such has been the practice, which is consistent 
with the management of other general debate on the resolution.

[[Page 10409]]

Special Order Speech--Yielding Portion of Time

Sec. 31.39 By unanimous consent, a Member recognized for one hour in 
    the House for a ``special-order speech'' may yield a designated 
    portion of that time to another Member, to be yielded in turn by 
    that Member.

    The following proceedings occurred in the House on July 17, 1985: 
(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 131 Cong. Rec. 19474, 19475, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William F.] Clinger [Jr., of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    am delighted to be joined in this special order by my distinguished 
    chairman, the chairman of the Committee on Public Works and 
    Transportation, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Howard), and by 
    my distinguished leader 
    of the Economic Development Subcommittee, the gentleman from New 
    York (Mr. Nowak).
        Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield to the gentleman 
    from New Jersey (Mr. Howard) 30 minutes of my special order time.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (14) Is there objection to 
    the request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        Mr. Clinger: Mr. Speaker, I yield to my chairman.
        Mr. [James J.] Howard [of New Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent that I be permitted to yield a portion of the 
    time yielded to me by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Clinger) 
    to other Members of the House.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from New Jersey?
        There was no objection.

Member Permitted by Unanimous Consent To Take Seat While Yielding

Sec. 31.40 A Member recognized to offer an amendment (to a substitute) 
    under the five-minute rule was permitted, by unanimous consent, to 
    take his seat while yielding to another Member for purposes of 
    debate.

    On July 28, 1983,(15) during consideration of H.R. 2760 
(prohibition on covert assistance to Nicaragua) in the Committee of the 
Whole, the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 129 Cong. Rec. 21413, 21414, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Edward P.] Boland [of Massachusetts]: 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. Boland to the amendment offered by 
        Mr. Mica as a substitute for the amendment offered by Mr. Young 
        of Florida: . . .

        Mr. Boland: . . . Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from 
    New York (Mr. Solarz).

[[Page 10410]]

        Mr. [Stephen J.] Solarz [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I thank 
    the gentleman for yielding once more.
        Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts (Mr. Boland) may sit while I engage in my remarks.
        The Chairman: (16) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from New York?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection. . . .
        Mr. [E. Thomas] Coleman of Missouri: Mr. Chairman . . . does 
    the gentleman have the time or does the chairman have the time?
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Boland) has 
    the time.
        Mr. Boland: Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Coleman of Missouri: I yield.
        Mr. Boland: My understanding is that the gentleman from New 
    York (Mr. Solarz) asked unanimous consent that I be permitted to 
    sit and there was no objection to it. So I yielded the time to the 
    gentleman from New York so he could continue.