[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 12, Chapter 29 (Sections 1-34), Volume 13, Chapter 29 (Sections 35-end, plus index)]
[Chapter 29. Consideration and Debate]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[Page 9339-9345]
CHAPTER 29
Consideration and Debate
[[Page 9339]]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commentary and editing by Peter D. Robinson, J.D. and Evan
Hoorneman, J.D. Manuscript editing by Joan Deschler Bamel.
VOLUME 12
A. Introductory; Initiating Consideration and Debate (p. 1)
Sec. 1. In General
Sec. 2. Factors Bearing on Consideration; Points of Order Against
Consideration; Special Rules and Unanimous-consent
Agreements
Sec. 3. Consideration in the Committee of the Whole
Sec. 4. Consideration in the House as in the Committee of the Whole
Sec. 5. Question of Consideration
Sec. 6. Questions Not Subject to Debate
Sec. 7. Opening and Closing Debate; Right To Close
B. Right to Recognition (p. 188)
Sec. 8. In General; Seeking Recognition
Sec. 9. Power and Discretion of Speaker or Chairman
Sec. 10. Recognition for Unanimous-consent Requests; One-minute and
Special-order Speeches
Sec. 11. Limitations on Power of Recognition; Basis for Denial
Sec. 12. Priorities in Recognition
Sec. 13. -- Of Members of Committee
Sec. 14. -- Of Member in Control
[[Page 9340]]
Sec. 15. -- Of Opposition After Rejection of Essential Motion
C. Recognition on Particular Questions (p. 465)
Sec. 16. As to Bills
Sec. 17. As to Conference Reports and Other House-Senate Matters
Sec. 18. As to Simple or Concurrent Resolutions; Special Rules
Sec. 19. For Offering and Debating Amendments
Sec. 20. For Points of Order and Debate Thereon; Objections and
Inquiries; Calls of the House
Sec. 21. Under the Five-minute Rule
Sec. 22. Where Five-minute Debate Has Been Limited
Sec. 23. Recognition for Particular Motions and Debate Thereon
D. Control and Distribution of Time for Debate (p. 788)
Sec. 24. In General; Role of Manager
Sec. 25. Distribution and Alternation
Sec. 26. Management by Reporting Committee; One-third of Debate Time
on Certain Propositions Allotted to One Opposed
Sec. 27. Designation of Managers
Sec. 28. Effect of Special Rule
Sec. 29. Yielding Time
Sec. 30. -- For Motions or Amendments
Sec. 31. -- For Debate
Sec. 32. Interruption of Member With the Floor
Sec. 33. Losing or Surrendering Control
Sec. 34. Control Passing to Opposition
[[Page 9341]]
VOLUME 13
E. Relevancy in Debate (p. 1)
Sec. 35. Debate in the House
Sec. 36. -- On Question of Privilege
Sec. 37. Debate in Committee of the Whole
Sec. 38. Debate Under Five-minute Rule
Sec. 39. -- General Debate in Committee of the Whole
F. Disorder in Debate (p. 79)
Sec. 40. In General
Sec. 41. Disorderly Acts; Attire
Sec. 42. Manner of Address; Interruptions
Sec. 43. Disorderly Language
Sec. 44. -- Reference to Senate or to Senators
Sec. 45. -- Reference to Gallery Occupants
Sec. 46. References in Senate to House
Sec. 47. Criticism of Executive and Governmental Officials;
References to Presidential or Vice-Presidential Candidates
Sec. 48. Procedure; Calls to Order
Sec. 49. -- The Demand That Words Be Taken Down
Sec. 50. -- Ruling by the Speaker
Sec. 51. -- Withdrawal or Expungement of Words; Disciplinary
Measures
Sec. 52. -- Permission To Explain or To Proceed in Order
G. References to House, Committees, or Members (p. 349)
Sec. 53. Criticism of House or Party
Sec. 54. Criticism of Committees or Their Members
Sec. 55. References to Unreported Committee Proceedings; Discussion
of Ethics Committee Deliberations
Sec. 56. Form of Reference to Members
Sec. 57. Criticism of Speaker
Sec. 58. Criticism of Legislative Actions or Proposals
[[Page 9342]]
Sec. 59. Criticism of Statements or Tactics in Debate
Sec. 60. Critical References to Members
Sec. 61. -- Use of Colloquialisms
Sec. 62. -- Questionable Motives
Sec. 63. -- Falsehood
Sec. 64. -- Lack of Intelligence
Sec. 65. -- Race and Prejudice
Sec. 66. -- Disloyalty
H. Duration of Debate in the House (p. 457)
Sec. 67. In General
Sec. 68. The Hour Rule
Sec. 69. Ten-minute, Twenty-minute, and Forty-minute Debate
Sec. 70. Five-minute Debate in the House as in Committee of the
Whole
Sec. 71. Effect of Special Rules and Unanimous-consent Agreements
Sec. 72. Closing Debate; Senate Cloture
Sec. 73. One-minute, Special-order Speeches, and Morning Hour
I. Duration of Debate in the Committee of the Whole (p. 594)
Sec. 74. In General; Effect of Special Rules
Sec. 75. General Debate
Sec. 76. -- Closing General Debate
Sec. 77. Five-minute Debate
Sec. 78. -- Closing and Limiting Debate
Sec. 79. -- Effect of Limitation; Distribution of Remaining Time
J. Reading Papers and Displaying Exhibits (p. 839)
Sec. 80. In General
Sec. 81. Voting on Permission To Read Papers
[[Page 9343]]
Sec. 82. Motions; Unanimous-consent Procedures
Sec. 83. Certain Readings Prohibited
Sec. 84. Use of Exhibits
K. Secret Sessions (p. 874)
Sec. 85. In General
Index to Precedents at end of Volume 13
[[Page 9345]]
Consideration and Debate
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\ \ This outline lists the subheads found in each section of each
division of this chapter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOLUME 12
CHAPTER 29
Consideration and Debate
Outline of Subheads
A. INTRODUCTORY; INITIATING CONSIDERATION AND DEBATE
Sec. 1. In General
Who May or May Not Participate in Debate, Sec. Sec. 1.1-1.7
Debate in Informal Session, Sec. Sec. 1.8, 1.9
Notes of Reporters of Debates, Sec. Sec. 1.10, 1.11
Duty of Chair in the Senate, Sec. 1.12
Initiating Consideration of Senate Bill, Sec. 1.13
Consideration by Unanimous Consent of Joint Resolution
Concerning Precedents, Sec. 1.14
Resolution Impeaching Government Official, Sec. 1.15
Private Calendar Bill--Unanimous-consent Request Not in Order
After Consideration Permitted, Sec. 1.16
Sec. 2. GFactors Bearing on Consideration; Points of Order Against
Consideration; Special Rules and Unanimous-consent Agreements
Consideration of Matter Not Privileged as Requiring Special
Rule or Unanimous Consent, Sec. Sec. 2.1, 2.2
Consideration of Bills by Unanimous Consent To Be Cleared With
Leadership, Sec. Sec. 2.3, 2.4
--Reported Bill, Sec. Sec. 2.5, 2.6
[[Page 9346]]
Suspension of Rules--Effect on Points of Order, Sec. Sec. 2.7,
2.8
Unanimous Consent To Consider Measure While Another Pending,
Sec. 2.9
Consideration of Bill on Following Day or Any Day Thereafter,
Sec. 2.10
Continuing Appropriations--Points of Order Waived Against
Consideration, Sec. 2.11
Unanimous Consent To Consider Private Senate Bill With
Nongermane Amendment, Sec. 2.12
Points of Order Against Consideration When Special Rule for
Consideration Has Been Adopted, Sec. Sec. 2.13-2.16
Resolution Directing Chairman To Request Special Rule Held Not
Privileged, Sec. 2.17
Other Business May Be Precluded by Special Rule, Sec. 2.18
Question of Consideration Determined by House, Sec. 2.19
Two-thirds Vote To Consider Special Rule on Same Day Reported,
Sec. Sec. 2.20-2.24
--Report From Committee on Rules Filed Before House Convenes
May Be Considered, Sec. 2.25
--Point of Order That Report Not Printed Does Not Lie,
Sec. 2.26
Special Rule Reported Where House Refused To Consider Bill
Called Up Under Motion Procedure, Sec. 2.27
Special Rule for Consideration of Unreported Bills, Sec. 2.28
Special Rule for Consideration of Resolution on Confirmation of
Vice President, Sec. 2.29
Measure Called Up Without Motion, Under Special Rule, Sec. 2.30
Order of Consideration of Amendments Under Special Rule,
Sec. 2.31
[[Page 9347]]
Recognition for Committee Amendments to First Title--Bill Open
to Amendment at Any Point, Sec. 2.32
Amendment, Made in Order by Special Rule, Offered From Floor,
Sec. 2.33
Equal Privilege of Motions To Resolve Into Committee of Whole
Pursuant to Separate Special Rules, Sec. 2.34
Special Rule for Consideration of Budget Resolution, Sec. 2.35
Point of Order Under Budget Act, Sec. Sec. 2.36, 2.37
Special Rule Waiving Provisions of Budget Act, Sec. Sec. 2.38,
2.39
Amendment Striking Out Rescission as Causing New Authority To
Exceed Limit, Sec. 2.40
Motion To Postpone Consideration, Sec. 2.41
Disapproval Resolutions Under Statute--Motion To Postpone
Motion To Resolve Into Committee of Whole, Sec. Sec. 2.42,
2.43
--Three-day Layover Requirement Not Applicable to Consideration
of Disapproval Resolution, Sec. 2.44
Sec. 3. GConsideration in the Committee of the Whole
Special Rule Providing for House Calendar Resolution in the
Committee of the Whole, Sec. 3.1
--Immediate Consideration, Sec. 3.2
Unanimous-consent Request To Resolve Into Committee, Sec. 3.3
--Unanimous Consent To Consider Bill in Committee Under General
Rules of the House, Sec. 3.4
Objection to Unanimous-consent Request Followed by Motion To
Resolve Into Committee, Sec. 3.5
Motion To Resolve Into Committee--Consideration of Disapproval
Resolution, Sec. Sec. 3.6, 3.7
[[Page 9348]]
--Motion That Committee of the Whole Be Discharged and Bill
Laid on Table Not in Order, Sec. 3.8
Equal Privilege of Motions To Resolve Into Committee Pursuant
to Separate Special Rules, Sec. 3.9
Question of Consideration Inapplicable to Motion To Resolve,
Sec. 3.10
Motion To Postpone--When Applicable to Motion To Resolve,
Sec. 3.11
Effect of Rejecting Motion To Resolve, Sec. Sec. 3.12, 3.13
Automatic Resolution Into Committee on Calendar Wednesday,
Sec. 3.14
Consideration by Motion To Discharge, Sec. 3.15
Sec. 4. GConsideration in the House as in the Committee of the
Whole
Special Rules Providing for Consideration, Sec. Sec. 4.1, 4.2
Unanimous-consent Procedure--Measures on Union Calendar,
Sec. Sec. 4.3-4.10
--Motion Not in Order, Sec. 4.11
District of Columbia Bills on Union Calendar, Sec. 4.12
Private Calendar Bills, Sec. 4.13
Sec. 5. GQuestion of Consideration
When Question of Consideration May Be Raised, Sec. Sec. 5.1-5.3
Debate, Sec. 5.4
Matters Subject to Question of Consideration--Motions Relating
to Order of Business, Sec. 5.5
--Motion To Resolve Into Committee of the Whole as Sufficient
Expression of Will of House, Sec. 5.6
[[Page 9349]]
Consideration of Resolution From Rules Committee on Same Day
Reported, Sec. Sec. 5.7, 5.8
House Automatically Resolves Into Committee of the Whole After
Vote To Consider Bill on Calendar Wednesday, Sec. 5.9
Second Question of Consideration on Same Bill on Calendar
Wednesday, Sec. 5.10
Motion To Adjourn Not in Order After Vote To Consider Bill on
Calendar Wednesday, Sec. 5.11
Question of Consideration Raised Against Conference Report
Before Points of Order, Sec. 5.12
Sec. 6. GQuestions Not Subject to Debate
Right of Member-elect To Be Sworn, Sec. 6.1
Resignation of Committee Chairman, Sec. 6.2
Question of Consideration, Sec. 6.3
Rereference of Bill to Committee, Sec. Sec. 6.4, 6.5
After Discharge of Rules Committee Resolution, Sec. 6.6
Discharge of Privileged Resolution of Inquiry, Sec. 6.7
Debate on Resolution of Inquiry, Sec. 6.8
Motion To Lay on the Table, Sec. 6.9
Motion To Dispense With Reading of Amendment, Sec. 6.10
Point of Order, Sec. 6.11
Point of Order of No Quorum, Sec. 6.12
Following Announcement of No Quorum, Sec. 6.13
Motion To Dispense With Proceedings Under a Call, Sec. 6.14
Questions as to Disorderly Words, Sec. Sec. 6.15, 6.16
--Motion To Permit Offending Member To Proceed, Sec. 6.17
Consent for Reading Papers, Sec. 6.18
[[Page 9350]]
Motion To Close Debate Under Five-minute Rule, Sec. Sec. 6.19-
6.21
Amendments Offered After Expiration of Debate Time,
Sec. Sec. 6.22-6.25
Motion To Strike Enacting Clause After Closure of Debate,
Sec. Sec. 6.26, 6.27
--After Closure of Debate on Amendments Only, Sec. 6.28
Motion That Committee of the Whole Rise, Sec. Sec. 6.29, 6.30
Motion To Limit Debate, Sec. Sec. 6.31-6.33
--Motion To Limit Debate on Disapproval Resolution, Sec. 6.34
Motion for Previous Question, Sec. 6.35
Points of Order and Inquiries After Demand for Previous
Question, Sec. 6.36
40 Minutes Debate After Previous Question Ordered; Motion To
Approve Journal, Sec. 6.37
Motion That Journal Be Read, Sec. 6.38
Motion To Recommit, Sec. Sec. 6.39-6.42
Motion To Refer Resolution Offered as Question of Privileges of
House, Sec. Sec. 6.43, 6.44
Amendments to Title of Bill After Bill Is Passed,
Sec. Sec. 6.45-6.47
Motion To Reconsider, Sec. Sec. 6.48, 6.49
After Adoption of Motion To Reconsider, Sec. Sec. 6.50, 6.51
Motion or Resolution To Adjourn, Sec. Sec. 6.52-6.54
--Sine Die Adjournment, Sec. Sec. 6.55-6.58
Return of Bill to Senate, Sec. Sec. 6.59, 6.60
Nondebatable Questions in Senate--Motion To Lay Appeal on the
Table, Sec. 6.61
--Motion Requesting House To Return Engrossed Bill, Sec. 6.62
--Concurrent Resolution Providing for Adjournment to Day
Certain, Sec. 6.63
[[Page 9351]]
--Concurrent Resolution Providing for Three-week Adjournment of
House, Sec. 6.64
Debate Not in Order in Senate in Absence of Quorum, Sec. 6.65
Sec. 7. GOpening and Closing Debate; Right To Close
Member Making Motion Opens, Sec. 7.1
Special Rule Designating Member To Control General Debate,
Sec. 7.2
Manager of Bill May Close General Debate, Sec. Sec. 7.3, 7.4
Proponents of Bill Close Debate, Sec. 7.5
Previous Question as Closing Debate, Sec. 7.6
Member Controlling Debate May Move Previous Question,
Sec. Sec. 7.7, 7.8
Previous Question Considered as Ordered, Sec. 7.9
Previous Question Vacated, Sec. 7.10
Motion To Table as Closing Debate, Sec. 7.11
Motion To Rise as Interrupting Five-minute Debate, Sec. 7.12
Motion To Suspend Rules, Sec. Sec. 7.13-7.15
House Conferee in Opposition to Motion To Reject Portion of
Conference Report, Sec. 7.16
Proponent of Motion To Instruct Conferees, Sec. 7.17
Debate on Amendments--Manager of Bill May Close,
Sec. Sec. 7.18-7.24
--Representative of Committee Position, Sec. Sec. 7.25, 7.26
--Position of Sequential Committee That Reported Text Being
Amended, Sec. 7.27
--Member Controlling Time in Opposition, Sec. Sec. 7.28-7.32
--Member of Committee, Sec. Sec. 7.33-7.35
--Member of Committee Offering Amendment Representing Committee
Position, Sec. 7.36
[[Page 9352]]
--Proponent of Amendment Where There Is No Manager, Sec. 7.37
--No Committee Position in Opposition to Amendment, Sec. 7.38
--Proponent of Amendment Where Manager Does Not Oppose
Amendment, Sec. Sec. 7.39-7.41
--Unanimous Consent To Vary Regular Order, Sec. 7.42
B. GRIGHT TO RECOGNITION
Sec. 8. GIn General; Seeking Recognition
Member Must Seek Recognition To Obtain Floor, Sec. Sec. 8.1,
8.2
--Remarks of Member Not Recognized May Be Stricken, Sec. 8.3
How To Seek Recognition, Sec. Sec. 8.4-8.6
Rule on Recognition as Barring Badges Carrying Messages,
Sec. 8.7
Point of Order That Member Has Not Properly Sought Recognition,
Sec. 8.8
Recognition for a Specific Purpose, Sec. Sec. 8.9-8.11
--Chair May Inquire as to Purpose, Sec. Sec. 8.12, 8.13
--Inquiry as to Purpose Does Not Confer Recognition, Sec. 8.14
Seeking Recognition To Offer Amendment, Sec. Sec. 8.15-8.18
Seeking Recognition To Offer Motion, Sec. 8.19
Seeking Recognition To Demand Recorded Vote, Sec. 8.20
--Motion To Recommit, Sec. 8.21
Minority Leader Recognized in Opposition to Motion To Recommit,
Sec. Sec. 8.22-8.24
Seeking Recognition To Ask for Yeas and Nays, Sec. 8.25
[[Page 9353]]
Members Seeking Allocation of Time Under Limitation, Sec. 8.26
Objecting to Unanimous-consent Request, Sec. Sec. 8.27-8.31
Member Permitted by Unanimous Consent To Take Seat After
Yielding for Debate, Sec. 8.32
Member-elect Permitted by Unanimous Consent To Debate,
Sec. 8.33
In Seeking Recognition on Point of Personal Privilege, Member
Must Inform Chair of the Basis for His Question Before the
Chair Will Bestow Recognition, Sec. 8.34
Sec. 9. GPower and Discretion of Speaker or Chairman
Generally, Sec. Sec. 9.1-9.3
Points of Order Against Chair's Exercise of Discretion,
Sec. 9.4
Appeals From Decision on Recognition, Sec. Sec. 9.5-9.7
Decision on Recognition Cannot Give Rise to Question of
Privilege, Sec. 9.8
Recognition for General Debate, Sec. Sec. 9.9, 9.10
Announcement of Policies Concerning Recognition,
Sec. Sec. 9.11-9.14
Recognition To Offer Amendments, Sec. Sec. 9.15-9.18
--Committee Amendments, Sec. 9.19
Yielding for Amendments, Sec. 9.20
Effect of Special Rules, Sec. Sec. 9.21-9.23
Effect of Limitation on Five-minute Debate; Allocation of Time,
Sec. Sec. 9.24-9.31
--Reallocation of Time, Sec. 9.32
Denial of Recognition for Unanimous-consent Request;
Consideration of Bill, Sec. Sec. 9.33-9.37
Demand for Yeas and Nays; Recognition During Division Vote,
Sec. 9.38
Demand for Tellers; Due Diligence, Sec. 9.39
Demand for Division Vote, Sec. 9.40
[[Page 9354]]
Recognition for Call of House, Sec. 9.41
Motion That Sergeant at Arms Maintain Presence of Quorum,
Sec. 9.42
Dilatory Tactics, Sec. Sec. 9.43-9.45
Demand for Reading of Engrossed Copy of Bill (Under Former
Rule); Due Diligence, Sec. 9.46
Debate on Points of Order, Sec. 9.47
Reservation of Point of Order, Sec. 9.48
Debate Under Reservation of Objection, Sec. 9.49
Recognition for Hypothetical Questions, Sec. 9.50
Motion To Discharge Bill, Sec. 9.51
Suspension of Rules, Sec. Sec. 9.52, 9.53
Privileged Questions, Sec. Sec. 9.54-9.58
One-minute Speeches, Sec. Sec. 9.59-9.62
Special-order Speeches, Sec. Sec. 9.63-9.65
Recognition for Legislative Business After Special-order
Speeches, Sec. 9.66
Motion To Recommit, Sec. 9.67
Motion To Adjourn, Sec. 9.68
Recognition for Debate Under Reservation of Right To Object to
Adoption of Adjournment Resolution, Sec. 9.69
Sec. 10. GRecognition for Unanimous-consent Requests; One-minute
and Special-order Speeches
Agreement That Member Be Allowed To Speak at Certain Time as
Not Infringing on Chair's Power, Sec. 10.1
One Request Pending at a Time, Sec. 10.2
Obtaining Recognition To Reserve Right To Object, Sec. 10.3
Member Must Stand When Objecting, Sec. 10.4
Objecting Where Another Has Floor Under Reservation of Right To
Object, Sec. 10.5
Chair May Decline To Recognize for Unanimous-consent Request,
Sec. 10.6
[[Page 9355]]
--Request That House Take Recess for Party Conference,
Sec. 10.7
--Pending Disposition of Conference Report, Sec. 10.8
Request To Rerefer Bill, Sec. 10.9
Speaker May Decline Recognition for Request for Consideration
of Measure, Sec. Sec. 10.10-10.14
--Bills on Former Consent Calendar, Sec. 10.15
--Where Leadership Has Not Been Consulted, Sec. Sec. 10.16-
10.25
--Recognition for Request To Dispose of Senate Amendments
Accorded to Committee Chairman, Sec. 10.26
Request for Restoration of Bills to Private Calendar,
Sec. 10.27
Permission for Majority Leader To Announce Legislative Program
Pending Motion To Adjourn, Sec. 10.28
Speaker May Recognize for Unanimous-consent Request Prior to
Motion To Discharge, Sec. 10.29
Request To Address House on Future Date, Sec. Sec. 10.30, 10.31
Extensions of Remarks, Sec. Sec. 10.32-10.35
Request That Speech Made to Joint Meeting Be Printed as House
Document, Sec. 10.36
Request To Revoke Special Rule; Consideration of Conference
Reports, Sec. 10.37
Special Rule Providing for Reading Committee Amendment by
Sections; Request To Read Substitute by Sections, Sec. 10.38
Request To Add Members as Co-sponsors of Bill, Sec. 10.39
Limitation on Debate--Request Not Entertained Until Resolution
Read or Considered as Read, Sec. 10.40
[[Page 9356]]
--Request Not Entertained During Reading of Amendment,
Sec. 10.41
Request That Debate End Ten Minutes After Subsequent Amendment
Offered, Sec. 10.42
Request To Extend Debate Time--Not Entertained Pending Demand
for Recorded Vote, Sec. 10.43
Consideration of Resolution Inviting Non-members To Address
House, Sec. 10.44
Request That Committee Be Permitted To Sit (Under Former
Practice), Sec. 10.45
Request To Withdraw Disorderly Words, Sec. 10.46
Request To Be Allowed To Proceed for One Minute Pending Demand
That Another Member's Words Be Taken Down, Sec. 10.47
Speaker Announced Policy for Recognition for One-minute and
Special-order Speeches, Sec. 10.48
One-minute Speeches--Chair Announced Procedure, Sec. 10.49
--Chair Endeavors To Be Non-partisan, Sec. 10.50
--Recognition Is Within Discretion of Chair, Sec. Sec. 10.51-
10.57
--Chair May Recognize After Legislative Business,
Sec. Sec. 10.58-10.60
--Second Request Not Entertained, Sec. 10.61
--On Calendar Wednesday, Sec. 10.62
--Recognition During Reading of Journal, Sec. 10.63
Recognition and Limitation of Time for Special Order Speeches;
``Oxford-style'' Debates, Sec. 10.64
Recognition for Special-order Speeches--Speaker's Guidelines,
Sec. 10.65
--Discretion of Speaker, Sec. Sec. 10.66, 10.67
--Previous Order of House: Veterans Day Speeches, Sec. 10.68
[[Page 9357]]
--Before or After Legislative Business, Sec. Sec. 10.69-10.71
--Entertaining Unanimous-consent Request, Concerning
Legislative Business, During Special Orders, Sec. 10.72
--Committee on Rules Filing Privileged Report During Special
Orders, Sec. 10.73
--Recognition Before or After Recess, Sec. 10.74
--Question of Personal Privilege Takes Precedence, Sec. 10.75
--One Hour Limit, Sec. 10.76
--Relevancy in Debate; Principle as Applicable, Sec. 10.77
--Yielding During Special-order Speeches, Sec. 10.78
Sec. 11. GLimitations on Power of Recognition; Basis for Denial
Limitations on Power of Speaker, Sec. 11.1
Recognizing for Questions of Privilege, Sec. 11.2
Recognition During Reading of Presidential Messages, Sec. 11.3
Recognition on Questions of Equal Privilege, Sec. 11.4
Recognition for Point of No Quorum, Sec. 11.5
Recognition During Absence of Quorum, Sec. Sec. 11.6-11.8
Recognition Pending Call to Order, Sec. 11.9
Recognition To Refer to Visitors, Sec. 11.10
Recognition for Reference to the Senate, Sec. 11.11
Recognition for Motion To Adjourn, Sec. 11.12
Requests Prohibited by Rule, Sec. Sec. 11.13-11.16
Control of Debate Time Prescribed by Statute, Sec. 11.17
Member Recognized in Opposition Yielding Back Time, Sec. 11.18
[[Page 9358]]
Member May Not Proceed After Debate Time Expires, Sec. 11.19
Sec. 12. GPriorities in Recognition
Members of Committee; Discretion of Chair, Sec. 12.1
Chairman of Committee, Sec. 12.2
Seniority as Affecting Priority of Recognition, Sec. Sec. 12.3-
12.5
Alternation Between Majority and Minority, Sec. Sec. 12.6-12.8
--Principle as Affected by Recognition for Parliamentary
Inquiry, Sec. 12.9
Members Simultaneously Seeking Recognition, Sec. 12.10
In Absence of Agreement as to Control of Time, Sec. 12.11
Announcement by Chair as to Recognition Under Five-minute Rule,
Sec. 12.12
Recognition for Motion To Strike Enacting Clause Where Another
Had Been Recognized To Offer Amendment, Sec. 12.13
Amendments to General Appropriation Bill, Sec. 12.14
Member of Minority Opposed to Bill Has Priority Over Majority
Member Opposed to Control Time in Opposition to Motion To
Suspend Rules, Sec. 12.15
Special Rule--Control of Time in Opposition, Sec. Sec. 12.16,
12.17
--All Amendments Except Pro Forma Amendments Prohibited,
Sec. 12.18
--Permitting Simultaneous Pendency of Three Amendments in
Nature of Substitute Then Perfecting Amendments in Specified
Order, Sec. 12.19
After Rejection of Previous Question, Sec. 12.20
[[Page 9359]]
For Motion To Recommit, Sec. 12.21
--Conference Report; Bill Reported by Two Committees,
Sec. 12.22
For Motion To Refer, Sec. 12.23
Under Motion To Suspend Rules, Sec. Sec. 12.24-12.26
Sec. 13. G-- Of Members of Committee
Generally, Sec. Sec. 13.1, 13.2
Priority Over Member Who Introduced Bill, Sec. 13.3
Opposition to Substitute Amendment--Proponent of Amendment Does
Not Have Priority, Sec. 13.4
Members of Committee or Subcommittee, Sec. Sec. 13.5-13.7
Alternation Between Majority and Minority, Sec. Sec. 13.8-13.11
Subjects Beyond Jurisdiction of Committee, Sec. 13.12
May Lose Priority, Sec. 13.13
Where Committee Member Does Not Seek Recognition, Sec. 13.14
Absence of Chairman, Sec. 13.15
Recognition for Points of Order, Sec. 13.16
Pro Forma Amendments, Sec. 13.17
Opposition to Motion To Discharge, Sec. 13.18
Where Portion of Bill Is Considered Read and Open to Amendment,
Sec. 13.19
Recognition To Offer Substitute--Previous Recognition To Debate
Original Amendment, Sec. 13.20
Chairman Requesting Conference, Sec. 13.21
District of Columbia Business, Sec. 13.22
Private Calendar, Sec. 13.23
Calendar Wednesday, Sec. Sec. 13.24, 13.25
Minority Committee Member Offered Amendment in Nature of
Substitute From Floor, Sec. 13.26
[[Page 9360]]
Suspension of Rules, Sec. Sec. 13.27-13.29
Seniority as Factor, Sec. Sec. 13.30-13.33
--Chair May Base Recognition on Seniority or on Preferential
Status of Amendments, Sec. 13.34
Limitation on Debate Under Five-minute Rule as Affecting
Priority of Recognition, Sec. Sec. 13.35-13.40
Motion To Recommit, Sec. Sec. 13.41-13.45
--By Minority Leader, Sec. 13.46
Opposition to Recommendation To Strike Enacting Clause,
Sec. Sec. 13.47-13.50
Debate on Committee Amendment, Sec. Sec. 13.51, 13.52
Opposition to More Than One Amendment, Sec. 13.53
Debate Provisions of Trade Act, Sec. 13.54
Sec. 14. G-- Of Member in Control
Generally, Sec. Sec. 14.1-14.3
Recognition Under Five-minute Rule, Sec. Sec. 14.4-14.7
--After Limitation on Debate, Sec. 14.8
Manager Designated by Committee, Sec. 14.9
--Calendar Wednesday Bill, Sec. 14.10
Privileged Resolution, Sec. 14.11
Absence or Death of Manager, Sec. Sec. 14.12, 14.13
Unanimous-consent Consideration of Bill, Sec. 14.14
--Private Bill, Sec. 14.15
Recognition for Motion or Request To Limit Debate,
Sec. Sec. 14.16-14.19
Recognition for Motion That Committee Rise, Sec. 14.20
--Minority Member in Control Where Chairman Opposed to
Concurrent Resolution, Sec. 14.21
Recognition in Opposition to Motion Recommending That Enacting
Clause Be Stricken, Sec. Sec. 14.22, 14.23
Where Committee Discharged From Consideration of Privileged
Resolution, Sec. 14.24
[[Page 9361]]
Moving the Previous Question, Sec. 14.25
Sec. 15. G-- Of Opposition After Rejection of Essential Motion
Generally, Sec. 15.1
Motion To Postpone Consideration to Day Certain Not
``Essential'' Motion, Sec. 15.2
Motion To Table Resolution of Inquiry, Sec. Sec. 15.3, 15.4
Motion To Dispose of Senate Amendment, Sec. Sec. 15.5-15.9
--Where Manager Had Not Offered the Rejected Motion, Sec. 15.10
Previous Question Rejected, Sec. Sec. 15.11-15.13
--Qualification of Member as Opposed, Sec. 15.14
--Resolution Called Up Prior to Adoption of Rules,
Sec. Sec. 15.15, 15.16
--Rejection of Previous Question on Privileged Resolution,
Sec. Sec. 15.17-15.19
--Previous Question and Motion To Lay Resolution on Table
Rejected, Sec. 15.20
--Motion in House May Be Amended if Member in Control Yields or
Previous Question Rejected, Sec. 15.21
--Effect of Adjournment Following Intervention of Other
Business After Rejection of Previous Question, Sec. 15.22
C. GRECOGNITION ON PARTICULAR QUESTIONS
Sec. 16. GAs to Bills
Priority of Members of Reporting Committee, Sec. 16.1
Consideration Under Special Rule--Bill Must Be Called Up by
Member Designated by Committee, Sec. 16.2
[[Page 9362]]
--Special Rule Allowing Speaker To Recognize Any Member of
Committee, Sec. 16.3
--Absence of Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, Sec. 16.4
--Death of Designated Manager, Sec. 16.5
--Special Rule Waiving Points of Order Against Legislation on
Appropriation Bill, Sec. 16.6
Unanimous-consent Request for Consideration, Sec. Sec. 16.7-
16.9
--Member Had Been Recognized for Different Purpose, Sec. 16.10
Private Bill Called Up by Unanimous Consent, Sec. 16.11
Recognition Where House Has Agreed To Consider Bill by
Unanimous Consent, Sec. 16.12
Discharged Bill, Sec. Sec. 16.13-16.15
Committee Chairman Opposed Reported Bill, Sec. 16.16
Calendar Wednesday Bills, Sec. Sec. 16.17-16.20
--Duty of Chair To Report Bill, Sec. 16.21
District of Columbia Bills, Sec. 16.22
--Privileged Resolution and Other Business Was Considered
Before District Business, Sec. 16.23
--Motion To Suspend Rules Is of Equal Privilege, Sec. 16.24
Private Calendar Bills, Sec. Sec. 16.25, 16.26
--Recognition To Request Extension of Time Declined, Sec. 16.27
--Unanimous-consent Request To Address House, Sec. 16.28
--Recognition in Opposition to Amendment, Sec. 16.29
--Unanimous-consent Requests To Take Up Similar Senate Bills,
Sec. 16.30
[[Page 9363]]
Sec. 17. GAs to Conference Reports and Other House-Senate Matters
Motion To Send Bill to Conference, Sec. 17.1
Further Debate by Unanimous Consent After Previous Question on
Motion To Instruct Conferees, Sec. 17.2
Special Rule Providing for Debate on Conference Reports
Considered En Bloc, Sec. 17.3
The House Has, by Use of a Special Order, Deemed a Conference
Report, Not Yet Before the House, To Be Adopted, Sec. 17.4
High Privilege of Conference Report, Sec. 17.5
Chairman of Committee Opposed to Bill, Sec. 17.6
Manager Called Up Conference Report Although He Was Opposed,
Sec. 17.7
Conference Report Within Jurisdiction of Two Committees,
Sec. 17.8
Debate on Conference Report--How Divided, Sec. 17.9
Debate on Motion To Reject Nongermane Portion of Conference
Report, Sec. 17.10
Debate on Conference Report After Section Containing Nongermane
Senate Matter Agreed to, Sec. 17.11
Debate Controlled by Conferees Appointed From Two Committees,
Sec. 17.12
Permitting Additional Debate on Conference Report; Special
Order, Sec. 17.13
Conference Report on Budget Resolution--Debate Is Under Hour
Rule on Amendments in Disagreement, Sec. 17.14
Recognition To Move Adoption of Part of Conference Report
Denied, Sec. 17.15
Recognition for Motion To Recede and Concur With Amendment
After Rejection of Nongermane Matter, Sec. 17.16
[[Page 9364]]
Time for Debate Divided Three Ways, Sec. Sec. 17.17-17.20
--Division of Time Under Former Practice, Sec. Sec. 17.21,
17.22
Senate Amendments--Actively Seeking Recognition, Sec. 17.23
--Full Committee Chairmen, Sec. 17.24
--Manager of Conference Report Recognized, Sec. 17.25
--Manager of Conference Report May Defer to Another To Offer
Motion To Dispose of Amendment, Sec. 17.26
--When Preferential Motion To Dispose of Senate Amendment May
Be Offered, Sec. 17.27
Recognition for Unanimous-consent Request To Dispose of Senate
Amendment, Sec. Sec. 17.28, 17.29
--Unanimous-consent Request To Call House Bill With Senate
Amendments From Speaker's Table, Sec. Sec. 17.30, 17.31
--Committee Chairman Moves To Suspend Rules, Sec. Sec. 17.32,
17.33
Debate on Nongermane Senate Amendments, Sec. 17.34
Debate on Motion To Dispose of Amendment in Disagreement,
Sec. Sec. 17.35, 17.36
Former Practice as to Debate on Amendments in Disagreement,
Sec. 17.37
Recognition for Motions To Dispose of Amendments in
Disagreement, Sec. Sec. 17.38, 17.39
Proponent of Motion To Recede and Concur Did Not Seek
Recognition, Sec. 17.40
Motion To Dispose of Amendment Was Preferential in Form Only--
Chair Recognized for Subsequent Preferential Motion,
Sec. 17.41
[[Page 9365]]
Proponent of Preferential Motion Does Not Control Debate,
Sec. Sec. 17.42-17.48
--When Proponent of Preferential Motion May Control Time,
Sec. 17.49
Recognition After Rejection of Conference Report,
Sec. Sec. 17.50-17.52
Rejection of Motion To Dispose of Amendment in Disagreement,
Sec. Sec. 17.53, 17.54
After Rejection of Previous Question on Motion To Concur,
Opponents of Motion Recognized, Sec. 17.55
Rejection of Motion To Recede and Concur--Effect on
Recognition, Sec. Sec. 17.56-17.59
Defeat of Motion To Reject Nongermane Portion of Motion To
Recede and Concur--Effect on Recognition, Sec. 17.60
Motion To Recede and Concur Divided--Effect of Rejection of
Motion To Recede, Sec. 17.61
Motion To Recommit Conference Report, Sec. 17.62
Sec. 18. GAs to Simple or Concurrent Resolutions; Special Rules
Calling Up Privileged Resolution, Sec. 18.1
Offering Privileged Resolution Prior to Adoption of the Rules,
Sec. 18.2
Previous Question Rejected on Resolution Providing for Seating
of Member-elect, Sec. Sec. 18.3, 18.4
Rejection of Previous Question on Resolution From Committee on
Rules, Sec. 18.5
--Member Opposed to Resolution Offers Motion To Table,
Sec. 18.6
Recognition After Defeat of Motion by Member in Charge To Table
Resolution of Inquiry, Sec. 18.7
Resolution Disapproving Reorganization Plan
[[Page 9366]]
--Member Opposed Moved That House Proceed to Consideration,
Sec. 18.8
--Debate on Motion To Discharge Committee From Consideration,
Sec. 18.9
Amending Privileged Resolution From Committee on Rules,
Sec. 18.10
Rule IX--Questions of Privilege, Sec. Sec. 18.11, 18.12
Calling Up Special Rule, Sec. Sec. 18.13-18.15
Special Rule Withdrawn From Consideration, Sec. 18.16
--Member Who Withdrew Resolution Recognized Again, Sec. 18.17
Majority Leader by Unanimous Consent Called Up Special Rule,
Sec. 18.18
Minority Member of Committee on Rules Called Up Special Rule,
Sec. 18.19
Special Rule Called Up on Same Day Reported, Sec. 18.20
Committee Amendments Were Agreed To Before Member Reporting
Special Rule Recognized for Debate, Sec. 18.21
Special Rule (and Bill Made in Order) Called Up on District
Monday, Sec. 18.22
Immediate Vote on Resolution After Motion To Discharge Agreed
To, Sec. 18.23
Chair Declined Recognition for Unanimous-consent Request To
Revoke Special Rule, Sec. 18.24
Concurrent Resolution, Sec. 18.25
Sec. 19. GFor Offering and Debating Amendments
Must Be Recognized To Offer Amendment, Sec. 19.1
Seeking Recognition, Sec. Sec. 19.2-19.5
Member Must Offer Amendment From Floor in Addition to Placing
With Clerk, Sec. 19.6
[[Page 9367]]
Chair's Authority To Structure Orderly Amendment Process;
Discretion in Order of Recognition, Sec. Sec. 19.7-19.9
Preference in Recognition to Committee Members,
Sec. Sec. 19.10-19.12
Chair's Discretion To Recognize Minority or Majority Member,
Sec. 19.13
Manager of Bill Offering More Than One Amendment, Sec. 19.14
As to Right of Proponent To Further Amend, Sec. 19.15
Priority of Members of Committee To Make Points of Order
Against Amendments, Sec. 19.16
Chair Determines Whether There Are Points of Order to Remainder
of Bill Before Recognizing for Amendments, Sec. 19.17
Point of Order Must Be Decided Before Recognition To Offer
Amendment, Sec. 19.18
Committee Amendments Before Floor Amendments, Sec. 19.19
Minority Committee Member Usually Has Preference Over
Nonmember, Sec. 19.20
Instance Where Chair Recognized Nonmember of Committee,
Sec. 19.21
Committee Amendments to Special Rule; Nonsubstantive Amendment
Acted on Before Debate, Sec. 19.22
Anticipating Recognition, Sec. Sec. 19.23, 19.24
Member May Not Yield for Amendment, Sec. Sec. 19.25, 19.26
Chair Declined Recognition for Amendment Where Member Obtained
Floor for Debate, Sec. 19.27
Member May Not Offer Amendment in Time Yielded for Debate,
Sec. 19.28
Amendment Offered While Motion To Strike Pending, Sec. 19.29
[[Page 9368]]
May Not Offer Amendment When Recognized for Parliamentary
Inquiry, Sec. 19.30
Amendments Made in Order by Special Rule, Sec. 19.31
Recognition for Amendments Under Special Rules--Committee
Amendments and Other Amendments Under Modified Closed Rule,
Sec. 19.32
Recognition To Offer Amendments Printed in Record, Sec. 19.33
Amendment in Nature of Substitute Was Offered From Floor, Not
Under Special Rule, Sec. 19.34
Right To Offer Amendment After Expiration of Debate Time,
Sec. 19.35
--Amendments Not Printed in Record May Be Offered, Not Debated,
Sec. 19.36
Motion To Suspend Rules ``With Amendments'', Sec. 19.37
Appropriation Bills: Limitation Amendments, Sec. 19.38
Amending Committee Amendment in Nature of Substitute Under Hour
Rule; Motion To Recommit With Instructions, Sec. 19.39
Chair May Recognize Manager for Request To Limit Debate Before
Amendment, Sec. 19.40
May Not Debate Amendment Not Yet Offered, Sec. 19.41
Recognition for Debate as Not Precluding Point of Order,
Sec. 19.42
Chair's Discretion in Allocating Time, Sec. 19.43
Chair Does Not Distinguish as Between Members of Full Committee
and Subcommittee, Sec. 19.44
[[Page 9369]]
Extending Five-minute Debate--Proponent of Amendment Offering
Pro Forma Amendment, Sec. 19.45
Where Five-minute Debate Continues on Subsequent Day--Proponent
May Speak Again Only by Unanimous Consent, Sec. 19.46
Speaking Twice on Same Amendment, Sec. Sec. 19.47-19.49
Recognition for Debate Where Amendment Tree Is Full,
Sec. Sec. 19.50-19.52
Debate Where Point of Order Is Reserved, Sec. 19.53
Recognition To Speak in Support of Amendment Before Another
Recognized To Offer Substitute, Sec. 19.54
Recognizing Member Favoring Committee Amendment Before One
Opposed, Sec. 19.55
Recognition To Oppose Amendments--Debate on Amendment Printed
in Record in Addition To Speaking Under Limitation on Time,
Sec. 19.56
Debate in Opposition to Amendment to Bill on Private Calendar--
Recognition of Member of Committee, Sec. 19.57
Recognition After Rejection of Previous Question,
Sec. Sec. 19.58, 19.59
Rejection of Previous Question Prior to Adoption of the Rules--
Seating of Member-elect, Sec. 19.60
Sec. 20. GFor Points of Order and Debate Thereon; Objections and
Inquiries; Calls of the House
Parliamentary Inquiries: Recognition Within Discretion of
Chair, Sec. 20.1
Parliamentary Inquiry During Call of Roll, Sec. 20.2
Parliamentary Inquiry During Reading of Journal, Sec. 20.3
[[Page 9370]]
Parliamentary Inquiry Moot Where Speaker Had Recognized Member
To Withdraw Resolution, Sec. 20.4
Member Having Floor Need Not Yield for Parliamentary Inquiry,
Sec. 20.5
Recognition for Parliamentary Inquiry--May Not Offer Amendment,
Sec. 20.6
Member Recognized for Parliamentary Inquiry May Not Yield,
Sec. 20.7
Parliamentary Inquiry Is Not Intervening Business That Would
Preclude Right To Demand Recorded Vote, Sec. 20.8
Recognition for Parliamentary Inquiry Denied When Point of No
Quorum Has Been Made, Sec. 20.9
Recognition for Parliamentary Inquiry Denied After Automatic
Rollcall Ordered on Motion To Table Resolution, Sec. 20.10
Parliamentary Inquiry Not Entertained in Absence of Quorum--But
Recognition Given for Point of Order Relating to Pending Call
of House, Sec. 20.11
Point of No Quorum--Seeking Recognition, Sec. 20.12
Under Former Practice, Point of No Quorum in Order at Any Time,
Even When Another Had Floor, Sec. 20.13
Chairman in Committee of the Whole May Entertain Point of No
Quorum During General Debate, Sec. 20.14
Prayer Is Not Business--Point of No Quorum Not Allowed Before
Prayer, Sec. 20.15
Objection to Vote on Ground of No Quorum Is Not Too Late Where
No Business Has Intervened, Sec. 20.16
[[Page 9371]]
Point of No Quorum as Dilatory After Quorum Has Been Disclosed,
Sec. 20.17
Chair Does Not Recognize Members After Absence of Quorum Has
Been Announced, Sec. 20.18
Business May Intervene by Unanimous Consent Only Between Quorum
Call and Chair's Putting Demand for Recorded Vote on Pending
Amendment, Sec. 20.19
Chair Does Not Entertain Point of No Quorum When Question Has
Not Been Put on Pending Proposition in House; May Recognize
for Motion for Call of House at Any Time, Sec. 20.20
Discretion of Chair in Recognizing for Call of House,
Sec. 20.21
May Recognize for Call of House After Previous Question Before
Chair Puts Question on Final Adoption, Sec. 20.22
Points of Order: Must Seek Recognition in Timely Fashion,
Sec. Sec. 20.23, 20.24
Recognition To Make Point of Order or Offer Amendment,
Sec. 20.25
Not Necessary That Member Yield for Point of Order; Chair Must
Recognize for Point of Order, Sec. 20.26
Point of Order as Interrupting Question of Privilege,
Sec. 20.27
Speaker Did Not Observe Member Seeking Recognition--Point of
Order Entertained After Committee of the Whole Reported Back
to House, Sec. 20.28
Member of Committee Has Priority To Make Point of Order Against
Amendment, Sec. 20.29
Point of Order Against Paragraph Too Late After Debate on
Paragraph, Sec. 20.30
[[Page 9372]]
Germaneness Points of Order Too Late After Debate, Sec. 20.31
Due Diligence--Member Recognized Even Though Sponsor Had
Commenced Debate, Sec. Sec. 20.32-20.34
Appropriation Bill Considered Read and Open to Amendment--Chair
First Inquires as to Points of Order to Remainder of Bill,
Sec. 20.35
Point of Order Reserved--Chair Permits Proponent of Amendment
To Debate Amendment Before Debate on Point of Order,
Sec. 20.36
Point of Order Against Portion of Bill Must Be Ruled on Before
Amendments Offered, Sec. 20.37
Debate on Point of Order Is Within Discretion of Chair--Member
Recognized on Point of Order May Not Yield, Sec. Sec. 20.38,
20.39
Must Rise To Object to Unanimous-consent Request, Sec. 20.40
Recognition for Objection to Unanimous-consent Request Does Not
Extend Recognition in Opposition to Motion, Sec. 20.41
Chair May Refuse To Permit Debate Under Reservation of
Objection to Unanimous-consent Request, Sec. 20.42
Debate Under Reservation of Objection to Unanimous-consent
Request May Not Continue When Regular Order Demanded,
Sec. 20.43
Where Member Recognized for One Hour Makes Unanimous-consent
Request, Time Under Reservation of Objection Not Charged to
Member, Sec. 20.44
[[Page 9373]]
Sec. 21. GUnder the Five-minute Rule
Principles of Recognition: Prior Recognition of Committee
Members, Sec. 21.1
Chairman of Committee, Sec. 21.2
Chair as Protecting Members' Rights to Recognition, Sec. 21.3
Member Must Seek Recognition From Chair, Sec. 21.4
Member May Not Yield for Amendment, Sec. 21.5
Power of Recognition Is With the Chair--Manager of Bill May Not
Yield to Himself, Sec. 21.6
Senior Member of Committee Could Offer Amendment at Any Point
of Paragraph of Appropriation Bill, Sec. 21.7
Recognition in Order of Seniority Is Within Discretion of
Chair, Sec. 21.8
Chair Alternates Between Majority and Minority, Not Necessarily
Members Supporting and Opposing Proposition, Sec. 21.9
Member Recognized in Support of Amendment Prior to Recognition
of Another To Offer Substitute, Sec. 21.10
Priority of Recognition to Those Supporting Committee
Amendment, Sec. 21.11
Extending Five-minute Debate by Unanimous Consent,
Sec. Sec. 21.12-21.14
Member Speaking on Amendment Could Speak on Amendment Thereto,
Sec. Sec. 21.15, 21.16
Offering Pro Forma Amendment After Recognition on Previous
Amendment, Sec. Sec. 21.17, 21.18
Recognition Limited to Five Minutes, Sec. 21.19
Recognition on Reintroduced Amendment, Sec. 21.20
Recognition for En Bloc Amendments, Sec. 21.21
Recognition for Debate Does Not Preclude Timely Point of Order
Against Amendment, Sec. 21.22
[[Page 9374]]
Closed Rules and Pro Forma Amendments, Sec. Sec. 21.23-21.26
Special Rule Permitting Pro Forma Amendments, Sec. 21.27
Amendments Printed in Record, Sec. 21.28
Limiting Debate, Sec. 21.29
Member Managing Bill Entitled to Prior Recognition To Move To
Close Debate on Amendment, Sec. 21.30
Debate on Motion To Strike Enacting Clause, Sec. Sec. 21.31-
21.35
Debate on Appeal of Ruling, Sec. 21.36
Sec. 22. GWhere Five-minute Debate Has Been Limited
Motion To Limit Debate Disposed of Before Further Recognition,
Sec. 22.1
Where Committee of the Whole Fixes Debate Time, Time Extended
by Unanimous Consent Only, Sec. 22.2
Proponent of Amendment Was Recognized for Five Minutes After
Motion To Limit Debate Agreed to, Sec. 22.3
Recognition of Members Not in Chamber When Limitation is Agreed
to, Sec. 22.4
Members To Indicate Wish To Speak Under Limitation, Sec. 22.5
Chair's Discretion as to Recognition and Division of Time Under
Limitation, Sec. Sec. 22.6-22.11
--Guidelines Used in Recognition, Sec. Sec. 22.12, 22.13
--Five-minute Rule Abrogated Where Debate Limited,
Sec. Sec. 22.14-22.19
--Chair May Continue Under Five-minute Rule, Sec. 22.20
--Effect on Recognition of Extension of Time, Sec. 22.21
[[Page 9375]]
--Recognition of Member To Speak a Second Time,
Sec. Sec. 22.22-22.24
--Same Committee Member Recognized in Opposition to Each
Amendment, Sec. 22.25
--Proponent of Amendment Recognized Before Committee Chairman
in Opposition, Sec. 22.26
--Chair May Permit Reservation of Time Where Debate Limited to
Specific Number of Minutes, Sec. 22.27
--Remaining Time Allocated Equally Among Three Members,
Sec. 22.28
--Equal Allocation Between Two Members on Opposing Sides of
Question, Sec. Sec. 22.29, 22.30
--Chair May Reallocate Time, Sec. 22.31
Protection of Right To Debate Amendment Which Has Been Printed
in Record, Sec. Sec. 22.32, 22.33
--Chair May Recognize Member With Amendment Printed in Record
After Member's Recognition Under Limitation, Sec. 22.34
--Priority in Recognition for Opposition to Amendment Printed
in Record, Sec. 22.35
--Member Permitted To Debate in Opposition Notwithstanding
Prior Allocation of Time Under Limitation, Sec. 22.36
--Recognition in Opposition Both to Amendment and to Substitute
Printed in Record, Sec. 22.37
--Where Proponent of Amendment Did Not Claim Time Under Rule
XXIII, Sec. 22.38
May Not Reserve or Allocate Time by Motion, Sec. Sec. 22.39,
22.40
Reserving or Yielding Time, Sec. 22.41
Use of Time Reserved Under Limitation, Sec. 22.42
Unused Time Under an Allocation, Sec. 22.43
Procedure Where Limitation Vacated; Recognition Under
Subsequent Limitation, Sec. 22.44
[[Page 9376]]
Where Committee Rises and Resumes Sitting, Sec. 22.45
Debate Limited on Motion To Strike--Perfecting Amendment
Offered After Expiration of Limitation, Sec. 22.46
Amendment Adding New Section Not Covered by Limitation on
Pending Section, Sec. 22.47
Motion To Strike Enacting Clause Offered During Time
Limitation, Sec. 22.48
Debate and Vote on Motion To Strike Enacting Clause Take
Precedence, Sec. 22.49
Recognition To Close Debate Under Limitation, Sec. 22.50
Chair Puts Question on Amendment After Debate Closed,
Sec. 22.51
Sec. 23. GRecognition for Particular Motions and Debate Thereon
What Constitutes Recognition, Sec. Sec. 23.1-23.3
Speaker's Authority To Recognize, Sec. Sec. 23.4-23.6
Dilatory Motions, Sec. Sec. 23.7-23.12
Motions Relating to Quorum, Sec. Sec. 23.13-23.15
Motion To Suspend the Rules, Sec. Sec. 23.16-23.22
Motion To Discharge--Who May Move, Sec. 23.23
Motion To Postpone, Sec. 23.24
Motion To Reconsider, Sec. 23.25
Motion To Resolve Into Committee of the Whole, Sec. Sec. 23.26,
23.27
Motions in Committee of the Whole: Motion To Limit Debate,
Sec. 23.28
Order of Amendments, Sec. 23.29
Motion To Rise, Sec. 23.30
Motions Relating to Enacting Clause--May Be Offered While
Motion To Close or Limit Debate Pending, Sec. Sec. 23.31,
23.32
[[Page 9377]]
--Qualification To Offer: Opposition to Bill, Sec. 23.33
--Two Members Recognized To Speak, Sec. 23.34
--Ten-minute Debate, Sec. 23.35
--Preferential Motion and Debate Thereon Where Debate Time Has
Been Limited, Sec. Sec. 23.36, 23.37
--Where Debate Time Has Expired, Sec. Sec. 23.38, 23.39
--Priority in Recognition of Members in Opposition,
Sec. Sec. 23.40-23.43
--Motion Not Affected by Special Rule Prohibiting Pro Forma
Amendments, Sec. 23.44
Motions To Recommit, Commit, or Refer, Sec. Sec. 23.45-23.53
--Motion To Commit, Sec. Sec. 23.54-23.56
--Motion To Refer, Sec. Sec. 23.57-23.61
Motions To Instruct Conferees, Sec. 23.62
Motions To Adjourn, Sec. Sec. 23.63-23.68
D. GCONTROL AND DISTRIBUTION OF TIME FOR DEBATE
Sec. 24. GIn General; Role of Manager
Manager's Prior Right to Recognition, Sec. Sec. 24.1, 24.2
Manager's Right To Open and Control Debate, Sec. 24.3
Control of Time Where Manager Is Opposed, Sec. 24.4
Manager Recognized in Opposition to Amendment, Sec. Sec. 24.5,
24.6
Manager's Right To Make Essential Motion, Sec. 24.7
Manager's Right To Withdraw Resolution; Effect on Debate,
Sec. 24.8
Manager's Right To Offer and Debate Amendments, Sec. Sec. 24.9,
24.10
[[Page 9378]]
Extension of Debate Time, Sec. 24.11
Yielding Time to Self, Sec. 24.12
Manager Allotting Time to Others; Effect on Allotted Time Where
Manager Loses Floor, Sec. 24.13
Motion To Postpone, Sec. 24.14
Manager's Discretion as to Motion To Rise, Sec. 24.15
Manager's Discretion in Moving To Close Debate, Sec. 24.16
Closing Debate, Sec. Sec. 24.17-24.20
Moving Previous Question, Sec. Sec. 24.21, 24.22
--Previous Question as Terminating Debate Time Previously
Yielded, Sec. 24.23
Bill Called Up in House by Unanimous Consent, Sec. Sec. 24.24,
24.25
Member Calling Up Privileged Resolution, Sec. Sec. 24.26, 24.27
Member Offering Privileged Resolution Prior to Adoption of
Rules, Sec. 24.28
Limitation on Amendment--Chair May Allocate Time Between
Proponent and Opponent, Sec. 24.29
Five-minute Debate May Not Be Reserved, Sec. 24.30
Remaining Time Allocated Between Proponents of Two Amendments;
Manager Closes, Sec. 24.31
Unallocated Time, Sec. 24.32
Amendment Offered for Which Time Was Not Allocated, Sec. 24.33
Division of Time on Disciplinary Resolution, Sec. 24.34
Appropriation Bills--Control Where Time Not Fixed, Sec. 24.35
--Debate Controlled by Three Members, Sec. 24.36
--Legislative Provisions, Sec. 24.37
--Unanimous-consent Agreement, Sec. 24.38
[[Page 9379]]
--Amendments to Appropriation Bill: General Priorities,
Sec. 24.39
Motion To Instruct Conferees, Sec. 24.40
Control of Debate on Conference Report, Sec. 24.41
Amendments in Disagreement, Sec. Sec. 24.42-24.44
Concur in Senate Amendment, Sec. Sec. 24.45-24.50
Sec. 25. GDistribution and Alternation
In Committee of the Whole, Sec. Sec. 25.1, 25.2
Under Special Rules, Sec. Sec. 25.3-25.6
Five-minute Rule, Sec. Sec. 25.7-25.14
In House, Sec. Sec. 25.15-25.20
--Calendar Wednesday, Sec. 25.21
Suspension, Sec. Sec. 25.22-25.25
Conference Reports, Sec. Sec. 25.26-25.29
Sec. 26. GManagement by Reporting Committee; One-third of Debate
Time on Certain Propositions Allotted to One Opposed
Prior Recognition of Committee Members, Sec. Sec. 26.1-26.5
Control of Privileged Resolution, Sec. 26.6
Responsibility of the Committee Chairman, Sec. 26.7
Effect of Opposition of Committee Chairman, Sec. 26.8
Duty of Committee Chairman To Report Bill, Sec. 26.9
Conference Reports, Sec. Sec. 26.10-26.12
District of Columbia Business, Sec. 26.13
Committee Amendments, Sec. Sec. 26.14-26.17
Priorities Under the Five-minute Rule, Sec. Sec. 26.18-26.22
Reservation of Time for Committee, Sec. 26.23
Control of Time by Unanimous Consent, Sec. Sec. 26.24-26.26
Hour Rule Limitations, Sec. 26.27
[[Page 9380]]
Yielding Time by Committee Managers, Sec. 26.28
General Debate Time, Sec. Sec. 26.29-26.31
--Reserving Time To Close, Sec. 26.32
Disciplinary Resolution, Sec. 26.33
Under Suspension--Management of House Bill With Senate
Amendments, Sec. Sec. 26.34, 26.35
--Member Opposed to Motion, Sec. 26.36
Unanimous-consent Requests To Dispose of Senate Amendments,
Sec. Sec. 26.37, 26.38
Calendar Wednesday, Sec. Sec. 26.39, 26.40
Veto, Sec. Sec. 26.41, 26.42
Amendments, Sec. Sec. 26.43, 26.44
Unreported Joint Resolution, Sec. Sec. 26.45, 26.46
Motions To Instruct, Sec. 26.47
Time Divided Three Ways, Sec. Sec. 26.48-26.62
Sec. 27. GDesignation of Managers
Designation of Member by Committee, Sec. Sec. 27.1, 27.2
Designation by Unanimous Consent, Sec. Sec. 27.3, 27.4
Manager of Discharged Bill, Sec. 27.5
Manager of Conference Report, Sec. Sec. 27.6, 27.7
Sec. 28. GEffect of Special Rule
Special Rule as Governing Control of Time for General Debate--
Time for Debate Is Obtained From Member Controlling Time,
Sec. Sec. 28.1, 28.2
Designated Member (Chairman) Opens Debate, Sec. 28.3
Bill Made in Order Is Not Necessarily Unfinished Business,
Sec. 28.4
Control Where Special Rule Does Not Identify Manager, Sec. 28.5
[[Page 9381]]
No Manager Under Special Rule--Proponents of Amendments Opened
and Closed Debate, Sec. 28.6
Effect of Absence or Death of Designated Manager,
Sec. Sec. 28.7, 28.8
Delegation of Authority by Designated Manager, Sec. 28.9
Committee Chairman To Designate Members To Control Two Extra
Hours of General Debate; Scope of Debate, Sec. 28.10
Extending Control to Additional Members Not Designated in
Special Rule, Sec. Sec. 28.11, 28.12
Bill Within Jurisdiction of Two or More Committees,
Sec. Sec. 28.13, 28.14
--Rotating Recognition, Sec. 28.15
--Sequentially Reporting Committees, Sec. Sec. 28.16, 28.17
--Where Special Rule Does Not Specify Order of Recognition,
Sec. 28.18
--Time for General Debate Allocated to Primary Committee Was
Reallocated by Unanimous Consent, Sec. 28.19
Effect of Modified Closed Rule Permitting Amendment in Nature
of Substitute and Substitute Therefor, With Separate Hour of
Debate on Each Substitute, Sec. 28.20
Special Rule Prohibiting Amendments to Amendment--Time Consumed
Under Reservation of Objection to Unanimous-consent Request
To Offer Amendment, Sec. 28.21
Expiration of Time on Amendment Did Not Preclude Amendment to
Amendment and Debate Thereon, Sec. 28.22
Speaker and Minority Leader Permitted To Speak by Unanimous
Consent Where Special Rule Prohibited Pro Forma Amendments,
Sec. 28.23
[[Page 9382]]
Priority of Recognition in Opposition to Amendment Accorded to
Minority Member of Reporting Committee, Sec. 28.24
Manager of Bill Recognized in Opposition to Amendment,
Sec. Sec. 28.25, 28.26
--If Manager States Opposition, Chair Does Not Later Question
Qualification To Speak in Opposition, Sec. 28.27
Effect Where Member Recognized in Opposition Yields Back All
Time, Sec. 28.28
Yielding Repeatedly to Same Member, Sec. 28.29
Time Yielded Is Utilized or Yielded Back--Reservation of
Yielded Time as Requiring Unanimous Consent, Sec. 28.30
Motions Permitted by Special Rule, Sec. 28.31
Control of Debate on Resolutions Relating to Committee
Structure, Sec. 28.32
Debate on Confirmation of Vice President-designate Divided
Three Ways, Sec. 28.33
Five Conference Reports Considered En Bloc, Sec. 28.34
Sec. 29. GYielding Time
Seeking Yielded Time, Sec. 29.1
--Recognition by Chair, Sec. 29.2
Speaking From Floor During Yielded Time, Sec. 29.3
Yielding Repeatedly to Same Members, Sec. 29.4
Yielded Time Charged to Member With Floor, Sec. Sec. 29.5-29.7
Member Yielding Time Should Stand, Sec. 29.8
Effect of Yielding Back Balance of Time on Motion Without
Moving Previous Question, Sec. Sec. 29.9, 29.10
Effect on Time Already Yielded Where Member in Control Loses
Floor, Sec. 29.11
Yielding Is Discretionary, Sec. Sec. 29.12-29.14
[[Page 9383]]
Motion To Instruct Conferees: Former Practice, Sec. 29.15
Reversion of Unused Yielded Time, Sec. 29.16
Yielding for Reading of Paper, Sec. 29.17
Member Having Special Order Yielded to Member Having Next
Special Order, Sec. 29.18
Use of Time Yielded for Debate Only, Sec. Sec. 29.19-29.21
--Parliamentary Inquiries in Time Yielded for Debate,
Sec. 29.22
Yielding for Parliamentary Inquiry, Sec. Sec. 29.23, 29.24
Time Yielded for Unanimous-consent Request; Debate Under
Reservation of Objection, Sec. 29.25
Interruption for Point of Order, Sec. 29.26
One Recognized for Parliamentary Inquiry May Not Yield,
Sec. 29.27
Yielding Blocks of Time--Further Yielding by Member to Whom
Time Yielded, Sec. Sec. 29.28-29.30
Five-minute Debate--Yielding Time Allocated Under Limitation on
Debate, Sec. 29.31
Sec. 30. G-- For Motions or Amendments
In House: Yielding for Amendment, Sec. Sec. 30.1, 30.2
-Amendment to Committee Amendment, Sec. 30.3
--Resolution Raising Privileges of House, Sec. 30.4
--Privileged Resolution, Sec. 30.5
--Amendments to Motion To Recommit, Sec. 30.6
--Control of Floor Affected by Yielding for Amendment,
Sec. Sec. 30.7-30.13
--Offeror of Preferential Motion May Not Move Previous Question
in Time Yielded for Debate, Sec. 30.14
[[Page 9384]]
Deferring Recognition to Another To Offer Motion To Dispose of
Senate Amendment in Disagreement, Sec. 30.15
Yielding for Motion To Adjourn, Sec. Sec. 30.16, 30.17
Under Five-minute Rule: Cannot Yield for Amendment,
Sec. Sec. 30.18-30.23
--Member Offering Pro Forma Amendment May Not Yield for
Amendment, Sec. 30.24
--Effect of Allocation of Debate Time Under Limitation; Time
Fixed and Control Divided, Sec. Sec. 30.25, 30.26
--Offering Amendment Where Balance of Time Was Yielded by
Unanimous Consent, Sec. 30.27
Member in Control Does Not Yield to Another To Offer
Preferential Motion, Sec. 30.28
Yielding Time for Motion That Committee of the Whole Rise,
Sec. 30.29
Member Recognized for One-minute Speech Could Not Yield for
Request To Restore Bill to Private Calendar, Sec. 30.30
Sec. 31. G-- For Debate
Yielding for Debate Is Discretionary, Sec. Sec. 31.1, 31.2
Member Recognized To Debate Amendment May Yield,
Sec. Sec. 31.3, 31.4
Control of Time Where Time for Debate in Committee of the Whole
Has Not Been Fixed, Sec. 31.5
Time Yielded for Debate Only--No Amendment Without Unanimous
Consent, Sec. 31.6
Control of Time Where Time Under Five-minute Rule Has Been
Limited and Divided, Sec. Sec. 31.7-31.10
--Yielding Time Allocated Is by Unanimous Consent, Sec. 31.11
[[Page 9385]]
Unanimous Consent Required if Member Yielded To Speaks on
Matter Not Relevant, Sec. 31.12
Two Members Shared Time Yielded, Sec. 31.13
Yielding Time on Motion To Discharge, Sec. Sec. 31.14-31.16
Previous Question Terminates Time Yielded to Minority,
Sec. 31.17
Member Who Offered Preferential Motion To Dispose of Senate
Amendment Does Not Move Previous Question, Sec. 31.18
Yielding Yielded Time, Sec. Sec. 31.19, 31.20
--Unanimous Consent Required, Sec. Sec. 31.21-31.26
--Debate on Conference Report, Sec. 31.27
Offeror of Motion To Instruct Conferees, Sec. Sec. 31.28, 31.29
Additional Time Is Obtained From Members in Control, Not by
Unanimous Consent, Sec. 31.30
Charging Time Yielded for Parliamentary Inquiry, Sec. 31.31
Member Offering Motion To Recommend Striking Enacting Clause
May Yield Part of Time, Sec. 31.32
Member Opposed to Motion To Strike Enacting Clause May Not
Extend Time Beyond Five Minutes by Using Yielded Time,
Sec. 31.33
Member in Control Under Reservation of Objection May Yield,
Sec. 31.34
Time Yielded Back Reverts to Member in Control,
Sec. Sec. 31.35, 31.36
Majority Leader Recognized on Privileged Resolution Yielded
One-half Time to Minority Leader, Sec. 31.37
More Than One Hour May Be Yielded Under Budget Act, Sec. 31.38
[[Page 9386]]
Special Order Speech--Yielding Portion of Time, Sec. 31.39
Member Permitted by Unanimous Consent To Take Seat While
Yielding, Sec. 31.40
Sec. 32. GInterruption of Member With the Floor
Seeking Permission To Interrupt, Sec. Sec. 32.1, 32.2
--When Remarks of Member Interrupting May Be Stricken; Charging
Time, Sec. 32.3
Interruption by Motions--To Close Debate, Sec. 32.4
--To Rise, Sec. 32.5
--To Adjourn, Sec. 32.6
Parliamentary Inquiries, Sec. Sec. 32.7-32.9
--Parliamentary Inquiry and Point of Order, Sec. 32.10
Point of Order and Call of the House, Sec. 32.11
--Special Order Interrupted by Call of the House; Member
Regains Floor After Motion To Dispense With Proceedings,
Sec. 32.12
Point of No Quorum, Sec. 32.13
Question of Personal Privilege, Sec. Sec. 32.14, 32.15
Interruption To Reserve Objection, Sec. 32.16
Perfecting Amendment May Not Be Offered While Member Debating
Motion To Strike, Sec. 32.17
Messages and Conference Reports, Sec. 32.18
Sec. 33. GLosing or Surrendering Control
Member Called to Order for Unparliamentary Words, Sec. 33.1
Irrelevant Remarks, Sec. 33.2
Withdrawal of Pending Resolution, Sec. 33.3
Yielding for Amendment, Sec. Sec. 33.4-33.7
--Yielding for Amendment to Amendment, Sec. Sec. 33.8, 33.9
Chairman of Committee Surrendered Control Where He Opposed
Bill, Sec. 33.10
[[Page 9387]]
--Chairman of Committee Opposed Bill as Amended, Sec. 33.11
Member Offering Preferential Motion Does Not Gain Control of
Time, Sec. Sec. 33.12-33.16
Member in Control of General Debate Loses Control Only if Time
Is Yielded Back, Sec. 33.17
Time Yielded Back by One to Whom Time Was Yielded Reverts to
Member in Control, Sec. 33.18
--Member to Whom Time Was Yielded May Not Reserve a Portion,
Sec. 33.19
Under Trade Act: Member Controlling Time in Opposition May Not
Be Compelled To Use Less Than Time Allotted, Sec. 33.20
Effect of Rejection of Previous Question on Motion To Instruct
Conferees, Sec. 33.21
Member in Control Must Remain Standing--Member Inadvertently
Seated Himself, Sec. 33.22
Sec. 34. GControl Passing to Opposition
Effect of Rejection of Essential Motion, Generally, Sec. 34.1
Defeat of Motion To Table Resolution, Sec. 34.2
Rejection of Previous Question, Sec. Sec. 34.3-34.7
--Prior to Adoption of the Rules, Sec. 34.8
Rejection of Conference Report, Sec. Sec. 34.9, 34.10
Rejection of Motion To Dispose of Senate Amendment--Recognition
To Offer Successor Motion, Sec. Sec. 34.11-34.13
--Debate on Successor Motion, Sec. Sec. 34.14, 34.15
[[Page 9388]]
VOLUME 13
E. GRELEVANCY IN DEBATE
Sec. 35. GDebate in the House
Relevancy During General Debate, Sec. 35.1
Debate on Special Order, Sec. Sec. 35.2, 35.3
Debate on Special Order for Consideration of Bill,
Sec. Sec. 35.4, 35.5
Role of Chair in Enforcing Relevancy, Sec. 35.6
Pro Forma Amendment, Sec. 35.7
During Morning Hour Call of Committees, Sec. 35.8
Debate on Impeachment Charges, Sec. Sec. 35.9, 35.10
Electing Member to Committee, Sec. 35.11
Resignation From Committee, Sec. 35.12
Disciplinary Resolution, Sec. Sec. 35.13-35.16
Speaker's Reluctance To Rule in Advance on Relevancy,
Sec. 35.17
Motion To Postpone, Sec. 35.18
Debate as Legislative History, Sec. 35.19
Debate on Special Orders, Sec. 35.20
Motion To Amend, Sec. 35.21
Sec. 36. G-- On Question of Privilege
Question of Personal Privilege, Sec. Sec. 36.1, 36.2
References to Pending Legislation, Sec. 36.3
References to Grounds for Impeachment, Sec. 36.4
Question of Privilege of the House, Sec. 36.5
Question of Personal Privilege, Sec. 36.6
Seating of Member, Sec. 36.7
Sec. 37. GDebate in Committee of the Whole
Effect of Special Rule, Sec. 37.1
Debate on ``Omnibus'' Appropriation Bill, Sec. 37.2
Speaking Out of Order by Unanimous Consent, Sec. Sec. 37.3,
37.4
[[Page 9389]]
Scope of Debate on Motion To Strike Enacting Clause,
Sec. Sec. 37.5-37.11
Argument on Point of Order, Sec. 37.12
Sec. 38. GDebate Under Five-minute Rule
Relevancy Requirement, Sec. Sec. 38.1-38.3
Indulging in Personalities, Sec. 38.4
Confining Remarks to Pending Amendment, Sec. Sec. 38.5-38.7
Debate Under Pro Forma Amendment, Sec. Sec. 38.8-38.14
Debate on Appeals, Sec. 38.15
Unanimous Consent To Speak Out of Order, Sec. Sec. 38.16, 38.17
Motion To Strike Enacting Clause, Sec. Sec. 38.18-38.20
Sec. 39. G--General Debate in Committee of the Whole
Relevancy Not Required in General Debate Under General Rules,
Sec. Sec. 39.1, 39.2
On District of Columbia Day, Sec. 39.3
Budget Resolution, Sec. 39.4
Under Special Rule Confining Debate ``to the Bill'', Sec. 39.5
F. GDISORDER IN DEBATE
Sec. 40. GIn General
Decorum in Debate, Sec. Sec. 40.1, 40.2
Badges, Sec. 40.3
Speaker's Admonition, Sec. Sec. 40.4-40.6
The Day They Broke Every Rule in the House, Sec. 40.7
Speaking in Foreign Language, Sec. 40.8
Personal Privilege Not Appropriate To Address Offenses in
Debate, Sec. 40.9
Privilege of House Alleging Rule Violation, Sec. 40.10
[[Page 9390]]
Comportment as Breach of Decorum, Sec. 40.11
Sec. 41. GDisorderly Acts; Attire
Disturbances by Members, Sec. 41.1
--Adhering to the Speaker's Gavel, Sec. 41.2
Interrupting Another Member, Sec. 41.3
``Clear the Well'', Sec. Sec. 41.4, 41.5
Altercations Between Members, Sec. 41.6
Announcements as to Anticipated Disorder, Sec. 41.7
Demonstrations, Approval, or Disapproval by Members; Applause,
Sec. 41.8
Evidence of ``Applause'' Normally Omitted, Sec. 41.9
Only Chair Puts Question, Sec. Sec. 41.10, 41.11
Proper Attire, Sec. Sec. 41.12, 41.13
Hats, Sec. 41.14
Smoking, Sec. Sec. 41.15, 41.16
Speaking From Well When House Not in Session, Sec. 41.17
Sec. 42. GManner of Address; Interruptions
Addressing Speaker or Chairman; Form, Sec. Sec. 42.1, 42.2
Addressing the President, Sec. 42.3
Addressing Female Occupant of Chair, Sec. 42.4
Addressing Members, Sec. Sec. 42.5, 42.6
Addressing Galleries, Sec. 42.7
Interruptions in Debate, Sec. Sec. 42.8-42.12
--Remarks Do Not Appear in Record, Sec. 42.13
Member Declines To Yield, Sec. 42.14
Addressing Television Audience, Sec. Sec. 42.15-42.23
Proper Manner of Addressing Colleague, Sec. Sec. 42.24-42.26
Sec. 43. GDisorderly Language
References to State or Region, Sec. 43.1
References to Associations or Groups, Sec. 43.2
[[Page 9391]]
References to Former President, Sec. 43.3
Remarks as to Race or Class, Sec. Sec. 43.4, 43.5
Profanity, Sec. Sec. 43.6-43.8
Blasphemous Words, Sec. 43.9
Sec. 44. G-- Reference to Senate or to Senators
Explanations of the Rule of Comity, Sec. Sec. 44.1-44.5
--Criticism of the Idea of ``Comity'', Sec. 44.6
Role of the Speaker, Sec. 44.7
Announcements as to Enforcement of Rule of Comity, Sec. 44.8
Comment on Senate Proceedings Critical of House, Sec. 44.9
Comment on Conference Proceedings, Sec. 44.10
Comment on Senate Proceedings on Measure Pending in House,
Sec. Sec. 44.11-44.14
--Senators as Sponsors of Legislation, Sec. 44.15
Critical or Derogatory References to Senators, Sec. Sec. 44.16-
44.22
Reading Senate Proceedings From the Record, Sec. Sec. 44.23-
44.25
Indirect Reference to the Senate, Sec. Sec. 44.26-44.28
Complimentary References to Named Senator, Sec. Sec. 44.29,
44.30
Reference to Statements Made Off Senate Floor, Sec. Sec. 44.31-
44.37
Reference to Senate Votes, Sec. Sec. 44.38-44.44
Insertions in the Record, Sec. 44.45
Critical References to Senate or its Committees, Sec. 44.46
Removing Remarks Violative of Comity From Record,
Sec. Sec. 44.47-44.51
Historical References to Senate Actions, Sec. 44.52
Members Wishing To Discuss Actions of Senate Should Do So Off
the Floor, Sec. 44.53
[[Page 9392]]
References to Senators Who Are Presidential Candidates,
Sec. Sec. 44.54, 44.55
Referring to Senate Inaction on Subject Under Debate in House,
Sec. Sec. 44.56-44.59
Advocating Senate Action on Nomination, Sec. 44.60
Referring to Remarks Made by Senator at Time He Was a Member of
the House, Sec. 44.61
Speculating on Senate Legislative Action, Sec. Sec. 44.62-44.64
Addressing Remarks to Members of Senate, Sec. 44.65
Sec. 45. G--Reference to Gallery Occupants
Generally; Reference to Guests, Sec. Sec. 45.1, 45.2
Guests Interested in Pending Bill, Sec. Sec. 45.3-45.5
References to the Press Gallery, Sec. 45.6
Duty of Speaker, Sec. 45.7
Announcements by the Chair, Sec. 45.8
Acknowledging a Visitor Without Reference to His Presence,
Sec. 45.9
Sec. 46. References in Senate to House
Senate Rules Provisions, Sec. Sec. 46.1, 46.2
Discretion of Presiding Officer, Sec. 46.3
Announcements, Sec. 46.4
References to House Legislative Proceedings, Sec. 46.5
Effect of Unanimous Consent, Sec. 46.6
Reference to Speaker of the House, Sec. Sec. 46.7, 46.8
Naming House Member, Sec. 46.9
Reference to Member's Integrity or Motives, Sec. Sec. 46.10-
46.12
House Action on Senate References, Sec. 46.13
Reference to Presence of Member of House on Senate Floor,
Sec. 46.14
[[Page 9393]]
Sec. 47. GCriticism of Executive and Governmental Officials;
References to Presidential or Vice-Presidential Candidates
Reference to President, Sec. Sec. 47.1, 47.2
Conduct of Government Officials, Sec. 47.3
Characterization of Government Agency, Sec. 47.4
General Criticism of Government, Sec. Sec. 47.5, 47.6
Debate on Impeachment, Sec. Sec. 47.7, 47.8
Application of Rule of Comity, Sec. 47.9
References to Senators, Candidates for President, Sec. 47.10
References to President Made Outside Chamber, Sec. 47.11
Inserting in Record Remarks Made in Press Critical of
President, Sec. 47.12
Addressing President in Debate, Sec. Sec. 47.13, 47.14
Unparliamentary References to President, Sec. Sec. 47.15-47.17
References to President's Family, Sec. 47.18
Sec. 48. GProcedure; Calls to Order
Authority of Speaker or Chairman, Sec. Sec. 48.1-48.3
Chair May Take Initiative, Sec. Sec. 48.4-48.6
Speaker Sometimes Takes Initiative Where Improper Remarks Are
Uttered, Sec. Sec. 48.7-48.10
Where Objectionable Words Impugn the Speaker, Sec. 48.11
Procedure in the House, Sec. 48.12
--Where Member Has Breached Rules of Decorum, Sec. 48.13
--Raising Question of Personal Privilege, Sec. Sec. 48.14-48.18
Interrupting Member Who Declines To Yield; Deleting Remarks of
Member Not Recognized, Sec. 48.19
[[Page 9394]]
In the House; Turning Off Microphone as Way To Preserve Order,
Sec. 48.20
Procedure Before Adoption of Rules, Sec. 48.21
Sec. 49. G-- The Demand That Words Be Taken Down
Generally, Sec. 49.1
Identification of Objectionable Words, Sec. Sec. 49.2-49.4
Method of Challenging Member's Words, Sec. 49.5
Timeliness of Demand That Words Be Taken Down, Sec. Sec. 49.6-
49.8
--Intervening Debate, Sec. Sec. 49.9-49.12
Multiple Demands, Sec. 49.13
Motions and Requests Pending Demand, Sec. Sec. 49.14-49.17
Debating Reasons for Demand, Sec. 49.18
Speaking Member To Take His Seat, Sec. Sec. 49.19, 49.20
Business Suspended Until Words Are Reported, Sec. 49.21
Business Suspended Pending Speaker's Ruling on Words,
Sec. 49.22
Rights of Member Called to Order To Vote or To Request Votes,
Sec. 49.23
Withdrawing the Demand, Sec. Sec. 49.24-49.27
Withdrawal of Offending Words, Sec. Sec. 49.28-49.31
Words Ruled Unparliamentary, Sec. 49.32
Speaker Sometimes Takes Initiative Where Improper Remarks Are
Uttered, Sec. 49.33
Chair's Request That Member Proceed in Order, Sec. 49.34
--Chair May Take Lead in ``Calming'' Debate, Sec. Sec. 49.35-
49.37
Chair's Role in Interpreting Proceedings, Sec. 49.38
Words Not Taken Down and Reported, Sec. 49.39
References to Motives of Senators, Sec. 49.40
[[Page 9395]]
Procedure in House When Committee Rises, Sec. 49.41
Committee of Whole Resumes Sitting Automatically,
Sec. Sec. 49.42, 49.43
Sec. 50. G-- Ruling by the Speaker
Factors Considered by the Speaker, Sec. Sec. 50.1, 50.2
Explanation of Member Called to Order, Sec. 50.3
Dictionary Definitions, Sec. 50.4
Speaker Rules on Propriety of Words Objected To, Sec. 50.5
Context of Words Used, Sec. 50.6
Debate, Sec. 50.7
Appealing the Chair's Ruling, Sec. 50.8
Speaker's Ruling, Challenges To, Sec. 50.9
Rulings on Words Reported From Committee of the Whole,
Sec. 50.10
Senate Practice, Sec. 50.11
Sec. 51. G-- Withdrawal or Expungement of Words; Disciplinary
Measures
Withdrawal of Words Before Ruling, Sec. Sec. 51.1-51.14
--Modifying Words, Sec. 51.15
Withdrawal of Demand That Words Be Taken Down, Sec. 51.16
Striking Words From Record, Sec. Sec. 51.17-51.20
--Time To Strike Words, Sec. Sec. 51.21-51.25
--Debate on Motion To Strike, Sec. 51.26
Discipline of Member for Unparliamentary Words,
Sec. Sec. 51.27-51.30
Motion To Strike Words, Sec. 51.31
--Subject to Germane Amendment, Sec. 51.32
--Question of Privilege--To Strike Words, Sec. Sec. 51.33-51.35
Motion To Proceed in Order, Sec. Sec. 51.36, 51.37
[[Page 9396]]
Sec. 52. G-- Permission To Explain or To Proceed in Order
Modification of Objectionable Words, Sec. Sec. 52.1, 52.2
Withdrawal of Words, Sec. 52.3
Consent of House To Proceed in Order, Sec. Sec. 52.4-52.8
Motion To Proceed in Order, Sec. Sec. 52.9-52.13
Striking Words From Record, Sec. 52.14
Explanation by Member Called to Order, Sec. Sec. 52.15, 52.16
Member Cannot Proceed for Balance of Day, Sec. Sec. 52.17,
52.18
G. GREFERENCES TO HOUSE, COMMITTEES, OR MEMBERS
Sec. 53. GCriticism of House or Party
Congress, Sec. 53.1
Political Parties, Sec. Sec. 53.2-53.6
Stealing an Election, Sec. 53.7
Sec. 54. GCriticism of Committees or Their Members
Particular Allegations; Abuse of Committee Power,
Sec. Sec. 54.1, 54.2
External Influence, Sec. 54.3
Charges Reflecting on Integrity; Falsehood, Sec. Sec. 54.4,
54.5
Committee Inaction, Sec. Sec. 54.6-54.9
``Packing'' a Committee, Sec. 54.10
Impugning Motives, Sec. Sec. 54.11-54.13
Sec. 55. GReferences to Unreported Committee Proceedings;
Discussion of Ethics Committee Deliberations
References Prohibited, Sec. Sec. 55.1, 55.2
[[Page 9397]]
Paraphrase of Minutes, Sec. 55.3
Necessity of Point of Order, Sec. 55.4
Reliance on Statement of Speaking Member, Sec. 55.5
Reference to Committee Action Permitted, Sec. Sec. 55.6, 55.7
References to Matters Pending Before Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct, Sec. Sec. 55.8, 55.9
Sec. 56. GForm of Reference to Members
Form; References to Members by Name, Sec. Sec. 56.1-56.6
Responding to a ``Colleague'', Sec. Sec. 56.7-56.11
Sec. 57. GCriticism of Speaker
Criticism of Speaker's Performance of Duty, Sec. Sec. 57.1-57.7
Sec. 58. GCriticism of Legislative Actions or Proposals
Criticism of Bills, Sec. Sec. 58.1, 58.2
Criticism of Amendments, Sec. Sec. 58.3-58.6
Criticism of Opponents, Sec. Sec. 58.7-58.9
``Withholding'' Votes, Sec. 58.10
Criticizing Action of House Conferees, Sec. Sec. 58.11, 58.12
Sec. 59. GCriticism of Statements or Tactics in Debate
``Confusing the Issue'' in Debate, Sec. 59.1
Characterizing Argument as ``Crime'', Sec. 59.2
``Disgraceful'' Argument, Sec. Sec. 59.3, 59.4
``Intemperate'' Argument, Sec. Sec. 59.5, 59.6
``Ludicrous'' Argument, Sec. 59.7
Characterizing Debate as Unfair, Sec. Sec. 59.8-59.10
Sec. 60. GCritical References to Members
Indulging in Personalities, Sec. 60.1
[[Page 9398]]
--Proper Form of Address, Sec. 60.2
References to Demagoguery, Sec. Sec. 60.3-60.6
References to Member's Representative Capacity, Sec. Sec. 60.7-
60.10
References to Ethics Charges and Disciplinary Proceedings,
Sec. Sec. 60.11-60.19
References to Groups of Members, Sec. Sec. 60.20-60.22
Characterizations of Member, Sec. Sec. 60.23-60.25
Questions of Personal Privilege Arising Out of Personal
Attacks, Sec. 60.26
--Press Attacks, Sec. 60.27
--Insertions in Record, Sec. 60.28
--Remarks by Other Colleagues, Sec. 60.29
Sec. 61. G--Use of Colloquialisms
References to Physical Characteristics, Sec. 61.1
Use of Particular Terms
--Cheap, Sneaky, Sly, Sec. 61.2
--Slippery, Snide, and Sharp Practices, Sec. 61.3
--Alleging ``Coverup'', Sec. 61.4
--Horning In, Sec. 61.5
--Loose Talk, Sec. 61.6
--Mouthpiece for Another, Sec. 61.7
--Crybaby, Sec. 61.8
--Pinko, Sec. 61.9
--You Are Going To ``Skin Us'', Sec. 61.10
--Snoop, Sec. 61.11
--Stool Pigeon, Sec. 61.12
--Yapping, Sec. 61.13
--Lacking Guts, Sec. 61.14
Sec. 62. G--Questionable Motives
Generally, Sec. 62.1
Inconsistency in Motivation, Sec. 62.2
Attributing Legislative Position to Improper Motives,
Sec. Sec. 62.3-62.6
[[Page 9399]]
Opportunism as Motive, Sec. 62.7
Personal Gain as Motive, Sec. Sec. 62.8, 62.9
--Party Motivation in Offering Question of Privilege,
Sec. 62.10
Indirect Derogatory Reference, Sec. 62.11
Challenging Motive of Minority Party, Sec. 62.12
Sec. 63. G-- Falsehood
Allegations of Express or Implied Falsehood, Sec. Sec. 63.1-
63.5
Hypocrisy, Sec. 63.6
Allegations of Insincerity, Sec. 63.7
Sec. 64. G-- Lack of Intelligence
Implication in Debate, Sec. Sec. 64.1-64.4
Sec. 65. G-- Race and Prejudice
Remarks Relating to Race Generally, Sec. Sec. 65.1-65.6
Exciting To Prejudice, Sec. 65.7
Sec. 66. G-- Disloyalty
Particular Accusations--Communism, Sec. Sec. 66.1, 66.2
Giving Aid and Comfort to Enemies, Sec. Sec. 66.3-66.5
References to Fascist Elements, Sec. Sec. 66.6, 66.7
Characterizing Debate as Subversive, Sec. Sec. 66.8-66.10
Characterization of House Committees, Sec. Sec. 66.11, 66.12
H. GDURATION OF DEBATE IN THE HOUSE
Sec. 67. GIn General
Timekeeping, Sec. Sec. 67.1, 67.2
Chair's Discretion as to Debate Time, Sec. Sec. 67.3-67.6
[[Page 9400]]
Effect of Interruptions During Debate Time, Sec. Sec. 67.7,
67.8
Debate Time Fixed at ``One Day'', Sec. 67.9
Member's Time Lapses When He Loses the Floor, Sec. Sec. 67.10-
67.13
Unfinished Business and Resuming Debate, Sec. 67.14
Debate Under Statutory Provisions, Sec. Sec. 67.15, 67.16
Extending Debate by Unanimous Consent, Sec. 67.17
Sec. 68. GThe Hour Rule
Before Adoption of Rules, Sec. Sec. 68.1, 68.2
Bills and Resolutions Generally, Sec. Sec. 68.3-68.5
--Use of Previous Question To Terminate Debate, Sec. 68.6
--Member Yielded Time Cannot Reserve Time, Sec. 68.7
--Yielding Floor for Amendments, Sec. 68.8
Consideration of Measures in House
--Private Bill by Unanimous Consent, Sec. 68.9
--Consideration of Senate Bill in House Pursuant to Special
Rule, Sec. 68.10
--House Bill, Sec. 68.11
Senate Amendments, Sec. 68.12
--Senate Amendments in Disagreement, Sec. Sec. 68.13-68.18
--Following Rejection of First Motion, Sec. 68.19
--Intervention of Preferential Motion, Sec. Sec. 68.20, 68.21
Conference Reports, Sec. 68.22
--Motion To Reject Nongermane Provision In, Sec. 68.23
After Rejection of Nongermane Portion of Conference Report--
Debate on Motion To Recede and Concur in Senate Amendment
[[Page 9401]]
With Amendment Consisting of Remainder of Conference Report,
Sec. 68.24
--Where Motion To Reject Is Defeated, Sec. 68.25
--Motion Sending Bill to Conference, Sec. 68.26
--Motion To Close Conference Meeting, Sec. 68.27
--Motion To Instruct House Managers, Sec. Sec. 68.28, 68.29
--Motion To Instruct House Managers, Amendment to, Sec. 68.30
Privileged Resolutions, Sec. 68.31
--Committee Funding Resolution, Sec. 68.32
--Resolution of Inquiry, Sec. Sec. 68.33-68.35
--Rules Committee Reports, Sec. Sec. 68.36-68.39
--Debate When Withdrawn Resolution Is Called Up Anew,
Sec. 68.40
--Where Previous Question Is Defeated, Sec. Sec. 68.41, 68.42
--Changing Rules, Sec. 68.43
Resolution Creating Select Committee, Sec. 68.44
Time on Reported Committee Amendments, Sec. 68.45
Privilege of House or Constitutional Privilege,
Sec. Sec. 68.46-68.49
--Motion To Refer, Sec. Sec. 68.50, 68.51
--Disciplinary Resolutions, Sec. Sec. 68.52-68.54
--Vetoed Bills, Sec. 68.55
--Where Motion To Reject Is Defeated, Sec. 68.56
Particular Motions, Debate on
--Motion To Recommit After Previous Question, Sec. 68.57
--Motion To Postpone, Sec. 68.58
--Motion To Reconsider, Sec. 68.59
--Motion To Correct Record or To Expunge, Sec. Sec. 68.60,
68.61
--Accepting Resignation From Committee, Sec. 68.62
--Electing Members to Committee, Sec. 68.63
[[Page 9402]]
--Motion To Discharge; Discharged Measures, Sec. Sec. 68.64-
68.66
Budget Act, Sec. Sec. 68.67, 68.68
--Statutory Allocation of Time, Sec. Sec. 68.69, 68.70
Debate on Appeal, Sec. 68.71
Special-order Speeches, Sec. Sec. 68.72, 68.73
Sec. 69. GTen-minute, Twenty-minute, and Forty-minute Debate
Motion To Discharge, Sec. Sec. 69.1-69.3
Motion To Dispense With Calendar Wednesday Business,
Sec. Sec. 69.4, 69.5
Motion To Recommit With Instructions, Sec. Sec. 69.6-69.11
Motions Relating to Nongermane Senate Amendments, Sec. 69.12
Motions To Suspend Rules, Sec. Sec. 69.13-69.18
Previous Question Ordered on Proposition Not Debated,
Sec. Sec. 69.19-69.21
--Before Adoption of Rules, Sec. 69.22
Nongermane Provision in Conference Report, Sec. Sec. 69.23-
69.26
Sec. 70. GFive-minute Debate in the House as in Committee of the
Whole
Procedure in the House as in Committee of the Whole,
Sec. Sec. 70.1, 70.2
--Union Calendar Bills, Sec. Sec. 70.3-70.6
--Private Calendar Measures, Sec. Sec. 70.7-70.10
--Motion To Strike Enacting Clause, Sec. 70.11
Nonamendable Proposition Being Considered in the House as in
Committee of the Whole by Unanimous Consent, Sec. Sec. 70.12,
70.13
[[Page 9403]]
Sec. 71. GEffect of Special Rules and Unanimous-consent Agreements
Privileged Resolutions, Sec. Sec. 71.1-71.6
Resolutions of Disapproval
--Curtailing Debate, Sec. Sec. 71.7, 71.8
Bills Considered ``Under the General Rules of the House'',
Sec. 71.9
Union Calendar Bills, Sec. Sec. 71.10, 71.11
Omnibus Private Bills, Sec. 71.12
Impeachment Proposals, Sec. 71.13
Motions To Suspend Rules, Sec. Sec. 71.14-71.16
Motions To Discharge Committee, Sec. 71.17
Conference Reports, Sec. Sec. 71.18, 71.19
Special-order Speeches, Sec. 71.20
Termination of Debate Prior to Fixed Time, Sec. 71.21
Effect of Ordering of Previous Question, Sec. Sec. 71.22-71.25
Conference Reports, Sec. Sec. 71.26, 71.27
Sec. 72. GClosing Debate; Senate Cloture
Previous Question; Used Before Adoption of Rules, Sec. 72.1
Moving the Previous Question, Sec. 72.2
Use of Previous Question Where Debate Limited by Unanimous
Consent, Sec. 72.3
Vacating the Previous Question, Sec. 72.4
Effect of Motion To Table, Sec. 72.5
Effect of Special Rule, Sec. 72.6
Closing Debate in House as in Committee of the Whole,
Sec. Sec. 72.7, 72.8
Sec. 73. GOne-minute, Special-order Speeches, and Morning Hour
Generally, Sec. 73.1
[[Page 9404]]
Chair's Discretion Over One-minute Speeches, Sec. Sec. 73.2-
73.6
Restrictions on One-minute Speeches, Sec. Sec. 73.7-73.9
Extension of One-minute Speeches, Sec. Sec. 73.10, 73.11
Special-order Speeches; When Permitted, Sec. Sec. 73.12-73.14
Duration of Special-order Speeches, Sec. Sec. 73.15, 73.16
Extension of Special-order Speeches, Sec. Sec. 73.17, 73.18
Interruption of Special-order Speech, Sec. 73.19
Postponement of Special-order Speeches, Sec. Sec. 73.20-73.23
Recognition and Limitation of Time for Special-order Speeches;
``Oxford-style'' Debates, Sec. 73.24
I. GDURATION OF DEBATE IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Sec. 74. GIn General; Effect of Special Rules
Counting of Time by Chair, Sec. Sec. 74.1, 74.2
Duration of Debate Fixed by House, Sec. 74.3
Effect of House Rules, Sec. Sec. 74.4-74.6
Special Rule for Debate, Sec. Sec. 74.7-74.9
Limiting Debate Time Provided by Special Rule, Sec. Sec. 74.10,
74.11
Closing General Debate and Limiting Five-minute Debate on Bill
Being Considered in Committee of the Whole, Sec. Sec. 74.12-
74.18
Enacting Clause Where Pro Forma Amendments Prohibited,
Sec. 74.19
Sec. 75. GGeneral Debate
General Debate Under the Hour Rule, Sec. Sec. 75.1-75.4
[[Page 9405]]
One-hour Limitation on General Debate, Sec. Sec. 75.5, 75.6
Where Time Fixed by House, Sec. 75.7
Effect of Special Rule, Sec. 75.8
Various Examples of Unanimous-consent Agreements,
Sec. Sec. 75.9, 75.10
Time Used for Parliamentary Inquiry, Sec. 75.11
Relevancy of General Debate, Sec. 75.12
Limiting Debate Under Statutory Schemes, Sec. 75.13
Sec. 76. G--Closing General Debate
Agreement of Managers To Terminate General Debate,
Sec. Sec. 76.1, 76.2
Closing General Debate by Motion in the House, Sec. Sec. 76.3-
76.5
Closing General Debate by Unanimous Consent, Sec. Sec. 76.6-
76.8
Effect of Special Rule, Sec. 76.9
Unanimous Consent in Committee To Truncate Debate, Sec. 76.10
Motion That the Committee Rise, Sec. Sec. 76.11-76.13
Sec. 77. GFive-minute Debate
In General, Sec. Sec. 77.1-77.3
Pro Forma Amendments, Sec. Sec. 77.4-77.7
Restrictions on Pro Forma Amendments, Sec. Sec. 77.8-77.10
Motion To Strike Enacting Clause, Sec. Sec. 77.11-77.18
Effect of Special Rule Limiting Amendments, Sec. Sec. 77.19-
77.22
Debate on Two or More Amendments Considered En Bloc,
Sec. Sec. 77.23-77.25
Reintroduced Amendments, Sec. 77.26
Yielding Under Five-minute Rule, Sec. Sec. 77.27-77.30
Reading Papers, Sec. 77.31
[[Page 9406]]
Debate on Appeals, Sec. 77.32
Vacating Proceedings To Permit Debate, Sec. 77.33
Debate on Points of Order, Sec. 77.34
Where Pro Forma Amendment Is in Third Degree, Sec. 77.35
Debate Under Reservation of Objection, Sec. 77.36
Effect of Adoption of Amendment in Nature of Substitute,
Sec. 77.37
Debate on Divisible Amendment, Sec. 77.38
Debate After Adoption of Substitute, Sec. 77.39
Effect of Time Limitation on Right to Recognition, Sec. 77.40
Sec. 78. G--Closing and Limiting Debate
In General; Authority of the Committee of the Whole,
Sec. Sec. 78.1-78.4
Privilege of Motion, Sec. Sec. 78.5-78.12
Interruption of Member by Proposal To Limit Debate,
Sec. Sec. 78.13-78.15
Motion Not Debatable, Sec. Sec. 78.16-78.20
Time for Motion To Close Debate, Sec. Sec. 78.21-78.24
--What Qualifies as ``Debate'' To Permit Clause 6 Motion,
Sec. 78.25
Motion To Close Debate in Order Only on Matter Read,
Sec. Sec. 78.26-78.38
Closing Debate Instanter or After Stated Time, Sec. Sec. 78.39,
78.40
Extending Debate Beyond Limitation, Sec. Sec. 78.41, 78.42
Extending Time Under Limitation, Sec. Sec. 78.43-78.49
Offering Amendments After Expiration of Debate Time, Sec. 78.50
Timekeeping, Sec. 78.51
Demand That Motion Be in Writing, Sec. 78.52
Motion To Rise During Five-minute Debate, Sec. Sec. 78.53-78.56
[[Page 9407]]
Resuming Debate When Committee Resumes Consideration,
Sec. 78.57
Motion To Close Debate as Related to Motion To Strike Enacting
Clause, Sec. 78.58
--Enacting Clause Preferential, Sec. 78.59
Effect of Limitation on Pro Forma Motion To Strike the Last
Word, Sec. 78.60
Control of Time Under Limitation, Sec. Sec. 78.61-78.63
--Allocating Time, Sec. Sec. 78.64-78.66
Reservation of Time Under Limitation, Sec. Sec. 78.67-78.73
Where Time Is Limited by Minutes, Not Clock; Reserving Time,
Sec. 78.74
Setting Time by Clock, Sec. Sec. 78.75, 78.76
Chair's Discretion in Limiting Debate, Sec. Sec. 78.77, 78.78
Reconsideration of Vote To Close Debate, Sec. Sec. 78.79, 78.80
Vacating or Rescinding a Time Limitation, Sec. Sec. 78.81-78.87
Extensions of Allotted Time, Sec. 78.88
Procedure Where Language of Limitation Is Disputed,
Sec. Sec. 78.89-78.91
Chair's Role in Interpreting or Enforcing Time Limitations,
Sec. 78.92
Opening Bill for Amendment, Dispensing With Reading, Limiting
Debate, Sec. Sec. 78.93-78.96
Limiting Debate on Amendment in Nature of Substitute,
Sec. Sec. 78.97, 78.98
Variations on Unanimous Consent To Limit Debate, Sec. 78.99
Curtailing Previously Limited Time, Sec. 78.100
Motion To Require a Certain Amount of Debate, Sec. 78.101
[[Page 9408]]
Sec. 79. G--Effect of Limitation; Distribution of Remaining Time
Debate Closed Instantly, Sec. 79.1
Running of Time Under Limitation to Time Certain,
Sec. Sec. 79.2-79.8
--Argument on Point of Order, Sec. 79.9
Running of Time Under Fixed-period Limitation, Sec. Sec. 79.10-
79.16
Time on Enacting Clause, Sec. Sec. 79.17-79.27
Where Enacting Clause Debate Uses All Time Remaining,
Sec. 79.28
Applicability of Limitation to Particular Measures,
Sec. Sec. 79.29-79.31
Status of ``Amendments at the Desk'' Under Limitation,
Sec. 79.32
Pro Forma Amendments During Allocated Time, Sec. 79.33
Limitation on Resolving Clause, Not on Preamble, Sec. 79.34
Pro Forma Amendments After Closing of All Debate on Bill,
Sec. Sec. 79.35, 79.36
Applicability of Limitation on Amendment and Amendments
Thereto, Sec. Sec. 79.37-79.42
Chair's Distribution of Time, Sec. Sec. 79.43-79.52
Significance of Members Standing To Be Noted, Sec. 79.53
Reserving Time Under Limitation, Sec. Sec. 79.54-79.61
Reserving Time To Debate Amendments Not Yet Pending, Sec. 79.62
Additional Debate Time Beyond Original Cutoff, Sec. 79.63
Chair's Discretion in Allocating Time, Sec. Sec. 79.64-79.79
Chair Allocates Limited Time, Not Proponent of Amendment,
Sec. 79.80
[[Page 9409]]
Where Division of Time by Unanimous Consent Was Objected To,
Chair Used His Discretion, Sec. 79.81
Procedure Where Control of Time Set by Unanimous Consent,
Sec. Sec. 79.82-79.85
Special Rule May Permit Time Allocation by Motion, Sec. 79.86
Where All Debate on Pending Amendment Is Limited, Enacting
Clause Still Debatable, Sec. Sec. 79.87-79.91
Disposition of Unused Time, Sec. Sec. 79.92, 79.93
Amendments Offered After Debate Time Expires, Sec. Sec. 79.94-
79.100
Debate on Amendments to Amendments Printed in Record,
Sec. Sec. 79.101, 79.102
Amendments Printed in Record, Sec. Sec. 79.103-79.109
To Qualify for Five Minutes, Form of Offered Amendment Must Be
Identical to That Printed, Sec. Sec. 79.110-79.116
Pro Forma Amendments Printed in Record, Sec. 79.117
Five Minutes in Support Inures Only to Member Placing Amendment
in Record, Sec. 79.118
Form of Amendment Offered Must Conform to That Printed,
Sec. 79.119
Points of Order After Expiration of Limitation, Sec. 79.120
Reallocation of Time, Sec. Sec. 79.121-79.125
Reallocating Controlled Time by Unanimous Consent, Sec. 79.126
Effect of Limitation Where Committee Rises for the Day,
Sec. Sec. 79.127-79.131
Transferring Allocated Time, Sec. 79.132
Transferring Unused Debate Time to Another Amendment,
Sec. 79.133
[[Page 9410]]
Effect of Debate on Amendment Pending When Limitation Imposed,
Sec. 79.134
Ordering of Amendments Under Limitation, Sec. Sec. 79.135-
79.137
Where Debate Limitation Is on Motion To Strike, Sec. 79.138
Protected Amendment Offered During Allocated Time, Sec. 79.139
J. GREADING PAPERS AND DISPLAYING EXHIBITS
Sec. 80. GIn General
Procedures Under Former Rule XXX: Objections to Reading,
Sec. 80.1
Relevancy Not Required Where Permission To Read Is Given,
Sec. 80.2
Reading Parliamentary Rules, Sec. 80.3
Reading Letters, Sec. 80.4
Reading Speeches, Sec. 80.5
Yielding Time to Member To Read Paper, Sec. 80.6
--Permission To Read Paper Does Not Extend Time, Sec. 80.7
Use of Video in Floor Debate, Sec. 80.8
Sec. 81. GVoting on Permission To Read Papers
Procedures Under Former Rule XXX
--Putting the Question, Sec. 81.1
--Voting; Debate, Sec. Sec. 81.2-81.4
--Charging of Time on Vote, Sec. 81.5
--Permission To Read Did Not Affect Allotted Time,
Sec. Sec. 81.6, 81.7
Sec. 82. GMotions; Unanimous-consent Procedures
Procedures Under Former Rule XXX: Motions, Sec. 82.1
Reading of Documents by Clerk, Sec. Sec. 82.2-82.5
[[Page 9411]]
Effect of Permission To Revise and Extend, Sec. 82.6
Unanimous Consent To Read in Committee, Sec. 82.7
Sec. 83. GCertain Readings Prohibited
Discharge Petition Signatures, Sec. 83.1
Communications From Senators, Sec. 83.2
Reference to Senate Proceedings, Sec. 83.3
Executive Session Committee Proceedings, Sec. 83.4
Papers Impugning Members, Sec. Sec. 83.5-83.7
Sec. 84. GUse of Exhibits
Permission To Display Exhibit, Sec. Sec. 84.1, 84.2
Use of Exhibits To Explain Legislation, Sec. Sec. 84.3-84.5
Displays Impugning Members, Sec. 84.6
Distribution of Bills Edited With Interpretation, Sec. 84.7
Proper Time To Use Displays, Sec. Sec. 84.8-84.10
Displays Should Not Detract From Good Order and Decorum,
Sec. Sec. 84.11-84.16
Various Types of Displays, Sec. 84.17
--Badges as Exhibits, Sec. 84.18
Sec. 85. GIn General
Recognition To Move for Secret Session, Sec. 85.1
Secret Session Requires Preparation, Sec. 85.2
Motion for Secret Session Rejected, Sec. 85.3
Motion Must Be Made in House Not in Committee of the Whole,
Sec. Sec. 85.4-85.6
Motion for Secret Session Not Debatable, Sec. 85.7
Clearing Galleries and Limiting Floor Access, Sec. 85.8
Guidelines for Conducting Secret Session, Sec. 85.9
Transcript of Proceedings Remains Secret Until Otherwise
Ordered, Sec. Sec. 85.10, 85.11
Oath of Secrecy, Sec. 85.12
[[Page 9412]]
Hour Rule of Debate Applies, Sec. 85.13
Speaker Judges Whether Proponent Qualifies To Move for Secret
Session, Sec. 85.14
Speaker Determines Which Employees Are Essential, Sec. 85.15
Hour Rule Applies, Sec. 85.16
Making Proceedings Public, Sec. 85.17
Motion To Dissolve Secret Session, Sec. 85.18
Where Motion for Secret Session Was Challenged by Point of
Order, Sec. 85.19
Committee Authorization for Member To Move for Secret Session,
Sec. 85.20
Special Circumstances Surrounding Disclosure of Intelligence-
related Materials, Sec. 85.21
Recent Example of Procedures Used in Conducting Secret Session,
Sec. Sec. 85.22, 85.23
Members' Responsibility for Maintaining Injunction of Secrecy,
Sec. 85.24
Miscellaneous, Sec. 85.25
Senate Use of Closed Session in Impeachment, Sec. 85.26
[[Page 9413]]
Consideration and Debate
CHAPTER 29
Consideration and Debate
A. INTRODUCTORY; INITIATING CONSIDERATION AND DEBATE
Sec. 1. In General
The principles of consideration and debate are the cornerstone on
which the orderly proceedings of the House of Representatives are
based. The rules and the body of precedent governing consideration and
debate not only protect the right of individual Members to freely
express themselves but also serve to expedite the business of the House
and its committees.
Many of the rules of the House relating to consideration and debate
are unique to that body; the House has refined and modified its rules
over the years so as to accommodate the needs and responsibilities of
435 Members. And many of the same principles laid down on the subject
by Thomas Jefferson in 1801 still govern consideration and debate in
the House.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. The provisions of Jefferson's Manual govern the procedures of the
House where applicable, pursuant to Rule XLII, House Rules and
Manual Sec. 938 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This chapter takes up the subject of consideration and debate in
its broadest sense, including the general rules and principles as well
as those specific procedures governing particular questions and
motions.
This chapter excludes precedents on questions and motions which are
exhaustively treated elsewhere. For example, the secondary motions,
such as the motion for the previous question and to lay on the table,
and the special motions, such as to discharge a committee and to
suspend the rules, occupy other portions of this work. The general and
most important principles concerning debate on those questions are
summarized herein, but the complete body of precedents on those
questions may be found in their relevant chapters and
sections.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. For discussion of secondary motions (postpone, lay on table,
previous question, refer, recommit, reconsider), see Ch. 23,
supra. For the motion to suspend the rules, see Ch. 21, supra;
for the motion to discharge a committee, see Ch. 18, supra.
Note: This chapter discusses significant precedents and
changes in House procedures in Congresses as recent as the
104th Congress, but treatment of the precedents should be
considered comprehensive only through the 100th Congress. For
more complete coverage of recent Congresses, the reader is
advised to consult the current edition of the House Rules and
Manual, including the annotations to the rules; and the current
edition of Deschler-Brown, Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 9414]]
Cross References
Congressional Record as the official record of debates, see Ch. 5,
supra.
Consideration and debate before the adoption of rules, see Ch. 1,
supra.
Consideration in conference committees, see Ch. 33, infra.
Consideration in House committees, see Chs. 16, 17, supra.
Debate in party caucus or conference, see Ch. 3, supra.
Immunity of Members for speech and debate, see Ch. 7, supra.
Participation in debate by Delegates and Resident Commissioner, see Ch.
7, supra.
Speakers presiding over and participating in debate, see Ch. 6, supra.
Collateral References
Consideration and debate through 1936, see the following chapters in
Hinds' Precedents and Cannon's Precedents: Ch. 4 (debate before
adoption of rules); Ch. 46 (Speaker's power of recognition); Ch.
107 (Committee of the Whole); Ch. 110 (consideration in House as in
the Committee of the Whole); Ch. 111 (the question of
consideration); Ch. 112 (conduct of debate in the House); Ch. 113
(references in debate to committees, the President, or the other
House); Ch. 114 (disorder in debate); Ch. 115 (debate in Committee
of the Whole); Ch. 116 (reading of papers); Ch. 124 (dilatory
motions).
Debate in the Senate, see Riddick/Frumin, Senate Procedure, 716-797, S.
Doc. No. 101-28, 101st Cong. 2d Sess. (1992).
Debate in the House of Commons of Great Britain, see Erskine May's
Parliamentary Practice, 392-487, 17th ed., Butterworth & Co. Ltd.
(London 1964). -------------------
Who May or May Not Participate in Debate
Sec. 1.1 The Speaker has on numerous occasions taken the floor and
participated in debate.
The Speaker has relinquished the chair and taken the floor for
debate in the House (3) and has participated in debate in
the
Committee of the Whole.(4) The Speaker has taken the floor,
for example, in opposition to a provi
[[Page 9415]]
sion in a special rule from the Committee on Rules,(5) in
opposition to a motion to strike out the enacting clause of a
bill,(6) to offer an amendment in the Committee of the
Whole,(7) when yielded time by another Member speaking under
a special order,(8) and to deliver remarks on a
nonlegislative matter.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. See, for example, 104 Cong. Rec. 18942, 85th Cong. 2d Sess., Aug.
21, 1958; 105 Cong. Rec. 15339, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 10,
1959; 105 Cong. Rec. 17237, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 27,
1959.
4. See, for example, 104 Cong. Rec. 11765, 85th Cong. 2d Sess., June
19, 1958; 106 Cong. Rec. 14090, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., June 23,
1960; 106 Cong. Rec. 18734, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 31, 1960.
5. 90 Cong. Rec. 5465, 5471, 78th Cong. 2d Sess., June 7, 1944.
6. 98 Cong. Rec. 1829, 82d Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 4, 1952.
7. 101 Cong. Rec. 3204, 84th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 18, 1955; 102 Cong.
Rec. 7212, 84th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 27, 1956.
8. 104 Cong. Rec. 5854, 85th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 31, 1958.
9. 108 Cong. Rec. 285, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 16, 1962.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 1.2 Delegates and the Resident Commissioner may
debate any matter in the House.
On Aug. 4, 1954,(10) the oath was administered to
Delegate-elect Mary Elizabeth Pruett Farrington, of Hawaii. Immediately
after being sworn, Mrs. Farrington was recognized to address the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 100 Cong. Rec. 13282, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Oct. 7, 1969, the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico, Jorge
Luis Cordova, objected to the consideration of a bill on the Private
Calendar and the bill was recommitted, one other objection having been
made.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 115 Cong. Rec. 28801, 91st Cong. 1st Sess. For the rights in debate
of the Delegate and Resident Commissioner, see Ch. 7, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 1.3 A Member-elect, asked to stand aside when the oath was
administered to other Members, was, by unanimous consent, permitted
to participate in debate on a resolution relating to his right to
be sworn.
On Jan. 10, 1967,(12) at the convening of the 90th
Congress, the right to be sworn of Member-elect Adam C. Powell, of New
York, was challenged. During debate on House Resolution 1, relating to
the right of Mr. Powell to be sworn, Mr. Carl Albert, of Oklahoma,
asked unanimous consent that Mr. Morris K. Udall, of Arizona, be
permitted to yield time for debate to Mr. Powell, notwithstanding the
fact that Mr. Powell had not taken the oath of office. There was no
objection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 113 Cong. Rec. 15, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Powell made the following remarks:
My beloved colleagues with whom I have served for 24 years: I
know this
[[Page 9416]]
is an agonizing moment for all of you. I know if you could vote on
a secret ballot, your vote would be different from what you have
proclaimed publicly, because you know I have been here 24 years,
and he who is without sin should cast the first stone. There is no
one here who does not have a skeleton in his closet. I know, and I
know them by name. . .
Gentlemen, my conscience is clean. My case is in God's hands.
All I hope is that you have a good sleep tonight.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Id. at p. 23.
See Chs. 1 and 2, supra, for detailed discussion of the
rights in debate of Members-elect. For further treatment of the
Powell case, see Ch. 12, supra.
See House Rules and Manual (Jefferson's Manual) Sec. 376
(1995) for the principle that where the private interests of a
Member are concerned in a matter being considered he should
withdraw and refrain from debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 1.4 Certain contestees (sitting Members of the House) in an
election contest were present on the floor during the consideration
of the resolution dismissing the contest; and while they did not
participate in debate, they did insert their remarks in the Record
in explanation of their position.
On Sept. 17, 1965,(14) the House agreed to House
Resolution 585, with an amendment, dismissing an election contest
against the delegation of Representatives-elect from Mississippi.
During debate on the resolution, the contestees, who had been seated by
the House, were present on the floor but did not actually participate
in the debate. They did however insert in the Record remarks in
explanation of their position:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 111 Cong. Rec. 24290, 24291, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [William M.] Colmer [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I am
sure that it is not necessary to point out here that this is not a
very pleasant situation in which your Mississippi delegation finds
itself today. While we do not entertain the slightest doubt about
the ultimate outcome, we find little comfort in the knowledge that
this alleged contest has serious political implications on a
national basis. At the same time, we must be realistic enough to
recognize the facts of political life. We must take cognizance of
the conflict of the political philosophy of ourselves and the
handful here in the House leading the fight as well as those behind
them. We must also take into consideration the tremendous pressure
that has been brought upon the membership of this House by outside
influences. . . .
Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: I wish to say we all
are deeply indebted to those of our friends who were helpful in
handling of this matter before the committee and in voting to
dismiss the pending challenge. In that connection, I would like at
this point to show for the permanent record that none of the so-
called contestants were
[[Page 9417]]
candidates in the 1964 elections. In fact, three of them were
candidates in the Democratic primary which, under section 3129 of
the Mississippi Code, would bind them to support the nominee of the
primary and would make them ineligible to be candidates in the
general election in November.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Id. at pp. 24285, 24287. The election contest was unique in that
the seats of all the Members-elect from Mississippi were being
contested on the ground of denial of voting rights within the
state. The contestants had been allowed the privilege of the
floor but not of participation in debate during the
consideration of the resolution. See clause 1, Rule XXXII for
floor privileges of contestants in election cases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 1.5 Members of the Senate have the privilege of the House floor,
but they do not have the privilege of being recognized to address
the House.
On Oct. 11, 1943,(16) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas,
declined to recognize Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, for the
unanimous-consent consideration of a resolution inviting Senators
returned from the warfront to address the House while in session. The
Speaker stated that the resolution introduced by Mr. Rankin (H. Res.
319) would be referred to the proper committee (Committee on Rules).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 89 Cong. Rec. 8197, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Rankin inquired of the Speaker whether the House did not have
the right to invite Senators to address the House. The Speaker
responded:
Members of the Senate have the privilege of the floor, but they
do not have the privilege of addressing the House of
Representatives.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. The statement of a Senator may not be inserted in House proceedings
carried in the Congressional Record. See 108 Cong. Rec. 291,
87th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 16, 1962.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 1.6 Former Members of the House, while having the privilege of the
floor under the rules, may not manifest approbation or disapproval
of what is said on the floor.
On Dec. 20, 1932,(18) Mr. William H. Stafford, of
Wisconsin, made the point of order that a former Member of the House
presently on the floor had no right
to applaud the remarks of the Speaker. Speaker William B. Bankhead, of
Alabama, sustained the point of order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 76 Cong. Rec. 761, 72d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The gentleman has properly raised a question of order. The
Chair is advised by the Parliamentarian that although the gentleman
referred to is entitled to the privilege of the floor it is a
violation of the rules for him to indulge in approbation or
disapproval of what may be said upon the floor.
Sec. 1.7 Where a Member suggested that the Parliamen
[[Page 9418]]
tarian state a rule of the Senate, the Speaker Pro Tempore
suggested that the Chair was conversant with the views of the
Parliamentarian and would answer the inquiry.
On May 24, 1950,(19) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan,
rose to a question of privilege of the House, based on remarks
reflecting upon a Senator and delivered in House debate and printed in
the Record. During discussion of the rule
of comity between the Houses, Speaker Pro Tempore John W. McCormack, of
Massachusetts, responded as follows to a parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 96 Cong. Rec. 7635-37, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
Mr. [Daniel A.] Reed of New York: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary
inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Reed of New York: Mr. Speaker, it might clarify matters a
little if our Parliamentarian would state what the Senate rule is.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is sure the gentleman does
not want to put the Parliamentarian in the embarrassing position of
making such a statement. The Chair is very conversant with the
views of our able
and outstanding Parliamentarian. The Chair, recognizing his great
knowledge, ability, and logic, has been following the suggestions
and advice of our Parliamentarian very carefully.
Debate in Informal Session
Sec. 1.8 The chairman of a select committee and a member thereof asked
Members to remain in the Chamber after adjournment so that such
committee could present some facts unwise to present publicly.
On Jan. 19 and 20, 1943,(20) members of a select
committee requested that Members remain in the Chamber after
adjournment in order to discuss matters related to the war effort which
should not be publicly discussed:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 89 Cong. Rec. 240-49, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Carl] Hinshaw [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to proceed for 30 seconds.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (1) Is there objection?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Howard W. Smith (Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
Mr. Hinshaw: Mr. Speaker, I am taking this time at the
suggestion of the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Nichols) to remind
the Members of the House that following the adjournment of the
House today the members of the Select Committee to Investigate Air
Accidents would like to present to them some facts we feel it is
unwise to present publicly. Therefore, if Members will do us the
honor of remaining quite a little while after the session, we will
be pleased, and I think they will hear some things in which they
will be greatly interested themselves.
[[Page 9419]]
Mr. [Richard M.] Kleberg [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to proceed for 1 minute.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection?
There was no objection.
Mr. Kleberg: Mr. Speaker, I take this time for the purpose of
reminding gentlemen that tomorrow, immediately after the business
on the Speaker's desk is disposed of, the committee appointed by
the Congress under H.R. 125 will meet during an informal recess
with the membership of the House, in executive session, to give you
some facts which perforce, because of wartime emergencies, could
not be put into our final report. There are many vital matters that
the committee does not desire to withhold from the membership of
the House, and we are taking the House not only into our full
confidence, but we assure Members that we have some things to tell
them which we feel they must know, and we hope there will be a good
attendance.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. But see Sec. 11.14, infra, where the Speaker indicated he would not
recognize for a unanimous-consent request that an off-the-
record meeting of Members, to discuss the war situation, be
held in the House Chamber, the meeting having previously been
scheduled for the auditorium of the Library of Congress. Under
clause 3 of Rule I, the Speaker controls the Hall of the House
after adjournment and would in all cases need to give
permission for a closed discussion in the Chamber.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: The House has rarely utilized the secret
session rule (Rule XXIX); the House and not the Committee of the Whole
determines whether to go into executive session.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. See generally House Rules and Manual Sec. 914 (1995). For the
statement of the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole that
determinations as to secret sessions were within the province
of the House and not the Committee, see 96 Cong. Rec. 6746,
81st Cong. 2d Sess., May 9, 1950. For further discussion of
secret sessions generally, see Sec. 85, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 1.9 Portions of the Senate debate on the antiballistic missile
program were conducted in closed session, pursuant to Senate Rule
XXXV.
On July 17, 1969,(4) the Senate was conducting debate on
the antiballistic ``safeguard'' program with Vice President Spiro T.
Agnew presiding. Portions of the debate were conducted in closed
session:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 115 Cong. Rec. 19848-74, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Stuart] Symington [of Missouri]: Mr. President, under rule
XXXV, I move that the Senate doors be closed, and that the
Presiding Officer direct that the galleries be cleared.
The Vice President: Is the motion seconded?
Mr. [Michael J.] Mansfield [of Montana]: I second the motion.
The Vice President: The motion having been made and seconded
that the Senate go into closed session, the
[[Page 9420]]
Chair, pursuant to rule XXXV, now directs the Sergeant at Arms to
clear the galleries, close the doors of the Chamber, and exclude
all officials of the Senate not sworn to secrecy.
(At 12 o'clock and 3 minutes p.m., the doors of the Chamber
were closed.)
Parliamentarian's Note: On the following day, July 18, the Senate
provided by unanimous consent for the publication of an expurgated
transcript of the closed session.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Id. at p. 20115.
See also 118 Cong. Rec. 15960-72, 92d Cong. 2d Sess., May
4, 1972 (Senate went into executive session to discuss National
Security Study Memorandum No. 1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes of Reporters of Debates
Sec. 1.10 Inquiries concerning the parliamentary situation on the floor
are properly directed to the Chair, and it is not in order for a
Member to request that the notes of the official reporters be read
to ascertain what motions have been put by the Chair.
On May 22, 1968,(6) the House had agreed to a conference
report on S. 5, the Consumer Credit Protection Act, without debate.
Disagreement arose as to whether the question on the report had been
put, and Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, responded to an
inquiry as to whether a Member could demand that the notes of the
reporters be read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 114 Cong. Rec. 14402-04, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Wright] Patman [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent to vacate the proceedings by which the House adopted the
conference report on the bill (S. 5) to assist in the promotion of
economic stabilization by
requiring the disclosure of finance charges in connection with
extension of credit.
The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Texas?
Mr. [William L.] Hungate [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, reserving
the right to object, all Members were notified this measure would
be before the House today as the first order of business. This
legislation has been before this body for 8 years. Objection should
have been made before the vote was taken.
Mr. Speaker, I object.
The Speaker: Objection is heard. . . .
Mr. Gerald R. Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, so that the
record is crystal clear, I request that the notes of the reporter
be reread to the Members.
The Speaker: The Chair will state that has never been done
before so far as the knowledge of the Chair is concerned.
Mr. Gerald R. Ford: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that a
circumstance like this has ever happened before, either. Inasmuch
as it is important to know whether the gentleman from Texas moved--
or just what transpired--I
[[Page 9421]]
think it would be very helpful to all of us if we could have the
reporter's notes reread at this time. . . .
The Speaker: The Chair will suggest that the Members can carry
on their colloquy but the position of the Chair is clear--the
gentleman from Texas called up the conference report and had asked
that the statement of the managers on the part of the House be read
and after the Clerk had proceeded to read the statement, the
gentleman from Texas asked unanimous consent that the further
reading of the statement of the managers on the part of the House
be dispensed with and that it be placed in the Record.
The gentleman from Texas was standing and the Chair rose and
said--``The question is on agreeing to the conference report.'' The
Chair did it deliberately--and the report was agreed to. The Chair
acted most deliberately.
Sec. 1.11 Demonstrations and applause are not a part of the proceedings
of the House, and the Speaker has directed the reporters of debates
to refrain from inserting in the Record indications of applause
during normal House proceedings.
On Mar. 6, 1945,(7) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas,
discussed his rulings that applause and other manifestations of
audience approval are not a part of the Record:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 91 Cong. Rec. 1789, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Now, Mr. Speaker, if the
rule is going to be applied to one, it should be applied to all.
When we make these 1-minute speeches, I submit we ought to have 1
minute apiece, no more and no less.
Now, there is another question I have been thinking I would
raise. I propound another parliamentary inquiry at this time. Some
time ago the Official Reporters of Debates ceased to take down the
demonstrations that are made in the course of debate, the only
parliamentary body in the world that prints a Record in which that
has been done, that I have been able to find. I occasionally get
the Record of the British House of Parliament. I read it and in
these trying times there is applause, cheers, their cries of
``hear, hear,'' laughter, and other demonstrations that are made.
You get the Record of the United States Senate and, as a rule, they
do not have probably so many there to applaud, but when there is
applause or a demonstration, it is placed in the Record. Our
demonstrations have been cut out of our Record and I think it is a
serious mistake because now a man can make a speech and extend his
remarks and you have no indication as to where his speech left off
and where his extension of remarks begins. I know it has been
contended by a few Members in the House that the extension of those
demonstrations in the Record have been abused. But that was done
very seldom, and where the Member did abuse that privilege by
inserting laughter or applause he has been subjected to the most
drastic criticism and ridicule and, as a rule, has never attempted
it again.
I submit that from this time on I, for one, am going to insist
that whatever
[[Page 9422]]
demonstrations are made on the floor of the House during debate be
reported by the Official Reporters of Debates as it was for more
than 140 years. Then if a Member desires to strike it out, and has
permission to revise and extend his remarks, he may do so.
The Speaker: The Chair does not intend to be facetious, but the
Chair would like to give the House his reaction to the expressions
``Hear! Hear!'' and ``Applause'' in the Record. When I came here 32
years ago on Sunday last, a gentleman had been elected by a split
in the Republican Party in a particular State, and he had come here
with Democratic and Progressive votes. He made a speech in the
House. Whether it went into the permanent Record I do not know, but
I know it went into the temporary Record. It closed in this
fashion: ``Loud and prolonged applause among Democrats and
Progressives, followed by much handshaking.''
In times past there appeared in the Record the word
``Applause'' where a Member spoke. In another place there was
``Loud applause.'' In another place there was ``Loud and prolonged
applause.'' In another place there was ``Loud and prolonged
applause, the Members rising.'' If I had made a speech and had
received ``applause,'' and some Member had followed me immediately
and had received ``loud and prolonged applause, the Members
rising,'' my opponent in the next primary might have called
attention to how insignificant I was because I only received
``applause'' and the other Member had received ``loud and prolonged
applause, the Members rising.''
The Chair has held that demonstrations in the House are not a
part of the Record, and shall continue to hold that until the rules
of the House are changed.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. For prior practice, see 78 Cong. Rec. 8043, 73d Cong. 2d Sess., May
3, 1934 (reporters of debates permitted to insert words
``laughter and applause'' and ``applause'' when such
manifestation actually occurred on the floor of the House).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Duty of Chair in the Senate
Sec. 1.12 The Vice President made a statement in the Senate relating to
the duties of the Chair in enforcing the rules of debate.
On Feb. 28, 1949,(9) Vice President Alben W. Barkley
delivered a statement on the rules of debate in the Senate as they
relate to holding the floor and as to the restriction against yielding.
He concluded his remarks with a statement on the duties of the Chair:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 95 Cong. Rec. 1584-86, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question as to the function of the Chair in enforcing the
rules of the Senate without a point of order being made by another
Senator is one to which the present occupant of the Chair has given
considerable consideration. The present occupant of the Chair feels
it is his duty and his function in part to facilitate the prompt
transaction of the Senate's business. The Chair recognizes that
frequently one Senator may dislike to make a point of order against
another Senator
[[Page 9423]]
who has the floor, even though he may be violating the rule or may
be yielding for a general running debate, or for other purposes,
because of personal relationships or other reasons. The Chair feels
he is obligated to the Senate insofar as he can in observance of
the rules and in protection of the Members of the Senate in the
enjoyment of their rights, to observe and enforce the rules
wherever he feels they are being violated.
The Chair feels certain the Members of the Senate will
cooperate in the matter of keeping order in the Senate and in
observing the rules. The Chair wishes in no instance to have it
understood that any ruling he makes is directed to any particular
Senator who at the moment may be occupying the floor or any Senator
who may be seeking to interrupt another Senator who occupies the
floor. For that reason the Chair has felt it his duty to make this
preliminary statement in order that it may apply to all Senators,
and not to any particular Senator.
Parliamentarian's Note: Whether the Speaker or the Chairman in the
Committee of the Whole enforces on his own initiative a rule of debate
depends on the nature of the rule or practice in question.
Initiating Consideration of Senate Bill
Sec. 1.13 A Senate bill cannot be taken from the Speaker's table for
consideration in the House by motion, unless similar to a House
bill previously reported and on the House Calendar under Rule XXIV
clause 2.
The situation described above developed on July 31,
1975,(10) in the House when Speaker Carl Albert, of
Oklahoma, responded to several parliamentary inquiries:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 121 Cong. Rec. 26252, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John J.] Rhodes [of Arizona]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the other
body has passed this legislation and that it will soon be messaged
over to the House. My inquiry is whether or not there is any way
under the parliamentary procedures of the House that the bill can
be brought up for immediate consideration upon its receipt in the
House.
The Speaker: It can be brought up only by a unanimous-consent
request.
Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, in that event, I ask unanimous consent
that when the bill is brought to the House that it be immediately
considered by the House.
The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Arizona?
Mr. [Toby] Moffett [of Connecticut]: Mr. Speaker, I object.
The Speaker: Objection is heard.
Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, is a motion in order for the immediate
consideration of the bill by the House?
The Speaker: It is not.
[[Page 9424]]
Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on Rules may have until 10 o'clock tomorrow to file a
resolution and report.
The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Arizona?
Mr. [John] Brademas [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, I object.
The Speaker: Objection is heard.
Consideration by Unanimous Consent of Joint Resolution Concerning
Precedents
Sec. 1.14 By unanimous consent, the House considered and passed a joint
resolution reported from the Committee on House Administration,
providing for the printing and distribution of the Precedents of
the House, compiled by Lewis Deschler, former Parliamentarian of
the House.
On Sept. 30, 1976,(11) the House agreed to a unanimous-
consent request to consider House Joint Resolution 1107 (providing for
printing and distribution of Deschler's Precedents of the House of
Representatives), as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 122 Cong. Rec. 34220, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John] Brademas [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent [for the] consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res.
1107) to provide for the printing and distribution of the
Precedents of the House of Representatives compiled and prepared by
Lewis Deschler, as amended, and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The Speaker: (12) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Indiana?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the joint resolution, as follows:
H.J. Res. 1107
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That (a) there
shall be printed and bound as a public document two thousand
sets of the Precedents
of the House of Representatives
compiled and prepared by Lewis Deschler (hereinafter in this
joint resolution referred to as the ``Precedents''). . . .
With the following committee amendment:
Page 2, line 6, strike ``Ninety-fourth'' and insert in lieu
thereof ``Ninety-fifth''.
The committee amendment was agreed to.
The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a
third time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to
reconsider was laid on the table.
Resolution Impeaching Government Official
Sec. 1.15 A resolution directly impeaching an officer of the
[[Page 9425]]
United States Government may be immediately considered in the House
as a question of the highest privilege, but may be laid on the
table before debate thereon.
On July 13, 1978,(13) the following proceedings occurred
in the House during consideration of House Resolution 1267 (impeaching
Andrew Young, United States ambassador to the United Nations):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 124 Cong. Rec. 20606, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Lawrence P.] McDonald [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, I rise to
a question of the privileges of the House, and I send to the desk a
privileged resolution (H. Res. 1267), and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution as follows:
Resolved, That Andrew Young, United States Ambassador to
the United Nations, be impeached.
Mr. [James C.] Wright [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I move to
lay the resolution on the table.
The Speaker: (14) The question is on the motion to
table offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Wright). The motion
to table is a privileged motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. McDonald: 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: 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
293, nays 82, not voting 57, as follows: . . .
Private Calendar Bill--Unanimous-consent Request Not in Order After
Consideration Permitted
Sec. 1.16 During the consideration of a bill on the Private Calendar,
it is too late to ask unanimous consent that the bill be passed
over without prejudice after consideration has been permitted and
committee amendments to the bill adopted.
The following proceedings occurred in the House on Dec. 18,
1979:(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 125 Cong. Rec. 36758, 36759, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk called the bill (H.R. 2148) for the relief of Col.
(Dr.) Paul A. Kelly.
There being no objection, the Clerk read the bill, as follows:
H.R. 2148
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
Secretary of the Treasury is authorized and directed
[[Page 9426]]
to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise
appropri-ated, to Colonel (doctor) Paul A. Kelly. . . .
With the following committee amendment:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert:
That the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized and directed
to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise
appropriated, to Sheila M. Jackson, SSN XXX-XX-XXXX, of Lehi,
Utah, the sum of $30,000. . . .
An amendment was offered:
Amendment offered by Mr. Sensenbrenner to the committee
amendment: On page 3 after line 4 add the following new
section:
Sec. 2. No amount in excess of 15 per centum of the sum
appropriated by the first section of this Act shall be paid to
or received by any agent or attorney in consideration for
services rendered in connection with the claims described in
the first section. . . .
The Speaker:(16) The Chair will ask the gentleman
from Wisconsin, Is this amendment to the committee amendment?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [F. James] Sensenbrenner [Jr., of Wisconsin]: Yes, and it
has been approved by the committee, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) to the committee
amendment.
The amendment to the committee amendment was agreed to.
The Speaker: The question is on the committee amendment, as
amended.
The committee amendment, as amended, was agreed to.
The Speaker: Does the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Harkin) desire
to address the amendment?
Mr. [Tom] Harkin [of Iowa]: Not the amendment, Mr. Speaker, but
the bill itself.
The Speaker: Does the gentleman object to the bill?
Mr. Harkin: I will ask unanimous consent that the bill be
passed over without prejudice, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: The gentleman's request comes too late.
Mr. Harkin: Then, Mr. Speaker, I would oppose the amendment.
The Speaker: The amendment has been agreed to. The committee
amendment as amended, has also been agreed to.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was
read the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was
laid on the table.
CHAPTER 29
Consideration and Debate
A. INTRODUCTORY; INITIATING CONSIDERATION AND DEBATE
Sec. 2. Factors Bearing on Consideration; Points of Order Against
Consideration; Special Rules
and Unanimous-consent Agreements
The term ``consideration'' as used herein means the process by
which the House deliberates, while in session, on a proposition on
which action is to be taken or refused by the House.(17) The
pur
[[Page 9427]]
pose of this discussion is to summarize the general principles of
consideration of any matter before the House or Committee of the Whole
as well as the ways in which consideration may be prevented or
postponed. The reader is advised to consult relevant chapters of this
work for specific rules governing the consideration of particular
resolutions, bills, motions, or other questions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. The scope of the term ``consideration'' as herein discussed is
narrower than the term ``debate'' as used in this chapter.
``Debate'' refers to all discussion on the floor of the House,
whether or not related to a proposal for action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How a matter is considered depends on the way it is brought to the
floor, on the nature and precedence of the proposal, and on agreements
reached by the membership and leadership on the method of
consideration. Generally, questions are not considered on the floor
unless reported or discharged from House committees.(18)
Certain time periods are a condition precedent to consideration in the
House after the committee has reported the matter in
question.(19) And the House may reject a proposal to
consider a matter by a final or temporary decision against
consideration.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Matters not reported from committee may be considered by unanimous-
consent request, suspension of the rules (see Ch. 21, supra),
by discharge procedures (see Ch. 18, supra), and by a
resolution from the Committee on Rules (see Sec. 2.28, infra).
19. See Rule XI clause 2(l)(6), House Rules and Manual Sec. 715 (1995)
for layover requirements of committee reports, and Rule XXVIII
clause 2(a), Sec. 912a, for layover requirements of conference
reports. For committee consideration and reporting, see Ch. 17,
supra.
20. For the question of consideration as a method of refusing
consideration, see Sec. 5, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The first and most important element affecting how a matter is to
be considered is the mandate of the standing rules and House precedents
as they apply to any specific bill, resolution, or motion, or the
mandate of statutory provisions (1) that may affect
consideration of particular matters. Consideration of a measure may not
be in order if certain rules have been ignored or violated as the bill
progressed through the committee process and was reported to the House,
and points of order against consideration may be sustained based on
such violations.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. See, for example, proceedings as affected by provisions of the
Budget Act, discussed in Sec. Sec. 2.35 et seq., infra.
2. See Sec. Sec. 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.15, 2.16, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another major factor affecting consideration is whether a special
rule from the Committee on Rules
[[Page 9428]]
has been adopted which governs the procedures for consideration of the
matter.(3) The following factors also bear heavily on
consideration: whether the proposal has been referred to the House or
Union Calendar; (4) whether the proposal is called up from
the Private or Discharge Calendar or called up under suspension of the
rules or on the District of Columbia day; (5) whether the
proposal is privileged under a standing rule, by statute, or under the
Constitution of the United States; (6) whether the proposal
is considered by unanimous-consent agreement or under the general rules
of the House; and whether such a unanimous-consent agreement includes a
waiver of points of order against consideration.(7) As an
example, where a unanimous-consent agreement has provided for
consideration of a bill, the bill may nevertheless be subject to
certain points of order directed against its consideration, unless the
unanimous-consent agreement has specifically provided that ``all points
of order against consideration of the bill'' be waived. Such provision
will preclude points of order even directed against consideration of
the bill.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Where a special rule adopted by the House prescribes the order of
consideration of amendments to a bill in Committee of the
Whole, the House (but not Committee of the Whole) may by
unanimous consent alter the order of consideration. See 133
Cong. Rec. 11829, 100th Cong. 1st Sess., May 8, 1987 (request
of Mr. Aspin).
See forms, infra, for examples of special rules making
consideration in order and providing the method of
consideration. For the consideration of the special rule
itself, see Sec. Sec. 2.22-2.24, infra.
4. See Ch. 19, supra, for consideration in the Committee of the Whole
(normally Union Calendar bills) and Ch. 24, supra, for
consideration of bills and resolutions.
5. See Ch. 22, supra, for calendars. For the procedure under
suspension of the rules, see Ch. 21, supra.
6. See Ch. 21, supra, for privileged motions and questions. Some
matters are privileged by statute, such as the disapproval of
reorganization plans submitted by the President (see Sec. 3.6,
infra).
7. Unanimous-consent requests for the consideration of a proposal in a
certain way take forms too numerous to mention herein. For
examples, see Sec. Sec. 3.3-3.5, 4.3, 4.4, infra.
8. See Sec. 2.6, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, it should be noted that, in addition to the points of
order discussed in this section and the ``question of consideration''
discussed elsewhere,(9) the motions made in order by Rule
XVI, clause 4,(10) can be utilized to stop or
[[Page 9429]]
delay consideration. A motion in the House to lay a proposition on the
table cuts off debate and, if ordered, acts as a final adverse
disposition of the matter before the House.(11) The motions
to postpone and to refer may also be applied in the House to prevent
immediate consideration; such motions are, however, debatable within
narrow limits.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. See Sec. 5, infra.
10. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 782 (1995).
11. See Sec. 7.11, infra. The motion to lay on the table takes
precedence over the question of consideration (see Sec. 5.2,
infra).
12. See Rule XVI, clause 4, and comments thereto, House Rules and
Manual Sec. Sec. 782-789 (1995).
A motion to postpone further consideration of a privileged
resolution (in this instance, to censure a Member) is debatable
for one hour controlled by the Member offering the motion. See
Sec. 24.14, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forms
Form of resolution making in order the consideration of a Union
Calendar bill in the House under a procedure precluding amendment.
Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this
resolution the House shall proceed to the consideration of H.R.
3835, and any points of order against said bill or any
provisions contained therein are hereby waived. That after
general debate, which shall be confined to the bill and shall
continue not to exceed four hours, to be equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Agriculture, the previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill to final passage without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit.
Note: H.R. 3835 was a bill on the Union Calendar providing
agricultural relief.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 77 Cong. Rec. 665, 73d Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 21, 1933. See also H.
Res. 111, 77 Cong. Rec. 2176, 73d Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 22,
1933.
Form of resolution making in order the consideration for general
debate of a resolution in the Committee of the Whole under a procedure
precluding amendment.
H. Res. 738
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to move, clause 27(d)(4) of rule XI to the
contrary notwithstanding, that the House resolve itself into
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for
the consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 735) confirming
the nomination of Gerald R. Ford, of the State of Michigan, to
be Vice President of the United States. After general debate,
which shall be confined to the resolution and shall continue
not to exceed six hours, to be equally divided and controlled
by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
the Judiciary, the Committee shall rise and report the
resolution to the House, and the previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the resolution to final
passage.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 119 Cong. Rec. 39807, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 6, 1973.
Form of resolution making in order the consideration of a joint
resolution in the House.
House Resolution 872
Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this
resolution the
[[Page 9430]]
House shall proceed to the consideration of (S.J. Res. 175), a
joint resolution to extend the time within which contracts may
be modified or canceled under the provisions of section 5 of
the Independent Office Appropriation Act 1935, and all points
of order against said joint resolution are hereby
waived.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 79 Cong. Rec. 14652, 74th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 24, 1935.
Form of resolution making in order the consideration of a private
Senate bill (on the Speaker's table) in Committee of the Whole.
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for
the consideration of the bill (S. 1173) to authorize the
appointment of Dwight David Eisenhower to the active list of
the Regular Army, and for other purposes. After general debate,
which shall be confined to the bill, and shall continue not to
exceed one hour to be equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed
Services, the bill shall be read for amendment under the five-
minute rule. At the conclusion of the consideration of the bill
for amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the bill to
the House with such amendments as may have been adopted, and
the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
bill and amendments thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit.
Note: A private Senate bill requiring consideration in Committee of
the Whole House, messaged to the House after a similar House bill has
been reported and referred to the Private Calendar (the Calendar of the
Committee of the Whole House), is not privileged under clause 2, Rule
XXIV.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 107 Cong. Rec. 3911, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 14, 1961.
Form of resolution making in order the consideration of a private
bill in Committee of the Whole.
House Resolution 511
Resolved, That immediately upon adoption of this resolution
it shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for
consideration of H.R. 9766, a bill to authorize the deportation
of Harry Renton Bridges. That after general debate, which shall
be confined to the bill and shall continue not to exceed 1
hour, to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Immigration and
Naturalization, the bill shall be read for amendment under the
5-minute rule. At the conclusion of the reading of the bill for
amendment the Committee shall rise and report the same to the
House with such amendments as may have been adopted, and the
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill
and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 86 Cong. Rec. 8181, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., June 13, 1940.
Form of resolution making in order the consideration of a measure
from the Committee on Rules in Committee of the Whole.
H. Res. 1021
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for
[[Page 9431]]
the consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 1117) to
establish a Joint Committee on Environment and Technology.
After general debate, which shall be confined to the joint
resolution and shall continue not to exceed one hour, to be
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Rules, the joint resolution
shall be read for amendment under the five-minute rule. At the
conclusion of the consideration of the joint resolution for
amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the joint
resolution to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted, and the previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the joint resolution and amendments thereto to final
passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 116 Cong. Rec. 16973, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., May 25, 1970.
Form of resolution waiving points of order against the
consideration of a conference report and the disposition of an
amendment in disagreement.
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider without the intervention of any
point of order the conference report on the bill (H.R. 9499)
making appropriations for foreign aid and related agencies for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1964, and for other purposes,
and that during the consideration of the amendment of the
Senate numbered 20 to the bill, it shall be in order to
consider, without the intervention of any point of order, a
motion by the Chairman of the Managers on the part of the House
to recede and concur in said Senate amendment numbered 20 with
an amendment.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 109 Cong. Rec. 25495, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 23, 1963.
Form of resolution taking a House
bill with Senate amendments from the Speaker's table and making in
order the consideration of those amendments in the House.
Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this
resolution, the bill H.R. 12740 making supplemental
appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1961, and
for other purposes, with the Senate amendments thereto, shall
be taken from the Speaker's table and the Senate amendments
considered in the House.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 106 Cong. Rec. 15775, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., July 2, 1960.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross References
The Committee of the Whole generally, see Ch. 19, supra.
Control and distribution of debate on special orders from the Committee
on Rules, see Sec. 26, infra.
Effect of special orders on control and distribution of time for
debate, see Sec. 28, infra.
Effect of special orders and unanimous-consent agreements on duration
of debate in the Committee of the Whole, see Sec. 80, infra.
Passage and consideration of bills generally, see Ch. 24, supra.
Effect of special orders and unanimous-consent agreements on duration
of debate in the House, see Sec. 71, infra.
Recognition for consideration of bills, see Sec. 16, infra.
Recognition for consideration of resolutions and special orders, see
Sec. 18, infra.
Recognition for consideration of Senate amendments, conference reports,
and amendments in disagreement, see Sec. 17, infra.
Recognition for unanimous-consent consideration of bills, see Sec. 10,
infra.
[[Page 9432]]
Special orders, suspension of the rules, and the order of business, see
Ch. 21, supra. -------------------
Consideration of Matter Not Privileged as Requiring Special Rule or
Unanimous Consent
Sec. 2.1 The Speaker indicated in response to a parliamentary inquiry
that he lacked authority to permit consideration in the House,
other than on a day when motions to suspend the rules were in
order, of a matter which was not privileged under the rules, in the
absence of action by the committee with legislative jurisdiction
and by the Committee on Rules.
The Speaker,(1) in proceedings on Feb. 16,
1977,(2) indicated that he could not on his own initiative
effectuate House consideration of a resolution disapproving the
President's recommendation for salary increases for certain government
officials (including Members of Congress), there being no mechanism
under the rules or under applicable law (3) permitting
privileged consideration of such resolutions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
2. 123 Cong. Rec. 4503, 4504, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
3. Pub. L. 90-206.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: . . . Mr. Speaker, I
should like to personally appeal to the Speaker, since he is in the
chair--a gentleman for whom I have the greatest respect--if he in
any way could use the considerable powers at his command as the
leader of the majority party and as the Speaker of our House, this
one Member is asking him to do so in order to bring this
legislation to the floor for a vote.
The Speaker: The Chair is sure that the gentleman from
Maryland, being one of the most erudite students of the laws and
the rules of this House, knows that there is no way that the
Speaker of the House personally can bring this legislation to the
floor. If there is, would the gentleman make the Chair aware of it?
. . .
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I should be glad to draft a resolution
this afternoon and send it to the Speaker's office for
introduction, directing the Committee on Post Office and Civil
Service to be discharged immediately from further consideration of
whichever appropriate disapproval resolution the Speaker chooses.
Such a resolution could be called up for action in the House under
a special rule, which I am sure the Speaker could direct the
Committee on Rules to adopt this afternoon. . . .
[I recall] an occasion just a few years ago when the energy
legislation was being considered and within the space of one
evening we voted three or four times on special resolutions of this
nature that were rushed through the Committee on Rules, brought to
the
[[Page 9433]]
floor of the House, brought up under a suspension procedure, I
believe, and then voted upon, when the bills the resolutions made
in order were not even on the floor in printed form.
The Speaker: Those matters were brought up under suspension,
and motions to suspend the rules are not in order during the
balance of the week.
Parliamentarian's Note: The President's salary increase
recommendations were scheduled to become effective on Feb. 20, 1977, in
the absence of adoption by either House of a resolution disapproving
all or a part of those recommendations. Since the law provided no
procedure for consideration of such resolutions in the absence of a
report from the Committee on Rules of a special resolution permitting
consideration, and since motions to suspend the rules were no longer in
order that week, the Speaker had no authority save recognition for a
unanimous-consent request. Pub. L. 95-19, subsequently enacted on Apr.
12, 1977, now requires separate recorded votes within 60 calendar days
on each of the President's recommendations in each House.
Sec. 2.2 Where there is no procedure under the rules permitting
privileged consideration of a resolution, and where motions to
suspend the rules are not in order, the resolution may be
considered only by unanimous consent.
During the proceedings in the House on Feb. 17, 1977,(4)
the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 123 Cong. Rec. 4579-81, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Berkley] Bedell [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent for the immediate consideration of the resolution (H. Res.
115) disapproving the recommendations of the President with respect
to the rates of pay of Federal officials transmitted to the
Congress for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1978, which was
introduced by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Grassley).
The Clerk read the resolution as follows:
H. Res. 115
Resolved, That the House of Representatives, in accordance
with section 225(i) of the Federal Salary Act of 1967 (81 Stat.
643; Public Law 90-206), hereby disapproves all of the
recommendations of the President of the United States within
the purview of subparagraphs (A), (B), (C), (D), and (E) of
section 225(f) of the Federal Salary Act of 1967, transmitted
by the President to the Congress in the budget for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 1978.
The Speaker: (5) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Iowa?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [James A.] Burke of Massachusetts: Mr. Speaker, I object.
The Speaker: Objection is heard. . . .
Mr. [James C.] Wright [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I move that
when the House adjourns today it adjourn to meet on Monday next.
[[Page 9434]]
The Speaker: The question is on the motion.
The question was taken and the Speaker announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I object to
the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present.
The Speaker: Does the gentleman demand the yeas and nays or
object to the vote?
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I demand the yeas and nays.
The Speaker: May the Chair announce so the Members may
understand, this is a question on adjourning to Monday next. If the
House fails to adjourn to Monday we will meet tomorrow at 11 a.m.
In the event there is no quorum tomorrow the House will meet on
Saturday at 11 a.m. I just want the Members to understand the
procedure and what may happen.
The gentleman from Maryland has asked for the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas
109, nays 224, not voting 18, as follows: . . .
So the motion was rejected. . . .
Mr. [Samuel L.] Devine [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I make this
parliamentary inquiry as a result of the vote not to adjourn over
until Monday and the announcement that the House would reconvene at
11 o'clock tomorrow. Are there any circumstances that the Chair
could perceive under which the pay raise legislation would be
considered by the House tomorrow?
The Speaker: The only possibility would be if unanimous consent
were asked, and the Chair would recognize a gentleman or
gentlewoman for that purpose, and if there were not an objection,
then there would be a vote. That would be the only possibility. The
Chair has been informed that there will be objections.
Consideration of Bills by Unanimous Consent To Be Cleared With
Leadership
Sec. 2.3 The Speaker on occasion has reiterated his policy of
conferring recognition upon Members to permit consideration of
bills and resolutions by unanimous consent only when assured that
the ma-jority- and minority-elected floor leadership and committee
and subcommittee chairmen and ranking minority members have no
objection.
Several Members having propounded unanimous-consent requests to
permit consideration of various legislative measures by a day certain
under an ``open rule'' procedure, the Speaker on Jan. 25,
1984,(6) reiterated the Chair's policy of conferring
recognition upon Members to permit consideration of bills and
resolutions only when assured that the majority and minority floor and
committee and subcommittee leaderships
[[Page 9435]]
have no objection. This policy was intended in part to prevent the
practice whereby one side might force the other to go on record as
objecting to propositions regarding which they have only procedural or
technical objections rather than substantive opposition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 130 Cong. Rec. 354, 355, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that an open rule permitting consideration of
House Joint Resolution 100, the voluntary school prayer
constitutional amendment, be called up for immediate consideration
within the next 10 legislative days.
Mr. [Bill] Alexander [of Arkansas]: Mr. Speaker, I object.
The Speaker: (7) Objection is heard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair will read the following statement:
As indicated on page 476 of the House Rules and Manual, the
Chair has established a policy of conferring recognition upon
Members to permit consideration of bills and resolutions by
unanimous consent only when assured that the majority and
minority floor leadership and committee and subcommittee
chairmen and ranking minority members have no objection.
Consistent with that policy, and with the Chair's inherent
power of recognition under clause 2, rule XIV, the Chair, and
any occupant of the Chair appointed as Speaker pro tempore
pursuant to clause 7, rule I, will decline recognition for
unanimous-consent requests for consideration of bills and
resolutions without assurances that the request has been
cleared by that leadership. This denial of recognition by the
Chair will not reflect, necessarily, any personal opposition on
the part of the Chair to orderly consideration of the matter in
question, but will reflect the determination upon the part of
the Chair that orderly procedures will be followed, that is,
procedures involving consultation and agreement between floor
and committee leadership on both sides of the aisle. . . .
Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, do I understand now that the
unanimous-consent procedure cannot be used by anyone to bring
legislation to the floor unless that has been specifically cleared
by both the majority and the minority leadership; is that correct?
The Speaker: That has been the custom and it will continue to
be the custom. . . .
Mr. Walker: I just want to clarify then that the entire matter
then of utilizing unanimous-consent requests for any kind of
legislative business, such as bringing up legislation, will be
denied to all parties.
The Speaker: Unless the Chair has assurances that proper
clearance has taken place. . . .
Mr. [Newt] Gingrich [of Georgia]: . . . The Speaker mentioned
fairness on both sides and both sides be knowledgeable. . . .
[C]ould the Chair describe how fairness to both sides and how both
sides might be knowledgeable might proceed? . . .
The Speaker: The Chair intends to go through the legitimate
leadership of the gentleman's side of the aisle, and the elected
leadership on the other side of the aisle.
Mr. Gingrich: So in the future the legitimate leadership on our
side of the aisle might legitimately expect to be informed?
The Speaker: The Chair considers the legitimate leadership as
the leader
[[Page 9436]]
ship that was elected, not caucuses within the party.
Sec. 2.4 Pursuant to the Speaker's previously announced policy, the
Chair declined to recognize a Member to request unanimous consent
for the consideration of an unreported measure, where the request
had not been cleared with the minority leadership.
On June 6, 1984,(8) the following proceedings occurred
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 130 Cong. Rec. 15174, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mrs. [Katie] Hall of Indiana: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service be
discharged from further consideration of House joint resolution
(H.J. Res. 247) to designate April 24, 1984, as National Day of
Remembrance of Man's Inhumanity to Man, and ask for its immediate
consideration.
Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.
Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: A parliamentary
inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (9) The Chair understands
that this has not been cleared by the leadership on the minority
side. Since the Speaker has made the statement that those types of
requests would not be entertained, under such circumstances the
Chair does not recognize the gentlewoman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. John P. Murtha (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: Beginning in 1981, the Speaker enunciated a
policy for the consideration by unanimous consent of bills not reported
from committees.(10) The Speaker declines to recognize for
such requests without assurances that the matter to be called up has
been ``cleared'' by the Majority and Minority Leaders and the chairman
and ranking minority member of the appropriate
committees.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See 127 Cong. Rec. 31590, 97th Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 15, 1981.
11. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 757 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Reported Bill
Sec. 2.5 Under an extension of guidelines announced by the Speaker on
the opening day of the Congress, the Chair will decline to
recognize for a unanimous-consent request for the consideration of
a (reported) bill unless assured
of clearances from both majority and minority floor
and committee leaderships (guidelines heretofore applicable to
consideration of unreported measures).
On July 23, 1993,(12) the Chair discussed the role of
the leadership in determining whether re
[[Page 9437]]
quests for the consideration of bills would be allowed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 139 Cong. Rec. ______, 103d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Steve] Gunderson [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, my
parliamentary inquiry is this: Is it possible to ask unanimous
consent to bring H.R. 2667 for its immediate consideration?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (13) The leadership on both
sides of the aisle has to agree to allow that unanimous-consent
request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. John P. Murtha (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Gunderson: . . . Is it possible to bring an appropriation
bill to the floor for consideration without a rule?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Yes, if it is privileged and it has
been reported and available for 3 days and is called up by the
committee.
Mr. Gunderson: Can the 3-day rule be waived?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: By unanimous consent, yes.
Mr. Gunderson: Mr. Speaker, is it possible to move that H.R.
2667 be brought up for immediate consideration? . . .
Any member of the committee, Mr. Speaker, could make that
motion?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The chairman or a member authorized by
the committee. . . .
Mr. Gunderson: Mr. Speaker, I have one further parliamentary
inquiry.
Is it possible to ask unanimous consent at any time during the
day to bring up an appropriation bill for its immediate
consideration?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The chairman or his designee could
bring the bill up.
Mr. Gunderson: . . . If, for example, I were to move or ask
unanimous consent to do that and the Chair did not recognize me,
would it be possible at that point to literally appeal the ruling
of the Chair for another Member to bring it up?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Under a previous agreement between the
leaderships of the Democrat and Republican side, only the chairman
of the committee would be recognized to bring up the bill after
agreement of both leaderships by a unanimous-consent request.
Another Member would not be recognized for that reason, and the
denial of recognition to make
a unanimous-consent request is not appealable.
Mr. Gunderson: . . . The chairman of the Appropriations
Committee can bring up H.R. 2667 for immediate consideration at any
time?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Prior to the 3-day availability, he
could bring it up by unanimous consent, but as the gentleman knows,
these things are traditionally handled with the concurrence of both
leaderships and very carefully orchestrated before unanimous
consent is requested in order to be sure that it is adhered to.
Sec. 2.6 Where unanimous consent has been given for the immediate
consideration of a bill, a point of order may nevertheless
subsequently be sustained based on the absence of a quorum in the
committee when the bill was reported, and in such case the bill is
recommitted.
[[Page 9438]]
On Oct. 11, 1968,(14) the following proceedings took
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 114 Cong. Rec. 30751, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
Mr. [Thaddeus J.] Dulski [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of the bill (S.
1507) to include firefighters within the provisions of section
8336(c) of title 5, United States Code, relating to the retirement
of Government employees engaged in certain hazardous occupations. .
. .
The Speaker: (15) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from New York?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
Mr. John M. Ashbrook, of Ohio, at this point made a point of order
based in part on the absence of a quorum when the bill was passed by
the Post Office and Civil Service Committee. The Speaker indicated that
the proper time to make the point of order would be after unanimous
consent was given (and before actual consideration began). After the
point of order was subsequently made, the Speaker addressed the
chairman of the committee as follows, and made his ruling:
The Speaker: The Chair would like to ask the gentleman from New
York if a quorum was present in his committee when the bill was
reported?
Mr. Dulski: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Ohio is correct.
There was no quorum present.
The Speaker: Under those circumstances, the Chair sustains the
point of order and the bill is recommitted to the Committee on Post
Office and Civil Service.
Parliamentarian's Note: A unanimous-consent request that explicitly
waives all points of order against consideration of the bill would
preclude objections to consideration of the bill such as those raised
by Mr. Ashbrook. In one instance,(16) in fact, the Chair
ruled that, where the House granted unanimous consent for the
consideration of a bill and specified that ``all points of order
against the said bill'' be considered as waived, such waiver precluded
various points of order based on objections to consideration of the
bill. To ensure the broadest scope of such waiver, it is advisable that
the waiver apply to ``all points of order against the bill and its
consideration.'' In the Oct. 11, 1968, precedent above, the unanimous-
consent request for immediate consideration did not include waivers of
points of order, but merely would have permitted privileged
consideration immediately under the five-minute rule of a bill which
was on the Union Calendar and would otherwise re
[[Page 9439]]
quire consideration in Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See 93 Cong. Rec. 9095, 9396, 80th Cong. 1st Sess., July 16 and
July 19, 1947.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Suspension of Rules--Effect on Points of Order
Sec. 2.7 A motion to suspend the rules and pass a bill suspends all
rules in conflict with the motion and points of order against
consideration on the grounds that the bill was reported from
committee without a quorum, or that the committee report
is unavailable, will not lie against a bill brought up under
suspension.
On Sept. 16, 1968,(17) Speaker John W. McCormack, of
Massachusetts, ruled that a motion to suspend the rules and pass a bill
suspended all rules in conflict with the motion, and that a point of
order against consideration because no committee report was available
would not lie:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 114 Cong. Rec. 26965, 26966, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I make a
point of order against consideration of S. 3133.
The Speaker: On what ground?
Mr. Hall: Mr. Speaker, on the ground that there is no report
available for consideration of the Members, nor is there one
available after diligent search.
The Speaker: The Chair will state the pending motion is to
suspend the rules, and, accordingly, that being so, the Chair
overrules the point of order.
Speaker McCormack later held on the same day (18) that a
motion to suspend the rules and pass a bill suspended the rule
requiring a quorum of a committee present when a bill is reported and
precluded a point of order against consideration based on that defect:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Id. at p. 27030.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: Is a second demanded?
Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, at the proper time I
ask to be recognized to make a point of order against consideration
of this bill.
The Speaker: The Chair will state that if the gentleman
proposed to make a point of order, this is the time to make it.
Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the
consideration of the bill (H.R. 19136) on the ground that it
violates rule XI, clause 26(e), in that it was reported from the
committee without a quorum being present.
The Speaker: The Chair will state that the motion to suspend
the rules suspends all rules, including the rule mentioned by the
gentleman from Iowa.
Sec. 2.8 A point of order that a bill was reported from committee in
the absence of a quorum is properly raised in the House when the
bill is called up for consideration,
[[Page 9440]]
but the point of order does not lie when the bill is called up
under suspension of the rules.
On Oct. 7, 1968,(19) during special-order speeches, Mr.
Durward G. Hall, of Missouri, raised a parliamentary inquiry as to
points of order proposed to be made against the consideration of bills
to be called up that day under suspension of the rules. Speaker John W.
McCormack, of Massachusetts, responded that the proper time to raise a
point of order that a quorum of the committee was not present when the
bills were reported, was when the bills were called up for
consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 114 Cong. Rec. 29764, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hall: . . . Mr. Speaker, I submit that the bills S. 1507,
S. 1190, H.R. 17954, and H.R. 7406 all were improperly reported.
Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary inquiry is this: At what point in the
proceedings would it be in order to raise the question against
these bills as being in violation of rule XI, clause 26(e) inasmuch
as they are scheduled to be considered under suspension of the
rules, which would obviously suspend the rule I have cited?
Mr. Speaker, I ask the guidance of the Chair in lodging my
point of order against these listed bills so that my objection may
be fairly considered, and so that my right to object will be
protected. Mr. Speaker, I intend to do so only because orderly
procedure must be based on compliance with the rules of the House
which we have adopted.
The Speaker: The Chair will state that any point of order would
have
to be made when the bill is called
up. . . .
Mr. Hall: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry. Would
it not be in order, prior to the House going into the Consent
Calendar or suspension of the rules, to lodge the point of order
against the bills at this time?
The Speaker: The point of order could be directed against such
consideration when the bills are called up under the general rules
of the House. The rules we are operating under today as far as
these bills are concerned, concerns suspension of the rules, and
that motion will suspend all rules.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See also 72 Cong. Rec. 10593-96, 71st Cong. 2d Sess., June 12,
1930, where it was held that the proper time to raise a point
of order of noncompliance with the Ramseyer rule was when the
motion was made to go into the Committee of the Whole to
consider a bill under the provisions of an open rule already
adopted and not waiving points of order against the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unanimous Consent To Consider Measure While Another Pending
Sec. 2.9 The House may by unanimous consent consider a legislative
proposition while another is pending.
On Oct. 14, 1978,(1) the following proceedings occurred
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 124 Cong. Rec. 38287, 38318, 38319, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 9441]]
Mr. [Fernand J.] St Germain [of Rhode Island]: Mr. Speaker, I
move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res.
1439) providing for concurring in the Senate amendments to the bill
(H.R. 14279) with amendments.
The Clerk read as follows:
H. Res. 1439
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution the
bill (H.R. 14279) to extend the authority for the flexible
regulation of interest rates on deposits and accounts in
depository institutions, with the Senate amendments thereto, is
taken from the Speaker's table to the end (1) that the House
concur, and it does hereby, in the Senate amendment to the
title with an amendment as follows: . . .
Mr. [John H.] Rousselot [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I demand
a second.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (2) Without objection, a
second will be considered as ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I object,
and on that I demand tellers. . . .
So a second was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr.
St Germain) will be recognized for 20 minutes, and the gentleman
from California (Mr. Rousselot) will be recognized for 20 minutes.
. . .
Ms. [Elizabeth] Holtzman [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I send to
the desk a concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 755) directing the
Secretary of the Senate to make a correction in the enrollment of
the Senate bill (S. 1487) to eliminate racketeering in the sale and
distribution of cigarettes, and for other purposes, and ask
unanimous consent for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the concurrent resolution as follows:
H. Con. Res. 755
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That in the enrollment of the bill (S. 1487) to
eliminate racketeering in the sale and distribution of
cigarettes, and for other purposes, the Secretary of the Senate
shall make the following correction. . . .
Mr. Rousselot: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Rousselot: Mr. Speaker, can we have another matter called
up with one matter pending?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will advise the gentleman
from California that it has to be called up by unanimous consent,
which was the request.
Consideration of Bill on Following Day or Any Day Thereafter
Sec. 2.10 The House agreed to a unanimous-consent request propounded by
the Minority Leader providing for the consideration of a bill in
the House on the following day or any day thereafter.
[[Page 9442]]
The following unanimous-consent request was agreed to in the House
on Sept. 28, 1982: (3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 128 Cong. Rec. 25533, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that it be in order on Wednesday, September 29,
1982, or any day thereafter to consider in the House the bill, H.R.
6838.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (4) Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Illinois?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. John G. Fary (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
Parliamentarian's Note: On Sept. 29, 1982,(5) the
Speaker recognized the Minority Leader to call up the reported bill in
the House for consideration under the hour rule, and subsequently
recognized the Minority Leader in opposition to a motion to recommit
with instructions offered by the ranking minority member of the
reporting committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. See the proceedings discussed in Sec. 8.22, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Continuing Appropriations--Points of Order Waived Against Consideration
Sec. 2.11 A special rule has waived points of order against
consideration of a joint resolution making continuing
appropriations, particularly the point of order based on the three-
day layover requirement, and has provided for its consideration in
the House, with not to exceed two hours of debate equally divided
and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Appropriations.
The following proceedings occurred in the House on Nov. 16, 1981:
(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 127 Cong. Rec. 27613, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John J.] Moakley [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, by
direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 271
and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 271
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider, clause 2(l)(6) of rule XI to the
contrary notwithstanding, the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 357)
making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year
1982, and for other purposes, in the House. Debate on said
joint resolution shall continue not to exceed two hours, to be
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Appropriations, and the
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the joint
resolution to final passage without intervening motion except
one motion to recommit. . . .
[[Page 9443]]
Mr. Moakley: Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 271 is the rule
providing for consideration of House Joint Resolution 357 which
makes further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 1982. . . .
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 271 is a simple rule. It waives
clause 2(l)(6) of rule XI which would otherwise force this
continuing resolution to layover for 3 days, excluding Saturday and
Sunday. The committee has granted this waiver because it feels that
the Appropriations Committee report and the resolution are
straightforward and easily comprehended.
Unanimous Consent To Consider Private Senate Bill With Nongermane
Amendment
Sec. 2.12 By unanimous consent, the House agreed to consid-er a private
Senate bill reported from the Committee on the Judiciary with a
nongermane amendment in the nature of a substitute converting it
into a public bill.
On Oct. 14, 1978,(7) during consideration of S. 2247 in
the House, the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 124 Cong. Rec. 38217, 38218, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Peter W.] Rodino [Jr., of New Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of the Senate
bill (S. 2247) for the relief of Eugenia Cortes, as reported from
the Committee on the Judiciary. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from New Jersey?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the Senate bill as follows:
S. 2247
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That, in
the administration of the Immigration and Nationality Act,
Eugenia Cortes shall be held and considered to be within the
purview of the first proviso to section 312(1) of that Act and
may be naturalized upon compliance with all of the other
requirements of title III of that Act. . . .
Mr. Rodino: Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Rodino: Strike all after the
enacting clause and insert: That the first proviso contained in
paragraph 1 of section 312 of the Immigration and Nationality
Act is amended by striking out ``or to any person who on the
effective date of this act is over 50 years of age''. . . .
The amendment was agreed to.
The Senate bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read a
third time, and passed.
Parliamentarian's Note: The bill would ordinarily have been
referred to the Private Calendar when reported, but was viewed as a
public bill in essence since reported with an amendment in the nature
of a substitute of a public character.
[[Page 9444]]
Points of Order Against Consideration When Special Rule for
Consideration Has Been Adopted
Sec. 2.13 The Speaker overruled a point of order against the
consideration of a bill based on its alleged inconsistency with
existing law, the House having adopted a resolution making in order
the consideration of the bill.
On Mar. 27, 1958,(8) Mr. Wayne N. Aspinall, of Colorado,
moved that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole for
the consideration of H.R. 8290, authorizing the construction of a
national monument. Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, objected to the
consideration of the bill on the ground that it contradicted previous
legislation passed in the 83d Congress:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 104 Cong. Rec. 5631, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the consideration
of the proposed legislation, H.R. 8290, on the grounds that it does
not conform to, and is in fact violative of, Public Law 742, of the
83d Congress, volume 68, part I, United States Statutes. . . .
Mr. Speaker, I submit that it is abundantly clear that the
legislation proposed for consideration at this time, H.R. 8290,
does not conform to and is in violation of Public Law 742 of the
83d Congress, for the reason that Public Law 742 provides and makes
mandatory that plans must be approved--there must be a meeting of
the minds--of the legally constituted agencies and commissions and
thereafter, and only thereafter, shall these plans be submitted to
Congress for legislative authorization.
Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, overruled the point of order:
The Chair is ready to rule.
The occupant of the chair has been here a long time. He has
never had the conception that one Congress could tie the hands of a
later Congress and the Chair does not believe so in this case. If
that doctrine were followed, then it would mean the Congress could
pass a law saying, ``This law shall not be touched for a number of
years.'' Another Congress comes in and has a different idea. The
Chair thinks each Congress should have the opportunity to work its
will. . . . Furthermore, the House has already adopted a special
rule for the consideration of this bill.
Sec. 2.14 A resolution to consider a special and therefore
nonprivileged appropriation measure having been agreed to, a point
of order against consideration does not lie.
On Aug. 21, 1951,(9) the House agreed to House
Resolution 397, providing for the consideration
of House Joint Resolution 320,
[[Page 9445]]
amending an act making temporary appropriations. Mr. Clarence Cannon,
of Missouri, then moved that the House resolve itself into the
Committee of the Whole for the consideration of the joint resolution.
Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, made a point of order against
consideration, which was overruled by Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 97 Cong. Rec. 10481, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against
consideration of the joint resolution on the ground that the
authorization has expired, and that there is no authorization for
this appropriation.
The Speaker: The resolution just adopted makes in order the
consideration of the joint resolution, and, therefore, the point of
order does not lie.
The Chair overrules the point of order.
Parliamentarian's Note: General appropriation bills are privileged
for consideration, under Rule XI, clause 4(a), and only such bills are
subject to points of order for carrying unauthorized appropriations,
under Rule XXI, clause 2. Such points of order must be made in
Committee of the Whole when the offending paragraph is read, and not
against consideration of the entire bill. ``Special'' appropriation
bills are not privileged and require special rules, but no points of
order lie under clause 2 of Rule XXI in the Committee of the Whole or
against consideration.
Sec. 2.15 Where the House adopts a resolution providing for ``the
immediate consideration of a bill'' then pending before a House
committee, a point of order against consideration on the ground
that the Ramseyer rule has not been complied with does not lie,
since that rule pertains only to bills reported by a committee and
not
to bills brought before the House by other means.
On Aug. 19, 1964,(10) the House adopted House Resolution
845, providing for the consideration of H.R. 11926, limiting the
jurisdiction of federal courts in apportionment cases. The bill, which
had been referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, had not been
reported from that committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 110 Cong. Rec. 20221, 20222, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following the adoption of the resolution, Mr. James G. O'Hara, of
Michigan, made a point of order against consideration of the bill on
the ground that no report had been made with a ``comparative print''
required by House rules showing changes made by the bill in existing
law. Speaker John W.
[[Page 9446]]
McCormack, of Massachusetts, overruled the point of order on the
grounds that the rule applies only to bills reported out of committee:
Mr. O'Hara of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order
against the consideration of the bill H.R. 11926.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. O'Hara of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order
against the consideration of H.R. 11926 on the ground that the bill
has not been properly reported in that it purports to amend title
28 of the United States Code, that is, the act of June 25, 1948,
chapter 646, but it fails to show in its report or in an
accompanying document a comparative print of that part of the bill
making and amending the statute or part thereof proposed to be
amended as required by part 3, rule XIII, of the House of
Representatives.
The Speaker: The Chair is prepared to rule.
Rule XIII, clause 3, provides, ``whenever a committee reports a
bill or a joint resolution repealing or amending any statute or
part thereof it shall include in its report or in an accompanying
document the text of the statute or part thereof which is proposed
to be repealed;''. It will be noted that the rule only applies when
a committee reports a bill. In this case the Committee on the
Judiciary did not file a report on H.R. 11926. Therefore, that rule
does not apply to the present situation.
In addition, the resolution before the House provides for the
House immediately to resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union for the consideration of this
particular bill.
The Chair overrules the point of order.
Sec. 2.16 A point of order that a bill was reported from committee in
the absence of a quorum is in order pending a vote on the motion
that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole for
the consideration of the bill, where the bill is being considered
pursuant to a Committee on Rules resolution which does not waive
that point of order.
On Oct. 11, 1968,(11) after the House had adopted House
Resolution 1256, providing for the consideration in the Committee of
the Whole of S. 2511, Mr. William R. Poage, of Texas, moved that the
House resolve itself into Committee to consider the bill. Mr. Paul
Findley, of Illinois, made a point of order against consideration of
the bill on the grounds that the Committee on Agriculture had acted
without a quorum when it had reported out the bill. Speaker John W.
McCormack, of Massachusetts, sustained the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 114 Cong. Rec. 30739, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 9447]]
Resolution Directing Chairman To Request Special Rule Held Not
Privileged
Sec. 2.17 A resolution directing the chairman of the Select Committee
on Committees to request the Committee on Rules to report to the
House a special rule providing for the consideration of the
resolution reported by the select committee, and directing the
Committee on Rules to immediately consider such request, was held
not to present a question of the privileges of the House under Rule
IX as affecting the ``integrity of the proceedings of the House,''
although it was alleged that the chairman of the select committee
had neglected to take all necessary steps to bring the measure to a
vote as required by Rule XI clause 2(l)(1)(A).
On June 27, 1974,(12) it was demonstrated that a Member
may not, by raising a question of the privileges of the House under
Rule IX, attach privilege to a question not otherwise in order under
the rules of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 120 Cong. Rec. 21596-98, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John B.] Anderson of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
resolution (H. Res. 1203) involving a question of privileges of the
House, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution as follows:
H. Res. 1203
Whereas on January 31, 1973, the House of Representatives
voted to establish a ten-member, bipartisan Select Committee on
Committees charged with conducting a ``thorough and complete
study of rules X and XI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives; and
Whereas the select committee was further ``authorized and
directed to report to the House . . .
Whereas on March 21, 1974, the select committee reported
House Resolution 988 in conformance with its mandate; and
Whereas the chairman of the select committee has failed to
seek a rule making House Resolution 988 in order for
consideration by the House; and
Whereas, clause 27(d)(1) [now clause 2(l)(1)(A)] of House
Rule XI states, ``It shall be the duty of the chairman of each
committee to report or cause to be reported promptly to the
House any measure approved by his committee and to take or
cause to be taken necessary steps to bring the matter to a
vote;'' . . .
Resolved, That the chairman of the select committee be
directed to forthwith seek a rule making in order for
consideration by the House, House Resolution 988; and be it
further
Resolved, That the House Committee on Rules be directed to
give immediate consideration to such request. . . .
Mr. [Thomas P.] O'Neill [Jr., of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I
make the point of order that the resolution offered by the
gentleman from Illinois does not raise the question of privilege. .
. .
[[Page 9448]]
Mr. Anderson of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, I desire to be heard on
the point of order. My question of privilege arises under rule IX
which provides that, and I quote:
Questions of privilege shall be, first, those affecting the
rights of
the House collectively, its safety, dignity and the integrity
of its pro-ceedings. . . .
Mr. Speaker, I rest my question of privilege on that clause
which declares those questions privileged which relate to the
integrity of the proceedings of the House. It is my contention that
there has been a deliberate attempt to delay House consideration of
House Resolution 988, the so-called Bolling-Martin Committee Reform
Amendments of 1974, and that this intentional delay not only
interferes with and flouts the integrity of the proceedings of this
body, but is in clear violation of clause 27(d)(1) of rule XI of
the Rules of the House.
Under that rule, and I quote:
It shall be the duty of the chairman of each committee to
report or cause to be reported promptly to the House any
measure approved by his committee and to take or cause to be
taken necessary steps to bring the matter to a vote. . . .
The Speaker: (13) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Anderson) has submitted a
resolution which he asserts involves a question of the privileges
of the House under rule IX. Following the preamble of the
resolution, the resolution provides that:
Resolved, That the chairman of the Select Committee be
directed to forthwith seek a rule making in order for
consideration by the House, House Resolution 988, and be it
further
Resolved, That the House Committee on Rules be directed to
give immediate consideration to such request.
As indicated in ``Hinds' Precedents,'' volume III, section
2678, Speakers are authorized to make a preliminary determination
as to those questions presented which may involve privileges. As
reaffirmed by Speaker McCormack on October 8, 1968 (Record p. 30214
to 30216) when a Member asserts that he rises to a question of the
privileges of the House, the Speaker may hear the question and
then, if the matter is not one admissible as a question of
privilege of the House he can refuse recognition.
The Chair has listened to the arguments concerning the
privileged status of this resolution and has examined the
precedents of the House in this regard. It will be noted that the
gentleman from Illinois has relied heavily on section 2609, volume
III of ``Hinds' Precedents,'' in which it was held by Speaker Reed
that a report having been ordered to be made by a select committee
but not being made within a reasonable time, a resolution directing
the report to be made raised a question of the privileges of the
House.
That case is distinguishable from the present instance in that
in this instance the chairman has made the report and the
resolution is pending on the calendar of the House and it does not
become privileged until the House has adopted a resolution reported
from the Committee on Rules providing for the consideration of
House Resolution
[[Page 9449]]
988. The Chair does not feel that a question of privilege of the
House under rule IX should be used as a mechanism for giving
privilege to a motion which would not otherwise be in order under
the Rules of the House, in this case, namely, a motion to direct
the Committee on Rules to take a certain action.
The Chair now would refer to Hinds' Precedents, volume III,
section 2610, wherein Speaker Crisp ruled that a charge that a
committee had been inactive in regard to a subject committed to it
did not constitute a question of privilege of the House. . . .
The rules did not provide at the time of Speaker Reed's ruling,
as is now the case in clause 27(d)(2) of Rule XI, for a mandatory
filing of the reports within 7 calendar days after the measure has
been ordered reported upon signed request by a committee majority.
In the instant case, however, the Select Committee on
Committees has filed its report and the Chair is not aware that the
chairman of the Select Committee on Committees has in any sense
violated the rule cited by the gentleman from Illinois. For these
reasons, the Chair holds that the gentleman's resolution does not
present a question of the privileges of the House under [rule] IX
and the resolution may not be considered.
The Chair sustains the point of order.
Other Business May Be Precluded by Special Rule
Sec. 2.18 A resolution providing that on a certain day the Speaker
shall recognize a Member to call up a bill for consideration may by
its provisions preclude the consideration of other business on that
day.
On May 12, 1936,(14) Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of
Tennessee, construed the effect of House Resolution 123, adopted on the
preceding day and making in order on May 12, the consideration of a
bill not reported from the Committee on Agriculture:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 80 Cong. Rec. 7097, 7098, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The resolution stated: (15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Id. at pp. 7026, 7027.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
House Resolution 123
Resolved, That upon the day succeeding the adoption of this
resolution, a special order be, and is hereby, created by the
House of Representatives, for the consideration of H.R. 2066, a
public bill which has remained in the Committee on Agriculture
for 30 or more days, without action. That such special order
be, and is hereby, created, notwithstanding any further action
on said bill by the Committee on Agriculture, or any rule of
the House. That on said day the Speaker shall recognize the
Representative at Large from North Dakota, William Lemke, to
call up H.R. 2066, a bill to liquidate and refinance existing
agricultural indebtedness at a reduced rate of interest, by
establishing an efficient credit system, through the use of the
Farm Credit Administration, the Federal Reserve banking system,
and creating a Board of Agriculture to supervise the same, as a
special order of business, and to
[[Page 9450]]
move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of
said H.R. 2066. After general debate, which shall be confined
to the bill and shall continue not to exceed 6 hours, to be
equally divided and controlled by the Member of the House
requesting the rule for the consideration of said H.R. 2066 and
the Member of the House who is opposed to the said H.R. 2066,
to be designated by the Speaker, the bill shall be read for
amendment under the 5-minute rule. At the conclusion of the
reading of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and
report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have
been adopted, and the previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the bill, and the amendments thereto, to final
passage, without intervening motion, except one motion to
recommit. The special order shall be a continuing order until
the bill is finally disposed of.
The proceedings on May 12 were as follows:
The Speaker: The Chair may say that under the rule nothing is
in order this morning except the consideration of the bill which
was provided for by rule yesterday. However, with the unanimous
consent of the House, the Chair will recognize Members to correct
the Record. The Chair does not believe that, technically speaking,
anything is in order this morning except the consideration of the
bill just mentioned. . . .
Under the express provisions of the rule there is nothing in
order this morning except a motion by the gentleman from North
Dakota to go into the Committee of the Whole for the consideration
of the bill. The Chair is not responsible for the rule, but it is
up to the Chair to construe it.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. For the privilege and precedence of reports from the Committee on
Rules related to the order of business and consideration, see
Rule XI clauses 4(a)-4(e) and comments thereto, House Rules and
Manual Sec. Sec. 726-731(a) (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question of Consideration Determined by House
Sec. 2.19 The question as to whether the House will consider a
resolution making in order the consideration of a bill is a matter
for the House to decide and not the Chair.
On May 13, 1953,(17) Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of
Massachusetts, ruled that a point of order against a resolution
providing for the consideration of a bill, on the ground that the bill
sought to amend a nonexisting act, was a matter for the House to
determine:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 99 Cong. Rec. 4877, 83d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Michael A.] Feighan [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point
of order against the consideration of this rule [H. Res. 233]
because it attempts to make in order the consideration of the bill
H.R. 5134, which is a bill to amend a nonexisting act. [The
``Submerged Lands Act''.]
The Speaker: The Chair will state that the point of order that
has been
[[Page 9451]]
raised by the gentleman from Ohio is not one within the
jurisdiction of the Chair, but is a question for the House to
decide, whether it wants to consider such legislation.
The Chair overrules the point of order.
Parliamentarian's Note: Also, dilatory motions including the
question of consideration, may not be raised against a privileged
report from the Committee on Rules.
Two-thirds Vote To Consider Special Rule on Same Day Reported
Sec. 2.20 A resolution from the Committee on Rules may be considered on
the same day as reported if the question of consideration is
supported by two-thirds of the Members present and voting, a quorum
being present.
On Nov. 14, 1975,(18) a resolution from the Committee on
Rules was reported, providing that upon the adoption of the resolution
it would be in order to take a Senate bill from the Speaker's table and
consider it in the House. Following the adoption of the resolution
making the consideration of the Senate bill in order, the Member
calling up the Senate bill was recognized for one hour:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 121 Cong. Rec. 36638, 36641, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Richard] Bolling [of Missouri], from the Committee on
Rules, reported the following privileged resolution (H. Res. 866,
Rept. No. 94-666), which was referred to the House Calendar and
ordered to be printed.
H. Res. 866
Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this
resolution it shall be in order to take from the Speaker's
table the bill S. 2667, to extend the Emergency Petroleum
Allocation Act of 1973, and to consider said bill in the House.
Mr. Bolling: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 866 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Speaker: (19) The Clerk will report the
resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read the resolution.
The Speaker: The question is, Will the House now consider House
Resolution 866?
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. [John H.] Rousselot [of California]: 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: The Chair is certain that a quorum is present. The
Chair will count.
Two hundred and forty-one Members are present, a quorum.
Mr. Rousselot: Mr. Speaker, I demand a division.
[[Page 9452]]
On a division (demanded by Mr. Rousselot) there were--yeas 171,
noes 14.
So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof), the House agreed
to consider House Resolution 866.
The Speaker: The question is on the resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The Speaker: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West
Virginia (Mr. Staggers).
Mr. [Harley O.] Staggers [of West Virginia]: Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to House Resolution 866, I call up the Senate bill (S.
2667) and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
The Clerk read the Senate bill as follows:
S. 2667
A Bill to Extend the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act of 1973
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That
section 4(g)(1) of the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act of
1973 is amended by striking out each date specified therein and
inserting in lieu thereof in each case ``December 15, 1975''. .
. .
Mr. Staggers: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the
Senate bill.
The previous question was ordered.
The Senate bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read
the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on
the table.
Sec. 2.21 The House, by a two-thirds vote, agreed to consider a
privileged resolution reported from the Committee on Rules on the
same day reported.
On Oct. 17, 1974,(20) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma,
recognized John Young, of Texas, to call up House Resolution 1456. The
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 120 Cong. Rec. 36020, 36021, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Young of Texas, from the Committee on Rules, reported the
following privileged resolution (H. Res. 1456, Rept. No. 93-1470)
which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed:
H. Res. 1456
Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this
resolution the House shall consider the joint resolution (H.J.
Res. 1167) making further continuing appropriations for the
fiscal year 1975, and for other purposes. After general debate,
which shall be confined to the joint resolution and shall
continue not to exceed one hour, the previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the joint resolution to final passage
without intervening motion except one motion to recommit.
Mr. Young of Texas: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee
on Rules I call up House Resolution 1456 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Speaker: The Clerk will report the resolution.
The Clerk read the resolution.
The Speaker: The question is, Will the House now consider House
Resolution 1456?
[[Page 9453]]
Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary
inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, does not consideration of this rule
require unanimous consent?
The Speaker: The Chair will state to the gentleman from Iowa
that it requires a two-thirds vote to consider the resolution. The
Chair was about to put the question. . . .
Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I am a little
curious as to how this resolution got out of the Committee on
Appropriations, since I understand the committee did not meet. How
did it get before the Committee on Rules?
The Speaker: The Chair will state that a request was made that
the Committee on Rules consider a rule on the introduced version.
Mr. Hays: But how did it get before the Committee on Rules?
The Speaker: Because House Resolution 1456 was reported by the
Committee on Rules, and the Committee on Rules has authority to
report as privileged a resolution discharging another committee
from a measure referred to that committee. . . .
The Speaker: . . . Shall the House consider the resolution?
The question was taken, and the Speaker announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. Hays: 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: 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
210, nays 14, not voting 210, as follows: . . .
So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the House agreed
to consider House Resolution 1456. . . .
The Speaker: The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Young), is
recognized for 1 hour. . . .
Mr. Young of Texas: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question
on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
Parliamentarian's Note: Pursuant to Rule XI clause 4(a), the
Committee on Rules may report as privileged a resolution on the ``order
of business'' which has the effect of discharging another committee
from consideration of a measure referred to it.
Sec. 2.22 Under the rules of the House, objection to consideration of a
report from the Committee on Rules on the same day reported will
not lie where such consideration has been agreed to by an
affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Members voting.
On Dec. 21, 1963,(1) Mr. Ray J. Madden, of Indiana,
called up by the direction of the Committee on Rules House Resolution
598, providing for the consideration of a
[[Page 9454]]
conference report. Mr. Madden asked for the immediate consideration of
the resolution, and Mr. Frank T. Bow, of Ohio, objected to such
consideration on the grounds ``that under rule XI, section 22, of the
rules of the House this rule is not laid over before the House for 24
hours.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 109 Cong. Rec. 25408, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, indicated that
objection to consideration of the resolution would not lie:
The Chair will state that clause 22 of Rule XI provides, in
substance, that the House may consider a resolution on the same day
reported, if by a two-thirds vote.
The Speaker put the question on the immediate consideration of the
resolution to the House, which agreed thereto.
On May 26, 1964, Speaker McCormack ruled that where immediate
consideration was asked for the consideration of a Committee on Rules
resolution (H. Res. 736) on the same day reported, a vote on
consideration was immediately in order: (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 110 Cong. Rec. 11951, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary
inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Gross: Does this require unanimous consent?
The Speaker: It requires a two-thirds vote.
Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, is there any way to ascertain the
reason for this request?
The Speaker: If the House decides to consider it, then the
debate will be under the 1-hour rule on the resolution.
Mr. Gross: Is there no way of ascertaining what is being done
here, Mr. Speaker? Is there no time available?
The Speaker: The Chair will state at this point that it is a
matter of consideration. If consideration is granted, which
requires a two-thirds vote, then the resolution will be considered
under the 1-hour rule.
The question is, Will the House now consider House Resolution
736?
Sec. 2.23 When a resolution from the Committee on Rules is called up
the same day it is reported, no debate thereon is in order until
the House agrees to consider the resolution.
On May 26, 1964,(3) Mr. Richard Bolling, of Missouri,
called up a resolution from the Committee on Rules reported on the same
day and asked for its immediate consideration. In response to a
parliamentary inquiry, Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts,
ruled that the pending question was the consideration of the reso
[[Page 9455]]
lution, such consideration to be determined by a two-thirds vote, and
that no debate was in order until the House agreed to consider the
resolution, at which time one hour's debate would be had on the
resolution itself.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 110 Cong. Rec. 11951, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 2.24 Where the Committee on Rules reports a resolution making a
bill a special order of business, a two-thirds vote is required to
consider the resolution on the same day reported.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. See for example 113 Cong. Rec. 31904-06, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Nov.
9, 1967; 110 Cong. Rec. 11951, 88th Cong. 2d Sess., May 26,
1964; 108 Cong. Rec. 16759, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 16, 1962;
90 Cong. Rec. 8999, 9000, 78th Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 7, 1944.
Rule XI clause 4(b), House Rules and Manual Sec. 729a
(1995) provides as follows: ``It shall always be in order to
call up for consideration a report from the Committee on Rules
on a rule, joint rule, or the order of business (except it
shall not be called up for consideration on the same day it is
presented to the House, unless so determined by a vote of not
less than two-thirds of the Members voting, but this provision
shall not apply during the last three days of the session).''
A resolution reported from the Committee on Rules may
suspend the requirements of a two-thirds vote to consider
Committee on Rules reports on the same day reported. See, for
example, 78 Cong. Rec. 10239-41, 73d Cong. 2d Sess., June 1,
1934.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Report From Committee on Rules Filed Before House Convenes May Be
Considered
Sec. 2.25 Pursuant to Rule XI clause 4(b), a privileged report from the
Committee on Rules may be considered on the same legislative day as
reported only by a two-thirds vote, but a report filed by that
committee, pursuant to unanimous-consent permission, at any time
prior to convening of the House on the next legislative day may be
called up for immediate consideration on that new legislative day,
and a two-thirds vote is not then required.
On July 31, 1975,(5) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma,
responded to several parliamentary inquiries relating to the situation
described above:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 121 Cong. Rec. 26243-47, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John J.] Rhodes [of Arizona]: Mr. Speaker . . . it is my
understanding the other body will probably vote on this matter by
9:30 or 9:40. . . . If that is the situation, we can expect the
matter to be messaged over here sometime soon after 10:00, and it
would be my hope at that time the matter would be given attention
[[Page 9456]]
immediately by the Rules Committee. . . . Mr. Speaker, if I may
address a parliamentary inquiry, is my understanding correct that
if the House recesses subject to the call of the Chair, that bills
can be received from the other body, and the matter referred to the
Rules Committee without calling the House back into session? . . .
The Speaker: If [the bill] comes over it can be referred to the
Committee on International Relations or held at the table but not
referred to the Committee on Rules. . . .
Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, could not the Rules Committee meet
immediately and report a resolution, taking the matter from the
Speaker's table, bypassing the Committee on International Affairs
and reporting the matter directly. Is it not possible?
The Speaker: That is a possible procedure. . . .
Mr. [Joe D.] Waggonner [Jr., of Louisiana]: . . . Mr. Speaker,
is it not correct to say that if a unanimous-consent request to
allow the Committee on Rules until midnight to file a report on the
Turkish aid issue now being debated by the other body, was granted,
that the House could then adjourn and at the same time work its
will because then, if the Committee on Rules files a report, it
could be considered then under the rules of the House, and if they
did not file a report, the issue would be moot?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that that is an
accurate statement of the situation, as the Chair understands it. .
. .
Mr. [Dante B.] Fascell [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, there have
been some remarks made that the House would be denied its will and
there would be no way to consider the matter in the event the other
body agreed to some legislation tonight. Am I correct in the
proposition that if a bill is passed by the other body tonight,
there is a procedure under the rules whereby the matter could be
considered tomorrow? . . .
The Speaker: The Chair will state this. The regular rule is
that a report from the Rules Committee has to go over 1 day or it
takes a two-thirds vote for consideration on the day reported. The
other way is that a unanimous-consent request can be made, and if
the Committee on Rules can file it by 10 o'clock tomorrow, and the
House adjourns tonight, then it will take a majority vote for
consideration tomorrow after the House meets, just as it always
does on a subsequent legislative day.
--Point of Order That Report Not Printed Does Not Lie
Sec. 2.26 Under Rule XI clause 4(b), it is in order to call up a
privileged report from the Committee on Rules relating to the order
of business on the same day reported if consideration is granted by
a two-thirds vote, and a point of order that the report has not
been printed does not lie.
On Feb. 2, 1977,(6) the follow-ing proceedings occurred
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 123 Cong. Rec. 3344, 3349, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 9457]]
Mr. [James J.] Delaney [of New York], from the Committee on
Rules, reported the following privileged resolution (H. Res. 231,
Rept. No. 95-6), which was referred to the House Calendar and
ordered to be printed: . . .
Mr. Delaney: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 231 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Speaker: (7) The Clerk will report the
resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read the resolution.
The Speaker: The question is, Will the House now consider House
Resolution 231? . . .
Mr. [W. Hensen] Moore [of Louisiana]: Mr. Speaker, I make the
point of order that the resolution has not been printed.
Mr. Delaney: Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, this is
merely to consider taking up the rule.
Mr. Moore: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make the point of order
that I believe under this rule we are waiving all points of order;
is that not correct?
Mr. Delaney: Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further,
that matter will be taken up at the proper time. This is merely for
consideration, at this particular time, of House Resolution 231.
The Speaker: The Chair will state that the point of order of
the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Moore) is not well taken and is
therefore overruled.
There is no requirement that this resolution be printed before
it can be called up, although the Chair ordered the resolution
printed when it was filed and referred to the House Calendar.
The question is, Will the House now consider House Resolution
231?
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the House agreed to consider House Resolution 231.
The Speaker: The gentleman from New York (Mr. Delaney) is
recognized for 1 hour. . . .
Mr. Delaney: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the
resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The Speaker: The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. Moore: Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was refused.
So the resolution was agreed to.
Special Rule Reported Where House Refused To Consider Bill Called Up
Under Motion Procedure
Sec. 2.27 Refusal of the House to consider a bill called up under a
motion procedure would not prevent the reporting of a resolution by
the Committee on Rules making the bill a special order of business.
On May 4, 1960,(8) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas,
responded as
[[Page 9458]]
follows to a parliamentary inquiry prior to the call of committees
under the Calendar Wednesday procedure:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 106 Cong. Rec. 9417, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: In the event that the
motion to consider the bill should not prevail in the House, would
it still be possible if a rule were reported by the Rules Committee
for the bill to be brought before the House at a later date under a
rule?
The Speaker: The Chair would think the House could adopt any
rule reported by the Committee on Rules.
Special Rule for Consideration of Unreported Bills
Sec. 2.28 The Committee on Rules has reported and the House has adopted
resolutions making in order the immediate consideration of bills
which had not been reported by the committee to which referred.
On Aug. 19, 1964,(9) the Committee on Rules reported a
resolution, which was adopted by the House with an amendment, providing
for immediate consideration of a bill pending before the Committee on
the Judiciary but not yet reported:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 110 Cong. Rec. 20213, 20221, 88th Cong. 2d Sess. For other
examples, see Ch. 18, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration
of the bill (H.R. 11926) to limit jurisdiction of Federal courts in
reapportionment cases. After general debate, which shall be
confined to the bill and shall continue not to exceed two hours, to
be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary, the bill shall
be read for amendment under the five-minute rule. At the conclusion
of the consideration of the bill for amendment, the Committee shall
rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may
have been adopted, and the previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit.
The Speaker: (10) The Clerk will report the
committee amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Committee amendments: Lines 1 and 2, page 1, strike the
words ``it shall be in order to move that,'' and line 2, page
1, after the word ``House'' insert ``shall immediately''.
The Speaker: Without objection, the committee amendments are
agreed to.
There was no objection.
On June 24, 1965,(11) the Committee on Rules reported
and the House adopted House Resolution 433, making in order the
immediate consideration of a joint reso
[[Page 9459]]
lution referred to the Committee on Banking and Currency but not yet
reported:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 111 Cong. Rec. 14705, 14706, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolved, That, upon the adoption of this resolution, the House
shall immediately resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the House
joint resolution (H.J. Res. 541) to extend the Area Redevelopment
Act for a period of two months. After general debate, which shall
be confined to the resolution and shall continue not to exceed one
hour, to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Banking and Currency,
the resolution shall be read for amendment under the five-minute
rule. At the conclusion of the consideration of the resolution for
amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the resolution to
the House with such amendments as may have been adopted, and the
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution
and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion
except one motion to recommit.
Parliamentarian's Note: The Committee on Banking and Currency was
in agreement on consideration of the joint resolution (although it had
not been reported) and had requested the special rule from the
Committee on Rules.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See Sec. 2.15, supra, for the ruling that points of order against
consideration of a bill based on defects in reporting
procedures may not be made where the bill was not reported from
committee but made in order by a special rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Special Rule for Consideration of Resolution on Confirmation of Vice
President
Sec. 2.29 A resolution was reported from the Committee on Rules,
providing for consideration in the Committee of the Whole of a
resolution reported from the Committee on the Judiciary, on
confirmation of the nomination of the Vice President, waiving
points of order against consideration of the resolution for not
having been reported for three calendar days and providing that the
previous question be ordered in the House upon completion of
general debate in the Committee of the Whole.
The following resolution was reported on Dec. 19, 1974:
(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 120 Cong. Rec. 41419, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 1519
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to move, clause 28(d)(4) of rule XI to the contrary
notwithstanding, that the House resolve itself into the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration
of the resolution (H. Res. 1511) confirming Nelson A. Rockefeller
as Vice President of the United States.
[[Page 9460]]
After general debate, which shall be confined to the resolution and
shall continue not to exceed six hours, to be equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and the ranking minority member of the
Committee on the Judiciary, and Representative Robert W.
Kastenmeier, of Wisconsin, the Committee shall rise and report the
resolution to the House, and the previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the resolution to final adoption or
rejection.
Measure Called Up Without Motion, Under Special Rule
Sec. 2.30 Where the House adopts a special rule providing for the
immediate consideration of a measure in the House, the Speaker
directs the Clerk to report the measure without its being called up
by motion.
On Oct. 17, 1974,(14) the following resolution was
agreed to, for purposes of providing for immediate consideration of a
joint resolution making continuing appropriations for fiscal 1975:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 120 Cong. Rec. 36020, 36021, 93d Cong. 2d Sess. For further
discussion of proceedings relating to consideration of the
special rule, see Sec. 2.21, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 1456
Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution
the House shall consider the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 1167)
making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1975,
and for other purposes. After general debate, which shall be
confined to the joint resolution and shall continue not to exceed
one hour, the previous question shall be considered as ordered on
the joint resolution to final passage without intervening motion
except one motion to recommit. . . .
Mr. [John] Young of Texas: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous
question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The Speaker: (15) The Clerk will read the joint
resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
H.J. Res. 1167
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That (a) clause
(c) of section 102 of the joint resolution of June 30, 1974
(Public Law 93-324), is hereby amended by striking out
``September 30, 1974''. . . .
Order of Consideration of Amendments Under Special Rule
Sec. 2.31 Where a special rule does not specify the order in which two
amendments in the nature of a substitute, allowed by the rule, are
to be considered, the Chair determines the order through his power
of recognition.
[[Page 9461]]
For an illustration of a special rule not specifying the order in
which amendments in the nature of a substitute are to be considered,
and the subsequent action of the Chair in exercising his power of
recognition, see the proceedings of July 17, 1974,(16)
relating to a resolution (17) providing for consideration of
H.R. 11500, the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1974.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 120 Cong. Rec. 23642, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
17. H. Res. 1230.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Richard] Bolling [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, by direction
of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1230 and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution as follows:
H. Res. 1230
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for
consideration of the bill (H.R. 11500) to provide for the
regulation of surface coal mining operations in the United
States, to authorize the Secretary of Interior to make grants
to States to encourage the State regulation of surface mining,
and for other purposes. After general debate, which shall be
confined to the bill and shall continue not to exceed four
hours, to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Interior and
Insular Affairs, the bill shall be read for amendment under the
five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider the
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the
Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs now printed in the
bill as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the
five-minute rule, said substitute shall be read for amendment
by titles instead of by sections, and all points of order
against title IV and against section 701(a) of said substitute
for failure to comply with the provisions of clause 4, rule XXI
are hereby waived. It shall be in order to consider without the
intervention of any point of order the text of the bill H.R.
12898 if offered as an amendment in the nature of a substitute
for said amendment recommended by the Committee on Interior and
Insular Affairs for the bill H.R. 11500. It shall also be in
order to consider without the intervention of any point of
order the text of the bill H.R. 11500 if offered as an
amendment in the nature of a substitute for said amendment
recommended by the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs
for the bill H.R. 11500. At the conclusion of the consideration
of the bill H.R. 11500 for amendment, the Committee shall rise
and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may
have been adopted, and any Member may demand a separate vote in
the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the
Whole to the bill or to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute recommended by the Committee on Interior and Insular
Affairs. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or
without instructions. After the passage of H.R. 11500, the
Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs shall be discharged
from the further consideration of the bill S. 425, and it shall
then be in order in the House
[[Page 9462]]
to move to strike out all after the enacting clause of the said
Senate bill and insert in lieu thereof the provisions contained
in H.R. 11500 as passed by the House.
The Speaker: (18) The gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Bolling) is recognized for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recognition for Committee Amendments to First Title--Bill Open to
Amendment at Any Point
Sec. 2.32 Where a bill consisting of several titles was considered as
read and open to amendment at any point under a special ``modified
closed rule'' permitting germane amendments only to certain
portions of titles
but permitting committee amendments to any portion of the bill, the
Chair first recognized a Member to offer committee amendments to
title I and then recognized other Members to offer amendments to
that title.
On Aug. 7, 1974,(19) during consideration of the Federal
Election Campaign Act of 1974 (H.R. 16090) in the Committee of the
Whole, Chairman Richard Bolling, of Missouri, made the following
statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 120 Cong. Rec. 27258, 27259, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: No amendments, including any amendment in the
nature of a substitute for the bill, are in order to the bill
except the following:
In title 1: Germane amendments to subsection 101(a) proposing
solely to change the money amounts contained in said subsection,
providing they have been printed in the Congressional Record at
least 1 calendar day before being offered; and the text of the
amendment to be offered on page 13, following line 4, inserted in
the Congressional Record of August 5, 1974, by Mr. Butler.
In title 2: Germane amendments to the provisions contained on
page 33, line 17, through page 35, line 11, providing they have
been printed in the Record at least 1 calendar day before being
offered; and the amendment printed on page E5246 in the Record of
August 2, 1974.
In title 4: Germane amendments which have been printed in the
Record at least 1 calendar day before they are offered, except that
sections 401, 402, 407, 409 and 410 shall not be subject to
amendment; and the text of the amendment printed on page H7597 in
the Congressional Record of August 2, 1974.
Amendments are in order to any portion of the bill if offered
by direction of the Committee on House Administration, but said
amendments shall not be subject to amendment.
Are there any Committee on House Administration amendments to
title I?
Mr. [Frank] Thompson [Jr.] of New Jersey: Mr. Chairman, I offer
three
[[Page 9463]]
committee amendments to title I of the bill and I ask unanimous
consent that they be considered en bloc.
The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New Jersey?
There was no objection.
The Chairman: The Clerk will report the committee amendments.
The Clerk read as follows:
Committee amendments: . . .
The Chairman: The question is on the amendments offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Thompson).
The committee amendments were agreed to.
The Chairman: Are there further committee amendments to title
I?
Mr. [Pierre S.] du Pont [IV, of Delaware]: Mr. Chairman, I
offer an amendment to title I.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. du Pont: Page 2, line 16, strike
``$5,000'' and insert in lieu thereof ``$2,500''.
Mr. du Pont: Mr. Chairman, as required by the rule adopted by
the House today, my amendment was published at pages E5306 and
E5307 of yesterday's Record.
Amendment, Made in Order by Special Rule, Offered From Floor
Sec. 2.33 Pursuant to a special rule providing for the consideration of
the text of a bill as an amendment in the nature of a substitute,
to be read by titles as an original bill immediately after the
reading of the enacting clause of the bill to which offered, the
Chair recognized a Member to offer the amendment in the nature of a
substitute from the floor before it could be considered under the
rule.
On Sept. 19, 1974,(20) Chairman Thomas M. Rees, of
California, recognized James T. Broyhill, of North Carolina, who then
offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 120 Cong. Rec. 31727, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Chairman: When the Committee rose on Tuesday, September 17,
1974, all time for general debate had expired.
Pursuant to the rule, immediately after the reading of the
enacting clause, it shall be in order to consider the text of the
bill H.R. 16327 as an amendment in the nature of a substitute for
the bill, and said substitute shall be read for amendment by title.
The Clerk will read the enacting clause.
The Clerk read as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled. . . .
Mr. Broyhill of North Carolina: Mr. Chairman, under the rule, I
offer the following amendment in the nature of a substitute, which
is to the text of the bill (H.R. 7917).
[[Page 9464]]
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr.
Broyhill of North Carolina: That this Act may be cited as the
``Consumer Product Warranties-Federal Trade Commission
Improvements Act''.
TITLE I--CONSUMER PRODUCT WARRANTIES
definition
Parliamentarian's Note: Mr. Broyhill was a minority member of the
committee and had introduced the bill made in order by the rule. The
Chair recognized him when the chairman of the then Committee on
Interstate and Foreign Commerce did not immediately seek recognition.
Equal Privilege of Motions To Resolve Into Committee of Whole Pursuant
to Separate Special Rules
Sec. 2.34 Motions that the House resolve into the Committee of the
Whole for initial or further consideration of separate bills
pursuant to separate special rules adopted by the House are of
equal privilege, and the Speaker may exercise his discretionary
power of recognition as to which bill shall be next eligible for
consideration.
On Sept. 22, 1982,(1) where the Committee of the Whole
had risen following completion of general debate but prior to reading
of a bill for amendment under the five-minute rule, the Speaker Pro
Tempore indicated in response to a parliamentary inquiry that he would
exercise his power of recognition to permit consideration of another
bill, rather than return to that bill under the five-minute rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 128 Cong. Rec. 24690, 24691, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Walter B.] Jones of North Carolina: Mr. Chairman, I have
no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
The Chairman: Does the gentleman wish to make a motion at this
point?
Mr. Jones of North Carolina: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I make a motion
that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore
(Mr. Bennett) having assumed the chair, Mr. Simon, Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R.
5543) to establish an ocean and coastal resources management and
development fund and to require the Secretary of Commerce to
provide to coastal States national ocean and resources management
and development block grants from sums in the fund, had come to no
resolution thereon.
Mr. Jones of North Carolina: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry. . . .
[[Page 9465]]
Was not the bill supposed to have been read while we were
sitting in the Committee of the Whole, read for amendments? . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (2) The Committee has risen
now, and the Chair does not know of any way of automatically going
back at this point to do that. If the Committee of the Whole had
proceeded to consider the bill for amendment, it would have
conflicted with a determination made by the leadership as to the
legislative schedule, so the House should not resume consideration
of the bill anyway at this point. In other words, the leadership
had indicated that we would have general debate only today. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Charles E. Bennett (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Jones of North Carolina: Mr. Speaker, another parliamentary
inquiry, or statement. I was assured by the leadership that if
there were no amendments, we would conclude the bill. I do not
anticipate any amendments. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Committee of the Whole has risen.
There is nothing in a parliamentary way the House could do to
reserve consideration except to consider a motion to resolve into
the Committee of the Whole for the further consideration of the
bill.
Mr. Jones of North Carolina: A parliamentary inquiry, Mr.
Speaker. Would I have the privilege as the Chairman of this
committee to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee
once again?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: . . . Somebody has sent for the
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), who will make a motion of
equal privilege to arrive, and he is undoubtedly on his way. The
Chair would be glad to respond to any further conversation that the
gentleman would want to have on this subject which would be in
order, until the gentleman arrives. . . .
The Chair is following the wishes of the leadership and,
therefore, would not recognize any Member for the purpose of moving
that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole for
further consideration of the bill at this time. . . .
The gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) has now arrived, and
he is recognized.
Mr. [Henry A.] Waxman [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I move that
the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R.
6173) to amend the Public Health Service Act.
Special Rule for Consideration of Budget Resolution
Sec. 2.35 A resolution reported from the Committee on Rules provided
for consideration at any time in Committee of the Whole of the
concurrent resolution containing not only targets for aggregates
and functional categories for the ensuing fiscal year and revisions
of the second budget resolution for the present fiscal year (as
contemplated by then section 3(a)(4) of the Congressional Budget
Act), but also containing binding
[[Page 9466]]
reconciliation instructions for two future fiscal years (thereby
destroying any privilege under section 305(a)); incorporated
procedures applicable to consideration of privileged budget
resolutions; made in order specified amendments, to be considered
in a certain order and all to be in order even if previous
amendments to the same portion of the resolution had been adopted;
and made in order amendments to achieve mathematical consistency
pursuant to section 305(a) of the Budget Act; and provided that if
more than one amendment in the nature of a substitute were adopted,
only the last would be reported to the House.
The following proceedings occurred in the House on Apr. 30, 1981:
(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 127 Cong. Rec. 7993, 8003, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Richard] Bolling [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, by direction
of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 134 and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 134
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution it shall be in order to move that the House resolve
itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of
the Union for the consideration of the concurrent resolution
(H. Con. Res. 115) revising the congressional budget for the
United States Government for the fiscal year 1981 and setting
forth the congressional budget for the United States Government
for the fiscal years 1982, 1983, and 1984, and the first
reading of the resolution shall be dispensed with. The
provisions of subsection 305(a) of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974 and rule XXIII, clause 8,(4) of the Rules of
the House of Representatives shall apply during the
consideration of the concurrent resolution in the House and in
the Committee of the Whole: Provided, however, That no
amendment to the resolution shall be in order except the
following amendments, which shall be considered only in the
following order if offered, which shall all be in order even if
previous amendments to the same portion of the concurrent
resolution have been adopted, and which shall not be subject to
amendment except pro forma amendments for the purpose of
debate: (1) an amendment printed in the Congressional Record of
April 29, 1981, by, and if offered by, Representative Hefner of
North Carolina . . . (3) the amendment in the nature of a
substitute printed in the Congressional Record of April 29,
1981, by, and if offered by, Representative Obey of Wisconsin;
and (4) the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in
the Congres
[[Page 9467]]
sional Record of April 29, 1981, by, and if offered by,
Representative Latta of Ohio. It shall also be in order to
consider the amendment or amendments provided for in section
305(a)(6) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 necessary to
achieve mathematical consistency. If more than one of the
amendments in the nature of a substitute made in order by this
resolution have been adopted, only the last such amendment
which has been adopted shall be considered as having been
finally adopted and reported back to the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. The applicability of these provisions made it unnecessary to write
a complete rule for consideration, since they provided that the
resolution be considered as having been read and the previous
question be considered as ordered on final adoption without
intervening motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: (5) The gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Bolling) is recognized for 1 hour.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
6. See Ch. 13, Sec. 21, supra, for detailed discussion of procedures
under the Congressional Budget Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: The right of the Budget Committee to file
privileged reports and to call them up (under clause 4(a), Rule XI and
section 305(a)(1) of the Budget Act) extends only to concurrent
resolutions on the budget as defined in section 3 subsection (4) and
section 301(a) of that Act. The inclusion of reconciliation
instructions directing changes in entitlements and in spending for
ensuing fiscal years was considered to have destroyed the privilege of
the concurrent resolution in the above instance because going beyond
the scope of the concurrent resolution as prescribed by the Budget Act.
The current section 301 of the Budget Act has enlarged the scope of the
concurrent resolution on the budget.
Point of Order Under Budget Act
Sec. 2.36 It is not in order to consider an amendment, including an
amendment recommended in a conference report, which provides new
entitlement authority to become effective before the first day of
the fiscal year
beginning in the calendar
year in which the bill was
reported, under section 401(b)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act
(Public Law 93-344).
During consideration of H.R. 10339 (Farmer-to-Consumer Direct
Marketing Act of 1976) in the House on Sept. 23, 1976,(7)
the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 122 Cong. Rec. 32099, 32100, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Joseph P.] Vigorito [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I call
up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 10339) to encourage the
direct marketing of agricultural commodities from farmers to
consumers. . . .
Mr. [John H.] Rousselot [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I make a
point of order. . . .
Section 401(b)(1) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment
Control Act (Public Law 93-344) provides as follows:
[[Page 9468]]
(b) Legislation Providing Entitlement Authority.--
(1) It shall not be in order in either the House of
Representatives
or the Senate to consider any bill
or resolution which provides new spending authority described
in subsection (c)(2)(C) (or any amendment which provides such
new spending authority) which is to become effective before the
first day of the fiscal year which begins during the calendar
year in which such bill or resolution is reported.
The text of the conference agreement as set forth in the
amendment adding a new section 8 is as follows:
emergency hay program
Sec. 8. In carrying out any emergency hay program for
farmers or ranchers in any area of the United States under
section 305 of the Disaster Relief Act of 1974 because of an
emergency or major disaster in such area, the President shall
direct the Secretary of Agriculture to pay 80 percent of the
cost of transporting hay (not to exceed $50 per ton) from areas
in which hay is in plentiful supply to the area in which such
farmers or ranchers are located. The provisions of this section
shall expire on October 1, 1977.
It is clear from a literal reading of this proposed language
that certain livestock owners will be entitled to a hay subsidy
immediately upon enactment of this bill. . . .
In any event it is a new spending authority effective before
October 1, 1976, which marks the beginning of fiscal year 1977 but
occurs in the calendar year in which the conference report is being
called up in the House. . . .
Mr. Vigorito: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that if this
program is an entitlement program under section 401 of the Budget
Act, the funding could not be given an authorization in this bill
until the beginning of the next fiscal year, or, in this case,
October 1, 1976. If that is the case, I would think that we could
develop legislative intent here in that none of the funding would
begin in this bill until fiscal year 1977. As a practical matter,
the bill will probably not have cleared the President prior to that
time, anyway, and consequently we will not be delaying the impact
of the bill for any substantial length of time. We have less than a
week before October 1 comes about. . . .
The Speaker: (8) The Chair is having difficulty with
the argument made by the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania,
because, as the Chair understands it, theoretically and legally it
would be possible to begin the payments before October 1, 1976,
which would be in violation of the Budget . . . Control Act, as the
entitlement to those payments might vest prior to October 1. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair thinks that under the present circumstances he should
insist that the gentleman consider another procedure, because he
thinks it can be worked out. Therefore, the Chair must sustain the
point of order. . . .
The conference report is no longer before the House. The
gentleman can dispose of the Senate amendments under another
procedure.
Parliamentarian's Note: When a conference report is ruled out on a
point of order, the Chair directs the Clerk to report the Senate
[[Page 9469]]
amendments remaining in disagreement for disposition by motion. The
above conference report having been ruled out on a point of order, the
House subsequently adopted a privileged motion to recede and concur
with an amendment which postponed the effectiveness of the entitlement
until after the commencement of the fiscal year beginning in the
calendar year in which the bill had been reported.
Sec. 2.37 Section 303(a) of the Congressional Budget Act prohibits the
consideration in either House of any bill or amendment thereto
(including a conference report) containing ``new spending
(entitlement) authority'' which becomes effective during a fiscal
year prior to the adoption of the first concurrent resolution on
the budget for that fiscal year; and a conference report containing
new spending ``entitlement'' authorities to become effective in
fiscal years 1978-1980 in amounts increased over fiscal year 1977
was ruled out on a point of order under that section, since the
first concurrent resolutions on the budget for those future fiscal
years had not yet been adopted and the increased entitlements could
not be considered merely continuations of entitlement authority
which became effective in the fiscal year (1977) for which a
concurrent resolution had been adopted.
The definition of new spending ``entitlement'' authority contained
in section 401(c)(2)(C) of the Congressional Budget Act (and
incorporated by reference into the prohibition in section 303(a)
against consideration of future year entitlement bills and amendments)
includes revenue sharing spending authority in the form of
entitlements, as the exception from the definition of new spending
authority accorded to revenue sharing programs in section 401(d)(2)
does not apply to new ``entitlement'' authority for future fiscal years
but only to entitlements immediately vesting as defined in section
401(c)(2)(C). A ruling by the Speaker to such effect was made on Sept.
30, 1976: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 122 Cong. Rec. 34074-76, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Jack] Brooks [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I call up the
conference report on the bill (H.R. 13367) to extend and amend the
State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972, and for other
purposes, and ask unanimous consent that the statement of the
managers be read in lieu of the report.
[[Page 9470]]
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
A portion of the conference report was as follows:
sec. 5. extension of program and funding.
(a) In General.--Section 105 (relating to funding for
revenue sharing) is amended. . . .
(3) by inserting immediately after subsection (b) the
following new subsection:
``(c) Authorization of Appropriations for Entitlements.--
``(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated
to the Trust Fund to pay the entitlements hereinafter
provided--
``(A) for the period beginning January 1, 1977, and ending
September 30, 1977, $4,987,500,000; and
``(B) for each of the fiscal years beginning October 1 of
1977, 1978, and 1979, $6,850,000,000.
``(2) Noncontiguous states adjustment amounts.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to the Trust Fund to pay the
entitlements hereinafter provided--
``(A) for the period beginning January 1, 1977, and ending
September 30, 1977, $3,585,000; and
``(B) for each of the fiscal years beginning on October 1
of 1977, 1978, and 1979, $4,923,759.''; and
(4) by inserting ``; authorizations for entitlements'' in
the heading of such section immediately after
``appropriations''. . . .
Mr. [Brock] Adams [of Washington]: Mr. Speaker, I raise a point
of order against the conference agreement on H.R. 13367, to extend
the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972. The conference
agreement contains a provision, not included in the House bill,
which provides new spending authority for fiscal years 1978 and
1979 over the amounts provided for fiscal year 1977. This new
entitlement increment for succeeding fiscal years violates section
303(a) of the Congressional Budget Act which provides in part:
It shall not be in order in either the House of
Representatives or the Senate to consider any bill or
resolution (or amendment thereto) which provides-- . . . new
spending authority described in section 401 (c)(2)(C) to become
effective during a fiscal year . . . until the first concurrent
resolution on the budget for such year has been agreed to
pursuant to section 301.
By increasing the fiscal year 1978 entitlement by $200 million
over the amounts for fiscal year 1977, H.R. 13367 does provide new
spending authority to become effective for a fiscal year for which
a budget resolution has not been adopted. It would thereby allow
that new spending increment to escape the scrutiny of the fiscal
year 1978 budget process. While section 303 provides an exception
for new budget authority and revenue changes for a succeeding
fiscal year, entitlement programs were expressly omitted from the
exception by the House-Senate conference on the Congressional
Budget Act.
Mr. [Frank] Horton [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I rise in
opposition to the point of order.
The applicable provision of the Budget Act in this matter
concerns section 303(d)(1). This provision provides an exception
for any bills on the full fiscal year for which the current
resolution applies. The $200 million increase contained in the
conference report begins in fiscal year 1978, the next fiscal year
beyond 1977, the year for which our present budget resolution
applies.
[[Page 9471]]
The $200 million increase, since it begins in fiscal year 1978,
technically conforms with the Budget Act and deserves to be
retained in the conference report. I might say to the membership
that in making this point of order, this was brought up in the
conference and we purposely did not provide for any increase in
fiscal year 1977. We purposely skipped the first three-quarters. We
agreed upon a term of 3\3/4\ years for the Revenue Sharing Act to
be in effect, but we skipped the first three-quarter year and
applied a $200 million increment for the first fiscal year
thereafter, namely, 1978, and for each of the 3 years subsequent
thereto; or a total of $600 million. So, we purposely skipped this
fiscal year 1977 so that we would not violate the budget
resolution. . . .
Mr. Adams: Mr. Speaker, in response to the comments made by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Horton), the provision that he refers
to regards new budget authority, not entitlement programs where
there is a reference over to the Committee on Appropriations and it
is controlled in that fashion. This committee in its wisdom and the
vote of the House was that this should be an entitlement program,
and the violation is to the budget statute and process. We have
applied this to all other committees of the House, that entitlement
programs for the fiscal year, where we are changing the
entitlement--and we have had this come up before--must be
considered in the budget resolution for the fiscal year involved.
This committee wishes for fiscal year 1978 to bring forth something
for fiscal year 1978 that can be done in the budget cycle of that
year. But it is out of order to bring it up and try to put it into
the process at this point. . . .
Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, I refer to Public
Law 93-344 of the 93d Congress which was enacted July 12, 1974, and
I refer to page 22 of that legislation, section 401(d)(2). Section
401(d) is entitled ``Exceptions.'' Subsection (d)(2), under
``Exceptions,'' says as follows:
Subsections (a) and (b) shall not apply to new spending
authority which is an amendment to or extension of the State
and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972, or a continuation of
the program of fiscal assistance to State and local governments
provided by that Act,''--meaning the Local Fiscal Assistance
Act of 1972--``to the extent so provided in the bill or
resolution providing such authority.
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me clearly designed in that
legislation that the Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972 was meant
to contain an exception from the entitlement procedure, a procedure
which was in fact used in that legislation of 1972, the first
Revenue Sharing Act, and I see no other way to read it except that
we would provide an exception to sections 401 (a) and (b) in
accordance with the legislation that the Congress previously
passed.
The act provides--and this is what the conference provided
for--an entitlement, and the entitlement is in fact both an
authorization and an appropriation. It provided for the funds for
that purpose into the future. For the first year it did not result
in any breaking of the Budget Resolution passed by this House in
accordance with the Committee on the Budget.
So, Mr. Speaker, I see no way by which the extension of the
Revenue
[[Page 9472]]
Sharing Act could be prohibited, because this exemption which was
provided is in the law. . . .
The Speaker: (10) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Adams) makes a point of
order against the conference report on the bill H.R. 13367 on the
ground that section 5(a) of the conference report provides new
spending authority and entitlement increment for fiscal years 1978
and 1979 over the amounts provided for in fiscal year 1977, in
violation of section 303(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974.
The gentleman from New York (Mr. Horton) and the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Brown) rebut this argument by contending that a mere
incremental increase in an entitlement for subsequent fiscal years
is not new spending authority as prescribed in section 401(c)(2)(C)
to become effective during the subsequent fiscal years, but rather,
a continuation of the spending authority for fiscal year 1977,
which is permitted under section 303(a).
The Chair has examined the conference report, and section 5(a)
is structured so as to provide separate authorization for
entitlement payments for each of the fiscal years 1977, 1978, and
1979, with a higher authorization for 1978 and 1979 than for 1977.
In the opinion of the Chair, such a separate increase in
entitlement authorizations is new spending authority to become
effective during those subsequent fiscal years, which may not be
included in a bill or an amendment prior to the adoption of the
first concurrent resolution for fiscal years 1978 and 1979, which
does not come within the exception contained in section 303(b) for
new budget authority, and which does not come within the section
401(d) revenue-sharing exception--applicable only to . . . spending
authority as defined in subsections (a) and (b) of section 401(c)--
cited by the gentleman from Ohio.
The Chair therefore sustains the point of order against the
conference report.
Special Rule Waiving Provisions of Budget Act
Sec. 2.38 By special rule, the House can waive the various provisions
of the Budget Act which would otherwise prohibit consideration of
an authorization bill, conference report, or appropriation bill.
For an example of a special rule waiving points of order against a
bill authorizing new budget authority, see H. Res. 355, considered on
Nov. 4, 1983.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 129 Cong. Rec. 30925, 98th Cong. 1st Sess. See Ch. 13, Sec. 21,
supra, for discussion of the Congressional Budget Act
generally.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Gillis W.] Long of Louisiana: Mr. Speaker, by direction of
the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 355 and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 355
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the
[[Page 9473]]
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.
4196) to stabilize a temporary imbalance in the supply and
demand for dairy products. . . . All points of order against
the consideration of the bill for failure to comply with the
provisions of section 402(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974 (Public Law 93-344) are hereby waived, and all points of
order against the bill for failure to comply with the
provisions of clause 5, rule XXI are hereby waived. . . .
On July 31, 1981,(12) a special rule, H. Res. 203
provided for a waiver of points of order against consideration of a
conference report on the budget.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 127 Cong. Rec. 18872, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Richard] Bolling [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, by direction
of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 203 and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 203
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4331)
to amend the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1981 to restore
minimum benefits under the Social Security Act. . . . After the
disposition of H.R. 4331, it shall be in order to consider, any
rule of the House to the contrary notwithstanding, the
conference report on the bill (H.R. 3982) to provide for
reconciliation pursuant to section 301 of the first concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1982, said conference
report shall be considered as having been read and shall be
debatable for not to exceed two hours, equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on the Budget, and all points of order against said
conference report are hereby waived.
The proceedings of Feb. 9, 1982,(13) also related to the
waiver of points of order under the Budget Act. The special rule agreed
to on that day waived points of order against initial consideration of
two special appropriation bills containing new budget authority and
outlays in excess of the ceiling in the second concurrent resolution in
the budget for the current fiscal year, and waived the same points of
order against consideration of conference reports thereon if not in
excess of total budget authority and outlays contained in the joint
resolutions as initially reported to the House by the Committee on
Appropriations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 128 Cong. Rec. 1263, 1264, 1270, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Richard] Bolling [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, by direction
of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 355 and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 355
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order
[[Page 9474]]
to consider, section 311(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974 (Public Law 93-344) to the contrary notwithstanding, the
following joint resolutions: H.J. Res. 389, making an urgent
supplemental appropriation for the fiscal year ending September
30, 1982, for the Department of Agriculture, and H.J. Res. 391,
making an urgent supplemental appropriation for the Department
of Labor for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1982. It
shall be in order to consider, section 311(a) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to the contrary
notwithstanding, a conference report on either of said joint
resolutions if the report does not provide budget authority in
excess of that provided by the joint resolution as reported to
the House by the Committee on Appropriations and if the report
would not cause budget outlays to exceed the budget outlays
which would be caused by the joint resolution as reported to
the House by the Committee on Appropriations.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. For a similar resolution relating to appropriations for the
Department of Health and Human Services, see Id. at pp. 1270,
1271 (H. Res. 356).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (15) The gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Bolling) is recognized for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Benjamin S. Rosenthal (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Bolling: . . . Section 311(a) of the Budget Act prohibits
the consideration of any bill, resolution, amendment or conference
report providing additional new budget or spending authority that
would result in the breach of the ceiling of total new budget
authority or total budget outlays set forth in the most recently
agreed to concurrent resolution on the budget for the current
fiscal year.
Yesterday, the Committee on the Budget, as required by section
311(b) of the Budget Act, certified to the Speaker the current
level of spending. These current level estimates indicate that
there is some $4.4 billion in budget authority under the ceiling
set forth in Senate Concurrent Resolution 50, the second budget
resolution agreed to by the House on December 10, 1981. Outlays are
some $42.8 billion in excess of the ceiling already. Consequently,
the urgent supplemental appropriation bills for the Commodity
Credit Corporation and the employment services portion of the
unemployment compensation bill would breech the ceilings set forth
in the second budget resolution. Without the waivers, the
appropriation bills would be subject to a point of order and the
House could be prevented from considering these critical matters.
The rule waives section 311(a) of the Budget Act against the
initial consideration of the two joint resolutions by the House. It
would further provide for a waiver of the same section of the
Budget Act against consideration of any conference report on either
of the resolutions provided that the conference report figures do
not exceed the budget authority of or outlays resulting from the
joint resolutions as they were reported from the House Committee on
Appropriations. In other words, to expedite consideration of these
matters, the Rules Committee proposes to grant waivers to the
conference reports in advance, but only so long as the figures in
the bills are not increased beyond the levels as reported from
committee.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Parliamentarian's Note: Although points of order under the Budget
Act are waived, points of order under the standing rules of the
House may be available unless they are also specifically
waived.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 9475]]
Sec. 2.39 By unanimous consent, the House agreed to consider (prior to
the stage of disagreement) a motion in the House to concur in a
Senate amendment to a special appropriation bill without
intervening motion and to waive all points of order against
consideration of the Senate amendment, which contained new budget
authority in excess of the ceiling established by the second
concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal 1982, in violation
of section 311 of the Congressional Budget Act.
On Feb. 10, 1982,(17) the following proceedings occurred
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 128 Cong. Rec. 1462, 1463, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [James C.] Wright [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that it shall be in order today or any day
thereafter, any rule of the House to the contrary notwithstanding,
to consider a motion in the House to take from the Speaker's table
the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 389) making an urgent supplemental
appropriation for the Department of Agriculture for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 1982, with the Senate amendment thereto, and
to concur in said Senate amendment, and that the previous question
shall be considered as ordered on said motion to final adoption
without intervening motion. . . .
Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to the unanimous-consent request just granted, I move to take from
the Speaker's table the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 389) making an
urgent supplemental appropriation for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 1982, for the Department of Agriculture, with a
Senate amendment thereto and concur in the Senate amendment.
The Clerk read the Senate amendment, as follows:
Senate amendment: Page 1, after line 12, insert:
Sec. 2. (a) The following sum is appropriated, out of any
money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 1982, namely: . . .
For an additional amount for ``Low Income Energy
Assistance'', $123,000,000.
(b) None of the funds appropriated under this joint
resolution shall be used, obligated, or expended for the
purposes of section 2604(f), 2605(k), 2607(b)(1), or 2607(b)(2)
of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981.
The Speaker: (18) The gentleman from Mississippi
(Mr. Whitten) is recognized for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: The Senate amendment contained the text of
a separate House-passed urgent supplemental appropriation (H.J. Res.
392) against which points of order under section 311 of the Budget Act
had been sepa
[[Page 9476]]
rately waived during initial consideration in the House.
Amendment Striking Out Rescission as Causing New Authority To Exceed
Limit
Sec. 2.40 Section 311(a) of the Budget Act precluding any amendment
``providing additional new budget authority'' which would cause the
appropriate level of total new budget authority or budget outlays
to be exceeded has been interpreted to prohibit consideration of an
amendment striking out a rescission of existing budget authority
where its effect is to increase the net total new budget authority
in the bill (an amount calculated by offsetting rescissions in the
bill against new appropriations).
Where an appropriation bill already contained new budget outlays in
excess of the total level permitted by the applicable second concurrent
resolution on the budget for that fiscal year, but was permitted to be
considered by a waiver of section 311(a) of the Budget Act, an
amendment striking out a proposed rescission of existing budget
authority, which had the effect of causing the net total new budget
authority in the bill to be increased, was ruled out in violation of
section 311(a), as further exceeding the total outlay ceiling in the
second budget resolution. The proceedings of May
12, 1981,(19) during consideration
of H.R. 3512, supplemental and
continuing appropriations, rescissions, and deferrals for fiscal 1981,
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 127 Cong. Rec. 9314, 9315, 97th Cong. 1st Sess. For discussion of
the Congressional Budget Act, see Ch. 13, Sec. 21, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
payments in lieu of taxes
(rescission)
Of the funds appropriated under this head in the Interior
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1981 (Public Law 96-
514) and previous Interior Department Appropriations Acts
$108,000,000 are rescinded.
Mr. [Manuel] Lujan [Jr., of New Mexico]: Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Lujan: Page 57 strike out line 7
through line 12.
Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a
point of order against the amendment. . . .
Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his point of
order.
Mr. Yates: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the
amendment.
I make a point of order against the gentleman's amendment
because it
[[Page 9477]]
provides additional budget authority and budget outlays in excess
of the budget authority and budget outlay totals agreed to in the
latest concurrent budget resolution and is in violation of section
311 of the Congressional Budget Act (Public Law 93-344).
The gentleman's amendment proposes to delete language (to
reduce an amount) in the bill which has the effect of providing
budget authority and budget outlays in excess of the current budget
ceilings for fiscal year 1981. Section 311 of the Congressional
Budget Act states that it shall not be in order to consider any
amendment providing additional budget authority or spending
authority the adoption of which would cause the appropriate level
of total budget authority of total budget outlays set forth in the
most recently agreed to concurrent resolution on the budget to be
exceeded.
As we all know, on March 18, 1981, Mr. Jones, chairman of the
House Budget Committee, placed in the Congressional Record the
reestimates of budget authority and budget outlays required of him
by the Congressional Budget Act which indicate that the fiscal year
1981 budget authority ceiling has been exceeded by $19.6 billion
and the budget outlay ceiling has been exceeded by $27.6 billion.
The House has recently passed a measure adjusting those ceilings
upward but that measure must still be worked out in conference with
the Senate.
With these reestimates in place and in the absence of a new
resolution having been agreed to raising these ceilings, there is
no room left to provide any additional budget authority or outlays.
In fact, these budget levels are currently in deficit by billions
of dollars.
The gentleman's amendment therefore exceeds the current budget
ceilings and is in violation of section 311 of the Congressional
Budget Act. It is out of order.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: Does the gentleman from New Mexico
care to respond to the point of order?
Mr. Lujan: I would like to address the point of order; I
certainly would, Mr. Chairman.
What the gentleman says is absolutely correct, but I think we
are forgetting one fact here. The previous amendment that just
passed reduced that budget amount by $376 million. Certainly, $108
million would fit very nicely under that figure of $376 million.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair is prepared to rule. The
amendment offered by the gentleman from New Mexico proposes to
strike a rescission of funds contained in the bill.
The amendment, by striking the amount of the rescission in the
bill, has the effect of increasing the net amount of new budget
authority contained in the bill as a whole, and also has the
obvious effect of increasing total outlay levels further above the
ceiling currently in place for fiscal year 1981, contained in House
Concurrent Resolution 448 of the 96th Congress. As indicated in the
letter from the Budget Committee to the Speaker inserted in the
Record of March 18, 1981, the outlay ceiling for fiscal year 1981
as of that date had already been exceeded by $27 billion: Thus,
despite adoption of the prior amendment, the amendment falls within
the prohibition stated in section 311 of the Budget Act, as
indicated in a ruling by the Pre
[[Page 9478]]
siding Officer in the other body on June 27, 1980, wherein an
attempt was made to reduce a rescission in last year's supplemental
appropriation bill.
The Chair, therefore, sustains the point of order raised by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates).
Parliamentarian's Note: Amendments which propose to strike out
rescissions of existing budget authority arguably do not technically
provide additional new budget authority (since the original
appropriation was presumably accrued as new budget authority); but
because they were calculated to offset new budget authority in the bill
under consideration in determining the total amount of new budget
authority and outlays, it was considered advisable to interpret them as
covered by section 311(a).
Motion To Postpone Consideration
Sec. 2.41 A motion to postpone consideration of a measure being
considered in the House is in order after the measure is under
consideration but before the mana-ger has been recognized to
control debate thereon (the measure being ``under debate'' within
the meaning of clause 4, Rule XVI, and the Member in charge not
being taken from the floor).
On May 30, 1980,(20) during consideration of House Joint
Resolution 554 (supplemental Feder-al Trade Commission appropria-tion
for fiscal year 1980) in the
House, the following proceedings
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 126 Cong. Rec. 12821, 12822, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to the rule adopted a few moments ago, I call up the joint
resolution (H.J. Res. 554) making an appropriation for the Federal
Trade Commission for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1980, for
consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the joint resolution, as follows:
H.J. Res. 554
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
following sum is ap-propriated . . . for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 1980. . . .
Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Ashbrook moves to postpone further consideration of
House Joint Resolution 554 until June 10, 1980.
Mr. Whitten: Mr. Speaker, I move that the motion offered by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ashbrook) be laid on the table.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (1) The question is on the
motion to table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Michael L. Synar (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced
that the ayes appeared to have it. . . .
[[Page 9479]]
[T]he motion to table the motion to postpone consideration was
agreed to.
Parliamentarian's Note: Under clause 4, Rule XVI, all the motions
except the motion to amend may be made in the House after consideration
of a measure has begun and before the Member in charge has control of
the floor. An amendment may not be offered until the Member in charge
yields the floor for that purpose or the previous question is voted
down.
Disapproval Resolutions Under Statute--Motion To Postpone Motion To
Resolve Into Committee of Whole
Sec. 2.42 Although a motion that the House resolve itself into
Committee of the Whole is not ordinarily subject to the motion to
postpone indefinitely,(2) the motion may be offered
pursuant to the provisions of a statute, enacted under the
rulemaking power of the House, which allows such a motion in the
consideration of a resolution disapproving a certain executive
action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. See 6 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 726.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Aug. 18, 1982,(3) the House adopted a motion to
postpone indefinitely a motion to resolve into the Committee of the
Whole for the consideration of a resolution, reported adversely by the
Committee on Ways and Means, disapproving extension of presidential
authority to waive freedom of emigration requirements affecting re.
Romania, pursuant to section 152(d) of the Trade Act of
1974,(4) thereby approving extension of presidential
authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 128 Cong. Rec. 21934, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
4. Public Law 93-618, 88 Stat. 1980.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Sam M.] Gibbons [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
section 152(d)(1) of the Trade Act of 1974, I move that the House
resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State
of the Union for immediate consideration of the resolution (H. Res.
521), disapproving extension of Presidential authority to waive
freedom of emigration requirements with respect to the Socialist
Republic of Romania.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
Mr. [Bill] Frenzel [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
section 152(d)(3) of the Trade Act of 1974, I move that
consideration of House Resolution 521 be postponed indefinitely.
The Speaker: (5) The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Frenzel).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The motion was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The Speaker: The matter is postponed.
Similarly, on Mar. 10, 1977,(6) the House had adopted a
motion
[[Page 9480]]
to postpone indefinitely a motion to resolve into the Committee of the
Whole for the consideration
of a resolution, reported adversely
by the Committee on Ways and Means, disapproving a presidential
determination denying import relief to the United States honey
industry, pursuant to section 152(d)(1) and (d)(3) of the Trade Act of
1974:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 123 Cong. Rec. 7021, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Charles A.] Vanik [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
section 152(d)(1) of the Trade Act of 1974, I move that the House
resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State
of the Union for the consideration of House Concurrent Resolution
80, to disapprove the determination of the President denying import
relief under the Trade Act of 1974 to the U.S. honey industry.
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
Mr. [William A.] Steiger [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to section 152(d)(3) of the Trade Act of 1974, I move to postpone
indefinitely the motion that the House resolve itself into the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the
consideration of House Concurrent Resolution 80.
Mr. Vanik: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the
House for 1 minute before we proceed.
The Speaker: (7) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Ohio?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
Mr. Vanik: Mr. Speaker, on February 9 the Subcommittee on Trade
ordered that House Concurrent Resolution 80 be reported unfavorably
to the full committee. House Concurrent Resolution 80 provides for
congressional disapproval of the determination by the President not
to provide import relief to the U.S. honey industry under section
203 of the Trade Act of 1974. . . .
The Speaker: The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Steiger).
The motion was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Parliamentarian's Note: Section 152(d)(3) of the Trade Act, like a
number of other statutes providing privileged procedures for
consideration of legislative disapproval measures, states: ``Motions to
postpone, made in the House of Representatives with respect to the
consideration of a resolution, and motions to proceed to the
consideration of other business, shall be decided without debate.''
Since resolutions of disapproval under the Trade Act, as well as most
other disapproval resolutions, require consideration in Committee of
the Whole, it is clear that the subsection requires the motion to
postpone to be applicable to the motion to resolve into the Committee
of the Whole.
Sec. 2.43 Although the motion to postpone is not ordinarily
[[Page 9481]]
applicable to a motion that the House resolve itself into the
Committee of the Whole, the motion to resolve into the Committee
may be postponed indefinitely where a statute (8)
enacted under the rulemaking power of the House of Representatives
accords privilege to the motion to resolve into the Committee of
the Whole for consideration of matters specified in the statute and
allows a motion to postpone in the House with respect to such
consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Trade Act of 1974, section 152(d)(1) and (d)(3), Pub. L. 93-618.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Aug. 3, 1977,(9) the follow-ing proceedings occurred
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 123 Cong. Rec. 26528, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Charles A.] Vanik [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
section 152(d)(1) of the Trade Act of 1974, I move that the House
resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State
of the Union for the consideration of House Resolution 653, to
disapprove the recommendation of the President to extend the
authority in section 402(c) of the Trade Act of 1974 with respect
to the Socialist Republic of Romania for an additional 12 months.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 653
Resolved, That the House of Representatives does not
approve the extension of the authority contained in section
402(c) of the Trade Act of 1974 recommended by the President to
the Congress on June 3, 1977, with respect to the Socialist
Republic of Romania.
Mr. [William A.] Steiger [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Steiger moves, pursuant to section 152(d)(3) of the
Trade Act of 1974, to postpone indefinitely the motion that the
House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union for the consideration of House
Resolution 653.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (10) The question is on the
preferential motion offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Steiger).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr.
Ashbrook) there were--ayes 149, noes 33. . . .
So the preferential motion was agreed to.
--Three-day Layover Requirement Not Applicable to Consideration of
Disapproval Resolution
Sec. 2.44 A motion to resolve into Committee of the Whole for
consideration of a concurrent resolution disapproving an agency
action is highly privileged and may be of
[[Page 9482]]
fered before the third day on which a report thereon is available,
since, under an exception now contained in Rule XI, the requirement
of clause 2(l)(6) of that rule that committee reports be available
to Members for three days is not applicable to
a measure disapproving a
decision by a government agency.
On May 26, 1982,(11) a motion was made, pursuant to
section 21(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Improvements
Act,(12) for consideration of a concurrent resolution
disapproving a rule promulgated by the Federal Trade Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 128 Cong. Rec. 12027, 12028, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
12. 15 U.S.C. 57a-1(b)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
the provisions of section 21(b) of Public Law 96-252, I move that
the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union for the consideration of the Senate
concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 60) disapproving the Federal
Trade Commission trade regulation rule relating to the sale of used
motor vehicles; and pending that motion, Mr. Speaker, I move that
general debate on the Senate concurrent resolution be limited to
not to exceed 2 hours, 1 hour to be controlled by the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Florio) and 1 hour to be controlled by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Lee). . . .
Mr. [Benjamin S.] Rosenthal [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I make
a point of order against consideration of this concurrent
resolution on the ground that it violates subsection 6 of section
715, which in essence requires a 3-day layover of the matter under
consideration. The rule says:
Nor shall it be in order to consider any measure or matter
reported by any committee unless copies of such report and
reported measure have been available to the Members for at
least three calendar days.
There is no report available, Mr. Speaker, to the members of
the committee or the Members of the House in this matter under
consideration, and therefore it would be in violation of the rules
to consider it. I am very much aware, Mr. Speaker, that there is an
additional paragraph under the rule which says: ``The subparagraph
shall not apply to two exceptions.''
In other words, there are two exceptions under which the 3-day
layover and requirement that a report is necessary can be waived. .
. .
The second section, subsection (b) says:
Any decision, determination or action by a government
agency which would become or continue to be effective unless
disapproved or otherwise invalidated by one or both Houses of
Congress.
Now, I am assuming, Mr. Speaker, that the proponents of the
resolution under consideration would suggest that the waiver
provision of section (b) would apply to the matter under
consideration, and they would suggest that the Federal Trade
Commission is
[[Page 9483]]
a Government agency in the common parlance of what is a Government
agency. . . . The point that I make in support of my point of order
is that in the House rules the definition of a Government agency
has traditionally been that of an executive branch agency, not a
quasi-judicial commission, such as the Federal Trade Commission. .
. .
The Speaker: (13) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rosenthal), makes the point of
order against the consideration of Senate Concurrent Resolution 60
on the ground that the report accompanying that resolution has not
been available for 3 days as required by clause 2(l)(6), rule XI.
The report from the Committee on Energy and Commerce was filed
yesterday and will be available to members during the debate, but
was not available for 3 days.
Section 21(b)(3)A of the Federal Trade Commission Improvements
Act of 1980 provided that:
When a committee has reported a concurrent resolution, it
shall be in order at any time thereafter (even though a
previous motion to the same effect has been disagreed to) to
move to proceed to the consideration of the concurrent
resolution. The motion shall be highly privileged in the House
of Representatives and shall not be debatable.
Now the Chair has consistently endeavored to interpret such
provisions of law in conjunction with clause 2(l)(6) of rule XI,
both of which are readopted as rules of the 97th Congress at the
beginning of this Congress, so as to require that Members have 3
days to read accompanying reports unless the exception contained in
clause 2(l)(6), rule XI, becomes applicable. In this case, the
Chair believes that the exception contained in that rule is
applicable, and the Chair will read the exception in relevant part:
This subparagraph shall not apply to . . . (B) any
decision, determination or action by a Government agency which
would become or continue to be, effective unless disapproved or
otherwise invalidated by one or both Houses of Congress. For
the purposes of the preceding sentence, a Government agency
includes any
department, agency, establishment, wholly owned Government
corporation, or instrumentality of the Federal Government or
the Government of the District of Columbia.
15 U.S.C. 41 establishes the Federal Trade Commission as a
``commission.'' In the opinion of the Chair, the Federal Trade
Commission is an instrumentality of the U.S. Government. The
President's budget on page 1-v45 lists the Federal Trade Commission
as an independent agency. It is agreed that the proposed FTC
regulation in question becomes effective at midnight tonight, the
expiration of the 90 calendar day period pursuant to sec. 21(a)(2)
of the act, unless disapproved by adoption of a concurrent
resolution of disapproval.
The report accompanying the Legislative Reorganization Act of
1970 which first incorporated the 3-day rule describes the
intention of the exception to the rule to apply to ``legislative
veto procedures''.
Thus the Chair rules that the exception from the 3-day rule is
applicable in the instant case and the availability
[[Page 9484]]
of the report on Senate Concurrent Resolution 60 is not a
prerequisite for the consideration of the concurrent resolution.
The Chair overrules the point of order.
CHAPTER 29
Consideration and Debate
A. INTRODUCTORY; INITIATING CONSIDERATION AND DEBATE
Sec. 3. Consideration in the Committee of the Whole
All bills on the Union Calendar must be considered in the Committee
of the Whole unless otherwise provided for by the House.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. For examples of Union Calendar bills considered in the House as in
the Committee of the Whole by unanimous consent, see Sec. 4,
infra. For the requirement of considering certain bills in the
Committee of the Whole, see Ch. 19, supra. For the duration of
debate in the Committee, see Sec. Sec. 74 et seq., infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consideration of business in the Committee of the Whole is
initiated when the House agrees to resolve into the Committee for the
purpose of such consideration pursuant to a resolution,(15)
by unanimous-consent agreement,(16) by
motion,(17) or by declaration of the Speaker pursuant to
Rule XXIII.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See Sec. 3.2, infra.
16. See Sec. Sec. 3.3, 3.4, infra.
17. See Sec. Sec. 3.10, 3.12-3.15, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule XXIII, clause (1)(b) provides: (18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. House Rules and Manual Sec. 862 (1995). This authority was first
provided in rules adopted for the 98th Congress. H. Res. 5,
Jan. 3, 1983.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After the House has adopted a special order of business
resolution reported by the Committee on Rules providing for the
consideration of a measure in the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union, the Speaker may at any time within his
discretion, when no question is pending before the House, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union for the consideration of that measure without
intervening motion, unless the resolution in question provides
otherwise.
The motion to resolve into the Committee of the Whole is not
subject to the question of consideration, the motion itself being a
test of the will of the House on the matter.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See Sec. 3.10, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The rejection by the House of the motion to resolve into the
Committee for the consideration of a particular matter does not
preclude the making of the same motion at a later time.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See Sec. Sec. 3.12, 3.13, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where a special rule adopted by the House prescribes the order of
consideration of amendments to a bill in Committee of the Whole, the
House (1) (but not the Committee of the Whole) may by
unanimous consent alter the order of consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. See 133 Cong. Rec. 11829, 100th Cong. 1st Sess., May 8, 1987
(request of Mr. Aspin).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross References
Control and distribution of time for debate in the Committee of the
Whole, see Sec. Sec. 24-34, infra.
[[Page 9485]]
Duration of debate in the Committee of the Whole, see Sec. Sec. 74-79,
infra.
Procedure as to disorderly words in the Committee of the Whole, see
Sec. 48, infra.
Recognition on bills in the Committee of the Whole, see Sec. 16, infra.
Recognition under the five-minute rule in the Committee of the Whole,
see Sec. 21, infra.
Recognition where five-minute debate has been limited in the Committee
of the Whole, see Sec. 22, infra.
Relevancy of debate in the Committee of the Whole, see Sec. Sec. 37-39,
infra. -------------------
Special Rule Providing for House Calendar Resolution in the Committee
of the Whole
Sec. 3.1 The Committee on Rules reported a resolution to the House
providing for the consideration of a House resolution, also
reported from the Committee on Rules, in the Committee of the
Whole.
On Apr. 3, 1968,(2) the Committee on Rules offered the
following resolution:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 114 Cong. Rec. 8776, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 1119
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration
of the resolution (H. Res. 1099) amending H. Res. 418, Ninetieth
Congress, to continue the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct as a permanent standing committee of the House of
Representatives, and for other purposes. After general debate,
which shall be confined to the resolution and continue not to
exceed two hours, to be equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Standards
of Official Conduct, the resolution shall be read for amendment
under the five-minute rule. At the conclusion of the consideration
of the resolution for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the resolution to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted, and the previous question shall be considered as ordered
on the resolution and amendments thereto.
--Immediate Consideration
Sec. 3.2 Upon the adoption of a resolution providing for the immediate
consideration of a bill in the Committee of the Whole, the House
resolves itself into the Committee without a motion being made from
the floor.
On Aug. 17, 1972,(3) Mr. William M. Colmer, of
Mississippi,
[[Page 9486]]
called up at the direction of the Committee on Rules House Resolution
1090, providing as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 118 Cong. Rec. 28829, 92d Cong. 2d Sess. See also Rule XXIII,
clause (b), discussed in the introduction to this section,
supra, concerning the Speaker's discretion in declaring the
House resolved into the Committee of the Whole after the House
has adopted a special rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution, clause
27(d)(4) of rule XI to the contrary notwithstanding, the House
shall immediately resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 13915) to further the achievement of equal educational
opportunities, and all points of order against said bill are hereby
waived. . . .
The bill provided for had not yet been reported from the Committee on
Education and Labor when the resolution was offered.
The House adopted the resolution, and Speaker Carl Albert, of
Oklahoma, immediately directed the House to resolve itself into the
Committee of the Whole, without the motion to resolve being made.
Unanimous-consent Request To Resolve Into Committee
Sec. 3.3 The House agreed to a unanimous-consent request that the House
resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole for the
consideration of a Senate concurrent resolution on the House
Calendar.
On June 22, 1965,(4) the House agreed to the following
unanimous-consent request for the consideration of a Senate concurrent
resolution on the House Calendar:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 111 Cong. Rec. 14400, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Dante B.] Fascell [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that the House resolve itself into the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration
of Senate Concurrent Resolution 36 expressing the sense of the
Congress with respect to the 20th anniversary of the United Nations
during International Cooperation Year, and for other purposes, and
that general debate thereon be limited to 1 hour, one-half hour to
be controlled by myself and one-half hour to be controlled by the
gentlewoman from Ohio [Mrs. Bolton].
The House agreed to the request.
Parliamentarian's Note: The Senate concurrent resolution was thus
amendable under the five-minute rule.
--Unanimous Consent To Consider Bill in Committee Under General Rules
of the House
Sec. 3.4 The House agreed to a unanimous-consent request to consider a
Union Calendar bill in Committee of the Whole ``under the general
rules of the House'' and to limit general debate in the Committee
of the Whole to one hour.
[[Page 9487]]
On Sept. 7, 1959,(5) the House agreed to the following
request by Mr. Armistead I. Selden, Jr., of Alabama, to consider a
Union Calendar bill in the Committee of the Whole under the rules of
the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 105 Cong. Rec. 18442, 18443, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Selden: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it may be
in order to consider under the general rules of the House the bill
(H.R. 9069) to provide standards for the issuance of passports, and
for other purposes; that general debate continue for not to exceed
1 hour, one-half to be controlled by myself and one-half controlled
by the ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Parliamentarian's Note: Without the adoption of the request as
stated, a unanimous-consent request for the immediate consideration of
a bill on the Union Calendar normally would result in
its consideration under the five-minute rule in the House as in the
Committee of the Whole, without general debate and under a procedure
permitting all motions available in the House. The term ``under general
rules of the House'' implies consideration in Committee of the Whole
for a Union Calendar bill.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. See also 107 Cong. Rec. 14050, 14051, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., July
31, 1961.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Objection to Unanimous-consent Request Followed by Motion To Resolve
Into Committee
Sec. 3.5 Objection having been made to a unanimous-consent request to
resolve into the Committee of the Whole for consideration on
District of Columbia Day of a bill reported from the District of
Columbia Committee and referred to the Union Calendar, a motion to
resolve into Committee was offered as privileged and was rejected.
On Aug. 11, 1964,(7) (a District of Columbia Monday) Mr.
John V. Dowdy, of Texas, called up H.R. 9774, terminating the District
of Columbia Plaza Urban Renewal Project. The bill had been on the Union
Calendar. Mr. Dowdy asked unanimous consent that the House resolve
itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union
for the consideration of the bill and asked unanimous consent that
debate on the bill be limited to one hour. Objection was made to the
request and the House then rejected a motion to resolve into the
Committee
[[Page 9488]]
of the Whole for consideration of the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 110 Cong. Rec. 18949, 18950, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motion To Resolve Into Committee--Consideration of Disapproval
Resolution
Sec. 3.6 The motion that the House resolve itself into the Committee of
the Whole for the consideration of a resolution, favorably reported
from the Committee on Government Operations, disapproving a
reorganization plan (under the Reorganization Act of 1949), was
highly privileged and could be moved by any Member.
On July 19, 1961,(8) Mr. Dante B. Fascell, of Florida,
made the following privileged motion:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 107 Cong. Rec. 12905, 12906, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the
consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 328) disapproving
Reorganization Plan No. 5 transmitted to the Congress by the
President on May 24, 1961; and pending that motion, I ask unanimous
consent that debate on the resolution may continue not to exceed 5
hours, the time to be equally divided and controlled by the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoffman] and myself.
When Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, objected, Mr. Fascell moved
that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole for the
consideration of the resolution. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, then
answered a parliamentary inquiry:
Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, under title 2,
section 204 of the public law [Pub. L. No. 81-109], paragraph (b)
provides that such a motion may be made only by a person favoring
the resolution. Is the gentleman from Florida in favor of the
resolution, or does he disfavor the resolution?
The Speaker: Under the rules, the gentleman does not have to
qualify in that respect on this particular motion.
The House agreed to the motion to resolve into the Committee.
On June 8, 1961,(9) Mr. Gross submitted the ``highly
privileged motion'' that the House resolve itself into the Committee of
the Whole for the consideration of House Resolution 303 disapproving a
reorganization plan; the resolution had been favorably reported from
the Committee on Government Operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Id. at pp. 9775-77.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The motion was rejected, but Speaker Pro Tempore Oren Harris, of
Arkansas, stated that such rejection would not preclude later
consideration of the resolution.
Parliamentarian's Note: Under the 1949 statute, a Member moving to
discharge the Government
[[Page 9489]]
Operations Committee was required to qualify as favoring the
disapproval resolution, but once that committee had reported either
favorably or adversely, any Member could call up the resolution, which
was then on the Union Calendar, by moving to go into Committee of the
Whole.
Sec. 3.7 A motion to resolve into Committee of the Whole for
consideration of a concurrent resolution disapproving an agency
action is highly privileged and may be offered before the third day
on which a report thereon is available, since, under an exception
now contained in Rule XI, the requirement of clause 2(l)(6) of that
rule that committee reports be available to Members for three days
is not applicable to a measure disapproving a decision by a
government agency.
On May 26, 1982,(10) a motion was made, pursuant to
section 21(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Improvements
Act,(11) for consideration of a concurrent resolution
disapproving a rule promulgated by the Federal Trade Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 128 Cong. Rec. 12027, 12028, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
11. 15 U.S.C. 57a-1(b)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
the provisions of section 21(b) of Public Law 96-252, I move that
the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union for the consideration of the Senate
concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 60) disapproving the Federal
Trade Commission trade regulation rule relating to the sale of used
motor vehicles; and pending that motion, Mr. Speaker, I move that
general debate on the Senate concurrent resolution be limited to
not to exceed 2 hours, 1 hour to be controlled by the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Florio) and 1 hour to be controlled by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Lee). . . .
Mr. [Benjamin S.] Rosenthal [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I make
a point of order against consideration of this concurrent
resolution on the ground that it violates subsection 6 of section
715, which in essence requires a 3-day layover of the matter under
consideration. The rule says:
Nor shall it be in order to consider any measure or matter
reported by any committee unless copies of such report and
reported measure have been available to the Members for at
least three calendar days.
There is no report available, Mr. Speaker, to the members of
the committee or the Members of the House in this matter under
consideration, and therefore it would be in violation of the rules
to consider it. I am very much aware, Mr. Speaker, that there is an
additional paragraph under the rule which says: ``The subparagraph
shall not apply to two exceptions.''
[[Page 9490]]
In other words, there are two exceptions under which the 3-day
layover and requirement that a report is necessary can be waived. .
. .
The second section, subsection (b) says:
Any decision, determination or action by a government
agency which would become or continue to be effective unless
disapproved or otherwise invalidated by one or both Houses of
Congress.
Now, I am assuming, Mr. Speaker, that the proponents of the
resolution under consideration would suggest that the waiver
provision of section (b) would apply to the matter under
consideration, and they would suggest that the Federal Trade
Commission is a Government agency in the common parlance of what is
a Government agency. . . . The point that I make in support of my
point of order is that in the House rules the definition of a
Government agency has traditionally been that of an executive
branch agency, not a quasi-judicial commission, such as the Federal
Trade Commission. . . .
The Speaker: (12) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rosenthal), makes the point of
order against the consideration of Senate Concurrent Resolution 60
on the ground that the report accompanying that resolution has not
been available for 3 days as required by clause 2(l)(6), rule XI.
The report from the Committee on Energy and Commerce was filed
yesterday and will be available to members during the debate, but
was not available for 3 days.
Section 21(b)(3)A of the Federal Trade Commission Improvements
Act of 1980 provided that:
When a committee has reported a concurrent resolution, it
shall be in order at any time thereafter (even though a
previous motion to the same effect has been disagreed to) to
move to proceed to the consideration of the concurrent
resolution. The motion shall be highly privileged in the House
of Representatives and shall not be debatable.
Now the Chair has consistently endeavored to interpret such
provisions of law in conjunction with clause 2(l)(6) of rule XI,
both of which are readopted as rules of the 97th Congress at the
beginning of this Congress, so as to require that Members have 3
days to read accompanying reports unless the exception contained in
clause 2(l)(6), rule XI, becomes applicable. In this case, the
Chair believes that the exception contained in that rule is
applicable, and the Chair will read the exception in relevant part:
This subparagraph shall not apply to . . . (B) any
decision, determination or action by a Government agency which
would become or continue to be, effective unless disapproved or
otherwise invalidated by one or both Houses of Congress. For
the purposes of the preceding sentence, a Government agency
includes any
department, agency, establishment, wholly owned Government
corporation, or instrumentality of the Federal Government or
the Government of the District of Columbia.
15 U.S.C. 41 establishes the Federal Trade Commission as a
``commission.'' In the opinion of the Chair, the Federal Trade
Commission is an instrumentality of the U.S. Government. The
President's budget on page 1-v45 lists
[[Page 9491]]
the Federal Trade Commission as an independent agency. It is agreed
that the proposed FTC regulation in question becomes effective at
midnight tonight, the expiration of the 90 calendar day period
pursuant to sec. 21(a)(2) of the act, unless disapproved by
adoption of a concurrent resolution of disapproval.
The report accompanying the Legislative Reorganization Act of
1970 which first incorporated the 3-day rule describes the
intention of the exception to the rule to apply to ``legislative
veto procedures''.
Thus the Chair rules that the exception from the 3-day rule is
applicable in the instant case and the availability of the report
on Senate Concurrent Resolution 60 is not a prerequisite for the
consideration of the concurrent resolution. The Chair overrules the
point of order.
--Motion That Committee of the Whole Be Discharged and Bill Laid on
Table Not in Order
Sec. 3.8 To a motion that the House resolve itself into the Committee
of the Whole for the consideration of a bill, a motion that the
Committee be discharged and that the bill be laid on the table is
not preferential and is not in order.
On Apr. 2, 1938,(13) Mr. John J. Cochran, of Missouri,
moved that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole for
the consideration of a bill. Mr. John J. O'Connor, of New York, then
made the following motion:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 83 Cong. Rec. 4621, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. O'Connor of New York moves that the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union be discharged from further
consideration of the bill S. 3331 and that said bill be laid on the
table.
Mr. Lindsay C. Warren, of North Carolina, made the point of order
that the motion was dilatory, and Mr. O'Connor asserted that under the
rules of the House the motion was preferential, both as to discharge
and as to laying on the table.
Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, ruled as follows:
The gentleman from New York [Mr. O'Connor] offers what he
states is a preferential motion that the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union be discharged from consideration of
the bill S. 3331, and said bill be laid on the table.
The Chair is of the opinion that under the rules of the House a
motion of this sort is not a preferential motion, and therefore not
in order. The matter now pending is a simple motion that the House
resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State
of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, and under
the precedents a motion to discharge the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union from the further consideration of a
bill is not a privileged motion.
[[Page 9492]]
The Chair sustains the point of order.
Parliamentarian's Note: The motion to go into Committee of the
Whole is not debatable and therefore not subject to the motion to lay
on the table (see 6 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 726).
Equal Privilege of Motions To Resolve Into Committee Pursuant to
Separate Special Rules
Sec. 3.9 Motions that the House resolve into the Committee of the Whole
for initial or further consideration of separate bills pursuant to
separate special rules adopted by the House are of equal privilege,
and the Speaker may exercise his discretionary power of recognition
as to which bill shall be next eligible for consideration.
On Sept. 22, 1982,(14) where the Committee of the Whole
had risen following completion of general debate but prior to reading
of a bill for amendment under the five-minute rule, the Speaker Pro
Tempore indicated in response to a parliamentary inquiry that he would
exercise his power of recognition to permit consideration of another
bill, rather than return to that bill under the five-minute rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 128 Cong. Rec. 24690, 24691, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Walter B.] Jones of North Carolina: Mr. Chairman, I have
no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
The Chairman: Does the gentleman wish to make a motion at this
point?
Mr. Jones of North Carolina: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I make a motion
that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore
(Mr. Bennett) having assumed the chair, Mr. Simon, Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R.
5543) to establish an ocean and coastal resources management and
development fund and to require the Secretary of Commerce to
provide to coastal States national ocean and resources management
and development block grants from sums in the fund, had come to no
resolution thereon.
Mr. Jones of North Carolina: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry. . . .
Was not the bill supposed to have been read while we were
sitting in the Committee of the Whole, read for amendments? . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (15) The Committee has
risen now, and the Chair does not know of any way of automatically
going back at this point to do that. If the Committee of the
[[Page 9493]]
Whole had proceeded to consider the bill for amendment, it would
have conflicted with a determination made by the leadership as to
the legislative schedule, so the House should not resume
consideration of the bill anyway at this point. In other words, the
leadership had indicated that we would have general debate only
today. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Charles E. Bennett (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Jones of North Carolina: Mr. Speaker, another parliamentary
inquiry, or statement. I was assured by the leadership that if
there were no amendments, we would conclude the bill. I do not
anticipate any amendments. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Committee of the Whole has risen.
There is nothing in a parliamentary way the House could do to
reserve consideration except to consider a motion to resolve into
the Committee of the Whole for the further consideration of the
bill.
Mr. Jones of North Carolina: A parliamentary inquiry, Mr.
Speaker. Would I have the privilege as the Chairman of this
committee to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee
once again?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: . . . Somebody has sent for the
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), who will make a motion of
equal privilege . . . and he is undoubtedly on his way. The Chair
would be glad to respond to any further conversation that the
gentleman would want to have on this subject which would be in
order, until the gentleman arrives. . . .
The Chair is following the wishes of the leadership and,
therefore, would not recognize any Member for the purpose of moving
that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole for
further consideration of the bill at this time. . . .
The gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) has now arrived, and
he is recognized.
Mr. [Henry A.] Waxman [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I move that
the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R.
6173) to amend the Public Health Service Act.
Question of Consideration Inapplicable to Motion To Resolve
Sec. 3.10 The question of consideration cannot be raised against the
motion to resolve into the Committee of the Whole for the
consideration of a proposition.
It is well established that the question of consideration may not
be raised against a motion to
resolve into Committee of the Whole. This principle is discussed in
more detail in Sec. Sec. 5.5, 5.6, infra.
Motion To Postpone--When Applicable to Motion To Resolve
Sec. 3.11 Although the motion to postpone is not ordinarily applicable
to a motion that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the
Whole, the motion to resolve into the Committee may be sub
[[Page 9494]]
ject to such a motion where a statute (16) enacted under
the rulemaking power of the House of Representatives accords
privilege to the motion to resolve into the Committee of the Whole
for consideration of matters specified in the statute and allows a
motion to postpone in the House with respect to such consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See, for example, the Trade Act of 1974, section 152(d)(1) and
(d)(3), Pub. L. 93-618, 88 Stat. 1980.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Aug. 3, 1977,(17) the following proceedings occurred
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 123 Cong. Rec. 26528, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Charles A.] Vanik [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
section 152(d)(1) of the Trade Act of 1974, I move that the House
resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State
of the Union for the consideration of House Resolution 653, to
disapprove the recommendation of the President to extend the
authority in section 402(c) of the Trade Act of 1974 with respect
to the Socialist Republic of Romania for an additional 12 months.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 653
Resolved, That the House of Representatives does not
approve the extension of the authority contained in section
402(c) of the Trade Act of 1974 recommended by the President to
the Congress on June 3, 1977, with respect to the Socialist
Republic of Romania.
Mr. [William A.] Steiger [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Steiger moves, pursuant to section 152(d)(3) of the
Trade Act of 1974, to postpone indefinitely the motion that the
House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union for the consideration of House
Resolution 653.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (18) The question is on the
preferential motion offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Steiger).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr.
Ashbrook) there were--ayes 149, noes 33. . . .
So the preferential motion was agreed to.
Similarly, on Mar. 10, 1977,(19) the House had adopted a
motion to postpone indefinitely a motion to resolve into the Committee
of the Whole for the consideration of a resolution, reported adversely
by the Committee on Ways and Means, disapproving a presidential
determination denying import relief to the United States honey
industry, pursuant to section 152(d)(1) and (d)(3) of the Trade Act of
1974:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 123 Cong. Rec. 7021, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Charles A.] Vanik [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
section
[[Page 9495]]
152(d)(1) of the Trade Act of 1974, I move that the House resolve
itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the
Union for the consideration of House Concurrent Resolution 80, to
disapprove the determination of the President denying import relief
under the Trade Act of 1974 to the U.S. honey industry.
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
Mr. [William A.] Steiger [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to section 152(d)(3) of the Trade Act of 1974, I move to postpone
indefinitely the motion that the House resolve itself into the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the
consideration of House Concurrent Resolution 80.
Mr. Vanik: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the
House for 1 minute before we proceed.
The Speaker: (20) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Ohio?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
Mr. Vanik: Mr. Speaker, on February 9 the Subcommittee on Trade
ordered that House Concurrent Resolution 80 be reported unfavorably
to the full committee. House Concurrent Resolution 80 provides for
congressional disapproval of the determination by the President not
to provide import
relief to the U.S. honey industry under section 203 of the Trade
Act of 1974. . . .
The Speaker: The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Steiger).
The motion was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
On Aug. 18, 1982,(1) the House adopted a motion to
postpone indefinitely a motion to resolve into the Committee of the
Whole for the consideration of a resolution, reported adversely by the
Committee on Ways and Means, disapproving extension of presidential
authority to waive freedom of emigration requirements affecting re.
Romania, pursuant to section 152(d) of the Trade Act of
1974,(2) thereby approving extension of presidential
authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 128 Cong. Rec. 21934, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
2. Public Law 93-618, 88 Stat. 1980.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Sam M.] Gibbons [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
section 152(d)(1) of the Trade Act of 1974, I move that the House
resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State
of the Union for immediate consideration of the resolution (H. Res.
521), disapproving extension of Presidential authority to waive
freedom of emigration requirements with respect to the Socialist
Republic of Romania.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
Mr. [Bill] Frenzel [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
section 152(d)(3) of the Trade Act of 1974, I move that
consideration of House Resolution 521 be postponed indefinitely.
The Speaker: (3) The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Frenzel).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 9496]]
The motion was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The Speaker: The matter is postponed.
Parliamentarian's Note: Section 152(d)(3) of the Trade Act, like
a number of other statutes providing privileged procedures for
consideration of legislative disapproval measures, states: ``Motions to
postpone, made in the House of Representatives with respect to the
consideration of a resolution, and motions to proceed to the
consideration of other business, shall be decided without debate.''
Since resolutions of disapproval under the Trade Act, as well as most
other disapproval resolutions, require consideration in Committee of
the Whole, it is clear that the subsection requires the motion to
postpone to be applicable to the motion to resolve into the Committee
of the Whole.
Effect of Rejecting Motion To Resolve
Sec. 3.12 Where the House has agreed that consideration of a bill takes
precedence over other legislation, other legislation of lesser
privilege may be considered by rejecting the motion that the House
resolve into the Committee of the Whole.
On May 9, 1950,(4) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan,
made the following point of order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 96 Cong. Rec. 6720-24, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the House is not
proceeding in the regular order because under section 205a of the
Reorganization Act, which is Public Law 109 of the Eighty-first
Congress, first session, any Member of the House is privileged, and
this is a highly privileged motion, to make the motion that the
House proceed to the consideration of House Resolution 516.
The gentleman from Michigan being on his feet to present this
highly privileged motion, the regular order is that he be
recognized for that purpose that the motion be entertained and the
question put before the House, and my motion is that the House
proceed to the consideration of House Resolution 516.
Mr. George H. Mahon, of Texas, was recognized to speak on the point
of order:
Mr. Speaker, on April 5, 1950, as shown at page 4835 of the
daily Record of that day, the chairman of the Committee on
Appropriations, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Cannon] asked and
received unanimous consent that the appropriation bill should have
the right-of-way over other privileged business under the rules
until disposition, with the exception of conference reports.
Therefore, I believe the regular order would be to proceed with the
further consideration of H.R. 7786.
[[Page 9497]]
Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Record would speak for itself.
Speaker Pro Tempore John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, ruled as
follows:
The gentleman from Michigan makes a point of order, the
substance of which is that the motion he desires to make or that
someone else should make in relation to the consideration of a
disapproving resolution of one of the reorganization plans takes
precedence over the appropriation bill insofar as recognition by
the Chair is concerned. The gentleman from Michigan raises a very
serious question and the Chair feels at this particular time that
it is well that he did so.
The question involved is not a constitutional question but one
relating to the rules of the House and to the Legislative
Reorganization Act of 1949 which has been alluded to by the
gentleman from Michigan and other Members when addressing the Chair
on this point of order. The Chair calls attention to the language
of paragraph (b) of section 201 of title II of the Reorganization
Act of 1949 which reads as follows: ``with full recognition of the
constitutional right of either House to change such rules so far as
relating to procedure in such House at any time in the same manner
and to the same extent as in the case of any other rule of such
House.''
It is very plain from that language that the intent of Congress
was to recognize the reservation to each House of certain inherent
powers which are necessary for either House to function to meet a
particular situation or to carry out its will.
On April 5, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Cannon], chairman
of the Committee on Appropriations, submitted a unanimous-consent
request to the House, which was granted, which has the force of a
rule, and which relates to the rules of the House governing the
consideration of the omnibus appropriation bill while it is before
the House and, of course, incidentally affecting other legislation.
The consent request submitted by the gentleman from Missouri was
``that the general appropriation bill for the fiscal year 1951 have
right-of-way over all other privileged business under the rules
until disposition, with the exception of conference reports.''
That request was granted by unanimous consent. On the next day
the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Cannon], in correcting and
interpreting the consent request granted on April 5, submitted a
further unanimous-consent request.
The daily Record shows, on page 4976, April 6, that the
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Cannon] said:
Mr. Speaker, on page 4835 of the daily Record of yesterday,
the first column carrying the special order made by the House
last night reads that the general appropriation bill shall be a
special order privileged above all other business of the House
under the rule until disposition. The order made was until
final disposition. I ask unanimous consent that the Record and
Journal be corrected to conform with the proceedings on the
floor of the House yesterday.
The Record further shows that the Speaker put the request and
there was no objection. . . .
The Chair will state that the House always has a constitutional
right and
[[Page 9498]]
power to refuse to go into the Committee of the Whole on any motion
made by any Member, so that the House is capable of carrying out
its will, whatever may be the will of the majority of the House.
Continuing, the Chair will state that in the opinion of the
present occupant, in view of the unanimous-consent request made by
the gentleman from Missouri and granted by the House, if any member
of the Appropriations Committee moves that the House resolve itself
into the Committee of the Whole on the State of the Union to
consider the appropriation bill, that motion has preference over
any other preferential motion. It is a matter that the House
decides when the motion is made as to what it wants to do and it
has an opportunity when that motion is made to carry out its will.
Sec. 3.13 The rejection of a motion that the House resolve itself into
the Committee of the Whole for the consideration of a resolution
disapproving a reorganization plan does not preclude a subsequent
motion to the same effect.
On June 8, 1961,(5) Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, indicated
his intention to move that the House
resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole to consider a resolution
disapproving a reorganization plan. Before the motion was made and
rejected by the House, Speaker Pro Tempore Oren Harris, of Arkansas,
answered parliamentary inquiries on the effect of a rejection of the
motion:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 107 Cong. Rec. 9775-77, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: If the pending motion is
voted down, would it still be in order at a subsequent date to call
up a motion rejecting plan No. 2 for another vote? I ask that
because I am opposed to plan No. 2. The committee has reported
adversely in respect to plan No. 2. I am going to vote against that
plan and in support of the resolution of the committee. But under
my responsibility as the minority leader and under my agreement
with the majority leader, I do not see how I could vote today
unless, under the situation as it exists, that vote today would be
conclusive as to plan No. 2. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: In the opinion of the Chair, under the
Reorganization Act, it could be called up at a subsequent date.
Mr. Halleck: In other words, the action that would be taken
today would not be final?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct.
Automatic Resolution Into Committee on Calendar Wednesday
Sec. 3.14 The question of consideration being decided in
the affirmative, when raised against a bill on the Union
[[Page 9499]]
Calendar called up under the Calendar Wednesday rule, the House
automatically resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole.
On May 4, 1960,(6) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas,
responded as follows to parliamentary inquiries on the Calendar
Wednesday call of committees:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 106 Cong. Rec. 9417, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: In the event that the
motion to consider the bill should not prevail in the House, would
it still be possible if a rule were reported by the Rules Committee
for the bill to be brought before the House at a later date under a
rule?
The Speaker: The Chair would think the House could adopt any
rule reported by the Committee on Rules.
The Chair will state to the gentleman from Indiana and to the
House that when we reach the point of approving the Journal, the
Chair will then order a call of the committees; and when the
Committee on Banking and Currency is recognized and the gentleman
from Kentucky [Mr. Spence] presents his bill, when the title of the
bill is read the House automatically resolves itself into the
Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Halleck: But is a motion necessary to consider the bill?
The Speaker: The question of consideration can always be
raised.
Mr. Halleck: And on that, of course, it would be possible to
have a record vote in the House.
The Speaker: In the opinion of the Chair, that would be
correct.
Mr. [James C.] Davis of Georgia: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary
inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Davis of Georgia: The Chair has just stated--I believe I
understood it this way--that when the bill is called up by the
chairman of the Committee on Banking and Currency and the title is
read the House automatically resolves itself into the Committee of
the Whole.
The Speaker: That is the rule.
Mr. Davis of Georgia: But the motion raising the question must
come before the title of the bill is read.
The Speaker: After the title is read.
Mr. Davis of Georgia: Sir?
The Speaker: After the title is read.
Mr. Davis of Georgia: There would still be time enough for it
before the House automatically goes into the Committee of the
Whole.
The Speaker: That is correct.
Following the parliamentary inquiries, the call of committees began
and the question of consideration was raised against a bill called up
by the Committee on Banking and Currency (S. 722, the Area Development
Act). The question of consideration was decided in the affirmative, and
the Speaker directed the House to automatically resolve itself into the
Committee of the Whole for the consideration of the bill.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Id. at pp. 9417, 9418.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 9500]]
Consideration by Motion To Discharge
Sec. 3.15 The House may resolve into the Committee of the Whole to
consider a bill brought before the House by adoption of a motion to
discharge the committee to which the bill had been referred.
On Apr. 26, 1948,(8) the following procedure was used
for consideration in the Committee of the Whole of a bill brought
before the House by a motion to discharge a committee:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 94 Cong. Rec. 4835, 4840-42, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [L. Mendel] Rivers [of South Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, I call
up the motion to discharge the Committee on Agriculture from the
further consideration of the bill (H.R. 2245) to repeal the tax on
oleomargarine.
The Speaker: (9) Did the gentleman sign the
petition?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Rivers: I did, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: The gentleman qualifies.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Speaker: The gentleman from South Carolina is entitled to
10 minutes.
Mr. [Clifford R.] Hope [of Kansas]: Mr. Speaker, I ask to be
recognized in opposition to the motion.
The Speaker: The gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Hope] is recognized
for 10 minutes.
Mr. Rivers: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Rivers: The proponents of the motion have 10 minutes and
the opponents have 10 minutes, and the proponents have the right to
close the debate?
The Speaker: The gentleman has stated the situation accurately.
He has the right to close debate. . . .
All time has expired.
The question is, Shall the Committee on Agriculture be
discharged from further consideration of the bill H.R. 2245?
Mr. Hope: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The question was taken; and there were--yeas 235, nays 121,
answered ``present'' 2, not voting 72. . . .
Mr. Rivers: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself
into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for
the consideration of the bill (H.R. 2245) to repeal the tax on
oleomargarine; and pending that motion, Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that general debate be limited to 3 hours, the
time to be equally divided and controlled by the gentleman from
Kansas [Mr. Hope] and myself.
The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from South Carolina?
There was no objection.
The Speaker: The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from South Carolina.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole
[[Page 9501]]
House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
H.R. 2245.
CHAPTER 29
Consideration and Debate
A. INTRODUCTORY; INITIATING CONSIDERATION AND DEBATE
Sec. 4. Consideration in the House as in the Committee of the Whole
Consideration in the House as in the Committee of the Whole
involves a procedure under which propositions are considered for debate
and amendment under the five-minute rule, normally without general
debate but with all the motions utilized in the House available as
provided in clause 4 of Rule XVI. Under this procedure, the House does
not resolve into the Committee nor does a Chairman preside, the Speaker
instead continuing to preside.
The normal method for initiating consideration in the House as in
the Committee of the Whole is by unanimous consent. A motion that a
Union Calendar bill be considered under that procedure is not in
order.(10) An order or request for this procedure means that
the bill or resolution will be considered as having been read for
amendment and will be open for amendment and debate under the five-
minute rule.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See Sec. 4.11, infra. Generally, see Ch. 19, supra.
11. See Jefferson's Manual, House Rules and Manual Sec. 424 (1995). For
the procedure under the five-minute rule in the House as in the
Committee of the Whole, see Sec. 70, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where a bill is or would be on the Union Calendar, and it is called
up by unanimous consent for ``immediate consideration'' (as opposed to
``immediate consideration in the House''), the unanimous-consent
request carries by implication the requirement that if the request is
agreed to the bill will be considered in the House as in the Committee
of the Whole.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See Sec. Sec. 4.5-4.8, 4.12, infra. Alternatively, a unanimous-
consent request for the consideration of a Union Calendar bill
may specify that the bill be considered ``under the general
rules of the House,'' that is, in the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union (see Sec. Sec. 3.4, 3.5,
supra), or that it be considered in the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On occasion, a resolution from the Committee on Rules has provided
for the consideration of a proposition in the House as in Committee of
the Whole.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See Sec. Sec. 4.1, 4.2,
infra. -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Special Rules Providing for Consideration
Sec. 4.1 Special rules may provide for the consideration of designated
bills in the House as in Committee of the Whole; thus, a resolution
was re
[[Page 9502]]
ported from the Committee on Rules, providing for consideration in
the House as in Committee of the Whole of
a nonprivileged resolution also reported from that committee
establishing a Select Committee on Assassinations.
On Feb. 2, 1977,(14) the follow-ing proceedings occurred
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 123 Cong. Rec. 3359, 3360, 3369, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Richard] Bolling [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, by direction
of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 230 and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution as follows:
H. Res. 230
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider the resolution (H. Res. 222),
creating a Select Committee on Assassinations, in the House as
in the Committee of the Whole.
The Speaker: (15) The gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Bolling) is recognized for 1 hour. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Bolling: Mr. Speaker, this is a slightly unusual rule, but
it has been used a number of times before. It in effect provides,
when it is adopted . . . that the House will go into the House as
in the Committee of the Whole to consider the matter contained in
House Resolution 222, which would reconstitute the Select Committee
on Assassinations for a limited period. . . .
The reason we chose this procedure, rather than providing for
an open rule or dealing with a closed rule, is to try to be fair to
Members who want to offer amendments in the House as in the
Committee of the Whole. We proceed without general debate under the
5-minute rule. The Speaker continues to preside. He does the
recognizing. The Members are recognized on either side for 5
minutes, pro forma, on all questions of amendments. Pro forma
amendments are in order.
But this is the important difference: the manager of House
Resolution 222--and I will be that manager--has control of the
previous question. . . .
So the resolution was agreed to.
Parliamentarian's Note: House Resolution 222 was not privileged
since it included provisions funding the select committee, matters not
within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Rules.
Sec. 4.2 Special rules adopted by the House providing for the
consideration of designated bills in the House as in Committee of
the Whole have also provided for general debate.
On June 5, 1936,(16) the House agreed to the following
resolution (H. Res. 528), authorizing a list of enumerated bills to be
considered in the House as in the Committee of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 80 Cong. Rec. 8746, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order for
[[Page 9503]]
the Committee on the Judiciary to call up for consideration,
without the intervention of any point of order, the following
bills:
S. 3389. An act to provide for the appointment of two
additional judges for the southern district of New York.
S. 2075. An act to provide for the appointment of additional
district judges for the eastern and western districts of Missouri.
S. 2137. An act to provide for the appointment of one
additional district judge for the eastern, northern, and western
districts of Oklahoma.
S. 2456. An act to provide for the appointment of an additional
district judge for the northern and southern districts of West
Virginia.
H.R. 11072. A bill authorizing the appointment of an additional
district judge for the eastern district of Pennsylvania.
H.R. 3043. A bill to provide for the appointment of an
additional district judge for the northern district of Georgia.
Each such bill when called up shall be considered in the House
as in the Committee of the Whole. After general debate on each such
bill, which shall continue not to exceed 20 minutes, to be equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member
of the Committee on the Judiciary, the bill shall be read for
amendment under the 5-minute rule.
On Jan. 6, 1937,(17) the House adopted House Resolution
44, providing for the consideration in the House as in the Committee of
the Whole of a joint resolution:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 81 Cong. Rec. 90, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution the House
as in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union
shall consider the joint resolution, Senate Joint Resolution 3;
that there shall be not to exceed 1 hour of general debate to be
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, whereupon the joint
resolution shall be read for amendment under the 5-minute rule.
Unanimous-consent Procedure --Measures on Union Calendar
Sec. 4.3 The House considered
a resolution--continuing certain appropriations--in the House as in
the Committee
of the Whole pursuant to
a unanimous-consent request to that effect agreed to on a prior
day.
On Sept. 28, 1966,(18) the House considered House Joint
Resolution 1308, continuing appropriations through October 1966, in the
House as in the Committee of the Whole. Consideration of the joint
resolution had been made in order by a unanimous-consent agreement on
Sept. 22, 1966.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 112 Cong. Rec. 24080, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
19. Id. at pp. 23691, 23692.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 4.4 Where consideration of a bill ``under the general rules of the
House'' has been
[[Page 9504]]
agreed to, the bill may be called up pursuant to the agreement and
then by unanimous consent be considered in the House as in the
Committee of the Whole.
On Apr. 1, 1969,(20) Mr. L. Mendel Rivers, of South
Carolina, made a unanimous-consent request for the consideration of a
bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 115 Cong. Rec. 8136, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the unanimous-consent agreement of
March 27, 1969, I call up for immediate consideration the bill
(H.R. 9328) [special pay for naval officers qualified for nuclear
submarine duty] and ask unanimous consent that the bill be
considered in the House as in the Committee of the Whole.
On Mar. 27, Mr. Rivers had asked unanimous consent that it be in
order to consider ``under the general rules of the House'' (in this
case, in Committee of the Whole since it was a Union Calendar bill) on
Tuesday or Wednesday of the following week the bill H.R.
9328.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Id. at p. 7895.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 4.5 Where unanimous consent is granted for the consideration of a
bill on the Union Calendar, the bill is frequently considered in
the House as in the Committee of the Whole.
See, for example, the proceedings of Apr. 6, 1966, discussed in
Sec. 4.7, infra; and the proceedings of June 28, 1966, discussed in
Sec. 4.10, infra.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. See also 79 Cong. Rec. 14331, 74th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 23, 1935.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 4.6 Where a joint resolution requiring consideration in the
Committee of the Whole is called up by unanimous consent, it may be
considered in the House as in the Committee of the Whole.
On Sept. 26, 1968,(3) Mr. George H. Mahon, of Texas,
asked unanimous consent for the consideration of House Joint Resolution
1461, making continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1969. In
response to a parliamentary inquiry, Speaker John W. McCormack, of
Massachusetts, stated that if the request was agreed
to, the joint resolution could be amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 114 Cong. Rec. 28374, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection to Mr. Mahon's request, and he then asked
unanimous consent that the joint resolution be considered in the House
as in the Committee
of the Whole. The request was agreed to.
Parliamentarian's Note: As indicated in Sec. 4.7, infra, the second
re
[[Page 9505]]
quest was not necessary, since by implication a unanimous-consent
request for immediate consideration of a Union Calendar bill means
consideration in the House as in Committee, rather than ``in the
House'' (under the hour rule) or ``under general rules of the House''
(in Committee of the Whole).
Sec. 4.7 Where a Member asks ``unanimous consent for the immediate
consideration'' of a bill pending on the Union Calendar, the
request is construed to carry with it the additional stipulation
that if consent is granted, the bill will be considered in the
House as in the Committee of the Whole.
On Apr. 6, 1966,(4) Mr. Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas,
asked unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of the bill
H.R. 14224, the Social Security Act Amendments of 1966, then pending on
the Union Calendar. Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts,
responded as follows to a parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 112 Cong. Rec. 7749, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John W.] Byrnes of Wisconsin: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary
inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. Byrnes of Wisconsin: Mr. Speaker, I make this parliamentary
inquiry only that the Members might understand what the
opportunities might be for discussion. I make the parliamentary
inquiry to the effect that if the request of the gentleman from
Arkansas is agreed to that the bill can be considered under
unanimous-consent request--do I state it correctly that there will
be the opportunity for striking out the last word and having an
opportunity to speak?
The Speaker: The bill is to be considered in the House as in
the Committee of the Whole, and motions to strike out the last word
will be in order.
Mr. Byrnes of Wisconsin: Will the gentleman make the request
that the bill be considered in the House as in the Committee of the
Whole?
The Speaker: The Chair will state that the unanimous-consent
request will automatically carry that privilege.
Sec. 4.8 Where the House, during the call of the Consent
Calendar, grants unanimous consent for the immediate consideration
of a bill on the Union Calendar or of an identical Senate bill, the
bill is considered in the House
as in the Committee of the Whole.
On Aug. 3, 1970,(5) during the call of the Consent
Calendar, Speaker John W. McCormack, of
[[Page 9506]]
Massachusetts, indicated in response to parliamentary inquiries that a
bill on the Union Calendar, or an identical Senate bill, would be
considered in the House as
in the Committee of the Whole should unanimous consent be granted for
consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 116 Cong. Rec. 26981, 26982, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 4.9 The House agreed by unanimous consent to consider in the House
as in
the Committee of the Whole
a privileged rescission bill when called up by the Committee on
Appropriations.
On Feb. 17, 1977,(6) Mr. George H. Mahon, of Texas, made
the following unanimous-consent request in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 123 Cong. Rec. 4576, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
Under Public Law 93-344, section 1017(c)(2), debate on a
rescission bill in Committee of the Whole cannot exceed two
hours, and the purpose of the above request was to permit
immediate consideration under the five-minute rule without
general debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Mahon: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the
bill H.R. 3347 is called up, that it be considered in the House as
in the Committee of the Whole.
The Speaker: (7) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Texas?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
Sec. 4.10 Where a resolution has been adopted making the consideration
of a bill in order, and the bill is then called up and considered
by unanimous consent, rather than pursuant to the rule, in the
House as in the Committee of the Whole, the Journal indicates the
discharge of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the
Union.
On June 28, 1966,(8) the House adopted a special rule
(H. Res. 895) for the consideration in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union of a calendared bill (H.R. 5256) changing the
method of computing the retirement pay of members of the armed forces.
Then Mr. F. Edward Hebert, of Louisiana, asked unanimous consent that
the bill be considered in the House as in the Committee of the Whole,
and there was no objection. The Journal entry on that day stated:
(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 112 Cong. Rec. 14544-45, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
9. H. Jour. p. 650, 89th Cong. 2d Sess., June 28, 1966.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On motion by Mr. Hebert, by unanimous consent, the Committee of
the Whole House on the State of the Union was discharged from
further consideration of the bill (H.R. 5256) to amend title 10,
United States Code, to change
[[Page 9507]]
the method of computing retired pay of certain enlisted members of
the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps.
When said bill was considered and read twice.
After debate,
The following amendment, recommended by the Committee on Armed
Services, was agreed to: . . .
The bill, as amended, was ordered to be engrossed and read a
third time, was read a third time by title, and passed.
--Motion Not in Order
Sec. 4.11 A motion that a Union Calendar bill be considered in the
House as in the Committee of the Whole is not in order (unanimous
consent being required).
On July 12, 1939,(10) Mr. Andrew J. May, of Kentucky,
called up H.R. 985, on the Union Calendar, and asked unanimous consent
that it be considered in the House as in the Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Sam Hobbs, of Alabama, objected to the consideration of the bill
and Mr. May then attempted to make a motion for consideration in the
House as in the Committee of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 84 Cong. Rec. 8945, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then I move, Mr. Speaker, that the bill be considered in the
House as in the Committee of the Whole.
Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, ruled:
The Chair is of the opinion that could not be permitted under
the rules of the House. The gentleman may submit a unanimous-
consent request, but not a motion.
Mr. Hobbs objected to Mr. May's request, and the Speaker directed
the House to resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union for the consideration of the
bill.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Procedure in the House as in the Committee of the Whole is by
unanimous consent only, as the order of business gives no place
for a motion that business be considered in that manner. 4
Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4923 [cited at Jefferson's Manual, House
Rules and Manual Sec. 424 (1995)]. Provision is made in the
rules for the consideration of Private Calendar bills under the
five-minute rule in the House as in the Committee of the Whole.
See Rule XXIV clause
6, House Rules and Manual Sec. 893 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
District of Columbia Bills on Union Calendar
Sec. 4.12 District of Columbia bills called up on District Monday, if
on the Union Calendar, may be considered by unanimous consent in
the House as in the Committee of the Whole.
On Aug. 11, 1964,(12) Mr. John V. Dowdy, of Texas,
called up
[[Page 9508]]
H.R. 9774, terminating the District of Columbia Plaza Renewal Project,
on District Monday. The bill had been on the Union Calendar, and Mr.
Dowdy requested unanimous consent that the bill be considered in the
House as in the Committee of the Whole. The House agreed to the
request.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 110 Cong. Rec. 18949, 18950, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
13. See also 115 Cong. Rec. 20850, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., July 28, 1969.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Private Calendar Bills
Sec. 4.13 Omnibus private bills are considered under the five-minute
rule in the House as in the Committee of the Whole, and the Chair
does not recognize for extensions of time.
On Mar. 17, 1936,(14) the House as in the Committee of
the Whole was considering for amendment omnibus private bills under the
five-minute rule. Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, refused to
recognize a Member for an extension of time:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 80 Cong. Rec. 3890, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The time of the gentleman from Minnesota has expired.
Mr. [Theodore] Christianson [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to proceed for 5 additional minutes.
The Speaker: On the previous section of this bill the Chair put
a unanimous-consent request for an extension of time. The attention
of the Chair has since been called to a ruling by the author of the
present Private Calendar rule, who was presiding at the last
session on this calendar. This rule was proposed for the purpose of
expediting business. Upon reflection, the Chair does not think he
should recognize Members for the purpose of requesting an extension
of time.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See Sec. 70, infra, for additional ruling on the five-minute rule
as applied to private bills.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAPTER 29
Consideration and Debate
A. INTRODUCTORY; INITIATING CONSIDERATION AND DEBATE
Sec. 5. Question of Consideration
Rule XVI clause 3 provides a method by which the House may protect
itself against business that it does not wish to consider:
When any motion or proposition is made, the question, Will the
House now consider it? shall not be put unless demanded by a
Member.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. House Rules and Manual Sec. 778 (1995). See also Sec. Sec. 779-781
for raising the question, for the questions subject to the
question of consideration, and for the relation of the question
to points of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question of consideration is raised before debate on the motion
or proposition, and since it is not itself debatable, has the effect if
not agreed to of preventing all debate on the measure proposed to be
considered in the House.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. See Sec. 5.4, infra, for the nondebatability of the question and
Sec. Sec. 5.1-5.3, infra, for raising the question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 9509]]
The refusal to consider does not amount to the rejection of a bill
or prevent its being brought before the House again,(18) and
an affirmative vote does not prevent the question of consideration from
being raised on a subsequent day when the bill is again called up
as unfinished business.(19) It has once been held that a
question of privilege which the House has refused to consider may be
brought up again on the same day.(20) The question of
consideration is not debatable,(1) and thus not subject to
the motion to lay on the table.(2) It is not in order to
reconsider the vote whereby the House refuses to consider a
bill,(3) although it is in order to reconsider an
affirmative vote on the question of consideration.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4940.
19. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2438.
20. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4942.
1. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2447.
2. See 140 Cong. Rec. p. ______, 103d Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 4, 1994.
See also Rule XXV, which provides that questions relating to
the priority of business are not debatable.
3. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 5626, 5627.
4. See 140 Cong. Rec. p. ______, 103d Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 4, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question of consideration cannot be raised against certain
motions relating to the order of business.(5) For example,
the motion to resolve into the Committee of the Whole is equivalent to
the question of consideration and is therefore not subject to that
question.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. See Sec. Sec. 5.5, 5.6, infra.
6. See Sec. 5.6, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question of consideration should be distinguished from points
of order against consideration, which may be based on various
requirements of House rules and are ruled on by the Chair. A point of
order against the eligibility for consideration of a bill which, if
sustained, might prevent consideration, should be made and decided
before the question of consideration is put,(7) but if the
point relates merely to the manner of considering, it should be passed
on afterwards.(8) In general, after the House has decided to
consider, a point of order raised in order to prevent consideration, in
whole or part, comes too late.(9) On a conference report,
however, the question of consideration may be demanded before points of
order are raised against the substance of the report.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 4950, 4951;
8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2439, discussed in the note to
Sec. 5.12, infra.
8. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4950.
9. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4598; 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 4952,
6912-6914.
10. See Sec. 5.12, infra. See also 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2439.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statutes may prescribe specific uses for the question of consider
[[Page 9510]]
ation. For example, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(11) added a new part B to title IV of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974 (12) imposing several requirements on
committees with respect to ``federal mandates.'' (13) The
provisions establish points of order
to enforce those requirements,(14) and preclude the
consideration of a rule or order waiving such points of order in the
House.(15) The statute prescribes that such points of order
be disposed of by putting the question of consideration with respect to
the proposition against which they are lodged.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Pub. L. 104-4; 109 Stat. 48 et seq.
12. 2 USC Sec. 658.
13. Sections 423, 424; 2 USC Sec. Sec. 658b, c.
14. 2 USC Sec. 658d.
15. 2 USC Sec. 658e(a).
16. 2 USC Sec. 658e(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forms
Form of putting the question of consideration.
Member: Mr. Speaker, I raise the question of consideration.
The Speaker: The gentleman raises the question of
consideration. The question is, Will the House now consider it? As
many as favor. . . .(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Cannon's Procedure in the House of Representatives 141, H. Doc. No.
122, 86th Cong. 1st Sess. (1959).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross References
Methods of closing debate in the House, see Sec. 72, infra.
Motion to postpone consideration, see Ch. 23, supra.
Points of order, see Ch. 31,
infra. -------------------
When Question of Consideration May Be Raised
Sec. 5.1 The question of consideration may not be raised against a
resolution until the resolution is fully reported.
On Dec. 13, 1932,(18) Mr. Louis T. McFadden, of
Pennsylvania, arose to a question of ``constitutional privilege'' and
offered a resolution to impeach President Hoover for high crimes and
misdemeanors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 76 Cong. Rec. 399-402, 72d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. William H. Stafford, of Wisconsin, interrupted the reading of
the resolution to state a parliamentary inquiry which was answered by
Speaker John N. Garner, of Texas:
Mr. Stafford: Is it in order to raise the question of
consideration at this time?
The Speaker: Not until the resolution is read.
The Clerk concluded the reading of the resolution.
The House agreed to a motion to lay the resolution on the table.
On June 1, 1934,(19) a report was called up from the
Committee
[[Page 9511]]
on Rules. Mr. Carl E. Mapes, of Michigan, interrupted the reading of
the accompanying resolution to make the point of order that a two-
thirds vote was required for the consideration of the resolution on the
same day reported. Speaker Henry T. Rainey, of Illinois, sustained a
point of order that the question of consideration could not be raised
until the resolution was read in full:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 78 Cong. Rec. 10239-41, 73d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [William B.] Bankhead [of Alabama]: Mr. Speaker, I raise
the point of order that the reading of the resolution should be
concluded before any point of order can be made against it.
The Speaker: The point of order of the gentleman from Alabama
[Mr. Bankhead] is sustained. The Clerk will conclude the reading of
the resolution.
Sec. 5.2 Resolutions of inquiry are subject to the question of
consideration, but it is too late to raise such question after the
motion to table has been made.
On Feb. 7, 1939,(20) Mr. Sol Bloom, of New York,
presented a privileged report from the Committee on Foreign Affairs
adversely reporting a resolution of inquiry (H. Res. 78) directed to
the Secretary of State. Following the reading of the report, Mr. Bloom
moved that the resolution be laid on the table. Mr. Hamilton Fish, Jr.,
of New York, then arose to a question of consideration, and Speaker
William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, ruled that the question came too late,
the motion to table having been made.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 84 Cong. Rec. 1181, 1182, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 5.3 During the Calendar Wednesday call of committees the question
of consideration on a bill called up by a committee is properly
raised after the Clerk reads the title of the bill and before the
House resolves itself into the Committee of the Whole.
On Apr. 14, 1937,(1) the question of consideration
against a bill called up by a committee under the Calendar Wednesday
procedure was raised as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 81 Cong. Rec. 3455, 3456, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Clarence F.] Lea [of California] (when the Committee on
Interstate and Foreign Commerce was called): Mr. Speaker, by
direction of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, I
call up the bill (H.R. 1668) to amend paragraph (1) of section 4 of
the Interstate Commerce Act, as amended February 28, 1920 (U.S.C.,
title 49, sec. 4).
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
Mr. [Alfred L.] Bulwinkle [of North Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, I
raise the question of consideration.
The Speaker: (2) The gentleman from North Carolina
raises the ques
[[Page 9512]]
tion of consideration of the bill. The question is, Will the House
consider the bill H.R. 1668. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question was taken; and there were--yeas 278, nays 97,
answered ``present'' 1, not voting 54, as follows: . . .
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The Speaker: The House automatically resolves itself into the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the
consideration of the bill.
On May 4, 1960,(3) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas,
responded as follows to parliamentary inquiries on the proper raising
of the question of consideration against a bill called up under the
Calendar Wednesday procedure:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 106 Cong. Rec. 9417, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair will state to the gentleman from Indiana and to the
House that when we reach the point of approving the Journal, the
Chair will then order a call of the committees; and when the
Committee on Banking and Currency is recognized and the gentleman
from Kentucky [Mr. Spence] presents his bill, when the title of the
bill is read the House automatically resolves itself into the
Committee of the Whole. . . .
Mr. [James C.] Davis of Georgia: The Chair has just stated--I
believe I understood it this way--that when the bill is called up
by the chairman of the Committee on Banking and Currency and the
title is read the House automatically resolves itself into the
Committee of the Whole.
The Speaker: That is the rule.
Mr. Davis of Georgia: But the motion raising the question must
come before the title of the bill is read.
The Speaker: After the title is read.
Mr. Davis of Georgia: Sir?
The Speaker: After the title is read.
Mr. Davis of Georgia: There would still be time enough for it
before the House automatically goes into the Committee of the
Whole.
The Speaker: That is correct.
Debate
Sec. 5.4 The question of consideration is not debatable.
On June 1, 1934,(4) Mr. William B. Bankhead, of Alabama,
moved for the immediate consideration of House Resolution 410, reported
by the Committee on Rules on the same day reported and making in order
during the remainder of the session motions to suspend the rules and
waiving certain other rules during the remainder of the session.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 78 Cong. Rec. 10239, 10240, 73d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When the yeas and nays were ordered on the question of
consideration of the resolution, Mr. Clarence J. McLeod, of Michigan,
made a point of order against the roll call:
I make the point of order that this roll call is not in order,
because there has not been a chance to even explain the resolution
under consideration.
[[Page 9513]]
Speaker Henry T. Rainey, of Illinois, ruled:
The Chair will state that the question of consideration is not
debatable.
Parliamentarian's Note: This precedent involved the automatic
question of consideration on Rules Committee resolutions called up the
same day reported, under clause 4(b) of Rule XI. The question of
consideration if offered on other matters is likewise not debatable
(see 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2447).
Matters Subject to Question of Consideration--Motions Relating to Order
of Business
Sec. 5.5 The question of consideration cannot be raised against certain
motions relating to the order of business.
It is well established that the question of consideration may not
be raised against a motion to
resolve into Committee of the Whole.(5) Moreover, it has
been held that the question of consideration is not in order against a
motion to discharge a committee, the Chair citing as a general
principle that the question of consideration may not be raised on a
motion relating to the order of business.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. See Sec. 5.6, infra.
6. See 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4977.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question of consideration is also not in order against a motion
to lay on the table the motion to reconsider the vote by which the
House has passed a bill.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. See 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4972.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Motion To Resolve Into Committee of the Whole as Sufficient
Expression of Will of House
Sec. 5.6 The question of consideration may not be raised against a
motion to resolve into the Committee of the Whole since the House
expresses its will concerning consideration by voting on the
motion.
On May 21, 1958,(8) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled
that the question of consideration could not be raised against the
motion to resolve into the Committee of the Whole for the consideration
of a bill, the motion to resolve being itself a test of the will of the
House on consideration:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 104 Cong. Rec. 9216, 9217, 85th Cong. 2d Sess. See also 5 Hinds'
Precedents Sec. Sec. 51 and 4973-4976; 8 Cannon's Precedents
Sec. 2442.
As to the effect of adoption of a special rule on points of
order, see Sec. Sec. 2.13-2.16, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Howard W.] Smith of Virginia: May I submit a parliamentary
inquiry, Mr. Speaker?
[[Page 9514]]
The Speaker: The gentleman may.
Mr. Smith of Virginia: Under what circumstances can the
question of consideration be raised?
The Speaker: The Chair tried to say a moment ago that it cannot
be raised against the motion to go into the Committee of the Whole,
because that is tantamount to consideration, and the House will
have an opportunity to vote on that motion.
Mr. Smith of Virginia: In other words, if we demand a vote on
that question, then that will be tantamount to raising the question
of consideration?
The Speaker: That is correct.
Parliamentarian's Note: It should be noted that a point of order
that a bill was reported from committee in the absence of a quorum is
in order pending a vote on the motion that the House resolve itself
into the Committee of the Whole for the consideration of the bill,
where the bill is being considered pursuant to a Committee on Rules
resolution which does not waive that point of order.(9) A
motion to suspend the rules, however, suspends all rules in conflict
with the motion and precludes the point of order that a bill was
reported from committee in the absence of a quorum.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. See Sec. 2.16, supra.
10. See Sec. Sec. 2.7, 2.8, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consideration of Resolution From Rules Committee on Same Day Reported
Sec. 5.7 A resolution from the Committee on Rules may be considered on
the same day as reported if the question of consideration is
supported by two-thirds of the Mem-bers present and voting, a
quorum being present.
On Nov. 14, 1975,(11) a resolution from the Committee on
Rules was reported, providing that upon the adoption of the resolution
it would be in order to take a Senate bill from the Speaker's table and
consider it in the House. Following the adoption of the resolution
making the consideration of the Senate bill in order, the Member
calling up the Senate bill was recognized for one hour:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 121 Cong. Rec. 36638, 36641, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Richard] Bolling [of Missouri], from the Committee on
Rules, reported the following privileged resolution (H. Res. 866,
Rept. No. 94-666), which was referred to the House Calendar and
ordered to be printed.
H. Res. 866
Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this
resolution it shall be in order to take from the Speaker's
table the bill S. 2667, to extend the Emergency Petroleum
Allocation Act of 1973, and to consider said bill in the House.
Mr. Bolling: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 866 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Speaker: (12) The Clerk will report the
resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 9515]]
The Clerk read the resolution.
The Speaker: The question is, Will the House now consider House
Resolution 866?
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. [John H.] Rousselot [of California]: 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: The Chair is certain that a quorum is present. The
Chair will count.
Two hundred and forty-one Members are present, a quorum.
Mr. Rousselot: Mr. Speaker, I demand a division.
On a division (demanded by Mr. Rousselot) there were--yeas 171,
noes 14.
So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof), the House agreed
to consider House Resolution 866.
The Speaker: The question is on the resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The Speaker: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West
Virginia (Mr. Staggers).
Mr. [Harley O.] Staggers [of West Virginia]: Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to House Resolution 866, I call up the Senate bill (S.
2667) and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
The Clerk read the Senate bill as follows:
S. 2667
A bill to extend the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act of 1973
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That
section 4(g)(1) of the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act of
1973 is amended by striking out each date specified therein and
inserting in lieu thereof in each case ``December 15, 1975''. .
. .
Mr. Staggers: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the
Senate bill.
The previous question was ordered.
The Senate bill was orderd to be read a third time, was read
the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on
the table.
Sec. 5.8 Under Rule XI clause 4(b), it is in order to call up a
privileged report from the Committee on Rules relating to the order
of business on the same day reported if consideration is granted by
a two-thirds vote, and a point of order that the report has not
been printed does not lie.
On Feb. 2, 1977,(13) the following proceedings occurred
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 123 Cong. Rec. 3344, 3349, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [James J.] Delaney [of New York], from the Committee on
Rules, reported the following privileged resolution (H. Res. 231,
Rept. No. 95-6),
[[Page 9516]]
which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed:
. . .
Mr. Delaney: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 231 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Speaker: (14) The Clerk will report the
resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read the resolution.
The Speaker: The question is, Will the House now consider House
Resolution 231? . . .
Mr. [W. Hensen] Moore [of Louisiana]: Mr. Speaker, I make the
point of order that the resolution has not been printed.
Mr. Delaney: Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, this is
merely to consider taking up the rule.
Mr. Moore: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make the point of order
that I believe under this rule we are waiving all points of order;
is that not correct?
Mr. Delaney: Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further,
that matter will be taken up at the proper time. This is merely for
consideration, at this particular time, of House Resolution 231.
The Speaker: The Chair will state that the point of order of
the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Moore) is not well taken and is
therefore overruled.
There is no requirement that this resolution be printed before
it can be called up, although the Chair ordered the resolution
printed when it was filed and referred to the House Calendar.
The question is, Will the House now consider House Resolution
231?
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the House agreed to consider House Resolution 231.
The Speaker: The gentleman from New York (Mr. Delaney) is
recognized for 1 hour. . . .
Mr. Delaney: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the
resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The Speaker: The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. Moore: Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was refused.
So the resolution was agreed to.
House Automatically Resolves Into Committee of the Whole After Vote To
Consider Bill on Calendar Wednesday
Sec. 5.9 The question of consideration being decided in
the affirmative, when raised against a bill on the Union Calendar
called up under the Calendar Wednesday rule, the House
automatically resolves itself into the Committee of the Whole.
On May 4, 1960,(15) the ques-tion of consideration was
raised against a bill called up by
[[Page 9517]]
the Committee on Banking and
Currency under the Calendar Wednesday procedure. The bill had been on
the Union Calendar. When the House voted to consider the bill, Speaker
Sam Rayburn, of Texas, directed the House to automatically resolve
itself into the Committee of the Whole for the consideration of the
bill.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 106 Cong. Rec. 9417, 9418, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
16. See also 75 Cong. Rec. 2815, 72d Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 27, 1932.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second Question of Consideration on Same Bill on Calendar Wednesday
Sec. 5.10 A second question of consideration was voted on the same day
on the same bill on Calendar Wednesday (after the Committee of the
Whole rose and the House refused to adjourn).
On Feb. 22, 1950,(17) the question of consideration was
raised against H.R. 4453, the Federal Fair Employment Practice Act,
called up under the Calendar Wednesday rule by the Committee on
Education and Labor. When the question was decided in the affirmative,
the House automatically resolved into the Committee of the Whole for
the consideration of the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 96 Cong. Rec. 2161, 2162, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After intervening debate, the Committee voted to rise without
having agreed to the bill. Mr. Howard W. Smith, of Virginia, moved that
the House adjourn, which was defeated by the yeas and nays. The
Committee on Education and Labor again called up the bill and Mr. Smith
raised the question of consideration against the bill. The House
affirmatively decided the second question of consideration and the
House resolved again into the Committee of the Whole.
Motion To Adjourn Not in Order After Vote To Consider Bill on Calendar
Wednesday
Sec. 5.11 A motion to adjourn is not in order after the House has voted
to consider a proposition brought up under the Calendar Wednesday
rule and before the House has resolved into Committee of the Whole.
On Apr. 14, 1937,(18) the Clerk called the roll of
committees for reporting propositions under the Calendar Wednesday
rule. At the direction of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce, Mr. Clarence F. Lea, of California, called up H.R. 1668, to
amend the Interstate Commerce Act. Mr. Alfred L. Bulwinkle, of North
Caro
[[Page 9518]]
lina, raised the question of consideration, and the House by the yeas
and nays voted to consider the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 81 Cong. Rec. 3455, 3456, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, directed the House to
automatically resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole for the
consideration of the bill. Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, moved
that the House adjourn, and the Speaker ruled ``The Chair cannot
entertain that motion at this time.''
Question of Consideration Raised Against Conference Report Before
Points of Order
Sec. 5.12 The question of consideration may be raised against a
conference report before the Chair entertains points of order
against the report.
On Sept. 28, 1976,(19) a demand for the question of
consideration resulting in the ordering of consideration of a
conference report, points of order were next entertained, as indicated
below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 122 Cong. Rec. 33018, 33019, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: (20) The unfinished business is the
further consideration of the conference report on the Senate bill
S. 521, which the Clerk will report by title.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
Mr. [Hamilton] Fish [Jr., of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I demand
the question of consideration.
The Speaker: The question is, Will the House now consider the
conference report on the Senate bill S. 521.
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. Fish: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered. . . .
So consideration of the conference report was ordered. . . .
Mr. Fish: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. Fish: Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary inquiry is as to
whether my reserved points of order are in order at this time?
The Speaker: The Chair will state that they are.
Mr. Fish: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the
conference report on grounds that it has been reported in violation
of rule XXVIII, clause 6, which requires that conference meetings
be open to the public except when ordered closed by rollcall vote
in open session. . . .
The Speaker: The Chair is prepared to rule.
The gentleman from New York has made a point of order directed
against conference procedure alleging a violation of clause 6, rule
XXVIII.
The gentleman's point of order is that the form of the
conference report does not conform to his understanding as to which
motion was agreed to by the House conferees. The gentleman
[[Page 9519]]
contends that there was [presumably a subsequent] meeting of the
conferees which was closed and unannounced.
The chief manager of the conference report has reported that in
a meeting of the conferees which was open to the public, pursuant
to the provisions of clause 6, rule XXVIII, a proper motion was
made to agree to an amendment in the nature of a substitute for the
House amendment to the Senate bill, and the signatures of a
majority of the conferees of both Houses reflecting this agreement
appear on the conference report.
The Chair does not feel that a violation of conference rules
has been shown, and the Chair overrules the point of order.
Parliamentarian's Note: The is-sue as to which comes first on a
conference report, the question of consideration or a point of order,
is discussed in 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2439, wherein Speaker Clark
ruled that the question of consideration should be put first on the
grounds that it was useless to argue points of order if the House
wasn't going to consider the report. Conflicting precedents which stand
for the proposition that points of order should be decided before the
question of consideration is raised involved circumstances in which the
point of order was directed not to the substance of the report or
proposition but to the issue whether the matter was privileged to come
up for consideration in the first instance. In 5 Hinds' Precedents
Sec. 4950, the issue was whether a bill called up under the morning
hour call of committees was eligible as a bill properly on the House
Calendar, and in 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4951, the issue was whether a
resolution could be presented as a question of privilege. But since a
conference report is privileged for consideration under Rule XXVIII,
the threshold question is not presented and the question of
consideration should come before points of order against the substance
of the report.
CHAPTER 29
Consideration and Debate
A. INTRODUCTORY; INITIATING CONSIDERATION AND DEBATE
Sec. 6. Questions Not Subject to Debate
The relevant standing rule and the precedents relating to each
motion or question must be consulted in order to determine whether
debate thereon is allowable.(1) Thus, the motion to go into
Committee of the Whole is not de
[[Page 9520]]
batable (and therefore not subject to the motion to lay on the
table).(2) Nor is a motion to go into secret session
debatable.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. See Cannon's Procedure in the House of Representatives 148, 149, H.
Doc. No. 122, 86th Cong. 1st Sess. (1959) for a list of
nondebatable questions arranged in the order of their
frequency. The list is not exclusive; see, for example, Rule I
clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 621 (1995) (1971
amendment to the rule providing for a nondebatable motion that
the Journal be read in full).
2. See 6 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 726.
3. For discussion of secret sessions, see Sec. 85, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unless otherwise provided by a standing rule or by order of the
House, a question brought before the House is debated under the hour
rule.(4) The motions for the previous question
(5) and to lay on the table (6) are not
debatable. The previous question closes debate and brings the House to
an immediate vote on the pending proposition unless ordered on a
proposition on which there has been no debate, in which event 40
minutes of debate are permitted.(7) The motion to lay on the
table also precludes further debate and, if agreed to, provides a final
adverse disposition of the matter to which applied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. See Sec. 68, infra, for discussion of the hour rule.
5. See Sec. 6.35 infra.
6. See Sec. 6.9, infra.
7. See Sec. 6.37, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule XXV (8) provides that all questions of the priority
of business shall be decided by a majority without debate. In applying
the rule, the Speaker has stated that the language precludes debate on
motions to go into Committee of the Whole, on questions of
consideration, and on appeals from the Chair's decisions on priority of
business.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. House Rules and Manual Sec. 900 (1995).
9. Appeals from other rulings of the Chair may be debatable under the
hour rule. See Sec. 68.71, infra.
Rule XXV should not be utilized
to permit a motion directing the Speaker to recognize Members
in a certain order or to otherwise establish an order of
business. See Sec. 9.3, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the question of consideration is not
debatable,(10) a motion to postpone further consideration of
a privileged resolution (to censure a Member) is debatable for one hour
controlled by the Member offering the motion.(11) Under Rule
XVI, clause 4, the motion to postpone indefinitely is normally
debatable; but where such a motion is offered pursuant to provisions of
a statute, enacted under the rulemaking power of the House and Senate,
such as statutes relating to consideration of resolutions disapproving
certain executive actions, the motion by the terms of the statute may
not be debatable.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2447.
11. See Sec. 24.14, infra.
12. See Sec. 2.42, supra, for further discussion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Member having the floor in Committee of the Whole may dis
[[Page 9521]]
play charts or exhibits by permission of the Committee, but if
objection is made, the question is put, without debate, as to whether
such Member should be permitted to use displays.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See Rule XXX, House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 915-917 (1995); see
also Sec. Sec. 80-84, infra, for discussion of reading papers
and displaying exhibits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course, agreements to limit debate may affect the question of
what matters may be debated.(14) For example, when the
Committee of the Whole has limited debate on the bill and all
amendments thereto to a time certain, even a preferential motion
(15) (such as a motion to strike the enacting clause) is not
debatable if offered after the expiration of time for debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. For discussion of limiting debate, and the effect of such
limitation, see Sec. Sec. 78, 79, infra.
15. See Sec. 79.27, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to a motion to recommit with instructions after the
previous question has been ordered on the passage of a bill or joint
resolution, it is in order to debate the motion for ten minutes before
the vote is taken thereon, except that on demand of the floor manager
for the majority it is in order to debate such motion for one hour. One
half of any debate on such motion is given to debate by the mover of
the motion and one half to debate in opposition to the
motion.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Rule XVI, clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 782 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross References
Discretionary debate on certain questions and motions, see Sec. 67,
infra.
Motions and debate thereon, see Ch. 23, supra.
Points of order, appeals, and parliamentary inquiries and debate
thereon, see Ch. 31, infra.
Power of Member in charge to cut off debate, see Sec. 7, infra.
Quorum calls and debate, see Ch. 20, supra.
Recognition to be sought before debate, see Sec. 8,
infra. -------------------
Right of Member-elect To Be Sworn
Sec. 6.1 No debate is in order on the right of a challenged Member-
elect to be sworn
in, pending the swearing-in
of the remaining Members-elect.
On Jan. 5, 1937, before the swearing-in en masse of Members-elect
at the convening of the 75th Congress, Member-elect John J. O'Connor,
of New York, arose to challenge the right of Member-elect Arthur B.
Jenks, of New Hampshire, to be sworn in.(17) Mr.
[[Page 9522]]
Bertrand H. Snell, of New York, arose to object to the challenge and
Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, ruled that the challenged
Member-elect should stand aside and that no debate on the challenge was
in order until the remaining Members-elect had been sworn in.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 81 Cong. Rec. 12, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resignation of Committee Chairman
Sec. 6.2 In response to parliamentary inquiries, the Speaker indicated
that the question of whether a member should be relieved from
committee service was debatable only within narrow limits and that
the Chair would take the initiative in enforcing that restriction.
On June 16, 1975,(18) after the Speaker (19)
laid before the House
a letter of resignation from the chairman of the Select Committee on
Intelligence, the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 121 Cong. Rec. 19054, 19056, 19059, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
19. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker laid before the House the [resignation of Mr.
Lucien N. Nedzi, of Michigan] from the House Select Committee on
Intelligence. . . .
The Speaker: The question is, shall the resignation be
accepted?
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Nedzi). .
. .
Mr. Nedzi: . . . Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 minutes to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. O'Hara).
Mr. [James G.] O'Hara [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, before
proceeding, I wonder if I could address to the Chair a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman may state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. O'Hara: Mr. Speaker, I have looked at the precedents and I
am somewhat uncertain as to the proper scope of the debate on such
a question. I would hope that the Chair could enlighten this
gentleman and the House.
The Speaker: . . . The Chair will state that rule XIV, clause
1, requires that a Member confine himself to the question under
debate in the House, avoiding personalities. On January 29, 1855,
as cited in section 4510 of volume 4, Hinds' Precedents, Speaker
Boyd held that the request of a Member that he be excused from
committee service was debatable only within very narrow limits.
The Chair trusts that debate on the pending question will be
confined within the spirit of that ruling and the Chair will
further state that he will strictly enforce the rule as to the
relevancy of debate. . . .
Mr. [Garry] Brown of Michigan: . . . Under the germaneness test
that the Speaker recited at the commencement of this discussion did
the Speaker contemplate that on his own volition and initiative
that he would raise the question of germaneness; or must that
question of germaneness be raised by someone on the floor? . . .
Does the Speaker [intend] to question the germaneness when in
his mind it appears to be nongermane?
[[Page 9523]]
The Speaker: The Chair has so stated, and the Chair so intends.
Question of Consideration
Sec. 6.3 The question of consideration is not debatable.
On June 1, 1934,(20) Mr. William B. Bankhead, of
Alabama, called up on the same day reported House Resolution 410, from
the Committee on Rules, making in order during the remainder of the
session motions to suspend the rules and suspending the requirement of
a two-thirds vote to consider reports from the Committee on Rules when
called up on the same day reported.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 78 Cong. Rec. 10239-41, 73d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Bankhead called for the consideration of the resolution and
before the question of consideration could be voted upon, Mr. Clarence
J. McLeod, of Michigan, made a point of order against ordering the yeas
and nays on the question, ``because there has not been a chance to even
explain the resolution under consideration.''
Speaker Henry T. Rainey, of Illinois, ruled that ``the question of
consideration is not debatable.'' (1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. The question of consideration is provided for in Rule XVI clause 3,
House Rules and Manual Sec. 778 (1995). The question has
formerly been held nondebatable; see 8 Cannon's Precedents
Sec. 2447.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rereference of Bill to Committee
Sec. 6.4 A motion to correct the reference of a public bill is not
debatable.
On Apr. 2, 1935,(2) Mr. Emanual Celler, of New York,
asked unanimous consent that H.R. 6547,
authorizing the appointment of
a commissioner for the United States Court of China, originally
referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, be rereferred to the
Committee on the Judiciary. Mr. Sam D. McReynolds, of Tennessee,
objected to the request and Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee,
stated that a motion for rereferral was in order since Mr. Celler was
authorized by the Committee on the Judiciary to move for rereferral.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 79 Cong. Rec. 4878, 4879, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaker Byrns advised Mr. McReynolds that the motion was not
debatable. The House then voted against the motion of rereferral.
On Jan. 10, 1941,(3) Mr. Andrew J. May, of Kentucky,
offered a privileged motion to rerefer H.R. 1776, to promote the
defense of the United States, originally referred to the Committee on
For
[[Page 9524]]
eign Affairs, to the Committee on Military Affairs. Mr. John W.
McCormack, of Massachusetts, raised a parliamentary inquiry as to the
reasons why Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, had referred the bill to the
Committee on Foreign Affairs. The Speaker suggested that a unanimous-
consent request might be granted for him to explain his reasons, but
Mr. Earl C. Michener, of Michigan, stated as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 87 Cong. Rec. 100-03, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the Speaker pursues that course, then in effect he has
opened this matter up to debate, and the Speaker himself has made a
speech against the motion. That can be done by unanimous consent,
but it does seem to me we should do these things according to the
rules. If we are going to have debate, let us have debate; if we
are not, let us not have one side only.
After further debate, Mr. Albert J. Engel, of Michigan, asked
unanimous consent that the subject be debated for 20 minutes. The
Speaker responded that he would ``accept no time from the House on any
conditions,'' and put the motion on the question of rereferral, which
was rejected by the House.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. See Rule XXII clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 854 (1995):
``[C]or-rection in case of error in reference may be made by
the House, without debate. . . .''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 6.5 While the rule with regard to rereference of bills on motion
of a committee prohibits debate, a Member may proceed by unanimous
consent for one minute before he makes such a motion.
On Apr. 21, 1942,(5) Mr. Samuel Dickstein, of New York,
was granted unanimous consent to address the House for one minute
following the reading of the Journal. At the conclusion of his address,
he moved that the bill H.R. 6915 be rereferred from the Committee on
the Judiciary to the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 88 Cong. Rec. 3571, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, made a point of order against
the motion on the ground that Mr. Dickstein could only ask for
rereferral by unanimous consent. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas,
overruled the point of order and read Rule XXVII clause 4, providing
for a motion to correct reference of bills, to be determined without
debate.
Mr. Sam Hobbs, of Alabama, made a further point of order that Mr.
Dickstein's motion was not in order since ``there was debate by the
distinguished gentleman from New York for 1 minute immediately
preceding the submission of the motion, where as the opposition is
denied that right by the rule.''
[[Page 9525]]
Speaker Rayburn overruled the point of order:
The Chair did not know what the gentleman from New York was
going to talk about. The Chair cannot look into the mind of a
Member when he asks unanimous consent to address the House for 1
minute and see what he intends to talk about.
After Discharge of Rules Committee Resolution
Sec. 6.6 Under the former practice, where the Committee on Rules was
discharged from further consideration of a resolution providing a
special order of business, the vote occurred immediately on the
adoption of the resolution without debate; Rule XXVII, clause 3,
has since been amended to permit debate on a resolution discharged
from the Committee on Rules.
On June 11, 1945,(6) Mr. Vito Marcantonio, of New York,
called up a motion to discharge the Committee on Rules from further
consideration of House Resolution 139, providing for the consideration
of H.R. 7, making unlawful the requirement for the payment of a poll
tax as a prerequisite to voting in a primary or other election for
federal officers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 91 Cong. Rec. 5892, 5895, 5896, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After 20 minutes' debate on the motion, the House agreed to the
motion and Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, immediately put the question
on the resolution, after ruling that a motion to lay the resolution on
the table was not in order.
Parliamentarian's Note: After the ruling cited above, the House did
not proceed to the consideration of H.R. 7 until the following day,
since House Resolution 139 provided for consideration of said bill on
``the day succeeding the adoption of this resolution.''
Rule XXVII, clause 3, was amended by H. Res. 5, 102d Cong. 1st
Sess., Jan. 3, 1991, to permit debate on a resolution discharged from
the Committee on Rules.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. For the earlier version of the rule, see Rule XXVII, clause 4,
House Rules and Manual Sec. 908 (1988): ``If the motion (motion
to discharge committee from bill or resolution) prevails to
discharge the Committee on Rules from any resolution pending
before the committee, the House shall immediately vote on the
adoption of said resolution, the Speaker not entertaining any
dilatory or other intervening motion except one motion to
adjourn . . . .'' The present rule states: ``If the motion
prevails . . . the House shall immediately consider such
resolution . . . .'' Rule XXVII, clause 3, House Rules and
Manual Sec. 908 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 9526]]
Discharge of Privileged Resolution of Inquiry
Sec. 6.7 When a committee to which has been referred a privileged
resolution of inquiry has not reported that resolution within
fourteen (formerly seven) legislative days, a motion to discharge
that committee from further consideration of that resolution is
privileged and not debatable.
On Sept. 29, 1975,(8) the principle described above was
demonstrated in the House as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 121 Cong. Rec. 30748, 94th Cong. 1st Sess. Note: At the time of the
proceedings below, the rules required resolutions of inquiry to
be reported within seven days. The rule now requires reporting
within fourteen days. See Rule XXII, cl. 5, House Rules and
Manual Sec. 855 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [James M.] Collins of Texas: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
privileged motion to discharge the Committee on Education and Labor
from consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 718).
The Speaker: (9) The Clerk will report the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read the motion as follows:
Mr. Collins of Texas moves to discharge the Committee on
Education and Labor from consideration of House Resolution 718.
The Speaker: The Clerk will report the resolution.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 718
Resolved, That the Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare, to the extent not incompatible with the public
interest, is directed to furnish to the House of
Representatives, not later than sixty days following the
adoption of this resolution, any documents containing a list of
the public school systems in the United States which, during
the period beginning on August 1, 1975, and ending on June 30,
1976, will be receiving Federal funds and will be engaging
in the busing of schoolchildren to achieve racial balance, and
any documents respecting the rules and regulations of the
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare with respect to
the use of any Federal funds
administered by the Department
for the busing of schoolchildren to achieve racial balance.
The Speaker: The question is on the privileged motion to
discharge.
The motion was agreed to.
Debate on Resolution of Inquiry
Sec. 6.8 A resolution of inquiry is debatable for one hour, controlled
by the Member calling it up.
During consideration of a privileged resolution (H. Res. 745, in
the matter of Billy Carter) in the House on Sept. 10,
1980,(10) Mr. Peter W. Rodino, Jr., of New Jersey, manager
of the resolution,
[[Page 9527]]
made a statement concerning procedure for debate, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 126 Cong. Rec. 24948, 24949, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Rodino: Mr. Speaker, I call up a privileged resolution (H.
Res. 745) of inquiry in the matter of Billy Carter, and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 745
Resolved, That the President, to the extent possible, is
directed to furnish to the House of Representatives, not later
than seven days following the adoption of this resolution, full
and complete information on the following:
(1) any record and date of all conversations and actions of
the President with Billy Carter relating to the latter's role
as an official or unofficial agent of the Government of Libya.
. . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Rodino), the chairman of the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Mr. Rodino: Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to yield to Members
whom I have already designated, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
McClory), the ranking minority member on the Committee on the
Judiciary, for 15 minutes, for purposes of debate only; the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Broomfield), the ranking minority
member on the Committee on Foreign Affairs, for 10 minutes, for
purposes of debate only; the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Zablocki), the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, for 2
minutes; and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Boland),
chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, for 2
minutes.
Motion To Lay on the Table
Sec. 6.9 A motion to lay on the table is a preferential motion and is
not debatable.
On June 16, 1947,(11) certain words used in debate
characterizing a committee report as containing ``lies and half-
truths'' were demanded to be taken down. Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr.,
of Massachusetts, ruled that the words used were unparliamentary and
Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, moved to strike the entire
statement from the Record. On that motion he asked for recognition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 93 Cong. Rec. 7065, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Vito Marcantonio, of New York, moved to lay the motion to
strike words on the table. Mr. Rankin objected that he had already been
recognized. Speaker Martin ruled that the motion to table was
``preferential and not debatable.'' The House rejected the motion to
table.
On Feb. 20, 1952,(12) the Committee on Foreign Affairs
adversely reported a resolution of inquiry. Mr. James P. Richards, of
South Carolina, moved that the resolution of inquiry be laid on the
table. Speaker Sam Rayburn,
[[Page 9528]]
of Texas, ruled in response to a parliamentary inquiry that no debate
could be had on the motion:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 98 Cong. Rec. 1205-07, 1215, 1216, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Halleck: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of very considerable
importance. Does the making of this motion at this time preclude
all debate, or may we expect that the chairman of the Committee on
Foreign Affairs will yield time to those who may want to discuss
this matter?
The Speaker: The motion to lay on the table is not debatable.
The gentleman from South Carolina cannot yield time after he has
made a motion to lay on the table.
Mr. Halleck: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Halleck: Mr. Speaker, if the chairman of the Committee on
Foreign Affairs could see fit not to make such a motion at this
time, then would this resolution as well as the report be
debatable?
The Speaker: The resolution would be debatable and the time of
1 hour would be under the control of the gentleman from South
Carolina.
The question is on the motion of the gentleman from South
Carolina.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See Rule XVI clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 782 (1995):
``When a question is under debate, no motion shall be received
but to adjourn, to lay on the table, for the previous question
(which motions shall be decided without debate). . . .''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motion To Dispense With Reading of Amendment
Sec. 6.10 A motion under Rule XXIII clause 5(b) to dispense with the
reading of an amendment which has been printed in the Congressional
Record and submitted in the required manner to the reporting
committee is not subject to debate.
On May 6, 1981,(14) during consideration of House
Concurrent Resolution 115 (revising the congressional budget for fiscal
year 1981 and setting forth the congressional budgets for 1982, 1983,
and 1984) in the Committee of the Whole, the following proceedings
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 127 Cong. Rec. 8716, 8721, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Delbert L.] Latta [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The Chairman: (15) Has the gentleman's amendment
been printed in the Record?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Martin Frost (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Latta: Yes, Mr. Chairman, it has been printed in the
Record.
The Chairman: The Clerk will report the amendment. . . .
Mr. Latta (during the reading): Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
[[Page 9529]]
The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Ohio? . . .
Mr. [Theodore S.] Weiss [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I object.
The Chairman: Objection is heard.
Mr. Latta: Mr. Chairman, I move that the amendment be
considered as read and printed in the Record.
The motion was agreed to.
Point of Order
Sec. 6.11 Debate on a point of order is within the discretion of the
Chair.
On Apr. 13, 1951,(16) Mr. Carl Vinson, of Georgia, made
a point of order that an amendment offered by Mr. Antoni N. Sadlak, of
Connecticut, to a pending bill was not in order since not germane to
the bill. Chairman Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, inquired of Mr. Sadlak
whether he desired to be heard on the point of order. Mr. Sadlak
inquired ``how much time will be allotted to me for that purpose?'' The
Chair responded that the time allotted ``was in the discretion of the
Chair.'' (17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 97 Cong. Rec. 3909, 3910, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
17. Points of order on which the Chair has announced his readiness to
rule are not debatable, such debate being at all times within
the discretion of the Chair. See Sec. 6.36, infra; 5 Hinds'
Precedents Sec. Sec. 6919, 6920.
Points of order generally, see Ch. 31, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point of Order of No Quorum
Sec. 6.12 A point of order that a quorum is not present is not
debatable.
On Apr. 15, 1940,(18) Speaker Pro Tempore Sam Rayburn,
of Texas, ruled that since a point of order of no quorum is not
debatable, remarks made after the point of order should not be
included in the Congressional Record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 86 Cong. Rec. 4517, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a little while ago
the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Rankin] made a point of order
that no quorum was present, and thereafter he said:
You are not going to raid the veterans of the World War and
pass these other pension bills and run over the House that way.
I make the point of order there is no quorum present.
Now, the gentleman was not recognized for that purpose; and
then thereafter the gentleman from Mississippi further stated:
And there will be a quorum and a vote on every other bill
from now on today.
The gentleman was not recognized for that purpose, and that
should not be in the Record. I make the point of order that the
language should not be contained in the Record.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from New York makes the
point of order that certain remarks
[[Page 9530]]
made in the House should not be included in the Record. The Chair
is prepared to rule.
Under the rules of the House, remarks should only be included
in the Record that are made in order. After a point of order is
made, which is not debatable, any further remarks should not be
included in the Record. Therefore the Chair rules that any remarks
that may have been made after the point of order that a quorum was
not present was made should not be included in the Record.
On Apr. 24, 1956,(19) while Mr. Carl Vinson, of Georgia,
had the floor and was speaking under a special order, Mr. William M.
Colmer, of Mississippi, made the point of order that a quorum was not
present. Mr. Sidney R. Yates, of Illinois, sought recognition to be
heard on the point of order and Speaker Rayburn ruled that the point of
order that a quorum was not present was not debatable. The Speaker
declined to hold that the point of order was dilatory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 102 Cong. Rec. 6891, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following Announcement of No Quorum
Sec. 6.13 The Chair refuses to recognize Members after the absence of a
quorum has been announced and no debate is in order until a quorum
has been established.
On June 8, 1960,(20) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan,
made the point of order that a quorum was not present. Speaker Sam
Rayburn, of Texas, counted the Members and announced that a quorum was
not present. Mr. Richard Bolling, of Missouri, moved a call of the
House and it was so ordered. Mr. Hoffman then attempted to deliver some
remarks. The Speaker ruled:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 106 Cong. Rec. 12142, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair cannot recognize the gentleman because a point of
order of no quorum has been made, and the Chair announced that
there was no quorum.
Motion To Dispense With Proceedings Under a Call
Sec. 6.14 A motion to dispense with further proceedings un-der a call
of the House is not debatable.
On Aug. 27, 1962,(1) Speaker John W. McCormack, of
Massachusetts, directed the Clerk to read the Journal of the last day's
proceedings. Mr. John Bell Williams, of Mississippi, made the point of
order that a quorum was not present and a call of the House was
ordered. The reading of the Journal was interrupted by three quorum
calls and two record
[[Page 9531]]
votes on dispensing with further proceedings under the quorum
calls.(2) When the motion to dispense with further
proceedings under the call was first made by Mr. Carl Albert, of
Oklahoma, Mr. Williams moved to lay that motion on the table. The
Speaker ruled:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 108 Cong. Rec. 17651-54, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
2. Parliamentarian's Note: The quorum calls, record votes on motions
to
dispense with further proceedings under the call, and demand
that the Journal be read in full interrupted the reading of the
Journal and delayed the Speaker's recognition of a Member to
move to suspend the rules and pass Senate Joint Resolution 29,
proposing a constitutional amendment to abolish use of the poll
tax as a qualification for voting in elections of federal
officials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The motion to dispense with further proceedings under the call
is not debatable and not subject to amendment, and, therefore, the
motion to lay on the table is not in order.
On Dec. 18, 1970,(3) Speaker McCormack ruled that a
motion to dispense with further proceedings under a call of the House
was not debatable:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 116 Cong. Rec. 42505, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The motion to dispense with further proceedings under the call
is not debatable and is not amendable. The Chair rules that the
motion of the gentleman from Missouri is not in order. [Mr. Hall
had moved to table the motion.]
Questions as to Disorderly Words
Sec. 6.15 The question whether words taken down violate the rules is
for the Speaker to decide and is not debatable.
On Jan. 15, 1948,(4) Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York,
referred in debate to a statement by Mr. John E. Rankin, of
Mississippi,
as ``damnable.'' Mr. Rankin demanded that the words be taken down.
After the words were read to the House, Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr.,
of Massachusetts, inquired of Mr. Rankin whether the word ``damnable''
was the word objected to. Mr. Rankin responded and Mr. Celler
interjected the inquiry ``Mr. Speaker, may I be heard?''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 94 Cong. Rec. 205, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker ruled ``That is not debatable. The Chair will pass on
the question.''
On Mar. 9, 1948,(5) after Mr. Rankin had demanded that
certain words used in debate be taken down and Speaker Martin had ruled
them not a breach of order, the following exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Id. at p. 2408.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to be heard.
[[Page 9532]]
The Speaker: It is a matter for the Chair to determine.
Mr. Rankin: I understand; but I would like to be heard on the
matter. We have a right to be heard.
The Speaker: The Chair has held that the words are not
unparliamentary. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Celler] is merely
expressing his own opinion. The gentleman from New York will
proceed.
Sec. 6.16 Words objected to in debate may be withdrawn by unanimous
consent, but no debate is in order pending such a request.
During consideration of the foreign aid authorization bill (H.R.
12514) in the Committee of the Whole on Aug. 2, 1978,(6) the
following exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 124 Cong. Rec. 23944, 23945, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John J.] Cavanaugh [of Nebraska]: . . . I am highly
offended and irritated by much of the language presented here by
Mr. Bauman and by our colleague from Minnesota concerning the
administration support.
[Mr. Cavanaugh further characterized Mr. Bauman's language as
``outrageous,'' the characterization in question.]
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I make a
point of order against the language of the gentleman from Nebraska
if he cannot conduct himself civilly in debate. . . . I demand his
words be taken down. . . .
Mr. Cavanaugh: Mr. Chairman, insofar as the characterization
that I used regarding the gentleman's language could in any way be
construed to impugn the gentleman's character, I would ask
unanimous consent to withdraw it. It was an attempt to simply
convey my feelings of the inappropriateness of the language that
the gentleman had used in putting forth his argument.
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
The Chairman: (7) The gentleman will state his point
of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Don Fuqua (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Bauman: Is not the only request the gentleman from Nebraska
(Mr. Cavanaugh) can make, under the rules of the House, a
unanimous-consent request to withdraw his remarks, and not to make
a speech?
The Chairman: The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman) is
correct.
Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Nebraska?
There was no objection.
--Motion To Permit Offending Member To Proceed
Sec. 6.17 After words taken down in debate have been reported to the
House and ruled out of order by the Speaker, a privileged motion
that the Member whose words were ruled out of order be permitted to
proceed in order may be made and is debatable.
In the proceedings of Oct. 8, 1991, the Chair indicated that the
motion to permit a Member to
[[Page 9533]]
proceed in order is debatable under the hour rule, and that debate is
limited to the question of whether to permit the Member to proceed in
order. The proceedings of that date are discussed in Sec. 52.13, infra.
Consent for Reading Papers
Sec. 6.18 Under a former rule, when objection was made to the reading
of a paper, it should be determined without debate by a vote of the
House.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. See, for example, 98 Cong. Rec. 8175, 8176, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.,
June 26, 1952 (in Committee of the Whole); 92 Cong. Rec. 1729,
79th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 27, 1946; and 88 Cong. Rec. 8237,
77th Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 15, 1942.
Rule XXX, House Rules and Manual Sec. 915 (1991) provided
that the vote on permission to read should be taken without
debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motion To Close Debate Under Five-minute Rule
Sec. 6.19 A motion to close debate under the five-minute rule in the
Committee of the Whole is not debatable.
On Mar. 26, 1965,(9) Chairman Richard Bolling, of
Missouri, ruled that a motion to close debate under the five-minute
rule is nondebatable:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 111 Cong. Rec. 6098, 6099, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Adam C.] Powell [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I move that
all debate on this title and all amendments thereto close now. . .
.
Mrs. [Edith S.] Green of Oregon: Mr. Chairman . . . I rise in
opposition to this motion.
The Chairman: Does the gentleman from New York [Mr. Powell]
withdraw his motion?
Mr. Powell: I do not, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. [Robert P.] Griffin [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Griffin: Mr. Chairman, I understand the chairman of the
full committee to move that debate on title II be cut off at this
time. Was that the motion by the gentleman from New York?
The Chairman: The motion, as the Chair understood it, was that
all debate on section 202 of title II close.
The question is on the motion of the gentleman from New York.
Mr. [William M.] Colmer [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman----
The Chairman: For what purpose does the gentleman from
Mississippi rise?
Mr. Colmer: Mr. Chairman, do I understand the ruling of the
Chair to be that a motion to close debate is not debatable?
The Chairman: That is correct.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See also 75 Cong. Rec. 11453, 72d Cong. 1st Sess., May 27, 1932;
and 75 Cong. Rec. 2749, 72d Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 26, 1932. For
the basis of the ruling, see Rule XXIII clause 6, House Rules
and Manual Sec. 874 (1995): ``The committee may, by the vote of
a majority of the members present, at any time after the five
minutes' debate has begun upon proposed amendments to any
section or paragraph of a bill, close all debate upon such
section or paragraph or, at its election, upon the pending
amendments only (which motion shall be decided without
debate).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 9534]]
Sec. 6.20 A motion to fix the closing of debate under the five-minute
rule in the Committee of the Whole is not debatable.
On Mar. 30, 1950,(11) Chairman Oren Harris, of Arkansas,
responded as follows to a parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 96 Cong. Rec. 4423, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John] Kee [of West Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I move that
all debate on title I and all amendments thereto close in 30
minutes.
Mr. [Compton I.] White of Idaho: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary
inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. White: I would like to know if this motion is debatable.
The Chairman: The motion is not debatable.
Similarly, Chairman Howard W. Smith, of Virginia, ruled on Jan. 19,
1944,(12) that a motion that ``all debate on section 2 and
all amendments thereto close in 30 minutes'' was not debatable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 90 Cong. Rec. 418, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 6.21 The motion to close debate is not subject to debate.
An illustration of the principle described above was demonstrated
in the Committee of the Whole on June 5, 1975,(13) as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 121 Cong. Rec. 17187, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I move that
all debate on the committee amendment and all amendments thereto
conclude at 5:15 o'clock.
Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
The Chairman: (14) The motion is not debatable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Bob Wilson (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from
Michigan.
The motion was agreed to.
Amendments Offered After Expiration of Debate Time
Sec. 6.22 Although Members may offer amendments to a title of a bill
after a time limitation for debate thereon has expired, such
amendments may not be debated.
On May 21, 1959,(15) the House had agreed to close
debate on a
[[Page 9535]]
title of the bill and amendments thereto at a certain time (3:35 p.m.).
Chairman Francis E. Walter, of Pennsylvania, stated in response to
parliamentary inquiries that following the expiration of the time
Members could offer amendments to the title but could not debate such
amendments:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 105 Cong. Rec. 8828, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Is it not a fact that an
amendment may be offered after debate has concluded? Any one has a
right to offer an amendment even after debate has concluded.
The Chairman: The Member may offer an amendment after time for
debate has expired; and the amendment may be reported and voted on,
but it may not be debated.
Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Halleck: Suppose a Member has an amendment which might or
might not be offered depending on the action taken on the pending
amendment and he had informed the Chair of the situation, could not
his time be allotted to him after the pending amendment is disposed
of?
The Chairman: If debate goes beyond 3:35, then, of course, he
could not be recognized for debate.
Parliamentarian's Note: Rule XXIII, clause 6,(16) as
amended in 1971, permits 10 minutes' debate on an amendment which has
been printed in the Congressional Record in accordance with provisions
of the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 874 (1995). For further discussion
of the rule, see Sec. 79, infra. See also Sec. 6.25, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 6.23 Where time for debate on an amendment and amendments thereto
has expired, the Chair may still recognize Members to offer
amendments, but not for further debate.
On Feb. 10, 1964,(17) the Committee of the Whole voted
to close debate on a title of a pending bill and on all amendments
thereto. Chairman Eugene J. Keogh, of New York, subsequently responded
to a parliamentary inquiry on the effect thereof as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 110 Cong. Rec. 2706, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Richard H.] Poff [of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, in light of
the limitation on time may I inquire what amendments will be voted
upon when the time expires? I have two amendments at the desk which
I may or may not offer, depending upon developments. I would like
to be advised whether I will be recognized to offer the amendments
and if so when that time will occur.
The Chairman: The Chair will state to the gentleman from
Virginia that up to 1 o'clock the Chair will undertake to recognize
such Members as he can. After 1 o'clock the Chair will recognize
those Members desiring to offer
[[Page 9536]]
amendments and the question on each amendment will be put
immediately without debate.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Id. at p. 2719. See also 110 Cong. Rec. 18583, 18608, 88th Cong. 2d
Sess., Aug. 7, 1964. For further discussion of debate on
amendments offered after expiration of debate time, see
Sec. 79, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 6.24 Where all time expires for debate on a paragraph of a bill
and on amendments thereto, further amendments may be offered but
are not debatable.
On June 29, 1959,(19) the Committee of the Whole agreed
to a unanimous-consent request to lim-it debate on the pending
paragraph and amendments thereto. In response to parliamentary
inquiries, Chairman Paul J. Kilday, of Texas, stated that when all time
had expired pursuant to that agreement, further amendments could be
offered but not debated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 105 Cong. Rec. 12122-24, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Joel T.] Broyhill [of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, when could
I offer this other amendment?
The Chairman: To this paragraph?
Mr. Broyhill: Yes.
The Chairman: After the disposition of the pending amendment.
The Chair would point out that under the arrangement made, the
gentleman might find himself in the position of not being permitted
to debate the other amendment.
Sec. 6.25 While a perfecting amendment may be offered pending a motion
to strike out a title, it is not debatable, except by unanimous
consent, if offered after expiration of all debate time under a
limitation unless printed in the Record.
On July 29, 1983,(20) during consideration of H.R. 2957
(International Monetary Fund authorization) in the Committee of the
Whole, the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 129 Cong. Rec. 21678, 21679, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [William N.] Patman [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Chairman: (1) Is the amendment printed in the
Record?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Donald J. Pease (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Patman: Yes, it is.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Patman: Strike line 13 on page 18
and all that follows through line 8 on page 28. . . .
perfecting amendment offered by mr. gonzalez
Mr. [Henry B.] Gonzalez [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I have a
perfecting amendment to title III at the desk which I offer.
The Clerk read as follows:
Perfecting amendment offered by Mr. Gonzalez: On line 18,
page 19, strike out ``5,310.8 million Special
[[Page 9537]]
Drawing Right'' and insert in lieu thereof ``1,750 million
Special Drawing Rights''. . . .
The Chairman: The Chair would inquire of the gentleman from
Texas whether this perfecting amendment has been printed in the
Record.
Mr. Gonzalez: No, Mr. Chairman, it has not been printed in the
Record.
Mr. [Fernand J.] St Germain [of Rhode Island]: I have a point
of order, Mr. Chairman. I think that the amendment is not in order.
The Chairman: The Chair would state that the amendment offered
by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez) is a perfecting
amendment to title III. As such, it takes precedence over a motion
to strike. It is in order. . . .
Mr. [Ed] Bethune [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, is it not the
case that when a Member offers a perfecting amendment to an
amendment such as is the case before us now, he should be
recognized for 5 minutes to explain his amendment?
The Chairman: The Chair will state that the rules do not
provide for any debate after a limitation of time on any amendment
which has not been previously printed in the Record. . . .
Mr. Gonzalez: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent, without
pressing a disputation upon an interpretation of the rules, for an
opportunity not to exceed 5 minutes to explain this perfecting
amendment to the pending amendment, as well as on title III, which
was printed in the Record.
The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas? . . .
Mr. [Stephen L.] Neal [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I
object.
The Chairman: Objection is heard.
Motion To Strike Enacting Clause After Closure of Debate
Sec. 6.26 A motion having been adopted in the Committee of the Whole to
close debate on a bill, a preferential motion that the Committee
rise and report back to the House a recommendation that the
enacting clause be stricken is not debatable.
On June 11, 1959,(2) Mr. Harold D. Cooley, of North
Carolina, moved and the Committee of the Whole agreed to close all
debate on the pending bill and on all amendments thereto. Chairman
Joseph L. Evins, of Tennessee, then ruled that a preferential motion on
the bill was not debatable since debate had been closed:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 105 Cong. Rec. 10560, 10561, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, I offer a
preferential motion.
The Chairman: The Chair must inform the gentleman from Michigan
that the motion is not debatable.
Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: Is this a Senate bill?
The Chairman: This is a House bill.
Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: This is a Senate bill and the Chair
holds that it is not debatable at this time?
[[Page 9538]]
The Chairman: All debate on the bill has been ordered closed.
Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: This is not on the bill. This is on a
motion to strike out the enacting clause on the ground that the
first amendment has been denied to the minority here, the right of
free speech in debate, and this being the greatest deliberative
body in the world and the accusation having been made the other day
that the minority was intimidated, or the majority was being
intimidated.
The Chairman: The gentleman from Michigan is a very beloved and
very distinguished and very able parliamentarian, but the majority
have ruled and ordered that all debate is concluded at this time.
Sec. 6.27 A preferential motion to strike the enacting clause is not
debatable after all time for debate on the bill and amendments
thereto has expired.
On July 9, 1965,(3) while the Committee of the Whole was
considering the Voting Rights Act of 1965, H.R. 6400, Chairman Richard
Bolling, of Missouri, ruled that a motion that the Committee rise with
the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken was not
debatable, all time having expired on the bill and amendments thereto:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 111 Cong. Rec. 16280, 89th Cong. 1st Sess. For similar rulings, see
119 Cong. Rec. 24961, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., July 19, 1973; and
123 Cong. Rec. 17719, 95th Cong. 1st Sess., June 7, 1977.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: All time has expired.
Mr. Gerald R. Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I was on the
list, but the time has expired. I have a preferential motion [to
strike the enacting clause].
The Chairman: All debate is concluded even with a preferential
motion. The agreement was that all debate would conclude at 7:20
p.m. The hour is now 7:20 p.m. There is no further time.
The question is on the committee amendment, as amended.
--After Closure of Debate on Amendments Only
Sec. 6.28 The preferential motion that the Committee of the Whole rise
and report the bill back to the House with the recommendation that
the enacting clause be stricken has been held not to be debatable
when all time for debate has expired; however, where debate has
been closed on all amendments to a bill, but not on the bill
itself, a Member offering the preferential motion to report to the
House with the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken
is entitled to five minutes to debate that motion.
[[Page 9539]]
On Aug. 8, 1966,(4) while the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 14765, the Civil Rights Act of 1966, Chairman Richard
Bolling, of Missouri, ruled that where all time had expired on the
title being considered, a motion that the Committee rise and report
back the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken was not
debatable:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 112 Cong. Rec. 18490, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: The time of the gentleman has expired. All time
has expired.
Mr. [William L.] Dickinson [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, I offer
a preferential motion [that the Committee rise and report the bill
back to the House with the recommendation that the enacting clause
be stricken].
The Chairman: All debate on this title has been concluded, and
that would include the preferential motion insofar as this title is
concerned. The preferential motion will not obtain the gentleman
time.
A different situation was presented on May 20, 1975,(5)
during consideration of H.R. 6674 (the military procurement
authorization), when time for debate on amendments, but not on the bill
itself, had expired:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 121 Cong. Rec. 15458, 15465, 15466, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Melvin] Price [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I move that all
debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto, and on further
amendments to the bill, end in 20 minutes.
The Chairman: (6) The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Illinois.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The motion was agreed to. . . .
The Chairman: The time of the gentleman has expired. All time
has expired.
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a
preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Bauman moves that the Committee do now rise and report
the bill back to the House with the recommendation that the
enacting clause be stricken out. . . .
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, I only offer this motion in order to
obtain time since I was not able to receive any time from the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Harkin) who offered what he claimed to be
the Bauman amendment. I have read his amendment very carefully. It
is not the same amendment which I offered to the National Science
Foundation authorization bill because this new amendment covers
subcontracts and contracts. . . .
Mr. [Thomas R.] Harkin [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I move to
strike the requisite number of words, and I rise in opposition to
the preferential motion. . . .
If the offices of other Members are like mine, whenever they
get one of these letters they begin to wonder, and people begin to
ask the Members, just what it is we do to take care of these
situations. If we pass this routine au
[[Page 9540]]
thorization bill for the Defense Department for $32 billion in the
usual manner, we will have to answer to our constituents if we
choose to be honest about it.
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, I demand regular order.
The Chairman: The gentleman speaks on the preferential motion.
The Chair would like to make the observation that any portion
of the bill is open to debate.
Motion That Committee of the Whole Rise
Sec. 6.29 The motion that the Committee of the Whole rise is not
debatable.
On Apr. 23, 1975,(7) the proposition described above was
demonstrated as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 121 Cong. Rec. 11530, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Stewart B.] McKinney [of Connecticut]: Mr. Chairman, I
have serious feelings for the lives that have been involved in the
past and are involved in the present. I move that the Committee do
now rise, and for that purpose I demand a recorded vote.
The Chairman: (8) The gentleman from Connecticut has
made a preferential motion that the Committee do now rise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Otis G. Pike (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I
oppose the motion.
The Chairman: I say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania that the
motion is not debatable.
Sec. 6.30 A motion to rise in the Committee of the Whole is not
debatable.
On Apr. 8, 1964,(9) Chairman Phillip M. Landrum, of
Georgia, advised Mr. Ben F. Jensen, of Iowa, who had moved that the
Committee of the Whole rise, that the motion was not debatable:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 110 Cong. Rec. 7298, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa [Mr.
Jensen].
Mr. Jensen: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise
out of further respect for one of the greatest Americans, Gen.
Douglas MacArthur.
The Chairman: The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Jensen].
Mr. Jensen: Mr. Chairman, I demand tellers. It is disgraceful
to have this sort of thing going on while General MacArthur is
lying here in the Capitol.
The Chairman: The chair will inform the gentleman that a vote
on his motion is being taken. He is not recognized to make a
speech.
Motion To Limit Debate
Sec. 6.31 The motion under Rule XXIII clause 6 to limit debate in
Committee of the Whole is not debatable.
During consideration of H.R. 6096 (10) in the Committee
of the
[[Page 9541]]
Whole on Apr. 23, 1975,(11) the following proceedings
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 121 Cong. Rec. 11534, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
11. The Vietnam Humanitarian and Evacuation Assistance Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: . . . It is my
intention at this time to seek a time limit on the debate if I can
obtain the permission of the House.
Mr. Chairman, I move that the debate on the bill and all
amendments thereto be concluded at 11:30.
Mr. [Paul S.] Sarbanes [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield for a question?
The Chairman: (12) This motion is not a debatable
question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Otis G. Pike (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 6.32 A motion to limit debate under the five-minute rule in
Committee of the Whole is not subject to debate.
On May 18, 1977,(13) during debate in the Committee of
the Whole on the Federal Employees' Political Activities Act of 1977
(H.R. 10), Mr. William Clay, of Missouri, made the following motion:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 123 Cong. Rec. 15418, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Clay: Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on the bill and
all amendments thereto close at 9 o'clock.
The Chairman: (14) . . . Does the Chair understand
the gentleman's motion to be that all debate on the committee
amendment and all amendments thereto cease at 9 o'clock?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. James R. Mann (S.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Clay: And the bill is a part of the motion.
The Chairman: That is the bill. . . .
Mr. [Daniel R.] Glickman [of Kansas]: Mr. Chairman, under this
type of motion is it true that no Member of the body is allowed to
speak for or against the motion?
I would like to speak against the motion. Is that possible?
The Chairman: The Chair will state that the motion is not
debatable.
The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Clay).
Sec. 6.33 A motion to limit debate under the five-minute rule in
Committee of the Whole is not subject to debate.
During consideration of the foreign aid authorization bill (H.R.
12514) in the Committee of the Whole on Aug. 1, 1978,(15)
the following exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 124 Cong. Rec. 23716, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I move
that all debate on the pending amendments and all amendments
thereto conclude at 4:30. . . .
Mr. Gary A. Myers [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, is the
motion now before the House debatable?
The Chairman: (16) The Chair will advise the
gentleman that it is not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Don Fuqua (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Motion To Limit Debate on Disapproval Resolution
Sec. 6.34 Pursuant to section 21(b) of the Federal Trade
[[Page 9542]]
Commission Improvements Act, a motion to limit debate on a
concurrent resolution disapproving a Federal Trade Commission
regulation in Committee of the Whole is privileged and is not
debatable.
The following proceedings occurred in the House on May 26,
1982,(17) during consideration of a motion that the House
resolve into the Committee of the Whole to consider Senate Concurrent
Resolution 60 (disapproving Federal Trade Commission regulations
regarding the sale of used motor vehicles):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 128 Cong. Rec. 12027, 12029, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
the provisions of section 21(b) of Public Law 96-252, I move that
the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union for the consideration of the Senate
concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 60) disapproving the Federal
Trade Commission trade regulation rule relating to the sale of used
motor vehicles; and pending that motion, Mr. Speaker, I move that
general debate on the Senate concurrent resolution be limited to
not to exceed 2 hours, 1 hour to be controlled by the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Florio) and 1 hour to be controlled by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Lee). . . .
The Speaker: (18) The gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Dingell) made the motion that the debate be limited to 2 hours. . .
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair will state that the motion to limit debate is not
debatable.
Mr. [Toby] Moffett [of Connecticut]: I cannot yield, Mr.
Speaker?
The Speaker: The motion is pending.
Parliamentarian's Note: A motion to resolve into Committee of the
Whole for consideration of a concurrent resolution disapproving an
agency action is highly privileged and may be offered before the third
day on which a report thereon is available since, under an exception
contained in Rule XI, the requirement of clause 2(l)(6) of that rule
that committee reports be available to Members for three days is not
applicable to a measure disapproving a decision by a government
agency.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See Sec. 2.44, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motion for Previous Question
Sec. 6.35 The motion for the previous question is not debatable.
On Jan. 3, 1949,(20) at the convening of the 81st
Congress, the House was considering House Resolution 5, amending the
rules of the House. Mr. Adolph J. Sabath, of Illinois, who had of
[[Page 9543]]
fered the resolution, moved the previous question. Mr. John E. Rankin,
of Mississippi, offered a substitute and answered that he had a ``right
to be heard.'' Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, held that the previous
question was not debatable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 95 Cong. Rec. 10, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Sept. 13, 1965,(1) Mr. Carl Albert, of Oklahoma,
moved that the Journal be approved as read and moved the previous
question on the motion. Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts,
declared:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 111 Cong. Rec. 23601, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair will state that the motion on the previous question
is not debatable. The question is on ordering the previous question
on the motion to approve the Journal.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. See Rule XVI clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 782 (1995):
``When a question is under debate, no motion shall be received
but to adjourn, to lay on the table, for the previous question
(which motions shall be decided without debate) . . . .''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Points of Order and Inquiries After Demand for Previous Question
Sec. 6.36 Although incidental questions of order arising after a demand
for the previous question are not debatable, the Chair may in his
discretion permit a Member to address a point of order or may
entertain a parliamentary inquiry.
On Mar. 27, 1926,(3) Mr. John McDuffie, of Alabama,
offered a motion to instruct conferees and the previous question was
moved thereon. Mr. McDuffie then propounded a parliamentary inquiry and
Speaker Pro Tempore Bertrand H. Snell, of New York, entertained the
inquiry. Several points of order and inquiries intervened and the
Speaker Pro Tempore allowed debate thereon. When Mr. Cassius C. Dowell,
of Iowa, made the point of order that a parliamentary inquiry was not
in order pending a vote on ordering the previous question, the Speaker
Pro Tempore overruled the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 67 Cong. Rec. 6468, 6469, 69th Cong. 1st Sess.
Parliamentarian's Note: Rule XVII clause 3, House Rules and Manual
(1995) provides that incidental questions of order arising after a
motion is made for the previous question, and pending such motion,
shall be decided, whether on appeal or otherwise, without debate.
The rule does not however deprive the Chair of his discretionary
power, under the precedents, over debate on a point of
[[Page 9544]]
order or a parliamentary inquiry.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. For the Chair's discretion over debate on a point of order, see
Sec. 6.11, supra. For parliamentary inquiries, see Ch. 31,
infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 Minutes Debate After Previous Question Ordered; Motion To Approve
Journal
Sec. 6.37 Where the previous question is ordered on a debatable motion
without debate, a Member may demand the right to debate; and the 40
minutes permitted under the rule is divided between the person
demanding the time and some Member who represents the opposing view
of the question.
On Sept. 13, 1965,(5) the previous question was ordered,
without debate, on the motion to
approve the Journal, as read. Speaker John W. McCormack, of
Massachusetts, stated, in response to a parliamentary inquiry by Mr.
Durward G. Hall, of Missouri, that pursuant to Rule XXVII, clause
2,(6) any Member could demand the right to debate the motion
since it was debatable and since the previous question had been ordered
without debate. The Speaker recognized Mr. Hall for 20 minutes and then
recognized a Member in opposition, Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, for 20
minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 111 Cong. Rec. 23602, 23604-06, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
6. Rule XXVII, clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 907 (1995)
provides that ``whenever the previous question has been ordered
on any proposition on which there has been no debate,'' it
shall be in order ``to debate the proposition to be voted upon
for forty minutes, one-half of such time to be given to debate
in favor of and one-half to debate in opposition to, such
proposition.'' For further discussion of this rule, see
Sec. 69, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: Although, as indicated above, the motion to
approve the Journal as read is debatable, Rule I, clause 1
(7) provides for a nondebatable motion that the Journal be
read, where the Speaker's approval of the Journal has not been agreed
to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. House Rules and Manual Sec. 621 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motion That Journal Be Read
Sec. 6.38 Under a former practice, a privileged motion, pursuant to
Rule I, clause 1, that the Journal be read, could be made pending
the Speaker's announcement of his approval of the Journal and prior
to approval of the Journal by the House, and was not debatable; the
present
[[Page 9545]]
rule provides that it is in order to offer one motion that the
Journal be read only if the Speaker's approval of the Journal is
not agreed to, such motion to be determined without
debate.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. See the present Rule I, clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 621
(1995).
On Apr. 23, 1975,(9) after Speaker Carl Albert, of
Oklahoma, announced his approval of the Journal, a Member moved that
the Journal be read. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 121 Cong. Rec. 11482, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: The Chair has examined the Journal of the last
day's proceedings and announces to the House his approval thereof.
Is there objection to dispensing with the reading of the
Journal?
Mr. John L. Burton [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I move,
pursuant to the rules of the House, that the Journal be read.
The Speaker: The question is, shall the Journal be read?
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. John L. Burton: 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: 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
16, nays 386, not voting 30. . . .
So the motion was rejected.
Parliamentarian's Note: If the Speaker's approval of the Journal is
rejected, a motion to amend takes precedence of a motion to approve
(10) and a Member offering an amendment is recognized un-der
the hour rule.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 2760; 6 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 633.
11. See 136 Cong. Rec. 4488, 101st Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 19, 1990.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motion To Recommit
Sec. 6.39 A simple motion to recommit may not be described by its
proponent after the previous question has been ordered, since such
description would amount to debate which is not then in order.
On July 2, 1958,(12) the previous question was ordered
on the final passage of H.R. 13192, making appropriations for mutual
security and other related purposes. Mr. John Taber, of New York,
offered a motion to recommit and Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, stated
in response to a parliamentary in
[[Page 9546]]
quiry that no debate was in order on the motion, the previous question
having been ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 104 Cong. Rec. 12974, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: The motion to recommit offered by Mr. Taber
was a motion to recommit with instructions, but the Speaker ruled that
the motion could not be described since the rules in effect in the 85th
Congress and the precedents of the House prohibited any debate on any
motion to recommit offered after the previous question had been
ordered. In the 92d Congress, Rule XVI clause 4 was amended to allow 10
minutes' debate on a motion to recommit a bill or joint resolution with
instructions offered after the ordering of the previous
question.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 782 (1995).
Sec. 6.40 The 10 minutes of debate on a motion to recommit with
instructions applies on-ly to bills and joint resolutions and is
not in order on a motion to recommit a concurrent resolution with
instructions.
On May 7, 1975,(14) during consideration of Senate
Concurrent Resolution 23 (15) in the Committee of the Whole,
the Chair responded to a parliamentary inquiry regarding debate on a
motion. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 121 Cong. Rec. 1366, 1367, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
15. Authorizing printing of additional copies of ``The Congressional
Program of Economic Recovery and Energy Sufficiency.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
motion to recommit with instructions.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Bauman moves to recommit Senate Concurrent Resolution
23 to the Committee on House Administration with instructions
to report the resolution back forthwith with the following
amendment: Page 1, line 3 and 4 strike the word
``Congressional'' and insert in lieu thereof the word
``Democrat''.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (16) Is the gentleman
opposed to the Senate concurrent resolution?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. John J. McFall (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Bauman: I am, Mr. Speaker, in its present form or in any
other form.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Without objection, the previous
question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Bauman: Am I not permitted time to discuss the motion?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: I would inform the gentleman from
Maryland that it is not a debatable motion on a concurrent
resolution.
Sec. 6.41 A motion to recommit
a simple resolution with
[[Page 9547]]
instructions, the previous question having been ordered, is not
debatable, clause 4 of Rule XVI only permitting 10 minutes of
debate on a motion to recommit a bill or joint resolution with
instructions.
On Oct. 13, 1978,(17) the following proceedings occurred
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 124 Cong. Rec. 37009, 37016, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John J.] Flynt [Jr., of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
privileged resolution (H. Res. 1416) and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1416
Resolved, That Representative Edward R. Roybal be censured
and that the House of Representatives adopt the Report of the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct dated October 6,
1978, In the matter of Representative Edward R. Roybal. . . .
Mr. Flynt: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the
resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
Mr. Bob Wilson [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion
to recommit.
The Speaker: (18) Is the gentleman opposed to the
resolution?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Bob Wilson: I am.
The Speaker: The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Bob Wilson moves to recommit the resolution, House
Resolution 1416, to the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct with instructions to report the same back forthwith
with the following amendment. Strike all after the resolving
clause and insert:
That Edward R. Roybal be and he is hereby reprimanded.
The Speaker: Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
Mr. [Bruce F.] Caputo [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Caputo: Is time allowed for debate?
The Speaker: The motion is not debatable.
The question is on the motion to recommit with instructions.
Sec. 6.42 Where the previous question has been ordered on a resolution
prior to adoption of the rules, the motion to commit (with or
without instructions) is not debatable, but is itself subject to
the motion for the previous question to cut off amendment.
On Jan. 5, 1981,(19) the following proceedings occurred
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 127 Cong. Rec. 98, 111-13, 97th Cong. 1st Sess. See also 57 Cong.
Rec. 79, 63d Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 7, 1913.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 9548]]
Mr. [James C.] Wright [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
privileged resolution (H. Res. 5) and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 5
Resolved, That the Rules of the House of Representatives of
the Ninety-sixth Congress, including all applicable provisions
of law which constituted the Rules of the House at the end of
the Ninety-sixth Congress, be, and they are hereby, adopted as
the Rules of the House of Representatives of the Ninety-seventh
Congress, with the following amendments included therein as
part thereof, to wit:
(1) In Rule I, clause 4 is amended by adding at the end
thereof the following new sentence: ``The Speaker is authorized
to sign enrolled bills whether or not the House is in
session.''. . . .
Mr. Wright: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the
resolution.
The Speaker: (20) The question is on ordering the
previous question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, on that I
demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 216,
nays 179, not voting 25, as follows: . . .
Mr. Michel: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to commit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Michel moves to commit the resolution (H. Res. 5) to a
select committee to be appointed by the Speaker and to be
composed of nine members, not more than five of whom shall be
from the same political party, with instructions to report the
same back to the House within 7
calendar days with the following amendment:
On page 10, after line 8, add the following:
(19) In rule X, clause 6(a) is amended by adding the
following new subparagraph:
``(3) The membership of each committee and of each
subcommittee, task force or subunit thereof, shall reflect the
ratio of majority to minority party members of the House at the
beginning of this Congress. . . .
Mr. Michel (during the reading): Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that the motion be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (21) Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Illinois?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. John P. Murtha (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Trent] Lott [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the
right to object, I will not object except to ask the distinguished
Republican leader to explain the motion. . . .
Mr. Michel: Mr. Speaker, as indicated, this motion is not a
debatable motion. Most of my colleagues have been conversant with
motions to recommit. This is a motion to commit to a select
committee of nine members, five of whom would be Members of the
majority party, to accomplish several goals.
Let me briefly--while I am no better reader than the reading
clerk--outline for my colleagues what these things are. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (1) Without objection, the
previous question is ordered on the motion to commit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Bill Alexander (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 9549]]
There was no objection.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the motion to
commit. . . .
So the motion to commit was rejected.
Motion To Refer Resolution Offered as Question of Privileges of House
Sec. 6.43 When a resolution is offered as a question of privilege and
is debatable under the hour rule, a motion to refer is in order
before debate begins and is debatable for one hour under the
control of the offeror of the motion.
On Mar. 4, 1985,(2) during consideration of House
Resolution 97 (to seat Richard D. McIntyre as a Member from Indiana) in
the House, the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 131 Cong. Rec. 4277, 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: (3) The gentleman states a
valid question of privilege.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr.
Alexander).
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 recognized.
Mr. Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Alexander: Mr. Speaker, for what period of time am I
recognized?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is entitled to 1 hour
under that motion, during which time the gentleman from Arkansas
controls the time.
Mr. Alexander: Mr. Speaker, does the minority wish time on the
motion?
Mr. Michel: Yes.
[[Page 9550]]
Mr. Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I would yield 30 minutes for
purposes of debate only, to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Michel).
Sec. 6.44 The motion to refer a resolution offered as a question of the
privileges of the House, which is in order pending the demand for
the previous question or after the previous question is ordered, is
not subject to debate; and a Member offering the motion need not
qualify as stating his opposition to the resolution since it has
not been reported from committee but has been offered as an
original proposition on the floor of the House.
On Apr. 28, 1983,(4) the House had under consideration a
resolution,(5) presented as a question of the privileges of
the House, of refusal to comply with a subpena duces tecum issued by a
U.S. District Court served on the Clerk for the production of records
in his custody (documents of a select committee from a prior Congress).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 129 Cong. Rec. 10417, 10423, 10424, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
5. H. Res. 176, concerning privileges of the House related to
investigative records of the Select Committee on Aging.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (6) The gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Foley) is recognized for 1 hour. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Thomas S.] Foley [of Washington: . . . Mr. Speaker, I move
the previous question on the resolution.
Mr. [F. James] Sensenbrenner [Jr., of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker,
I offer a motion to refer.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Sensenbrenner moves to refer the resolution to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Without objection, the previous
question is ordered on the motion to refer.
There was no objection.
[The motion to refer was rejected.]
Amendments to Title of Bill After Bill Is Passed
Sec. 6.45 Amendments to the title of a bill are not in order until
after passage of the bill, and are then voted upon without debate,
under Rule XIX.
The principle described above was demonstrated on Dec. 2,
1975,(7) during consideration of the Intergovernmental
Emergency Assistance Act (H.R. 10481) in the Committee of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 121 Cong. Rec. 38193, 38194, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: (8) The question is on the amendment
in the nature of a substitute, as amended, offered by the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. J. William Stanton).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. James G. O'Hara (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr.
Bauman) there were--ayes 71, nays 31.
[[Page 9551]]
So the amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, was
agreed to.
Mr. J. William Stanton [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a
technical amendment.
The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman from Ohio
that inasmuch as the amendment in the nature of a substitute has
been agreed to, no further amendments are in order at this time.
The amendment sent to the desk by the gentleman from Ohio would be
in order in the House after the committee has risen. . . .
Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed
the chair, Mr. O'Hara, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had
under consideration the bill (H.R. 10481) to authorize emergency
guarantees of obligations of States and political subdivisions
thereof; to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to provide that
income from certain obligations guaranteed by the United States
shall be subject to taxation; to amend the Bankruptcy Act; and for
other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 865, he reported the
bill back to the House with an amendment adopted by the Committee
of the Whole.
The Speaker: (9) Under the rule, the previous
question is ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The Speaker: The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and
was read the third time.
The Speaker: The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: 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: 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
213, nays 203, answered ``present'' 2, not voting 16, as follows: .
. .
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Mr. J. William Stanton: Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment to
the title.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. J. William Stanton to the title:
Amend the title so as to read: ``A bill to authorize the
Secretary of the Treasury to provide seasonal financing for the
City of New York.''
The title amendment was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Sec. 6.46 Committee amendments to the title of a bill are automatically
reported by the Clerk after passage of the bill, but an amendment
to a committee amendment to the
[[Page 9552]]
title may be offered from the floor and is voted on without debate
under Rule XIX.
On Sept. 23, 1977,(10) the House having under
consideration the Age Discrimination In Employment Act Amendments (H.R.
5383), the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 123 Cong. Rec. 30573, 30574, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (11) The Clerk will report
the title amendment to the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Richard Nolan (Minn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Title amendment: Amend the title so as to read: ``A bill to
amend the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 to
provide that Federal employees who are 40 years of age or older
shall be protected by the provisions of section 15 of such Act,
and for other purposes.''.
Mr. [Augustus F.] Hawkins [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I offer
an amendment to the title amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Hawkins to the title amendment:
Page 7, strike out the matter following line 5 and insert in
lieu thereof the following:
Amend the title so as to read as follows: ``A bill to amend
the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 to extend the
age group of employees who are protected by the provisions of
such Act, and for other purposes.''.
The amendment to the title amendment was agreed to.
The title amendment, as amended, was agreed to.
Sec. 6.47 Amendments to the title of a bill are presented after the
bill is passed and are not debatable.
On Dec. 11, 1947,(12) Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of
Massachusetts, ruled that an amendment to the title of a bill (or other
measure), properly offered after the bill is passed, is not debatable:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 93 Cong. Rec. 11307, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Charles J.] Kersten of Wisconsin: Mr. Speaker, I have an
amendment to change the title of the bill, which I understand is
proper.
The Speaker: That will come after the passage of the bill.
Mr. Kersten: I should like to inform the membership that this
is an important amendment and I should like to speak on it.
The Speaker: It is not debatable.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See also 76 Cong. Rec. 867, 72d Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 21, 1932; 75
Cong. Rec. 12097, 72d Cong. 1st Sess., June 6, 1932.
Rule XIX House Rules and Manual Sec. 822 (1995) furnishes
the basis for the Speaker's ruling: ``Amendments to the title
of a bill or resolution shall not be in order until after its
passage, and shall be decided without debate.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motion To Reconsider
Sec. 6.48 The motion to reconsider is not debatable unless
[[Page 9553]]
the question proposed to be reconsidered is debatable.
On Sept. 13, 1965,(14) the House adopted, without
debate, House Resolution 506, which was pending in the Committee on
Rules and was called up under the ``21-day rule'' in effect in the 89th
Congress; the resolution made in order the consideration of H.R. 10065,
the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1965. Mr. William M. McCulloch,
of Ohio, who had voted in the affirmative on the adoption of the
resolution, moved to reconsider the vote whereby the resolution was
adopted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 111 Cong. Rec. 23608, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to parliamentary inquiries, Speaker John W. McCormack,
of Massachusetts, stated that the motion to reconsider, under the
circumstances, would be debatable:
The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. [Melvin R.] Laird [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, on the
resolution just passed no one was allowed to debate that resolution
on behalf of the minority or the majority. If this motion to table,
offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Albert] is defeated,
then there will be time to debate the resolution just passed.
The question of reconsideration is debatable, and it can be
debated on the merits of the legislation which has not been debated
by the House.
The Speaker: What part of the gentleman's statement does he
make as a parliamentary inquiry?
Mr. Laird: Mr. Speaker, if the motion to table is defeated, the
motion to reconsider will give us an opportunity to debate the
question on the resolution.
The Speaker: Under the present circumstances, the motion to
reconsider would be debatable.
Mr. Laird: I thank the Speaker.
Mr. McCulloch: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. McCulloch: Mr. Speaker, what time would be allowed to
debate the question and how would it be divided?
The Speaker: It will be under the 1-hour rule and the gentleman
from Ohio would be entitled to the control of the entire
hour.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. For debate on the motion to reconsider, see House Rules and Manual
Sec. 819 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 6.49 A motion to reconsider is not debatable where the question
proposed to be reconsidered was not debatable; and where the
previous question had been ordered on a debatable motion before the
vote on adoption, the motion to reconsider the motion is not
debatable.
On May 29, 1980,(16) proceedings occurred pertaining to
[[Page 9554]]
House Resolution 660, in the matter of Representative Charles H.
Wilson. A motion was made to reconsider a motion to postpone that had
been defeated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 126 Cong. Rec. 12663, 96th Cong. 2d Sess. For further discussion of
the proceedings, see Sec. 6.51, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Allen E.] Ertel [of Pennsylvania]: . . . Mr. Speaker, I
move to reconsider the vote to postpone. . . .
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry. . . .
Mr. Speaker, does a motion to reconsider admit of debate?
The Speaker: (17) There is no debate on this
reconsideration motion, since the previous question was ordered on
the motion to postpone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: The above precedent represents the modern
practice. An earlier precedent (18) had considered the
previous question to be ``exhausted by the vote on the motion on which
it is ordered, and consequently a motion to reconsider the vote on the
main question is debatable.'' Under current rulings, the motion to
reconsider is not debatable unless the previous question is also
reconsidered.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5494.
19. See also 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5701.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After Adoption of Motion To Reconsider
Sec. 6.50 Under the modern practice, where the House adopts a motion to
reconsider a vote on a question on which the previous question has
been ordered, the question to be reconsidered is neither debatable
nor amendable (unless the vote on the previous question is
separately reconsidered).
The following proceedings occurred in the House on July 2,
1980,(20) during consideration of H.R. 7452 (supplemental
appropriations and rescission bill for fiscal year 1980):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 126 Cong. Rec. 18348, 18349, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (1) The motion offered by
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Long) has been divided at the
request of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Paul Simon (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question is, Will the House recede from its disagreement to
Senate amendment No. 95? . . .
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas
198, nays 196, not voting 39, as follows: . . .
So the House receded from its disagreement to Senate amendment
No. 95. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is, will the House concur
in Senate amendment No. 95 with an amendment? . . .
So the motion was agreed to. . . .
Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
[[Page 9555]]
Mr. Whitten moves that the House recede from its
disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 118 and
concur therein with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the
matter proposed by said amendment, insert: . . .
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I want to
commend the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Whitten) for the
warning that he gave to this House a few minutes ago regarding the
Long amendment on foreign aid. . . .
Mr. Whitten: Mr. Speaker, could there be a reconsideration of
the vote on which the Long amendment passed?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Such a motion would be in order at the
proper time.
Mrs. [Margaret M.] Heckler [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I
move to reconsider the vote by which--and I voted on the prevailing
side--the vote on the Long amendment.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: That motion is not in order to be
voted on at this time, since another motion is pending. . . .
Mrs. Heckler: I would like to know, then, what time such a
motion would be in order.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: When there is no other motion pending
before the House, that motion would be in order. . . .
Mr. Whitten: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the amendment be
withdrawn.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Mississippi
withdraws his motion. . . .
Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Then is it my
understanding that a motion to reconsider the past amendment is in
order?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: There is no motion pending.
Mrs. Heckler: Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote by
which the motion to concur with the amendment of Mr. Long was
passed by the House. I think great confusion surrounded that
amendment and the position of the House, and I was one Member who
was misled by it. I would like to move reconsideration, and I voted
on the prevailing side.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentlewoman from Massachusetts
vot-ed on the prevailing side.
The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mrs. Heckler moves to reconsider the vote by which the
motion to concur with an amendment by Mr. Long of Maryland was
passed by the House.
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry. . . .
I will ask, is the motion to reconsider debatable?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that the previous
question had been ordered on the entire motion to recede and concur
with an amendment, and so the motion is not debatable. . . .
Mr. Bauman: Could the Chair describe on what motion the next
vote will come.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: We are about to vote on the motion of
the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Mrs. Heckler) on the motion to
reconsider.
Mr. Bauman: To reconsider what, Mr. Speaker?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: To reconsider the motion to concur
with an amendment to Senate amendment 95
[[Page 9556]]
offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Long).
Mr. Bauman: If that motion prevails, what will be the situation
as far as the Long amendment?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The House will vote immediately on the
Long motion.
Mr. Bauman: Will that amendment be debatable at that time?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: It will not. The previous question has
been ordered.
Mr. Bauman: So the vote would occur first on reconsideration
then on the Long amendment?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: That is correct. . . .
Mr. [Mike] McCormack [of Washington]: In the event that this
motion prevails, will it be in order to amend the Long amendment to
reduce the amount of money equivalent?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: It would not be. The House would then
vote on the Long amendment.
Mr. McCormack: A further parliamentary inquiry.
Would it then be in order to submit a substitute for the Long
amendment reducing it by the amount necessary to pass the revenue-
sharing measure?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: If the Long motion is defeated, the
Senate amendment is still before the House for disposition by
motion.
Mr. McCormack: I thank the Speaker.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the motion to
reconsider offered by the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Mrs.
Heckler).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced
that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, on that I
demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes
243, nays 124, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 65, as follows: .
. .
Parliamentarian's Note: Under the earlier practice, when a vote
taken under operation of the previous question was reconsidered, the
main question stood divested of the previous question, and could be
debated and amended without reconsideration of the motion for the
previous question.(2) Under the modern practice, however,
the question being reconsidered should not be debatable nor amendable
unless the House votes separately to reconsider the vote whereby the
previous question was ordered. Thus, if the reason for reconsideration
is merely to permit the House to vote again immediately without further
debate, the modern practice would permit this, but if further debate or
amendment were desired, the House would first have to reconsider the
ordering of the previous question. (As indicated in the above
proceedings, rejection, upon reconsideration, of a motion to concur in
a Senate amendment with an amendment would permit
[[Page 9557]]
the offering of another debatable motion to dispose of the Senate
amendment.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. See 5 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 5491, 5492, 5700.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 6.51 The House having voted to reconsider a motion on which the
previous question had been ordered when first voted upon, no debate
on the motion is in order except by unanimous consent.
During consideration of House Resolution 660 (in the matter of
Representative Charles H. Wil-son) in the House on May 29,
1980,(3) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 126 Cong. Rec. 12663-65, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Allen E.] Ertel [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I was in
the House when the previous speaker . . . evidently brought in
material which was not in the record before the committee, which in
my judgment means there has been surprise to the defense in this
case in the fact that the gentleman brought up evidence, which is a
document from the State of California. . . .
I would ask the Chair, is there any procedure where I can make
a motion, so that we can handle this in a fair and expeditious
manner and give him the opportunity to respond to that and to get
the evidence from California? . . .
The Speaker: (4) The only motion available that the
Chair would know of, unless the gentleman from Florida would yield,
would be the motion for reconsideration, if the gentleman voted on
the prevailing side of the motion of the gentleman from California
(Mr. Rousselot). That was a motion to postpone to a day certain,
which was defeated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Ertel: . . . Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote to
postpone. . . .
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry. . . .
Mr. Speaker, does a motion to reconsider admit of debate?
The Speaker: There is no debate on this reconsideration motion,
since the previous question was ordered on the motion to postpone.
. . .
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Ertel moves that the House reconsider the vote on the
motion to postpone to a day certain. . . .
The Speaker: The question is on the motion offered by Mr. Ertel
to reconsider the vote on the motion offered by Mr. Rousselot to
postpone consideration. . . .
So the motion to reconsider the vote on the motion to postpone
was agreed to. . . .
The Speaker: The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Rousselot) to postpone to June 10.
Mr. [Wyche] Fowler [Jr., of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, I would like
to ask unanimous consent from this body for 10 minutes, to be
equally divided between the opposition and the majority party, to
debate the motion now before us by the gentleman from California
(Mr. Rousselot). . . .
[[Page 9558]]
The Speaker: Is there objection to the 10 minutes' debate?
The Chair hears none.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Rousselot) is recognized for
5 minutes, and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Fowler) is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Parliamentarian's Note: The above precedent represents the modern
practice. Earlier precedents (5) supported the view that
``when a vote taken under the operation of the previous question is
reconsidered, the main question stands divested of the previous
question, and may be debated and amended without reconsideration of the
motion for the previous question.'' In current practice, separate
reconsideration of the motion for the previous question would be
required for debate and amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. See 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 5491, 5492.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motion or Resolution To Adjourn
Sec. 6.52 A concurrent resolution providing for adjournment of Congress
to a day certain
is not debatable, but the Speaker may in his discretion permit some
discussion where no point of order is raised.
On Aug. 28, 1967,(6) Mr. Carl Albert, of Oklahoma,
called up House Concurrent Resolution 497, providing for an adjournment
to a day certain of the two Houses of Congress. Speaker John W.
McCormack, of Massachusetts, ruled that the resolution was not
debatable, but permitted Mr. Albert to yield to another Member for a
brief statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 113 Cong. Rec. 24201, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, I move to strike the
last word.
The Speaker: The Chair will state that this is not a debatable
resolution.
Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Albert: I yield to the gentleman from Iowa for the purpose
of making a brief statement.
Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the distinguished
majority leader why the adjournment resolution was not made
effective as of the first of this week, and why the recess was not
planned to take in this week as well as next week?
Mr. Albert: We have discussed this matter with the leadership
on both sides, and it was determined it would be impractical to do
so. . . .
The concurrent resolution was agreed to.
Sec. 6.53 A privileged concurrent resolution providing for an
adjournment of the House for more than three days to a day certain
is not subject to debate, except by unanimous consent.
[[Page 9559]]
On Aug. 16, 1978,(7) the following proceedings occurred
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 124 Cong. Rec. 26437, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [James C.] Wright [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
privileged concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 696) and ask for its
immediate consideration and pending that, Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that I may proceed for 1 minute.
The Speaker: (8) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Texas?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
Mr. Wright: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this concurrent
resolution is to permit adjournment for our August district work
period. . . .
The Speaker: The Clerk will report the concurrent resolution.
The Clerk read the concurrent resolution as follows:
H. Con. Res. 696
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That when the House adjourns on Thursday, August
17, 1978, it stands adjourned until 12 o'clock meridian on
Wednesday, September 6, 1978.
Sec. 6.54 A concurrent resolution providing for an adjournment of more
than three days for the House and Senate is not debatable, but the
Chair may in his discretion recognize for debate under a
reservation of the right to object (to adoption of the resolution).
On Aug. 27, 1980,(9) the following proceedings occurred
in
the House during consideration
of Senate Concurrent Resolution 118:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 126 Cong. Rec. 23459, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker laid before the House the privileged Senate
concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 118) providing for a recess of
the Senate from August 27 to September 3, 1980, and an adjournment
of the House from August 28 to September 3, 1980.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate concurrent resolution.
The Clerk read the Senate concurrent resolution, as follows:
S. Con. Res. 118
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives
concurring), That when the Senate completes its business on
Wednesday, August 27, 1980, it stand in recess until 10 o'clock
a.m. on Wednesday, September 3, 1980, and that when the House
completes its business on Thursday, August 28, 1980, it stand
adjourned until 12 o'clock noon on Wednesday, September 3,
1980.
The Speaker: (10) Without objection, the Senate
concurrent resolution is concurred in.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, are we
permitted to debate this matter?
The Speaker: No, it is not debatable.
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I
wondered whether
[[Page 9560]]
any Member intended to explain the necessity for the recess, in
view of the fact there has been some objection quite obviously from
the minority about recessing at all because of the announced
lameduck session. . . .
The Speaker: The Chair will state that this is a long-announced
recess, since the beginning of the year, and Members from both
sides of the aisle expect to be home, of course, and in their
district through Labor Day. . . .
The leadership, I am sure, was in agreement with this earlier
in the year when the schedule for the year was printed.
The question comes on adoption of the Senate concurrent
resolution. Without objection----
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I would further reserve the right to
object, unless the Chair wants to put the question.
The Speaker: The Chair would like to put the question unless
the gentleman desires to say something further. Does the gentleman
reserve the right to object to adopting the concurrent resolution
by unanimous consent?
Mr. Bauman: I reserve the right to object, Mr. Speaker.
I am only saying, Mr. Speaker, that the legislative schedule
has been changed before. We have been told that we will recess on
October 4, as opposed to staying and completing our work, and then
we will come back into further session after the election. If that
kind of a major change can be made, it seems to me there is still
time for us to consider the possibility of staying in session, as
has been suggested by the minority leader, the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Rhodes).
The Speaker: The Chair will put the question, and the Members,
if they desire to vote on it, may vote as they see fit.
Mr. Bauman: I thank the Chair and I urge a vote against the
recess so that we can stay here and finish our business and avoid a
lameduck session.
The Speaker: The question is on the Senate concurrent
resolution.
--Sine Die Adjournment
Sec. 6.55 While a concurrent resolution providing for sine die
adjournment is not debatable, a Member may, by unanimous consent,
be permitted to proceed for one minute during its consideration.
On Dec. 20, 1974,(11) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma,
recognized the Majority Leader, Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr., of
Massachusetts, to offer a privileged concurrent resolution:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 120 Cong. Rec. 41815, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. O'Neill: Mr. Speaker, I offer a concurrent resolution (H.
Con. Res. 697) and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the concurrent resolution, as follows:
H. Con. Res. 697
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That when the two Houses adjourn on Friday,
December 20, 1974, they
[[Page 9561]]
shall stand adjourned sine die or until 12:00 noon on the
second day after their respective Members are notified to
reassemble in accordance with Section 2 of this resolution,
whichever event first occurs.
Sec. 2. The Speaker of the House of Representatives and the
President of the Senate or the President pro tempore of the
Senate shall notify the Members of the House and the Senate,
respectively, to reassemble whenever, in their opinion, the
public interest shall warrant it, or whenever the majority
leader of the Senate and the majority leader of the House,
acting jointly, or the minority leader of the Senate and the
minority [leader] of the House, acting jointly, file a written
request with the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the
House that the Congress reassemble for the consideration of
legislation.
The Speaker: The question is on the concurrent resolution.
The question was taken and the Speaker announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand
the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were refused.
(Mr. Ashbrook asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute, and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Sec. 6.56 A concurrent resolution providing for adjournment sine die is
not debatable except by unanimous consent.
On occasion, unanimous consent has been given for debate on a
concurrent resolution providing for adjournment sine die. Thus, on Oct.
11, 1984,(12) debate was allowed on House Concurrent
Resolution 377:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 130 Cong. Rec. 32232, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [James C.] Wright [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
privileged concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 377), and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the concurrent resolution, as follows:
H. Con. Res. 377
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That the two Houses of Congress shall adjourn on
Thursday, October 11, 1984, and that when they adjourn on said
day, they stand adjourned sine die.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (13) Without objection, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Wright) is recognized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Steny H. Hoyer (Md.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
Mr. Wright: Mr. Speaker, the resolution is quite clear.
Sec. 6.57 A concurrent resolution providing for a sine die adjournment
is not subject to debate.
On July 30, 1954,(14) Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of
Massachusetts, stated in response to a parliamentary inquiry that House
Concurrent Resolution 266, providing for the adjournment sine
[[Page 9562]]
die of the Congress on July 31, 1945, was not debatable.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 100 Cong. Rec. 12810, 12811, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
15. Neither a resolution of adjournment (see 8 Cannon's Precedents
Sec. 3372-3374) nor a motion to adjourn, whether a simple
adjournment or an adjournment to a time certain [see Rule XVI
clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 782 (1995)], is
debatable.
Adjournments and debate thereon generally, see Ch. 40,
infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 6.58 Although a concurrent resolution providing for an adjournment
sine die is not debatable, debate has been permitted where no point
of order was raised and where the legislative situation warranted
some discussion of the resolution.
On Oct. 14, 1968,(16) Mr. Carl Albert, of Oklahoma,
called up Senate Concurrent Resolution 83, providing for an adjournment
sine die of the Congress on Oct. 11, 1968. Mr. Albert moved to amend
the resolution by striking out the date and inserting ``October 14,
1968'' and then yielded five minutes' debate, without objection, to Mr.
James G. O'Hara, of Michigan. Mr. O'Hara, who had previously expressed
his intention to prevent the adjournment of Congress until the Senate
took action on a legislative proposal permitting network TV debates
among the major Presidential candidates, announced he would no longer
persist in his efforts due to the likelihood of a failure of a quorum
in the Senate. Mr. Albert resumed the floor to express support for Mr.
O'Hara's statement and then moved the previous question on the
amendment to the adjournment resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 114 Cong. Rec. 31312, 31313, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: Debate may be conducted on the subject of
adjournment resolutions by unanimous consent under the ``one-minute''
rule prior to offering of the resolution.
Return of Bill to Senate
Sec. 6.59 A request of the Senate for the return of a bill or
resolution is privileged, and the Chair immediately puts the
question on the request without debate, but debate may proceed
thereon under a reservation of the right to object to agreeing to
the request by unanimous consent when put in that form by the
Chair.
On Aug. 3, 1977,(17) the following proceedings occurred
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 123 Cong. Rec. 26538, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker pro tempore laid before the House the following
message from the Senate:
[[Page 9563]]
Ordered, That the Secretary be directed to request the
House of Representatives to return to the Senate the concurrent
resolution (H. Con. Res. 317) entitled ``Concurrent resolution
providing for an adjournment of the House from August 5 until
September 7, 1977 and an adjournment of the Senate from August
6 until September 7, 1977.''
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (18) Without objection, the
request is agreed to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Abraham] Kazen [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I reserve the
right to object.
I want to know what that last resolution was. . . .
Mr. Speaker, what is the effect? Who is going to explain it or
did the Chair just lay it out? . . .
Mr. [Thomas P.] O'Neill [Jr., of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Kazen: I yield to the distinguished Speaker.
Mr. O'Neill: Mr. Speaker, may I say with regard to the
concurrent resolution, as I understand, we have received a message
from the Senate regarding the concurrent resolution. As the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Kazen) knows, we passed a concurrent
resolution saying that we would conclude business on Friday night,
and the request of the Senate is now to return the concurrent
resolution. . . .
Mr. Kazen: Mr. Speaker, I would inquire whether the Senate
concurred in the concurrent resolution?
Mr. O'Neill: The Senate did and then there was a motion to
reconsider within the proper time in the Senate. The Senate had
sent the papers over before the reconsideration had been moved. In
view of the fact that the reconsideration has been moved, the House
has always proceeded in this fashion, and on that basis we will
send the concurrent resolution back.
Mr. Kazen: Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Massachusetts, and withdraw my reservation of objection.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Without objection the request is
agreed to.
There was no objection.
Sec. 6.60 Where privileged resolutions of the Senate requesting the
return of a bill are laid before the House, a motion requesting
compliance with such return is not debatable.
On June 28, 1932,(19) the following privileged order
messaged from the Senate was laid before the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 75 Cong. Rec. 14181, 72d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ordered, That the House of Representatives be requested to
return to the Senate the bill (H.R. 11267) entitled ``An act making
appropriations for the legislative branch of the Government for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1933, and for other purposes'',
together with all accompanying papers.
Mr. Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, moved that the request of the
Senate be complied with, and on that motion he moved the pre
[[Page 9564]]
vious question, which was ordered by the House.
In response to a parliamentary inquiry by Mr. John J. Cochran, of
Missouri, Speaker John N. Garner, of Texas, ruled that the motion to
comply with the Senate request was not debatable.
Nondebatable Questions in Senate--Motion To Lay Appeal on the Table
Sec. 6.61 In the Senate a motion to lay an appeal on the table is not
debatable.
On Aug. 2, 1948,(20) President Pro Tempore Arthur H.
Vandenberg, of Michigan, ruled that a motion to lay on the table a
pending appeal from a decision of the Chair was not debatable:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 94 Cong. Rec. 9604, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Kenneth S.] Wherry [of Nebraska]: Mr. President, I
propound the following inquiry: If a motion is made to lay the
appeal on the table, is that motion subject to debate?
The President Pro Tempore: No motion to table is ever subject
to debate.
Mr. Wherry: Certainly.
If the motion to table the appeal is agreed to, then, of
course, the result is to sustain the present occupant of the chair
in his decision.
The President Pro Tempore: That is correct.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. For a classification of questions not debatable in the Senate, see
Riddick, Senate Procedure, 421-24, S. Doc. No. 93-21, 93d Cong.
(1974).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Motion Requesting House To Return Engrossed Bill
Sec. 6.62 A motion in the Senate requesting the House to return an
engrossed bill is not debatable.
On Aug. 26, 1963,(2) Senator Michael J. Mansfield, of
Montana, entered a motion in the Senate to reconsider the votes by
which S. 1914 and S. 1942 were passed. He also entered a motion that
the House of Representatives be requested to return the papers (the
engrossed bills) on those bills to the Senate. In response to a
parliamentary inquiry, President Pro Tempore Carl Hayden, of Arizona,
stated that the motion for return was not debatable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 109 Cong. Rec. 15849, 15850, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Concurrent Resolution Providing for Adjournment to Day Certain
Sec. 6.63 A concurrent resolution providing for an adjournment to a day
certain is not debatable in the Senate.
On Aug. 7, 1948,(3) Senator Kenneth S. Wherry, of
Nebraska, called up Senate Concurrent Reso
[[Page 9565]]
lution 63, providing for an adjournment to a day certain. In response
to a parliamentary inquiry, the Presiding Officer stated that the
resolution was not debatable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 94 Cong. Rec. 10185, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Concurrent Resolution Providing for Three-week Adjournment of House
Sec. 6.64 A resolution providing for a three-week adjournment of the
House is not debatable in the Senate, nor is an appeal from the
Vice President's decision to that effect debatable.
On Aug. 24, 1949,(4) House Concurrent Resolution 129 was
laid before the Senate. The resolution provided for a three-week
adjournment of the House. In response
to parliamentary inquiries, Vice President Alben W. Barkley, of
Kentucky, stated that the resolution was not debatable except
by unanimous consent, and that
such a unanimous-consent request would not be debatable. He also stated
that an appeal from the Chair's decision on that point would not be
debatable. The Senate adopted the resolution (and rejected an amendment
thereto).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 95 Cong. Rec. 12137-39, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Debate Not in Order in Senate in Absence of Quorum
Sec. 6.65 No debate is in order in the Senate in the absence of a
quorum.
On July 28, 1962,(5) the Senate met at 10 o'clock a.m.,
after having recessed the prior evening without a quorum. Vice
President Lyndon B. Johnson, of Texas, stated that no business could be
transacted without a quorum present. Following a roll call disclosing
the lack of a quorum, a motion was agreed to directing the Sergeant at
Arms to request the attendance of absent Senators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 108 Cong. Rec. 14952, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Hubert H. Humphrey, of Minnesota, attempted to debate a
proposed motion to invoke the rule of arrest, and the Vice President
advised him that no debate was in order.
CHAPTER 29
Consideration and Debate
A. INTRODUCTORY; INITIATING CONSIDERATION AND DEBATE
Sec. 7. Opening and Closing Debate; Right To Close
Rule XIV clause 3 of the House rules provides:
The Member reporting the measure under consideration from a
committee may open and close, where general debate has been had
thereon; and if it shall extend beyond one day, he shall
[[Page 9566]]
be entitled to one hour to close, notwithstanding he may have used
an hour in opening.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. House Rules and Manual Sec. 759 (1995). See also Rule XIV clause 6,
House Rules and Manual Sec. 762 (1995) (mover, proposer, or
introducer entitled to speak in reply to pending matter).
In some instances, one-third of the debate time on a
proposition may be allotted to a Member opposed to the
proposition if the majority and minority party Members who
would ordinarily divide the time are both supporters of the
proposition. The right to close debate where the time has been
divided three ways is discussed in Sec. 26, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The opening and closing of debate on any proposition depends on the
procedure under which the proposition was brought to the floor and who
was recognized to move or offer the proposition. For example, a Member
bringing a matter before the House, and recognized for that purpose, is
entitled to control one hour of debate under the rules of the House,
and to close debate on his proposition.(7) Generally, the
proponent of a bill (the Member who calls it up) or the mover of a
motion have the right to open and close debate thereon.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. See Sec. 68, infra, for the hour rule in House debate. See also,
e.g., Sec. Sec. 8 et seq., infra, discussing recognition, and
Sec. Sec. 24 et seq., infra, discussing control and
distribution of time.
8. See Sec. 7.1, infra. The right to close twenty-minute debate on a
motion to discharge a committee is reserved to the proponents
of the motion. See 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 1010a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where the Committee of the Whole considers a bill or resolution
pursuant to a resolution from the Committee on Rules, the manager
designated in the resolution opens and closes general
debate.(9) In one instance pursuant to a special rule
reported from the Committee on Rules providing for immediate
consideration of an unreported measure in Committee of the Whole and
dividing control of general debate between a Member supporting and a
Member opposing the measure, the Chair recognized the opponent (the
chairman of the discharged committee) to close general debate,
reasoning that the proponent had no responsibility as ``manager'' of
the bill.(10) The better practice is to permit the proponent
of the bill, rather than the chairman of the discharged committee, to
close debate. It would seem proper that the proponent of the measure be
permitted to close general debate, and not an opponent, since the House
by discharging the com
[[Page 9567]]
mittee has agreed to permit consideration of the measure, even though
the proponent has no ``management'' responsibility to make any motions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. See Sec. 7.2, infra. The proponent of the question, the first
Member named in the Committee on Rules resolution, opens and
closes debate (see Sec. 7.3, infra).
10. See 128 Cong. Rec. 27202, 97th Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 1, 1982.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proponent of a proposition may cut off debate, even before the
expiration of allotted time, by moving the previous question in the
House (11) and in the House as in the Committee of the
Whole,(12) or by moving that the Committee rise or to limit
five-minute debate in the Committee of the Whole.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See Sec. 7.8, infra. See, generally, Sec. 72, infra, discussing the
closing of debate in the House.
12. See Sec. 7.6, infra.
13. See Sec. 7.12, infra. See, generally, Sec. 78, infra, for
discussion of closing or limiting debate in Committee of the
Whole.
Under the five-minute rule in the Committee of the Whole
(or in the House as in the Committee of the Whole), recognition
for debate is within the discretion of the Chair. A Member
recognized to offer an amendment controls five minutes of
debate thereon, and then another Member in opposition thereto
is recognized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolutions from the Committee on Rules providing for the
consideration of a bill in the Committee of the Whole commonly provide
that when the Committee rises the previous question shall be ordered,
thereby precluding further debate in the House.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See Sec. 7.9, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where the pending text includes a provision recommended by a
committee of sequential referral, a member of that committee is
entitled to close debate against an amendment thereto.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 135 Cong. Rec. 12084-87, 101st Cong. 1st Sess., June 15, 1989.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By recommending an amendment in the nature of a substitute, a
reporting committee implicitly opposes a further amendment that could
have been included therein, such that a committee representative who
controls time in opposition may close debate thereon.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 138 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 102d Cong. 2d Sess., June 4, 1992; 141
Cong. Rec. p. ____, 104th Cong. 1st Sess., June 13, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under certain circumstances, however, the proponent of the
amendment may close debate, as where he represents the reporting
committee position; (17) where no committee representative
opposes the amendment; (18) where no representative from the
reporting committee opposes an amendment to a multi-jurisdictional
bill; (19) or where an unreported measure is being
considered and there is no ``manager'' under the terms of a special
rule.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 132 Cong. Rec. 21718, 99th Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 14, 1986.
18. 132 Cong. Rec. 22057, 99th Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 15, 1986.
19. See Sec. 7.39, infra.
20. 131 Cong. Rec. 9206, 99th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 24, 1985.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 9568]]
Forms
Form of resolution providing for control of time for general debate
in the Committee of the Whole, providing that the Committee rise
(closing debate) after the consideration of amendments and providing
that the previous question be ordered (closing further debate in the
House).
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for
the consideration of the bill (H.R. 10710) . . . . After
general debate, which shall be confined to the bill and shall
continue not to exceed seven hours, six hours to be equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Ways and Means, and one hour to be
controlled by Representative John H. Dent, of Pennsylvania, the
bill shall be considered as having been read for amendment. No
amendment shall
be in order to said bill except amendments . . . . At the
conclusion of the consideration of the bill for amendment, the
Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such
amendments as may have been adopted, and the previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one
motion to recommit.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 119 Cong. Rec. 40489, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 10, 1973.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Form of unanimous-consent request to close House debate.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that debate on the
bill be limited to two hours, one-half to be
controlled by the gentleman from -------- and one-half by the
gentleman from --------, and at the end of that time [the
gentleman from -------- shall have leave to offer a substitute
for --------] [it shall be in order to --------] [and the]
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill
[and the substitute] to final passage.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Cannon's Procedure in the House of Representatives 161, H. Doc. No.
122, 86th Cong. 1st Sess. (1959).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Form of motion to close general debate in Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Speaker, pending the motion to go into the Committee of
the Whole for further consideration of . . . I move that
general debate in the Committee of the Whole House [on the
State of the Union] be now closed.
Note: The motion is not in order in the House until some debate has
been had in the Committee and the Committee has risen.(3)
Prior to some general debate on a measure in Committee of the Whole,
the House may limit that debate by unanimous consent only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. For general discussion of closing debate in the House, see Sec. 72,
infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross References
Control passing to opposition where manager fails to close debate, see
Sec. 34, infra.
Effect of special orders on opening and closing debate, see Sec. 28,
infra.
Management by reporting committee and opening and closing debate, see
Sec. 26, infra.
Role of manager as to opening and closing debate, see Sec. 24,
infra. -------------------
Member Making Motion Opens
Sec. 7.1 Where a question is called up for consideration or a mo
[[Page 9569]]
tion is made, and the motion or question is in order and is
debatable, the Member so moving or proposing is recognized to open
debate.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. See, for example, 114 Cong. Rec. 30217, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., Oct.
8, 1968 (special order from Committee on Rules); 113 Cong. Rec.
14, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 10, 1967 (prior to adoption of
rules); 111 Cong. Rec. 23608, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 13,
1965 (motion to reconsider); 105 Cong. Rec. 11599, 86th Cong.
1st Sess., June 23, 1959 (conference report); 96 Cong. Rec.
1514, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 6, 1950 (question of
privilege); 89 Cong. Rec. 7051, 78th Cong. 1st Sess., July 2,
1943 (override of veto); 87 Cong. Rec. 3917, 77th Cong. 1st
Sess., May 12, 1941 (District of Columbia bills); 80 Cong. Rec.
7025-27, 74th Cong. 2d Sess., May 11, 1936 (motion to discharge
a committee); 78 Cong. Rec. 4931, 73d Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 20,
1934 (unanimous-consent consideration of bill); and Sec. 18.9,
infra (motion to discharge committee from further consideration
of resolution disapproving a reorganization plan).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Special Rule Designating Member To Control General Debate
Sec. 7.2 Where the House resolves into the Committee of the Whole to
consider a bill pursuant to a resolution designating who shall
control general debate, the designated Member, committee chairman,
or ranking committee member is recognized to open general debate in
the Committee of the Whole.
On Apr. 26, 1955,(5) the House adopted House Resolution
214 for the consideration of a bill in the Committee of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 101 Cong. Rec. 5119, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration
of the bill (H.R. 5645) to authorize the Atomic Energy Commission
to construct a modern office building in or near the District of
Columbia to serve as its principal office, and all points of order
against said bill are hereby waived. After general debate, which
shall be confined to the bill and continue not to exceed 1 hour, to
be equally divided and controlled by the vice chairman and ranking
House minority member of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, the
bill shall be read for amendment under the 5-minute rule. . . .
Carl T. Durham, of North Carolina, the committee Vice Chairman
designated in the resolution, moved that the House resolve itself into
the Committee of the Whole to consider the bill. When the Committee of
the Whole commenced sitting, Mr. Durham was immediately recognized to
open debate.
[[Page 9570]]
On July 23, 1942,(6) the House adopted House Resolution
528, providing for the consideration of a bill in the Committee of the
Whole and dividing control of debate between the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Election of the President, Vice
President, and Representatives in Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 88 Cong. Rec. 6542-46, 77th Cong. 2d Sess. In current practice, the
chairman and ranking minority member indicated in the
resolution may designate other Members--typically the chairman
and ranking minority member of the relevant subcommittee--to
control debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, raised a parliamentary inquiry
as to recognition to open and control debate, since the chairman and
ranking minority member so designated were absent. Speaker Sam Rayburn,
of Texas, stated as follows:
The Chair thinks the Chair has a rather wide range of latitude
here. The Chair could hold and some future Speaker might hold that
since the chairman and ranking minority member of the committee are
not here there could be no general debate because there was nobody
here to control it, but the present occupant of the chair is not
going to rule in such a restricted way.
The Chair is going to recognize the next ranking majority
member and the next ranking minority member when the House goes
into the Committee of the Whole.
Manager of Bill May Close General Debate
Sec. 7.3 The majority floor manager can always close general debate in
the Committee of the Whole.
During debate on the Department of Defense authorization for fiscal
1989 (H.R. 4264) in the Committee of the Whole on May 5,
1988,(7) the Chair responded to a parliamentary inquiry, as
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 134 Cong. Rec. 9948, 9949, 100th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Jon] Kyl [of Arizona]: . . . First of all, who has the
opportunity to close debate? . . .
The Chairman Pro Tempore: (8) . . . Under the rule,
the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) upholding the
[majority] committee position will have the right to close.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Kenneth J. Gray (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 7.4 The chairman of the committee reporting and calling up a
measure has the right to close general debate thereon.
On Mar. 26, 1985,(9) the following exchange occurred in
the Committee of the Whole during consideration of House Joint Reso
[[Page 9571]]
lution 180 (authorizing release of funds for MX missile):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 131 Cong. Rec. 6283, 99th Cong. 1st Sess. See Rule XIV, clause 3,
House Rules and Manual Sec. 759 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [William L.] Dickinson [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: (10) The gentleman will state his
parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Dickinson: Just for clarification purposes, if I might, Mr.
Chairman, am I correct in my belief that the proponents will have
the closing debate on this matter?
The Chairman: The Chair would like to advise the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Dickinson) that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Aspin) will close debate.
Mr. Dickinson: He is controlling the time and if he has yielded
part of that time to me, he would still determine who would close
the debate?
The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
Proponents of Bill Close Debate
Sec. 7.5 The proponents of a bill before the House have the right to
close debate thereon and opponents have no right to be recognized
immediately prior to the Member closing debate.
On Nov. 13, 1941,(11) the House discussed division of
time for debate on a bill and Speaker Pro Tempore Jere Cooper, of
Tennessee, stated in response to a parliamentary inquiry that the
proponents of a bill in the House had the right to close debate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 87 Cong. Rec. 8880, 8881, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Hamilton] Fish [Jr., of New York]: Mr. Speaker, we have
two speakers on our side in opposition to this important measure. I
am informed there are two speakers on the other side. I recognize,
of course, that the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
has the right to close the debate, but I insist on the right of the
minority that the opposition should be given the next to the last
speech on this important measure.
My inquiry is, if I have not correctly stated the situation?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state in response to
the parliamentary inquiry that under the rules of the House the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Bloom], chairman of the committee in
charge of the bill, is entitled to close the debate. With reference
to recognition of Members prior to close of debate, of course, that
is under the control of the gentleman in charge of the time.
Mr. [Earl C.] Michener [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a further
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Michener: With all due respect to the Speaker pro tempore,
may I call his attention to the fact that if his ruling is
construed literally it will permit the chairman of the committee
controlling the time----
Mr. [Sol] Bloom [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I shall yield to
the gentleman
[[Page 9572]]
from New York, and will put on a speaker, then he can put on a
speaker.
Mr. Michener: May I finish my parliamentary inquiry?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is entitled to complete
his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. Michener: Reverting to my question before I was interrupted
by the gentleman from New York: If the chairman of the committee
controlling the time is permitted to close the debate and is not
limited to one speaker in closing the debate, would it not be
possible for such a chairman to open the debate, for instance, and
then compel the opposition to use all of its time before the
proponent used any more time?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct.
Mr. Michener: That right to close debate means one speech. If
it meant two, it might mean three, and if it meant three it might
mean four. It might be within the power of the proponents of any
bill to compel the other side to put on all their speakers, then
wind up with only the speeches of the proponents. Such a precedent
should not be set. Am I correct?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct in the
statement that the proponents of the bill have the right to close
debate. That has been the holding of the Chair and it is in line
with an unbroken line of precedents of the House. The Chair has no
way of knowing how many different Members the gentlemen in charge
of the time on the two sides may desire to yield time to. The Chair
holds that the proponents of the bill are entitled to close
debate.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See also Sec. 18.9, infra (discharge motion on resolution
disapproving reorganization plan). See generally, for the right
of the manager to close debate, Sec. 24, infra (role of
manager) and Sec. 26, infra (management by reporting
committee).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous Question as Closing Debate
Sec. 7.6 Debate in the House as in the Committee of the Whole may be
closed by ordering the previous question.
On July 28, 1969,(13) a bill (H.R. 9553) amending the
District of Columbia Minimum Wage Act was being considered in the House
as in the Committee of the Whole. Mr. John Dowdy, of Texas, moved the
previous question on the bill and Speaker John W. McCormack, of
Massachusetts, answered parliamentary inquiries on the effect of
ordering the previous question:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 115 Cong. Rec. 20855, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Phillip] Burton of California: Mr. Speaker, is the motion
before us to close debate or will there be a vote subsequent to the
pending motion so that those of us who want a rollcall on this
matter can obtain a rollcall vote.
The Speaker: The pending question is on ordering the previous
question.
Mr. Burton of California: This is to close debate and not on
the passage of the matter? Will this be our last opportunity to
receive a rollcall on this matter?
The Speaker: The Chair will state that the question on the
passage of the
[[Page 9573]]
bill will come later, if the previous question is ordered.
The question is on ordering the previous question.
Member Controlling Debate May Move Previous Question
Sec. 7.7 The Member controlling debate on a proposition in the House
may move the previous question and cut off further debate.
On Mar. 11, 1941,(14) the House was considering House
Resolution 131 under the terms of a unanimous-consent request providing
two hours of debate and dividing control of debate between Mr. Sol
Bloom, of New York, and Mr. Hamilton Fish, Jr., of New York. Mr. Bloom
moved the previous question prior to the expiration of the two hours'
time. Mr. Martin
J. Kennedy, of New York, then
objected on the ground that
the unanimous-consent agreement was not being complied with
in that the previous question
had been demanded prematurely. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled
that the previous question could be moved at any time in the discretion
of the Members controlling debate on the resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 87 Cong. Rec. 2177, 2178, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
See also Sec. 7.8, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 7.8 The Member controlling debate on a proposition in the House
may close debate by moving the previous question.
On Jan. 4, 1965,(15) at the convening of the 89th
Congress and before the adoption of rules, Mr. Carl Albert, of
Oklahoma, offered a resolution and after some debate moved the previous
question to close debate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 111 Cong. Rec. 20, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Albert: Mr. Speaker, I offer a resolution (H. Res. 2) and
ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read as follows:
H. Res. 2
Resolved, That the Speaker is hereby authorized and
directed to administer the oath of office to the gentleman from
New York, Mr. Richard L. Ottinger.
Mr. Albert: Mr. Speaker, again this is a resolution involving a
Member whose certificate of election in due form is on file in the
Office of the Clerk. I ask for the adoption of the resolution.
Mr. [James C.] Cleveland [of New Hampshire]: Mr. Speaker, will
the gentleman yield for a parliamentary inquiry?
Mr. Albert: I yield for a parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. Cleveland: If this resolution is adopted, will it be
impossible for me to offer my own resolution pertaining to the same
subject matter, either as an amendment or a substitute?
The Speaker: (16) If the resolution is agreed to, it
will not be in order for the
[[Page 9574]]
gentleman to offer a substitute resolution or an amendment,
particularly if the previous question is ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Cleveland: Is it now in order, Mr. Speaker?
The Speaker: Not unless the gentleman from Oklahoma yields to
the gentleman for that purpose.
Mr. Cleveland: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Albert: The gentleman from Oklahoma does not yield for that
purpose.
Mr. Cleveland: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry. Will there
be any opportunity to discuss the merits of this case prior to a
vote on the resolution offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma?
The Speaker: The gentleman from Oklahoma has control over the
time. Not unless the gentleman from Oklahoma yields for that
purpose.
Mr. Cleveland: Will the gentleman from Oklahoma yield for that
purpose?
Mr. Albert: Mr. Speaker, I yield for a question and a very
brief statement. I do not yield for a speech.
Mr. Cleveland: May I inquire if the gentleman will yield so
that I may ask for unanimous consent that certain remarks of mine
pertaining to this matter be incorporated in the Record?
Mr. Albert: No. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.
Mr. [Thomas G.] Abernethy [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: Does the gentleman from Oklahoma yield to the
gentleman from Mississippi for the purpose of submitting a
parliamentary inquiry?
Mr. Albert: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the
resolution.
The Speaker: The question is on the motion.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
Previous Question Considered as Ordered
Sec. 7.9 When the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole reports a bill
to the House pursuant to a resolution providing that the previous
question shall be considered as ordered, further debate or
amendments in the House are thereby precluded.
On Aug. 31, 1960,(17) there being no amendments offered
to S. 2917 under consideration in the Committee of the Whole, the
Committee rose and the bill was reported back to the House. Pursuant to
the resolution under which the bill was being considered, Speaker Sam
Rayburn, of Texas, stated that the previous question was ordered. In
response to a parliamentary inquiry by Mr. H. Carl Andersen, of
Minnesota, the Speaker stated that the previous question having been
ordered by the resolution, no further debate or amendments were in
order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 106 Cong. Rec. 18748, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous Question Vacated
Sec. 7.10 The House by unanimous consent vacated the or
[[Page 9575]]
dering of the previous question in order to permit further debate.
On Aug. 26, 1960,(18) the House was considering Senate
amendments to H.R. 12619, making appropriations for the mutual security
program. Mr. Silvio O. Conte, of Massachusetts, arose to discuss a
Senate amendment, but Mr. Otto E. Passman, of Louisiana, moved the
previous question, and Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, advised Mr. Conte
that no further debate was in order. The House then agreed to a
unanimous-consent request by Mr. Passman that ``the action of the House
by which the previous question was ordered be vacated.'' Mr. Passman
then yielded two minutes of debate to Mr. Conte.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 106 Cong. Rec. 17869, 17870, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motion To Table as Closing Debate
Sec. 7.11 In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Speaker indicated
that adoption of the nondebatable motion to lay a resolution on the
table would result in the final adverse disposition of the
resolution (and close further debate).
On Dec. 14, 1970,(19) the previous question was demanded
on House Resolution 1306, asserting the privileges of the House in
printing and publishing a report of the Committee on Internal Security.
Mr. Louis Stokes, of Ohio, then offered the preferential motion to lay
on the table. Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, responded as
follows to a parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 116 Cong. Rec. 41372, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Albert W.] Watson [of South Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, if the
motion to table prevails, there can be no further consideration at
all of this matter. Is that not correct? Does it not apply the
clincher?
The Speaker: If the motion to table is agreed to, then the
resolution is tabled.
Mr. Watson: Then that ends it.
Parliamentarian's Note: The motion to lay on the table takes
precedence over the previous question and may be used to close all
debate and adversely dispose of a proposition.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See Rule XVI clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 782 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motion To Rise as Interrupting Five-minute Debate
Sec. 7.12 The motion that the Committee of the Whole rise is not
debatable and may
[[Page 9576]]
have the effect of interrupting debate until the Committee meets
again.
On June 16, 1948,(1) Mr. George W. Andrews, of Alabama,
was handling the consideration of H.R. 6401 in the Committee of the
Whole under the five-minute rule. He moved that the Committee rise, and
Chairman Francis H. Case, of South Dakota, ruled that the motion, which
was within
Mr. Andrews' discretion to offer, would, if adopted, effectively
terminate further debate at that time, although Members scheduled to be
recognized would be recognized when the Committee meets again.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 94 Cong. Rec. 8521, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motion To Suspend Rules
Sec. 7.13 The Member recognized to offer a motion to suspend the rules
has the right to close debate thereon.
The following exchange occurred in the House on Sept. 21,
1981,(2) during consideration of House Concurrent Resolution
183 (expressing the sense of Congress that the national rugby team of
South Africa should not play in the United States):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 127 Cong. Rec. 21420, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, I have
only one remaining speaker.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (3) The gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Broomfield) has 1 minute remaining, and the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Zablocki) has 2 minutes remaining.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The gentleman from Wisconsin has declared that he has only one
remaining speaker to close debate.
Mr. [William S.] Broomfield [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, I
desire to reserve that one until debate has concluded.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Wisconsin has the
right to close debate.
Mr. Broomfield: Mr. Speaker, in view of that, I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. Zablocki: Mr. Speaker, I yield the remaining 2 minutes to
the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Bedell).
Sec. 7.14 While the Member who (under a former rule) demanded a second
on a motion to suspend the rules was recognized for 20 minutes of
debate, it was still customary for the Speaker to recognize the
Member making the motion to conclude the debate.
On Dec. 30, 1970,(4) Mr. Wright Patman, of Texas, moved
to suspend the rules and pass S. 4268, to amend the Export-Import Bank
Act of 1945. Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, recognized
Mr. H. R. Gross, of
[[Page 9577]]
Iowa, to demand a second and thereby to gain recognition for the 20
minutes of debate in opposition to the motion. At the conclusion of Mr.
Gross' remarks, the Speaker recognized Mr. Patman to conclude the
debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 116 Cong. Rec. 44170, 44176, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: Prior to the 102d Congress, certain motions
to suspend the rules were required to be seconded, if demanded, by a
majority by tellers, but this requirement was eliminated from the rule
in the 102d Congress. (See H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1991, 102d Cong. 1st
Sess.)
Sec. 7.15 While the manager of a motion to suspend the rules has the
right to close debate thereon, the Chair attempts to evenly
alternate recognition between the majority and minority in order
that a comparable amount of time remains for closing speakers on
both sides.
On Oct. 2, 1984,(5) during consideration of the balanced
budget bill (H.R. 6300) in the House, the following proceedings
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 130 Cong. Rec. 28517, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Judd] Gregg [of New Hampshire]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
I have 9 minutes remaining. The chairman of the Committee on
the Budget has 13 more minutes remaining. After I yield this next
point, I will have 7 minutes remaining.
I would request the Chair, in fairness, to proceed with the
other side until the time is in more balance as we get closer to
the closing of debate.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (6) The Chair would
announce that the Chair is not trying to have this debate conducted
in an unfair manner. The Chair will allow the gentleman from
Oklahoma to have the chance to yield to a speaker to close debate
and, therefore, the Chair will try to keep the division of time as
near even as possible, given the consideration that the gentleman
from Oklahoma have the opportunity to end the debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
House Conferee in Opposition to Motion To Reject Portion of Conference
Report
Sec. 7.16 The House conferee who has been recognized for 20 minutes in
opposition to a motion to reject a nongermane portion of a
conference report is entitled to close debate on the motion to
reject.
On Jan. 29, 1976,(7) the House had under consideration
the conference report on H.R. 5247, the Local Public Works Capital
Development and Investment Act of 1975. Mr. James C. Wright, Jr., of
[[Page 9578]]
Texas, was the chairman of the conference committee that had brought
the bill to the floor. Mr. Jack Brooks, of Texas, made the point of
order that title II of the conference report constituted a nongermane
Senate amendment to the bill in violation of Rule XXVIII clause 4. The
Chair sustained the point of order, whereupon Mr. Brooks offered the
motion that the House reject title II. Time for debate on the motion
was divided as prescribed in the rule, the Chair stating in response to
a parliamentary inquiry that the ``division of time is between those in
favor and those opposed to the motion.'' Mr. Wright, in opposition to
the motion, made the following inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 122 Cong. Rec. 1582, 1584, 1594, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Wright: Mr. Speaker, I have one other speaker, the majority
leader. I do not know what the courtesy is, or the appropriate
protocol, in a matter of this kind.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (8) The Chair will rule
that the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wright] may close debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proponent of Motion To Instruct Conferees
Sec. 7.17 The proponent of a motion to instruct conferees has the right
to close debate thereon.
On July 28, 1994,(9) the Speaker Pro Tempore addressed
the issue of the right to close debate on a motion to instruct
conferees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 140 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 103d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Julian C.] Dixon [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R.
4619) making appropriations for the government of the District of
Columbia and other activities chargeable in whole or in part
against the revenues of said District for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 1995, and for other purposes, with Senate amendments
thereto, disagree to the Senate amendments, and agree to the
conference asked by the Senate. . . .
There was no objection. . . .
Mr. [James T.] Walsh [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
motion to instruct conferees.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Walsh of New York moves that the managers on the part
of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses on the bill H.R. 4619, be instructed to insist on
the House position on amendment numbered 16, reducing the D.C.
budget by $150 million.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (10) The gentleman from New
York (Mr. Walsh) will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the
gentleman from California (Mr. Dixon) will be recognized for 30
minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Ted Strickland (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh).
Mr. Walsh: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry. . . .
[[Page 9579]]
Mr. Speaker, do we have the right to close debate?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The proponents of the motion will have
the right to close the debate.
Debate on Amendments--Manager of Bill May Close
Sec. 7.18 The manager of a bill in Committee of the Whole, or another
Member, who is controlling time in opposition to an amendment, and
not the proponent of an amendment, has the right to close debate on
the amendment, whether debate is proceeding under the five-minute
rule or under a special procedure whereby debate has been limited
and equally divided between
the proponent of the amendment and a Member opposed thereto (the
Chair indicating further that he could not anticipate who would
obtain recognition to control the time in opposition to every
amendment).
On Apr. 4, 1984,(11) the following proceedings occurred
in the Committee of the Whole during consideration of the first budget
resolution for fiscal year 1985 and revising the budget resolution for
fiscal year 1984 (H. Con. Res. 280):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 130 Cong. Rec. 7829, 7834, 7837, 7840, 7841, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [William E.] Dannemeyer [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I
offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The Chairman: (12) The Clerk will designate the
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. John Joseph Moakley (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:
Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr.
Dannemeyer: Strike everything after the resolving clause and
insert in lieu thereof the following:
(a) The following budgetary levels are appropriate for the
fiscal years beginning on October 1, 1983, October 1, 1984,
October 1, 1985 and October 1, 1986:
(1) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as
follows: . . .
The Chairman: Pursuant to House Resolution 476, the amendment
is considered as having been read.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Dannemeyer) will be
recognized for 30 minutes, and a Member opposed will be recognized
for 30 minutes.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr.
Dannemeyer). . . .
Mr. [James R.] Jones of Oklahoma: Mr. Chairman, I rise in
opposition to the Dannemeyer amendment, and I yield myself such
time as I may consume. . . .
Mr. Dannemeyer: Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Do I have the privilege of closing, since it is my budget
alternative?
[[Page 9580]]
The Chairman: No, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Jones) has
the privilege of closing debate. . . .
Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, does
that mean we are going to operate from here on with the idea that
on all budgets that the opposition to them are going to have the
right to close?
The Chairman: Under the rule, these are amendments made in
order by the Rules Committee. As under the 5-minute rule, the
opponents have the right to close debate.
Mr. Walker: Further parliamentary inquiry. So I understand
then, that on all the budget presentations that will be out here,
that the opposition to those budgets will have the opportunity to
close debate?
The Chairman: The gentleman is correct. . . .
Mr. Dannemeyer: Mr. Chairman, are we operating under the 5-
minute rule right now?
The Chairman: We are operating under a special procedure, but
it is under the principle of the 5-minute rule. . . .
Mr. Dannemeyer: Under that procedure, I, as the proponent of
this measure, with the burden of going forward, am not entitled to
close? Is that what is being disclosed?
The Chairman: The gentleman is correct. As the gentleman may
remember, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Michel) was opposed to
the last amendment and he closed debate. . . .
Mr. Walker: Then I understand that under the process, because
the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Jones) will be opposing most of
the amendments that come out here other than the committee
amendment, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Jones), the committee
chairman, is going to be virtually given the chance to close all
debate on all amendments out here?
The Chairman: The Chair is not aware of who is going to rise in
opposition to all the amendments. Those who rise in opposition to
the amendments will be the persons who will be entitled to close
the debates. . . .
Mr. Walker: On the minority side, if we are in opposition to
some of the budgets that are going to come out, and the gentleman
from Oklahoma (Mr. Jones) is in opposition to the budgets that come
out, which side will be given the opportunity to close at that
point?
The Chairman: It all depends upon who is controlling the time,
like all the other amendments. The rule specifically states that it
is a person opposed who is controlling the time. . . .
Mr. Walker: When the minority side has a half hour of time, as
I assume we will have on some of these amendments, then we will get
a chance to close the debate, rather than
the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Jones)?
The Chairman: If the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Jones) offers
an amendment, then the minority has the right to close the debate.
Sec. 7.19 The manager of a bill in the Committee of the Whole, and not
the proponent of the pending amendment, is entitled to close debate
on an amendment on which debate (by unanimous consent) has
[[Page 9581]]
been equally divided and controlled.
On July 9, 1965,(13) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 6400, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, under the terms
of a unanimous-consent agreement providing two hours' debate on an
amendment, to be divided and controlled by the chairman, Emanuel
Celler, of New York, and the ranking minority member, William M.
McCulloch, of Ohio, of the Committee on the Judiciary, which had
reported the bill. Chairman Richard Bolling, of Missouri, ruled that
Mr. Celler, as manager of the bill, and not Mr. McCulloch, the
proponent of the pending amendment, had the right to close debate on
the amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 111 Cong. Rec. 16228, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Celler: Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time remains on
this side?
The Chairman: The gentleman from New York has 4 minutes
remaining and the gentleman from Ohio 1 minute.
Mr. Celler: Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman from Ohio yield
the 1 minute he has remaining so that we can close debate on this
side?
Mr. McCulloch: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state the parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. McCulloch: Mr. Chairman, since the debate at this time is
on the substitute amendment, pursuant to the rule, would not the
privilege of closing debate come to this side of the aisle?
The Chairman: The closing of debate, the Chair will inform the
gentleman from Ohio, would be in the hands of the manager of the
bill.
Sec. 7.20 The right to recognition to close debate under a limitation
of debate on an amendment in Committee of the Whole belongs to the
manager of the bill and not to the proponent of the amendment.
The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on
July 21, 1982,(14) during consideration of H.R. 6030 (the
military procurement authorization for fiscal year 1983):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 128 Cong. Rec. 17363, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, may I
ask, how many minutes do we have remaining?
The Chairman Pro Tempore: (15) The gentleman from
New York (Mr. Stratton) has 7 minutes remaining, and the gentleman
from Washington (Mr. Dicks) has 9\1/2\ minutes remaining.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Les AuCoin (Oreg.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Stratton: Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the gentleman from
Washington consume his time because the Committee wants to reserve
the final 7 minutes for a windup, as is the proper procedure.
[[Page 9582]]
The Chairman Pro Tempore: Does the gentleman from Washington
(Mr. Dicks) wish to use or yield additional time?
Mr. [Norman D.] Dicks [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, is it not
the proper procedure that the Member who offers the amendment gets
the last portion of time to close debate?
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair will advise the gentleman
that the usual and customary procedure, and the procedure we are
following, is for the Committee to have the prerogative and the
right to close.
Sec. 7.21 The manager from the committee reporting a bill has the right
to close debate on an amendment under the five-minute rule, and not
the sponsor of the amendment.
On July 29, 1982,(16) during consideration of H.R. 6030
(military procurement authorization for fiscal year 1983) in the
Committee of the Whole, the Chair responded to a parliamentary inquiry
regarding the conclusion of debate, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 128 Cong. Rec. 18582, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Edward J.] Markey [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I have
a parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: (17) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Les AuCoin (Oreg.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Markey: Mr. Chairman, is it not my right as the maker of
the amendment to make the concluding statement on the pending
amendment?
The Chairman: The Committee has the right to close.
Sec. 7.22 The member of the committee managing a bill, and not the
proponent of a pending amendment, has the right to close the debate
thereon.
The following exchange occurred in the Committee of the Whole on
Sept. 16, 1982,(18) during consideration of House Joint
Resolution 562 (urgent supplemental appropriation for the Department of
Labor for fiscal year 1982):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 128 Cong. Rec. 23975, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [William H.] Natcher [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, we only
have one speaker on this side who will close debate. The balance of
the time will be yielded to the majority leader.
Mrs. [Lynn] Martin of Illinois: May I ask a question of the
Chair? As the sponsor of the amendment, I reserved time so that I
could close the debate on this side of the aisle. Certainly if it
is the wish of the majority leader to close, I wish to do what is
appropriate, however, and I bow to the wishes of the Chair.
The Chairman: (19) The Committee has the right to
close, and so the gentlewoman will proceed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Norman Y. Mineta (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 7.23 The manager of a bill has the right to close debate on an
amendment and amendments thereto in Committee of the Whole under a
[[Page 9583]]
time limitation, although he may also be the proponent of a pending
amendment to the amendment.
The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on
Mar. 16, 1983,(20) during consideration of House Joint
Resolution 13 (nuclear freeze resolution):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 129 Cong. Rec. 5792, 5793, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I move
that all debate on the pending amendment and amendment thereto end
at 9:15 p.m.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Mr. Zablocki was the manager of the bill and the proponent of the
amendment to the amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: (2) The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Zablocki). . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
So the motion was agreed to. . . .
The Chairman: Under the motion just agreed to, debate has been
limited to 9:15. The Chair will exercise discretion and apportion
the remaining time.
The Chair will recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Zablocki) for 3 minutes, and the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Stratton) for 3 minutes. Each of those gentlemen may apportion
their 3 minutes as they wish. . . .
The Chair will inquire, does the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Zablocki) wish to exercise his right to allot time?
Mr. Zablocki: The gentleman from Wisconsin reserves his time. I
reserve the balance of my time.
The Chairman: The gentleman from Wisconsin has the right to
terminate debate.
Sec. 7.24 Where a special rule equally divides debate on an amendment
between the proponent and an opponent, and the manager of the bill
(the chairman of the committee reporting the bill) has been
recognized to control debate in opposition, he has the right to
close debate on the amendment.
On Oct. 24, 1985,(3) during consideration of H.R. 3500
(Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985) in the Committee of the
Whole, the following exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 131 Cong. Rec. 28824, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: (4) The gentleman from Pennsylvania
has requested to utilize the balance of his time in closing, which
under the precedents he would have the right to do.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. E de la Garza (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Delbert L.] Latta [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I have the
right under the procedures of the House, since it is my amendment,
to close the debate.
The Chairman: The Chair will state to the gentleman that the
manager of the bill, under the precedents, has that right, and the
Chair so rules.
--Representative of Committee Position
Sec. 7.25 The manager of the bill or other representative of the
committee position and not the proponent of the
[[Page 9584]]
amendment has the right to close debate on an amendment on which
debate has been limited and allocated in the Committee of the
Whole.
On May 2, 1988,(5) the following proceedings occurred in
the Committee of the Whole during debate on the Department of Defense
authorization for fiscal year 1989 (H.R. 4264):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 134 Cong. Rec. 9633, 9637, 9638, 100th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: (6) . . . It is now in order to
consider the amendments relating to Central America printed in
section 1 of the House Report 100-590, by, and if offered by, the
following Members or their designees, which shall be considered in
the following order only:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) By Representative Foley, which is not subject to amendment
except for an amendment offered by Representative Hunter;
(B) By Representative Lowry of Washington; and
(C) By Representative Markey.
Mr. [Thomas S.] Foley [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Chairman: The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Foley: At the end of title IX of
division A (page 163, after line 6), insert the following new
section: . . .
Mr. [Mike] Lowry of Washington: Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the
rule, I offer an amendment.
The Chairman: The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Lowry of Washington: Page 167,
strike out lines 6 and 7.
Page 170, line 20, insert ``, minus $3,050,000'' before
``as follows''. . . .
The Chairman Pro Tempore: (7) Pursuant to the rule,
the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Lowry) will be recognized for 5
minutes and a Member opposed will be recognized for 5 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Thomas J. Downey (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [G. V.] Montgomery [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I oppose
the amendment.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr.
Montgomery) will be recognized for 5 minutes. . . .
The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Montgomery) has 2 minutes
remaining and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Lowry) has 30
seconds remaining.
Mr. Montgomery: Mr. Chairman, is it not appropriate that a
member of the committee, and I being a representative of the
committee, would have the opportunity to close debate?
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct.
Sec. 7.26 The minority manager of a bill representing the committee
position on an amendment has the right to close debate in lieu of
the proponent of the amendment.
On May 5, 1988,(8) during consideration of the
Department of
[[Page 9585]]
Defense authorization for fiscal 1989 (H.R. 4264) in the Committee of
the Whole, the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 134 Cong. Rec. 9962, 100th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Nicholas] Mavroules [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman,
pursuant to the rule, I offer an amendment.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: (9) The Clerk will
designate the amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Kenneth J. Gray (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Mavroules: Page 19, after line 11,
insert the following new section: . . .
The Chairman Pro Tempore: Under the rule, the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Mavroules) will be recognized for 5 minutes and
a member in opposition will be recognized for 5 minutes. . . .
Does the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Dickinson) desire to speak
in opposition?
Mr. [William L.] Dickinson [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, it is my
understanding I have the right to close.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: Is the gentleman upholding the
committee position?
Mr. Dickinson: I am opposing the amendment of the gentleman
from Massachusetts which would, I assume, make me in the position
of upholding it.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The question of who has the right to
close would depend on who is espousing the cause of the committee.
Mr. Dickinson: I would assume that the Chair would rule the
same on this issue as it did the last time I asked the question and
that would mean I have the right to close.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The manager of the bill always has
the right to close. In this case, since the gentleman is upholding
the committee position, he would be entitled to close.
Mr. Dickinson: I am in the same position as the chairman was on
the last amendment. I am opposing the amendment to the committee
bill.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair will assume the gentleman
is representing the committee position. He is recognized for 5
minutes.
--Position of Sequential Committee That Reported Text Being Amended
Sec. 7.27 Where the Member controlling time in opposition to an
amendment on which debate is limited represents the position of the
sequential committee that reported the original text being amended,
that Member qualifies as the manager of the pending portion of the
bill and is enti-tled to close debate on the amendment, even over
the proponent of the amendment representing the primary committee
whose reported version had been replaced
in the original text by the sequential committee's version.
[[Page 9586]]
On June 15, 1989,(10) the Committee of the Whole had
under consideration H.R. 1278, the Financial Institutions Reform,
Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989. The pending text had been
reported as a Judiciary Committee amendment on sequential referral and
by special rule was made original text. Thus, members of the Judiciary
Committee defending the pending text, rather than members of the
Banking Committee seeking by amendments to return to the pre-sequential
text, were managers entitled to close controlled debate at this point.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 135 Cong. Rec. 12080, 12081, 12084, 12085, 12087, 101st Cong. 1st
Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Doug] Barnard [Jr., of Georgia] [of the Committee on
Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Chairman: (11) The Clerk will designate the
amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. G. V. (Sonny) Montgomery (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Barnard:
Page 655, before line 21, insert the following new section
(and redesignate subsequent sections and amend the table of
contents accordingly):
sec. 965. criminal division fraud section regional offices. . .
.
The Chairman: Under the rule, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Barnard) will be recognized for 20 minutes in support of his
amendment, and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kastenmeier [of
the Committee on the Judiciary] will be recognized for 20 minutes
in opposition to the amendment. . . .
Subsequently the Chair stated:
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Barnard) has 4 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Kastenmeier) has 9 minutes remaining.
The Chair will rule that because this section of the bill did
come from the Judiciary Committee that the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Kastenmeier) in effect is managing this part of the
legislation, so the gentleman from Wisconsin will be allowed to
close debate. . . .
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Barnard).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. [Frank] Annunzio [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Clerk will designate the
amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Annunzio: Page 637, strike out
line 22 and all that follows through page 638, line 9, and
insert in lieu thereof the following (and redesignate the
subsequent paragraph accordingly):
(b) Amount of Penalty.--
(1) Generally.--The amount of
the civil penalty shall not exceed $1,000,000. . . .
Mr. Annunzio: . . . The Subcommittee on Financial Institutions,
which I Chair, did everything in its
[[Page 9587]]
power to ensure that such crooks got their due--we imposed long
prison terms and large penalties for taking advantage of the
American taxpayer. The Full Banking Committee, by a 49-to-2 vote,
strongly endorsed these provisions. However, the Judiciary
Committee has decided to lessen some of these penalties. . . .
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Annunzio) has 7 minutes remaining and the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Hughes) [from the Committee on the Judiciary] has 13 minutes
remaining.
The Chair will inform the two managers of the time that under a
ruling of the Chair, because this section was handled by the
Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from New Jersey will have
the privilege of closing the debate.
--Member Controlling Time in Opposition
Sec. 7.28 Where debate time has been limited on an amendment and all
amendments thereto and equally divided between proponents and
opponents, the manager of the bill if he controls time in
opposition to the amendments has the right to close debate.
During consideration of the Legal Services Corporation Act
Amendments of 1981 (H.R. 3480) in the Committee of the Whole on June
18, 1981,(12) an amendment was offered to the bill, as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 127 Cong. Rec. 12969, 12970, 12976, 12977, 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 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: (13) Under the prior agreement, by
unanimous consent, the Chair allocates 15 minutes to the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Rodino) in opposition to this amendment. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair will advise that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Kazen)
has 2 minutes remaining. . . .
The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rodino) has 1 minute
remaining.
The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rodino) has the right to
conclude debate.
Sec. 7.29 The Member controlling the time in opposition to an
amendment, and not the proponent thereof, is entitled to close
debate on the amendment in the Committee of the Whole, under a
special rule allocating control of time.
During consideration of House Concurrent Resolution 280 (the first
budget resolution for fiscal year 1985 and revising the budget
[[Page 9588]]
resolution for 1984) in the Committee of the Whole on Apr. 5,
1984,(14) the following exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 130 Cong. Rec. 7908, 7911, 7913, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Julian C.] Dixon [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment in the nature of a substitute, designated No. 4,
consisting of the text of House Concurrent Resolution 281.
The Chairman: (15) The Clerk will designate the
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. John J. Moakley (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:
Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr.
Dixon: Strike out all after the resolving clause and insert in
lieu thereof the following: . . .
The Chairman: Pursuant to House Resolution 476, the amendment
is considered as having been read.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Dixon) will be recognized
for 1 hour and a Member opposed will be recognized for 1 hour.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr.
Dixon) for 1 hour. . . .
Mr. Dixon: Mr. Chairman, I inquire of the Chair as to what time
is left on both sides.
The Chairman: The gentleman from California (Mr. Dixon) has 14
minutes remaining; the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Fiedler)
has 21 minutes remaining.
Mr. Dixon: Mr. Chairman, I believe I am entitled to close. I do
not know if the other side intends to use all of their time.
The Chairman: The gentleman is incorrect. The opposition is
entitled to close.
Sec. 7.30 The minority manager of a bill recognized to control the time
on behalf of the committee in opposition to an amendment (where
debate has been limited and divided) has the right to close the
debate on the amendment.
On June 29, 1984,(16) during consideration of H.R. 3678
(Water Resources, Conservation, Development, and Infrastructure
Improvement and Rehabilitation Act of 1983) in the Committee of the
Whole, Chairman Sam B. Hall, of Texas, responded to a parliamentary
inquiry regarding closing debate. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 130 Cong. Rec. 20250, 20253, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Bob] Edgar [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, if the
gentleman would yield, I would suggest that we could probably do it
in 30 minutes equally divided, 15 minutes for the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Hopkins) and 15 minutes for the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Snyder) by dividing up the time I think we could
probably cover the speakers who wish to speak.
Mr. [Robert A.] Roe [of New Jersey]: I would have no objection
to that.
[[Page 9589]]
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the debate conclude
at 5:30 and the time be equally divided between Mr. Snyder and Mr.
Hopkins.
The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New Jersey?
There was no objection.
Mr. [Larry J.] Hopkins [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. Hopkins: Mr. Chairman, since it is my amendment, would it
be improper for me to close out the debate on this issue?
The Chairman: The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Snyder), closes
on behalf of the committee.
Sec. 7.31 Where debate under the five-minute rule in Committee of the
Whole has been limited, and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent, the opponent of an amendment has the right to close
debate if he represents the committee managing the bill.
During consideration of H.R. 1460 (expressing United States
opposition to the system of apartheid in South Africa) in the Committee
of the Whole on June 5, 1985,(17) the following proceedings
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 131 Cong. Rec. 14293, 14302, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: (18) Under the rule, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Dellums) will be recognized for 30 minutes and
a Member opposed to the amendment will be recognized for 30
minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. E de la Garza (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Siljander) opposed to the
amendment?
Mr. [Mark] Siljander [of Michigan]: I am, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Siljander) will
be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr.
Dellums). . . .
Mr. [Ronald V.] Dellums [of California]: Mr. Chairman, is it
customary that the offeror of the amendment close the debate?
The Chairman: The Chair would advise the gentleman that the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Siljander) is in fact representing the
committee which opposes the gentleman's amendment, so, therefore,
he would have a procedural right to close debate on the amendment.
Sec. 7.32 Where debate has been limited on an amendment in Committee of
the Whole and control allocated between a proponent and an opponent
who represents the committee majority reporting the bill, the
Member controlling the time in opposition has the right to close
debate.
On July 10, 1985,(1) during consideration of H.R. 1555
(International Security and Develop
[[Page 9590]]
ment Cooperation Act of 1985) in the Committee of the Whole, the
following exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 131 Cong. Rec. 18496, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [William S.] Broomfield [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, if I
may pose a parliamentary inquiry. I thought I had the right to
close the debate on this side; is that not right?
The Chairman: (2) The Chair will state that the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Wolpe) has the right to close debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Les AuCoin (Oreg.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Broomfield: It is our amendment, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: It may be the gentleman's amendment, but the
committee that is managing the bill has the right to close debate.
--Member of Committee
Sec. 7.33 A member of the committee in charge of a bill is entitled to
close debate on an amendment under consideration in the Committee
of the Whole.
On May 22, 1956,(3) Chairman Jere Cooper, of Tennessee,
ruled that a member of the Committee on Appropriations, which reported
and was in charge of the pending bill, H.R. 11319, was entitled to
close debate on a pending amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 102 Cong. Rec. 8741, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: Under the unanimous-consent agreement, the Chair
recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Cole) [to open debate].
Mr. [W. Sterling] Cole: Mr. Chairman, I understood that I was
to have 5 minutes to close the debate on this amendment.
The Chairman: The Chair was not of that understanding. It is
the understanding of the Chair that the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Taber) would have 5 minutes to close the debate.
Mr. Cole: The request was that the gentleman from New York will
close the debate. I also qualify under that characterization, being
in support of the amendment; and, under the rules of the House, it
is my understanding that I would be recognized to close the debate.
The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman from New York
that a member of the committee is entitled to close the debate if
he so desires.
Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Taber) desire to be
recognized to close the debate?
Mr. [John] Taber: I desire to close.
The Chairman: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Cole).
Sec. 7.34 A member of the committee reporting a bill who supports the
committee position and has been recognized to control the time in
opposition to an amendment has the right to close the debate
thereon.
On Aug. 14, 1986,(4) during consideration of the
Department of
[[Page 9591]]
Defense authorization for fiscal 1987 (H.R. 4428) in the Committee of
the Whole, Chairman Pro Tempore Marty Russo, of Illinois, responded to
a parliamentary inquiry, as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 132 Cong. Rec. 21714, 21718, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman Pro Tempore: Under the rule, the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Savage) will be recognized for 20 minutes, and a
Member in opposition will be recognized for 20 minutes.
The Chair will recognize the distinguished gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Dickinson) for 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Savage).
. . .
Mr. [William L.] Dickinson [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Dickinson: Mr. Chairman, does not the gentleman have the
right to close, as the proponent?
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that under the
rules, a member of the committee supporting the committee's
position has the right to close. The gentleman from Alabama (Mr.
Dickinson) has the right to close.
Sec. 7.35 The chairman of the committee managing the bill representing
the committee position has the right to close debate on an
amendment in the Committee of the Whole.
The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on
May 5, 1988,(5) during consideration of the Department of
Defense authorization for fiscal 1989 (H.R. 4264):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 134 Cong. Rec. 9961, 100th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [William L.] Dickinson [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, I have
the right to close debate, it is my understanding, since this is my
amendment and it is not against the committee position.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: (6) The gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Aspin) has the right to close debate on behalf of
the committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Kenneth J. Gray (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Dickinson: He is not representing the committee position,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. [Les] Aspin [of Wisconsin]: On this amendment, the
gentleman from Wisconsin is representing the committee position,
which is to be against the Dickinson amendment.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Aspin), chairman of the committee, does have the right to close
debate.
--Member of Committee Offering Amendment Representing Committee
Position
Sec. 7.36 Under Rule XIV, clause 6, a member of the committee reporting
a bill offering an amendment thereto which represents the committee
position, and not another member of the committee recognized in
opposition thereto, is entitled to close debate thereon.
During consideration of the Department of Defense authorization
[[Page 9592]]
for fiscal year 1987 (H.R. 4428) in the Committee of the Whole on Aug.
14, 1986,(7) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 132 Cong. Rec. 21660, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [G. V.] Montgomery [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: (8) The Clerk will
designate the amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Marty Russo (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Montgomery: At the end of title V
of division A (page 103, after line 6), add the following new
section: . . .
The Chairman Pro Tempore: Under the rule, the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Montgomery) will be recognized for 5 minutes, and
a Member of the Committee opposed to the amendment will be
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. [Patricia] Schroeder [of Colorado]: Mr. Chairman, I am
opposed to the amendment.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs.
Schroeder) will be recognized for 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr.
Montgomery).
Mr. Montgomery: Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes, and I
would like to reserve the last minute of the debate for my closing
argument.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair will state to the gentleman
from Mississippi that under the procedure adopted by the Committee,
a Member of the committee who is in opposition to the amendment has
been recognized to close the debate. . . .
Mr. Montgomery: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Montgomery: Mr. Chairman, the Member that is opposing this
amendment is not reflecting the committee's position. That is not
the will of the committee. I am on the committee myself, and I
think it is my amendment and I have the right to close the debate.
This is not the committee's position at all.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair will inform the gentleman
from Mississippi that the Member who is entitled to close the
debate would be a member of the committee who supports the
committee's position. Is the gentleman in support of the
committee's position?
Mr. Montgomery: Yes, Mr. Chairman; I support the committee
position. I am for the amendment, so, therefore, I think I have the
right to close debate.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: If there is no committee position on
the amendment, then the gentleman is entitled to close debate.
Mr. Montgomery: . . . Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes
and 30 seconds, and I reserve the balance of my time.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr.
Montgomery) is recognized for 2\1/2\ minutes.
--Proponent of Amendment Where There Is No Manager
Sec. 7.37 Where an unreported joint resolution was being
[[Page 9593]]
considered under a special ``modified closed'' rule in Committee of
the Whole permitting no general debate and the consideration of
only two amendments in the nature of a substitute with debate
thereon divided between a proponent and an opponent, the proponents
of the amendments were permitted to open and close debate pursuant
to clause 6 of Rule XIV, since there was no ``manager'' of the
joint resolution.
The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on
Apr. 24, 1985,(9) during consideration of House Joint
Resolution 247 (to promote United States assistance in Central
America):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 131 Cong. Rec. 9206, 9228, 9230-32, 9253, 9255, 99th Cong. 1st
Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: (10) No amendments are in order except
the following amendments, which shall be considered as having been
read, shall be considered only in the following order, and shall
not be subject to amendment: First, the amendment in the nature of
a substitute printed in the Congressional Record of April 22, 1985,
by, and if offered by, Representative Hamilton of Indiana; and said
amendment shall be debatable for not to exceed 2 hours, to be
equally divided and controlled by Representative Hamilton and a
member opposed thereto; and second, the amendment in the nature of
a substitute printed in the Congressional Record of April 22, 1985,
by, and if offered by, Representative Michel or his designee, and
said amendment shall be debatable for not to exceed 2 hours, to be
equally divided and controlled by Representative Michel or his
designee and a Member opposed thereto.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For what purpose does the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hamilton)
rise?
Mr. [Lee H.] Hamilton [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, pursuant to
the rules, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The Chairman: The Clerk will designate the amendment in the
nature of a substitute.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:
Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr.
Hamilton: Strike out all after the resolving clause and insert
in lieu thereof the following: . . .
The Chairman: The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Broomfield) has
6 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hamilton)
has 6 minutes remaining.
Mr. [William S.] Broomfield [of Michigan]: . . . I yield my
remaining time to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Lott). . . .
Mr. Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining time, 6
minutes, to the chairman of the Subcommittee on Central America and
Latin America, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Barnes). . . .
Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, pursuant to
the rule, I
[[Page 9594]]
offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The Chairman: The Clerk will designate the amendment in the
nature of a substitute. . . .
Pursuant to House Resolution 136, the amendment is considered
as having been read.
The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Michel) will be recognized for
1 hour, and a Member opposed will be recognized for 1 hour. . . .
Mr. Michel: Mr. Chairman, I should like to designate the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Broomfield) to make the allocation of
time on our side of the aisle.
The Chairman: The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Broomfield) is
designated to control the time for the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Michel). . . .
The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Broomfield) has 7 minutes
remaining, and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Barnes) has 6\1/4\
minutes remaining.
Mr. [Michael D.] Barnes [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, we have
three very brief speakers. . . .
Mr. Broomfield: Mr. Chairman, I would like at this time now to
yield the balance of our time to the minority leader, the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Michel). . . .
The Chairman: The time of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Michel) has expired. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute
offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Michel).
Parliamentarian's Note: Ordinarily in Committee of the Whole under
the five-minute rule, notwithstanding clause 6 of Rule XIV which
permits the proponent of a proposition to close debate, the manager of
the bill under the precedents is given the right to close debate on an
amendment and clause 6 applies only to debate in the House. But in the
above instance, there was no manager of the bill under the special
rule.
--No Committee Position in Opposition to Amendment
Sec. 7.38 Where no representative from the reporting committee opposes
an amendment to a multi-jurisdictional bill, the proponent of the
amendment may close debate.
On Mar. 9, 1995,(11) the Committee of the Whole had
under consideration H.R. 956, the Common Sense Legal Standards Reform
Act of 1995. A parliamentary inquiry arose concerning the right to
close debate on an amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 141 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: (12) The Chair will inform the
committee that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) is entitled to
close debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. David Dreier (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Melvin L.] Watt of North Carolina: Mr. Chairman, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
[[Page 9595]]
The Chairman: The gentleman will state his inquiry.
Mr. Watt of North Carolina: My inquiry has to do with why the
gentleman on that side has the right to close debate. We are
defending the committee position on this side this time.
The Chairman: If the Chair might respond to the inquiry, the
gentleman from Ohio is the author of the amendment and there is no
official committee position that is being represented here by
opposition to the amendment. So the gentleman from Ohio is entitled
to close debate on the amendment.
--Proponent of Amendment Where Manager Does Not Oppose Amendment
Sec. 7.39 While the member of the managing committee controlling debate
in opposition to an amendment and substitute therefor, if opposed
by the committee, has the right to close debate thereon, the
proponent of an amendment (consistent with clause 6, Rule XIV) has
the right to close debate if the committee manager does not oppose
the amendment or substitute.
The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on
Aug. 15, 1986,(13) during consideration of the Department of
Defense authorization for fiscal 1987 (H.R. 4428):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 132 Cong. Rec. 22056, 22057, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman Pro Tempore: (14) The gentleman from
Vermont (Mr. Jeffords) has 4 minutes remaining, the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Dickinson) has 5 minutes remaining, and
the gentleman from California (Mr.
Hawkins) has 10\1/2\ minutes remaining. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Marty Russo (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because there is no committee position on this amendment, under
the rules of the House, the proponent of the amendment has the
right to close debate.
So, on this amendment, the gentleman from California (Mr.
Hawkins), will have the right to close debate.
When we get to the Dickinson substitute, again, there is no
committee position, and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Dickinson),
would have the right to close debate.
So, in fairness to both sides, the gentleman from California
(Mr. Hawkins) will have the right to close on this amendment, and
the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Dickinson) will have the right to
close on his amendment.
Sec. 7.40 While ordinarily the manager of a bill and not the proponent
of an amendment has the right to close debate on an amendment on
which debate time has been limited and allocated under the five-
minute rule in the Committee of the Whole, the proponent of an
amendment
[[Page 9596]]
may close, pursuant to clause 6 of Rule XIV, where the manager of
the bill or his designee is not controlling time in opposition.
On June 12, 1985, the Committee of the Whole had under
consideration H.R. 2577, supplemental appropriations for fiscal 1986,
pursuant to a ``modified closed'' rule which limited and
divided debate on a specified amendment and two amendments thereto. Mr.
Joseph M. McDade, of Pennsylvania, offered an amendment (15)
under the rule, to which Mr. Edward P. Boland, of Massachusetts, rose
in opposition.(16) Subsequently, in response to Mr. McDade's
inquiry, the Chair (17) indicated that Mr. McDade would be
allowed to close debate.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 131 Cong. Rec. 15380, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
16. Id. at p. 15383.
17. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
18. 131 Cong. Rec. 15432, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Boland could not be identified as the ``manager'' of the bill
in this context since he had been
the proponent of an unsuccessful amendment (19) to the
McDade amendment under the rule, and had not been designated by the
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, Mr. Jamie L. Whitten, of
Mississippi, as the manager of the bill during debate on the McDade
amendment, but was merely an opponent of the amendment. The proceedings
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Id. at pp. 15408, 15420.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Whitten: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself
into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for
the further consideration of the bill (H.R. 2577) making
supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September
30, 1985, and for other purposes. . . .
The motion was agreed to. . . .
The Chairman: . . . Pursuant to House Resolution 186 and
today's unanimous-consent agreement, no amendments are in order
except the following amendments which shall be considered in the
following order only, shall be considered as having been read,
shall not be subject to amendment except as specified, and shall be
in order even if amending a portion of the bill already passed in
the reading of the bill for amendment:
First. The amendment printed in the Congressional Record of
June 5, 1985, by Representative Michel, if offered by
Representative Michel or Representative McDade, which shall be
debatable for 2 hours and 20 minutes, to be equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and a Member opposed thereto, and after
2 hours of debate shall be subject to the following two amendments:
Second. The amendment printed in the Congressional Record of
June 5, 1985, by, and if offered by, Representative Boland, which
shall be debatable
[[Page 9597]]
for 1 hour, to be equally divided and controlled by Representative
Boland and a Member opposed thereto; . . .
Mr. McDade: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. . . .
Amendment offered by Mr. McDade: Page 44, after line 23,
insert the following:
For an additional amount for humanitarian assistance . . .
to the Nicaraguan democratic resistance, $27,000,000. . . .
The Chairman: For what purpose does the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Boland) rise?
Mr. Boland: Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The Chairman: Under the rule, the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Boland) is recognized for 1 hour. . . .
Mr. McDade: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. McDade: Mr. Chairman, I believe that I have the right to
close debate. May I say to the Chair that it is my amendment, and I
believe as author of the amendment, I have the right to close
debate.
The Chairman: Under the present circumstances, the Chair agrees
with the gentleman that he should be allowed to close.
Sec. 7.41 Normally the manager of the bill, and not the proponent of an
amendment under the five-minute rule, has the right to close debate
on the amendment; but where a special rule adopted by the House
permits the manager of the bill or his designee to offer an
amendment consisting of the text of another bill reported from the
reporting committee, and that amendment is not opposed by the
manager, the proponent has the right to close debate.
On Aug. 5, 1986,(20) the following proceedings occurred
in the Committee of the Whole during consideration of H.R. 4428
(Department of Defense authorization for fiscal 1987):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 132 Cong. Rec. 19031, 19039, 19053, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: (1) . . . Pursuant to the rule, the
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the
Committee on Armed Services . . . is considered by titles as an
original bill for the purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Kenneth J. Gray (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before the consideration of any other amendments, it shall be
in order to consider the amendments designated in section 2 of
House Resolution 523. . . .
First, an amendment inserting a new Division D in the committee
substitute, as modified, containing the text of the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the
Committee on Armed Services now printed in H.R. 4370 if offered by
the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services or his designee. .
. .
Mr. [William] Nichols [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, I have been
des
[[Page 9598]]
ignated by the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services to offer
an amendment made in order under the rule.
The Chairman: The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Nichols: Page 353, after line 10,
insert the following new division (and redesignate division D
as division E):
DIVISION D--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE REORGANIZATION. . . .
The Chairman: Pursuant to House Resolution 523, the gentleman
from Alabama (Mr. Nichols) will be recognized for 1 hour, and a
Member opposed will be recognized for 1 hour. . . .
Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I am
opposed to the legislation.
The Chairman: The Chair will then recognize the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Stratton) for 1 hour. . . .
Mr. Nichols: Mr. Chairman, I would request that 30 minutes of
my time be yielded to the ranking minor-ity member of my
subcommittee, the
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Hopkins). . . .
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair wishes to state that the
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Hopkins) has 4 minutes remaining; the
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Nichols) has 6\1/2\ minutes remaining;
and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Nichols) is entitled to close
the debate. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Stratton) has 36\1/2\
minutes remaining.
--Unanimous Consent To Vary Regular Order
Sec. 7.42 By unanimous consent the Committee of the Whole may vary the
regular order of recognition to close debate on an amendment; thus,
although the manager of a bill has the right to close controlled
debate on an amendment thereto, the Committee of the Whole has by
unanimous consent varied that practice.
During consideration of the Defense Savings Act of 1988 (H.R. 4481)
in the Committee of the Whole on July 12, 1988,(2) the
following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 134 Cong. Rec. 17767, 100th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [William L.] Dickinson [of Alabama]: I think that the rule
provides a division of time of all those standing and who want to
speak. But if it would be proper, Mr. Chairman, I would so move
that limitation of time would be within 30 minutes of the present
time, the time to be divided equally by the proponents and
opponents and that the gentleman from Texas, the author of the
amendment, be allowed to close debate.
Mr. [Dennis M.] Hertel [of Michigan]: . . . I have no problem
with the gentleman closing debate. I just do not know if it is
proper to put it in a motion. I have no objection to him being the
last person to speak. . . .
[[Page 9599]]
The Chairman: (3) The gentleman . . . has made a
motion. He has moved. But the gentleman should make a unanimous-
consent request to allocate time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Harold L. Volkmer (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Dickinson: Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent that
all debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto close
within 30 minutes, that the 30 minutes be divided half and half
between the proponents and the opponents and that the gentleman
from Texas be allowed to close.
Mr. [G. V.] Montgomery [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman,
reserving the right to object, I agree with the gentleman's first
part with respect to 30 minutes but over the years the House
procedure is I believe, and I will have the Chair correct me if I
am wrong, that when an amendment is offered and the chairman of the
committee objects to that amendment, that he has the right to close
debate. Is that proper?
The Chairman: Normally when the Committee of the Whole divides
the time on an amendment the person handling the bill, the
chairman, has the right to end the debate. That is normal.
There has been a unanimous-consent request to alter that, which
can be done, to permit the gentleman from Texas to close the
debate.
Mr. Montgomery: Mr. Chairman, I will not object. I withdraw my
reservation of objection. The chairman has no problem with it.
The Chairman: Then without objection the unanimous-consent
request is granted. All time on the amendment of the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Armey) and all amendments thereto will expire 30 minutes
from now; that under the unanimous-consent request the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Hertel) will be recognized to control time for
15 minutes as an opponent of the amendment and the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Armey) will be recognized for 15 minutes as the
proponent of the amendment.
CHAPTER 29
Consideration and Debate
B. RIGHT TO RECOGNITION
Sec. 8. In General; Seeking Recognition
In order to address the House or speak in relation to any matter,
or to make a motion or objection, a Member must first secure
recognition from the Speaker in the House or from the Chairman in the
Committee of the Whole. Rule XIV clause 1 provides the proper method of
seeking recognition:
When any Member desires to speak or deliver any matter to the
House, he shall rise and respectfully address himself to ``Mr.
Speaker,'' and, on being recognized, may address the House from any
place on the floor or from the Clerk's desk, and shall confine
himself to the question under debate, avoiding
personality.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. House Rules and Manual Sec. 749 (1995). For parliamentary law on
seeking recognition, see Jefferson's Manual, House Rules and
Manual Sec. 354 (1995). Proper forms of address are discussed
in Sec. 42, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 9600]]
As indicated by the rule, a recognized Member may be taken off the
floor by a point of order that he is indulging in disorderly or
irrelevant language.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. See Sec. Sec. 43 et seq., infra, for disorderly language and
Sec. Sec. 35 et seq., infra, for relevancy in debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Member may not be interrupted without his consent or taken off
his feet for ordinary motions.(6) A Member seeking to
interrupt another must secure recognition from the Chair, and the
remarks of a Member who has not gained recognition may be stricken from
the Record.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. See Sec. 32, infra, for control of debate and interruptions of a
Member with the floor.
7. See Sec. Sec. 8.2, 8.3, 8.10, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule XIV clause 2 provides:
When two or more Members rise at once, the Speaker shall name
the Member who is first to speak. . . .(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. House Rules and Manual Sec. 753 (1995). This rule modified the
parliamentary practice that the Member who first rises has the
right to be recognized [see Jefferson's Manual, House Rules and
Manual Sec. 393 (1995)].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the rule, the Speaker or the Chairman of the Committee of the
Whole has the power and discretion to determine who will be recognized,
and for what purpose.(9) To determine a Member's claim to
the floor, the Chair may ask for what purpose a Member rises, and
recognition is granted only for the specific purpose
indicated.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. See, generally, Sec. 9, infra.
10. See Sec. Sec. 8.9, 8.12, 8.13, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair's power of recognition is not unlimited, and recognition
or refusal thereof may be dictated by House rule or by established
practice and precedent.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. For limitations on recognition, see Sec. 11, infra. The order of
recognition in specific parliamentary situations is discussed
in Sec. Sec. 12-15, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recognition is governed in specific instances and in specific
parliamentary situations by principles and rules too extensive to be
completely covered in this chapter. The reader is advised to consult
those portions of this work dealing with the order of business, with
motions, and with the relative privilege of motions and questions.
Except at the convening of the Congress, a Member-elect (such as
one elected to fill a vacancy) may not be recognized until he has been
administered the oath.
Cross References
Effect of special orders on recognition, see Sec. 28, infra.
Interruption of Member with the floor, see Sec. 32, infra.
Manner of address and interruptions generally, see Sec. 42, infra.
[[Page 9601]]
Recognition before adoption of rules, see Ch. 1, supra.
Recognition in voting, see Ch. 30, infra.
Recognition on questions of privilege, see Ch. 11, supra.
Recognition in relation to quorums and calls of the House, see Ch. 20,
supra.
Recognition for specific motions and questions, see Sec. Sec. 16 et
seq., infra. -------------------
Member Must Seek Recognition To Obtain Floor
Sec. 8.1 No Member has the floor until the Chair has recognized him for
the purpose of proceeding.
For example, on Mar. 16, 1934,(12) Speaker Henry T.
Rainey, of Illinois, ruled that until a Member seeking to make an
announcement or to proceed in debate had been recognized by the Chair
for that purpose, the Member could not proceed:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 78 Cong. Rec. 4691, 73d Cong. 2d Sess. See also 78 Cong. Rec. 4700,
73d Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 16, 1934; 77 Cong. Rec. 2413, 73d
Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 26, 1933.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [William P.] Connery [Jr., of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker,
the gentleman from Rhode Island, Mr. Condon, and the gentleman from
New York, Mr. Mead, are unavoidably absent. If they were here, they
would vote ``aye.''
Mr. [Bertrand H.] Snell [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Snell: Is there any provision in the rules for such an
announcement as has just been made by the gentleman from
Massachusetts?
The Speaker: There is no provision in the rules for an
announcement of that character.
Mr. Snell: I make the point of order that the gentleman is out
of order. If the rules are going to be invoked, let us abide by all
of them.
The Speaker: The point of order is sustained.
Mr. Connery: Mr. Speaker, the Chair just ruled that all remarks
uttered on the floor of the House must go in the Record; therefore
my announcement must go in the Record.
The Speaker: The Chair cannot recognize the gentleman for that
purpose under the rules.
Mr. [Carl E.] Mapes [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, I make the
point of order that a Member has no right to make a speech until he
is recognized by the Chair.
The Speaker: The point of order is sustained.
Sec. 8.2 The Speaker has repeatedly ruled that under the rules and
procedures of the House a Member who wishes to interrupt another
who has the floor must first obtain recognition from the Chair.
On June 7, 1961,(13) while Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of
Michigan,
[[Page 9602]]
had the floor, he yielded to Mr. Albert Thomas, of Texas, who
thereafter attempted to interrupt Mr. Hoffman and to yield to a third
Member. Mr. Hoffman made a point of order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 107 Cong. Rec. 9681, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order. It has become customary
here--and I only make this because having served under Speaker
Byrns, a man of great ability and dignity who said there was a rule
in effect--that Members had to address the Chair or the Speaker
before making a request that the Member speaking could yield to
anyone. Is that right?
The Chairman: (14) That is the rule and practice of
the House and Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: Pardon me, then. I had not noticed
that the practice was being observed.
Similarly, on July 16, 1935,(15) Speaker Joseph W.
Byrns, of Tennessee, ruled as follows on a point of order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 79 Cong. Rec. 11256, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The point of order has already been made, and the Chair is
about to make a ruling. . . .
The rules of the House provide that Members of the House shall
observe proper decorum in debate. This is the only way in which
matters may be discussed in a sound, sensible, sane manner, and a
proper conclusion arrived at. Those Members particularly who have
been here for years, it seems to the Chair, should be doubly
careful to strictly conform to the rule.
The rules provide that when a Member rises to interrupt another
he shall address the Chair and do it respectfully and secure the
consent of the Member who is talking.
The Speaker then cited Rule XIV clause 1, governing the subject of
address.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 749 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker has ruled on numerous other occasions that it is not in
order in debate for a Member to interrupt another who has the floor
without first addressing the Chair and obtaining consent of the Member
who has the floor.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. See also 102 Cong. Rec. 11455, 84th Cong. 2d Sess., June 29, 1956;
83 Cong. Rec. 591, 592, 75th Cong. 3d Sess., Jan. 15, 1938; 80
Cong. Rec. 2201, 74th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 17, 1936; 80 Cong.
Rec. 1665, 1666, 74th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 7, 1936; 79 Cong.
Rec. 5461, 74th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 11, 1935; and 78 Cong.
Rec. 10630, 73d Cong. 2d Sess., June 6, 1934.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Remarks of Member Not Recognized May Be Stricken
Sec. 8.3 Members are required to seek recognition from the Chair in
order to question
a Member or address the House, and the remarks of Members who have
not secured recognition are not included in the
Record.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See, for example, 91 Cong. Rec. 10032, 79th Cong. 1st Sess., Oct.
24, 1945 (making point of order); 81 Cong. Rec. 3588, 75th
Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 19, 1937 (interjecting remarks into
another's speech); and 79 Cong. Rec. 11256, 74th Cong. 1st
Sess., July 16, 1935 (interrogating Member having the floor).
See Rule XIV clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 749
(1995): ``When any Member desires to speak or deliver any
matter to the House, he shall rise and respectfully address
himself to `Mr. Speaker,' and, on being recognized, may address
the House from any place on the floor or from the Clerk's desk.
. . .''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 9603]]
On Apr. 14, 1936,(19) Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of
Tennessee, ruled in response to a point of order that remarks made by a
Member without having secured recognition from the Chair are properly
deleted from the Congressional Record:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 80 Cong. Rec. 5478, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Thomas L.] Blanton [of Texas]: I make the point of order
that when a Member is speaking on the floor, as the gentleman from
New York was yesterday, and someone attempts to interrupt him and
he states he refuses to yield, and he does not yield, no Member
then has the right to make remarks and to put them in the Record
without being recognized by the Chair or getting permission of the
House.
I think the gentleman from New York would have been well within
his rights if he had taken a pencil and wiped out the remarks
himself, because the gentleman from Washington did not have any
right to make a remark in the Record unless he got permission of
the House or permission of the Chair. Mr. Speaker, I make that
point of order. . . .
The Speaker: The Chair may say to the gentleman that no Member
of the House has the right to have his remarks inserted in the
Record unless he has obtained the consent of the House or the Chair
or the gentleman addressing the House.
The present occupant of the chair was not presiding at the
time, but the Chair understands from the gentleman from Washington
(Mr. Zioncheck) that when he asked the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Boylan) for permission to interrupt him the gentleman from New York
declined to yield. Thereupon the gavel fell, and the gentleman's
remarks were made after the gavel had fallen and without
recognition from the Chair or the permission of the gentleman from
New York.
Mr. [Marion A.] Zioncheck: That is right. I admit I was wrong.
The Speaker: The Chair, under such circumstances, holds that
the remarks were not proper for the Record.
On Apr. 19, 1937,(20) Speaker William B. Bankhead, of
Alabama, stated in response to a parliamentary inquiry by Mr. Edward W.
Curley, of New York, that the Speaker could order stricken, from the
notes of the reporters of debates, the remarks of a Member who had not
been recognized and to whom the Member having the floor had declined to
yield:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 81 Cong. Rec. 3588, 3589, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: This is a rather important inquiry that the
gentleman
[[Page 9604]]
from New York (Mr. Curley) has submitted. It has not been raised,
so far as the Chair recalls, during the present session of
Congress. In order that the rights of Members may be protected, and
that the Members may know what the rules and precedents are with
respect to this proposition, the Chair will read from section 3466,
volume 8, of Cannon's Precedents of the House of Representatives,
the following statement:
The Speaker may order stricken from the notes of the
reporters remarks made by Members who have not been recognized
and to whom the Member having the floor has declined to yield.
Before interpreting this statement it is the recollection of
the Chair, who was sitting in the Chamber at the time, that when
the gentleman from New York now occupying the floor addressed the
Chair and asked the gentleman from New York (Mr. Wadsworth) to
yield, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Wadsworth) declined to
yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Curley).
On August 4, 1911, Mr. Charles N. Fowler, of New Jersey, rising
to a parliamentary inquiry, asked if remarks made by a Member who
had not received recognition from the Chair and to whom the Member
having the floor had declined to yield, were properly incorporated
in the Record.
The Speaker, Mr. Champ Clark, replied:
The rule has been that if the gentleman from Illinois, for
instance, is addressing the House, and some other Member asks
leave to interrupt him, and the gentleman from Illinois
declines to be interrupted, and the other Member persists in
talking, the Speaker has the right to strike out what the
interrupting Member said after he had been notified that
interruptions were not desired. . . .
In this particular instance the Speaker did not authorize the
reporter to strike out the interjection of the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Curley) now occupying the floor, because the Chairman of
the Committee of the Whole was at that time presiding.
The Chair may say that in conformity with this precedent, and
what the Chair conceives to be sound procedure, the rule should be
reiterated that when a Member is occupying the floor and a Member
after addressing the Chair and asking the Member then occupying the
floor if he will yield for a question or for an interruption, and
the gentleman then speaking declines to yield, it is not proper for
a Member nevertheless to interject into the Record some remark
which he desires to make. . . .
Mr. [Cassius C.] Dowell [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary
inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Dowell: When a Member has the floor and declines to yield,
and no one is recognized to propound a parliamentary inquiry or
direct an inquiry to the gentleman having the floor, and the other
Member, not being recognized by the Chair, makes some statement,
has not the Member who has the floor the right to leave those
injected remarks out of the Record?
The Speaker: Under the decision referred to by the Chair,
undoubtedly the Member interrupted would have the right to strike
those remarks from the Record.
[[Page 9605]]
How To Seek Recognition
Sec. 8.4 A Member must be on his feet and must address the Chair at the
appropriate time in order to be recognized.
On Dec. 17, 1974,(1) during consideration of the Rice
Act of 1975 (2) in the House, the principle stated above was
demonstrated as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 120 Cong. Rec. 40509, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
2. H.R. 15263.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: (3) Under the rule, the previous
question is ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The Speaker: The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and
was read the third time.
The Speaker: The question is on the passage of the bill.
Mr. [Bill] Alexander [of Arkansas]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry. I was on my feet, and I would ask at what
point is a demand for a separate vote on the amendment in order.
The Speaker: The Chair will state that the question was put on
that, and the action has been taken and has been announced.
Mr. Alexander: I was on my feet, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: The gentleman from Arkansas did not address the
Chair.
Mr. Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I sought a record vote on the
amendment that was adopted in the committee, and the Speaker did
not announce a separate vote procedure on the committee amendment.
The Speaker: The Speaker followed the proper procedure. He
definitely remembers saying:
The question is on the adoption of the amendment. As many
as are in favor, vote aye; those opposed, vote no. The ayes
have it. The amendment is agreed to.
That was announced by the Chair, and the Chair then proceeded
to put the questions on engrossment and third reading and on final
passage, before the gentleman sought recognition.
The Chair acknowledges Members by recognition. However, if he
is bound by everybody standing up all over the room, he is bound
100 times.
The question is on the passage of the bill.
Sec. 8.5 Pursuant to clause 1 of Rule XIV, a Member desiring to speak
must rise and address the Chair, and may not remain seated on the
committee table while engaging in debate.
On June 28, 1976,(4) the Committee of the Whole was
considering the Transportation appro
[[Page 9606]]
priations for fiscal 1977 (H.R. 14234) when the following exchange
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 122 Cong. Rec. 21021, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Barry] Goldwater [Jr., of California]: Madam Chairman, I
move to strike the requisite number of words, and I rise in
opposition to the amendment.
(Mr. Goldwater asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. Goldwater: Madam Chairman, it amuses me that the gentleman
from Virginia would seek the supersonic Concorde as the issue on
which to wage his campaign against airport noise.
Mr. [Herbert E.] Harris [II, of Virginia]: Madam Chairman, I
make the point of order the gentleman is not standing.
The Chairman: (5) The gentleman from California may
proceed, if he should desire to rise as required by the rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Barbara Jordan (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 8.6 A Member must be on his feet and must address the Chair at the
appropriate time in order to be recognized.
On Aug. 4, 1978,(6) during consideration of the foreign
aid appropriation bill for fiscal 1979 (H.R. 12931) in the Committee of
the Whole, it was demonstrated that, in recognizing Members under the
five-minute rule, the Chair attempts to give preference to members of
the committee reporting the bill; but the Chair may recognize another
where a committee member is standing but not actively seeking
recognition by addressing the Chair:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 124 Cong. Rec. 24439, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: (7) The Clerk will read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Abraham Kazen, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
TITLE II--FOREIGN MILITARY CREDIT SALES
Foreign Military Credit Sales
For expenses not otherwise provided for, necessary to
enable the President to carry out the provisions of sections 23
and 24 of the Arms Export Control Act, $648,000,-000. . . .
The Chairman: Are there amendments to title II?
For what purpose does the gentleman from Iowa rise?
Mr. [Thomas R.] Harkin [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Chairman: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa (Mr.
Harkin).
Mr. [Clarence E.] Miller of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I am a member
of the committee.
The Chairman: The Chair has recognized the gentleman from Iowa
(Mr. Harkin).
Mr. Miller of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I was on my feet at the time.
The Chairman: The Chair will tell the gentleman that he might
have been on his feet, but the Chair was
not aware that he addressed the Chair. . . .
[[Page 9607]]
Let the Chair make this announcement for the last time during
the consideration of this bill. On yesterday twice the Chair
admonished the members of this Committee that if they had
amendments pending, it was their duty to be standing and to address
the Chair seeking recognition. Otherwise the Chair would have no
way of knowing that they had an amendment to offer. The Chair is
for the third and last time admonishing the Committee that those
who have amendments not only be on their feet but seek recognition.
On this particular occasion the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Miller)
did not seek the Chair's attention, and the Chair did recognize the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Harkin), who did seek the Chair's
attention.
Rule on Recognition as Barring Badges Carrying Messages
Sec. 8.7 Clause 1 of Rule XIV, requiring Members desiring to ``speak or
deliver any matter to the House'' to rise and address the Speaker
to be recognized, proscribes, in effect, the wearing of badges by
Members to communicate messages; thus, the Speaker, exercising his
authority to preserve order and decorum, has advised Members that
the wearing of badges is inappropriate under the rules of the
House.
The following statement was made by the Speaker (8)
during proceedings on Apr. 15, 1986: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
9. 132 Cong. Rec. 7525, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Members wearing yellow badges should be advised that they
are inappropriate under the rules of the House.
The badges in question urged support of military assistance to the
Nicaraguan Contras. In recent years, some Members and staff have worn
various badges on the floor to convey political messages to their
colleagues and to the TV audience. Under the definition of decorum and
debate in clause 1 of Rule XIV, a Member must first seek recognition
and then speak his message, or use exhibits as provided in Rule XXX
subject to approval of the House if objection is made.
Point of Order That Member Has Not Properly Sought Recognition
Sec. 8.8 A point of order that a Member has not properly sought
recognition under the five-minute rule comes too late after that
Member has been recognized and has be-gun debate.
During consideration of the Alaska Natural Gas Transpor
[[Page 9608]]
tation Act (S. 3521) in the Committee of the Whole on Sept. 30,
1976,(10) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 122 Cong. Rec. 34132, 34139, 34145, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: (11) . . . Pursuant to the rule, the
Clerk will now read the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute recommended by the Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce, now printed in the reported bill as an original bill for
the purpose of amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It shall also be in order to consider an amendment in the
nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Interior and
Insular Affairs if offered as an amendment in the nature of a
substitute for the amendment in the nature of a substitute
recommended by the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
short title
Section 1. This Act may be cited as the ``Alaska Natural
Gas Transportation Act of 1976.''
amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by mr. melcher
Mr. [John] Melcher [of Montana]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr.
Melcher:
Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu
thereof the following:
short title
Section 1. This Act may be cited as the ``Alaska Natural
Gas Transportation Act of 1976''. . . .
Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Dingell to the amendment in the
nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Melcher: Page 1 of the
amendment, strike out line 6 and all that follows down through
line 9 on page 35 and insert in lieu thereof the following:
Sec. 2. The Congress finds and declares that--
(1) a natural gas supply shortage exists in the contiguous
States of the United States. . . .
Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I rise in
opposition to the Interior Committee substitute, and in support of
the Dingell amendment which was offered to it.
Mr. [John F.] Seiberling [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I make a
point of order.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. Seiberling: Mr. Chairman, my point of order is that the
gentleman from Ohio in the well said that he rose in opposition to
the Interior Committee substitute, but the pending amendment is not
the Interior Committee substitute but the substitute offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), which completely wipes out
the Interior Committee substitute.
[[Page 9609]]
The Chairman: The gentleman from Ohio has been recognized. The
point of order comes too late.
Recognition for a Specific Purpose
Sec. 8.9 Where the Chair recognizes a Member for a specific purpose,
the Member has the right to the floor only for that purpose.
On Jan. 26, 1944,(12) Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of
Massachusetts, the Minority Leader, asked unanimous consent to proceed
for one minute. When Mr. Martin attempted to ask the unanimous-consent
consideration of a bill, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, held that he
had not been recognized for that purpose:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 90 Cong. Rec. 746, 747, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Martin of Massachusetts: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent to proceed for 1 minute.
The Speaker: The Chair will not recognize any other Member at
this time for that purpose but will recognize the gentleman from
Massachusetts.
Mr. Martin of Massachusetts: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the
generosity of the Chair.
I take this minute, Mr. Speaker, because I want to make a
unanimous-consent request and I think it should be explained.
I agree with the President that there is immediate need for
action on the soldiers' vote bill. A good many of us have been
hoping we could have action for the last month. To show our
sincerity in having action not next week but right now, I ask
unanimous consent that the House immediately take up the bill which
is on the Union Calendar known as S. 1285, the soldiers' voting
bill.
The Speaker: The gentleman from Massachusetts was not
recognized for that purpose.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky.
On July 28, 1965,(13) the Committee of the Whole was
reading H.R. 77 for amendment. Chairman Leo W. O'Brien, of New York,
recognized William H. Ayres, of Ohio, the majority member of the
committee reporting the bill, to debate a pro forma amendment to strike
out the last word. Mr. Ayres then offered a substantive amendment
during his remarks. The Chairman ruled:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 111 Cong. Rec. 18631, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair has not recognized the gentleman for that purpose.
Does any other Member offer an amendment at this time?
Parliamentarian's Note: Several majority members of the committee
were seeking recognition for amendments.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Exceptions to the principle that Members are recognized for a
specific purpose are the motion to adjourn and the motion that
the Committee of the Whole rise, which are highly privileged
and may be made, if in order at the time, by a Member securing
recognition for any purpose, except that a Member recognized
for purposes of general debate in the Committee of the Whole
may not move that the Committee rise, where general debate is
governed by the terms of a special rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 9610]]
Sec. 8.10 Members are not entitled to the floor until recognized by the
Chair for debate even though they may have called up a matter for
consideration in the House.
On Feb. 28, 1931,(15) Mr. Thomas A. Jenkins, of Ohio,
moved to suspend the rules and pass House Joint Resolution 500,
restricting for two years immigration into the United States, and
Speaker Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, recognized Mr. Jenkins for that
purpose. Mr. John J. O'Connor, of New York, objected that he had the
floor, on a resolution from the Committee on Rules, which had been
called up and read but not debated, making in order the consideration
of the same measure, House Joint Resolution 500. Mr. O'Connor stated
that he had yielded 30 minutes' debate to another Member on the
resolution prior to the motion to suspend the rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 74 Cong. Rec. 6575-77, 71st Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaker Longworth ruled that neither Mr. O'Connor nor the Member to
whom he had yielded time were entitled to the floor since the Chair had
recognized Mr. Jenkins for the motion to suspend the rules but had not
recognized Mr. O'Connor for debate on the resolution.
Parliamentarian's Note: Although under the precedents a motion to
suspend the rules is in order even while another matter is pending, it
is the better practice to first require the withdrawal of the pending
matter in order that two proposals not be pending simultaneously.
Sec. 8.11 A motion is not pending until the Chair has recognized a
Member, who then offers the motion.
On Oct. 27, 1983,(16) during consideration of H.R. 4139
(Department of the Treasury and Postal Service appropriations, fiscal
1984) in the Committee of the Whole, the following proceedings
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 129 Cong. Rec. 29630, 29631, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Bruce A.] Morrison of Connecticut: Mr. Chairman, my point
of order is that this amendment constitutes a limitation on an
appropriation and cannot be considered by the House prior to the
consideration of a motion by the Committee to rise.
The Chairman: (17) The Chair must indicate to the
gentleman that no such preferential motion has yet been made.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Philip R. Sharp (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 9611]]
The gentleman is correct that a motion that the Committee rise
and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have
been adopted takes precedence over an amendment proposing a
limitation.
Mr. Morrison of Connecticut: Mr. Chairman, then I move that the
committee do now rise.
Mr. [Edward R.] Roybal [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Roybal: Mr. Chairman, where does the committee stand at
this moment with regard to the motion that has been made to rise?
The Chairman: The Chair must indicate that he had actually
recognized the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Morrison) on a point
of order, and in the process the gentleman concluded his remarks by
attempting to offer a simple motion to rise.
It would be more appropriate if a motion to rise and report the
bill to the House with such amendments as have been adopted,
pursuant to clause 2(d), rule XXI were offered instead.
Does the gentleman have such a motion?
Mr. Roybal: Mr. Chairman, first of all, the gentleman must
withdraw his motion; is that not correct?
The Chairman: The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Morrison) has
not yet been recognized for the purpose of making a motion, to
begin with. That is what the Chair is trying to indicate.
Mr. Roybal: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise
and report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments.
--Chair May Inquire as to Purpose
Sec. 8.12 Where two or more Members rise seeking recognition the
Speaker may inquire into their purpose and determine from their
reply which Member he will recognize.
On Apr. 26, 1933,(18) the following parliamentary
situation and ruling by Speaker Henry T. Rainey, of Illinois, occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 77 Cong. Rec. 2413, 73d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Snell and Mr. Rayburn rose.
Mr. [Bertrand H.] Snell [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, at the
appropriate time I desire to be recognized against the motion to
recommit. This is the unfinished business before the House.
Mr. [Sam] Rayburn [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous
question.
Mr. Snell: Mr. Speaker, I am on my feet demanding recognition.
The previous question has not been ordered.
Mr. [John J.] O'Connor [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I certainly
shall object to the establishment of any precedent of debating
motions to recommit.
Mr. Snell: This is not a precedent. Motion to close debate by
ordering the previous question has not been made. This is the
unfinished business before the House.
Mr. Rayburn: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question. I think
I have the right to make this motion.
The Speaker: The question is on ordering the previous question
on the motion to recommit.
[[Page 9612]]
Mr. [Robert F.] Rich [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Rich: Mr. Speaker, is it proper procedure, when one Member
has obtained recognition, for another Member to be recognized? The
gentleman from New York [Mr. Snell] had the floor and was
recognized.
The Speaker: The Chair recognized the gentleman from New York
[only] to ascertain for what purpose he rose.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See Rule XIV clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 753 (1995):
``When two or more Members rise at once, the Speaker shall name
the Member who is first to speak. . . .''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 8.13 The fact that the Speaker or Chairman asks a Member ``for
what purpose does the gentleman rise'' does not confer recognition
on the Member.
On Apr. 13, 1946,(20) Mr. Dewey Short, of Missouri,
sought recognition from Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, after the
engrossment and third reading of the pending bill had been ordered. The
Speaker inquired of Mr. Short ``for what purpose does the gentleman
from Missouri rise?'' and Mr. Short stated that he was offering a
motion to recommit the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 92 Cong. Rec. 3669, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker recognized Mr. Edward E. Cox, of Georgia, to demand the
reading of the engrossed copy of the bill. Mr. Vito Marcantonio, of New
York, made the point of order that Mr. Short had been recognized to
offer a motion to recommit. The Speaker stated:
The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Short] was not recognized. The
Chair asked the gentleman for what purpose he rose, and then
recognized the gentleman from Georgia.
On June 26, 1951,(1) Chairman Albert A. Gore, of
Tennessee, ruled in the Committee of the Whole that his inquiry as to
the purpose for recognition did not confer recognition:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 97 Cong. Rec. 7174, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Celler rose.
The Chairman: For what purpose does the gentleman from New York
rise?
Mr. [Harold D.] Cooley [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I
move----
Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, was I not
recognized?
The Chairman: The Chair inquired for what purpose the gentleman
rose; that does not entail recognition.
--Inquiry as to Purpose Does Not Confer Recognition
Sec. 8.14 The fact that the Chair inquires of a Member for what purpose
he seeks recognition does not confer rec
[[Page 9613]]
ognition, and the Chair may recognize another Member who was
previously on his feet seeking recognition.
On Apr. 22, 1980,(2) during consideration of House Joint
Resolution 521 (making additional funds available by transfer for the
Selective Service System), the following exchange occurred in the
Committee of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 126 Cong. Rec. 8596, 8601, 8602, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: (3) The Clerk will report the
committee amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Committee amendment: On page 2, line 5, strike
``$4,709,000'' and insert in lieu thereof ``$13,295,- 000''. .
. .
Mr. [Robert] Duncan of Oregon: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment to the committee amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Duncan of Oregon to the committee
amendment: On page 5, line 2:
Strike ``$13,295,000'' and insert in lieu thereof
``$21,000,000.''
(Mr. Duncan of Oregon asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
The Chairman: For what purpose does the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Gonzalez) rise?
Mr. [Henry B.] Gonzalez [of Tex-as]: Mr. Chairman, I have an
amendment to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon
(Mr. Duncan) to the committee amendment.
The Chairman: The Chair will state that that would be in the
third degree, and that amendment to the Duncan amendment is not
proper.
For what purpose does the gentleman from Maryland rise?
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I have a
substitute to the committee amendment at the desk.
Mr. Gonzalez: Mr. Chairman, may I then be recognized to speak
against the amendment?
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, I believe the Chairman has already
recognized the gentleman from Maryland.
The Chairman: The Chair has not really recognized the gentleman
from Maryland. The Chair is determining whether he could recognize
the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. Bauman: The gentleman from Maryland thought the Chairman
said, ``For what purpose does the gentleman from Maryland rise?''
and then the gentleman from Maryland said, ``I have a substitute to
the committee amendment at the desk.'' Perhaps I just misheard all
of that.
The Chairman: No. The gentleman heard correctly. It does not
mean that the Chair has recognized the gentleman for the purpose of
offering an amendment. . . .
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez).
Seeking Recognition To Offer Amendment
Sec. 8.15 In order to obtain recognition to offer an amendment, a
Member must not
[[Page 9614]]
only be standing but must also actively seek recognition by
addressing the Chair at the appropriate time.
The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on
Oct. 26, 1983,(4) during consideration of the Department of
Defense appropriations for fiscal year 1984 (H.R. 4185):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 129 Cong. Rec. 29430, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: (5) The Clerk will read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows: . . .
For construction, procurement, production, modification,
and modernization of aircraft, equipment including ordnance . .
. and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances,
and machine tools in public and private plants . . .
$9,994,245,000. . . .
The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Nichols)
seek recognition?
Mr. [William] Nichols [of Alabama]: Yes; I do, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment relating to page 20, line 9,
of the bill.
The Clerk proceeded to read the page and line numbers of the
amendment.
Mr. [Joseph P.] Addabbo [of New York] (during the reading): Mr.
Chairman, I raise a point of order against the amendment. We have
already passed that section.
Mr. Nichols: Mr. Chairman, I was on my feet at the time.
The Chairman: The Chair recognizes the gentleman was on his
feet but did not know that he was seeking recognition.
Mr. Nichols: Mr. Chairman, I was at the microphone. I was
standing. I was prepared to offer my amendment had the Chairman
recognized me.
The Chairman: The Chair will have to make the observation that
the gentleman from Alabama was not seeking active recognition. The
Chair recognized the gentleman was on his feet but did not notice
that he was seeking recognition by any vocal expression. . . .
Mr. Nichols: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I be
permitted to offer my amendment at this point.
[Objection was heard.]
Sec. 8.16 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,(6) the Committee of the Whole had
under consideration the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1976 (H.R. 10498)
when the following exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 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.
[[Page 9615]]
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.
The Chairman: (7) The Chair will advise the
gentleman from Georgia that the gentleman will have to seek
recognition on his own time and in due order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. J. Edward Roush (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Levitas: I thank the Chairman.
Mr. Rogers: I yield back the balance of my time.
Sec. 8.17 Where numerous amendments which might be offered to a bill
had been left with the Reading Clerk, the Chair requested all
Members seeking to offer amendments not only to stand but to
address the Chair seeking recognition at the appropriate time.
During consideration of the foreign assistance appropriation bill
(H.R. 12931) in the Committee of the Whole on Aug. 3,
1978,(8) Chairman Abraham Kazen, Jr., of Texas, made the
following statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 124 Cong. Rec. 24227, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: Let the Chair make this request. There are
approximately 70 amendments on the desk. This bill will be read
paragraph by paragraph. The Chair requests those Members who have
amendments not only to be standing, but to address the Chair at the
proper time. . . . The Chair has no way of knowing whether or not
these amendments will all be presented, so the Chair will request
that all Members who have amendments be standing and seek
recognition at the proper time.
Sec. 8.18 As the reading of appropriation bills for amendment is
``scientifically'' done by heading and appropriation amount in each
paragraph, a Member desiring to amend a paragraph must stand and
seek recognition when that paragraph is read, but is not too late
if the Clerk has not concluded the reading of the heading of the
subsequent paragraph.
During consideration of the foreign aid appropriations for 1979
(H.R. 12931) in the Committee of the Whole on Aug. 3,
1978,(9) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 124 Cong. Rec. 24219, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
military assistance
Military assistance: For necessary expenses to carry out
the provisions of section 503 of the Foreign Assistance Act of
1961, as amended,
including administrative expenses
and purchase of passenger motor
[[Page 9616]]
vehicles for replacement only for
use outside of the United States, $64,500,000: Provided, That
none of the funds contained in this paragraph shall be
available for the purchase of new automotive vehicles outside
of the United States.
Mr. [Leo J.] Ryan [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Ryan: Page 9, line 13, strike out
``$64,- 500,000'' and insert in lieu thereof ``$59,500,000''. .
. .
Mr. [David R.] Obey [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I make a
point of order.
The Chairman: (10) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Abraham Kazen, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Obey: I make a point of order that the gentleman's
amendment comes too late. The Clerk had already read through the
next section of the bill.
The Chairman: The Clerk had begun to read the next section, but
he had not completed reading that section. The Chair did observe
the gentleman from California (Mr. Ryan) on his feet, and the Chair
would hold that he was timely recognized.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Ryan).
Seeking Recognition To Offer Motion
Sec. 8.19 A Member desiring to offer a motion in the House must
actively seek recognition from the Chair before another motion to
dispose of the pending question has been adopted, and the fact that
he may have been standing at that time is not sufficient to confer
recognition.
During consideration of House Joint Resolution 357 (further
continuing appropriations) in the House on Nov. 22,
1981,(11) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 127 Cong. Rec. 28751, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: (12) The Clerk will report the next
amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Senate amendment No. 37. . . .
Mr. [Vic] Fazio [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Fazio moves that the House insist on its disagreement
to the amendment of the Senate numbered 37.
The Speaker: The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio). All those in favor say
``aye,'' opposed ``no.''
The ayes have it. The motion is agreed to.
The Clerk will report the next amendment in disagreement.
Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
motion at the desk. I have a motion. I was standing, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: To what amendment does the gentleman have a
motion?
Mr. Conte: Senate amendment No. 37.
[[Page 9617]]
The Speaker: The Chair will state that the House has already
disposed of that amendment.
Mr. Conte: I was standing here seeking recognition, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, what was the decision?
The Speaker: The gentleman may have been standing, but he was
not seeking recognition, in the opinion of the Chair.
Mr. Conte: What was the outcome of that, Mr. Speaker?
The Speaker: Senate amendment No. 37 was disagreed to.
Mr. Conte: And I was standing with a motion, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: The Chair recognized that there were three or four
others standing, and the gentleman was in a conversation with one
of his colleagues, and was not asking for recognition.
Seeking Recognition To Demand Recorded Vote
Sec. 8.20 A Member seeking to demand a recorded vote must actively
request recognition from the Chair, and the fact that the Member
was merely standing at the time a vote is announced is not
sufficient to secure recognition.
On July 9, 1981,(13) during consideration of H.R. 3519
(Department of Defense authorization) in the Committee of the Whole, it
was demonstrated that it is too late to demand a recorded vote on an
amendment after the Chair has announced the result of a voice vote
thereon, where the Member making the demand is not on his feet seeking
recognition at the time the result is announced. The proceedings were
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 127 Cong. Rec. 15202, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman Pro Tempore: (14) The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Marilyn Lloyd Bouquard (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As many as are in favor will say ``aye''; as many as are
opposed will say ``no.''
The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: Are there further amendments to title
II?
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Price).
Mr. [Melvin] Price [of Illinois]: Madam Chairman, I demand the
yeas and nays on the Hansen amendment.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair will advise the gentleman
that his request for a recorded vote comes too late.
Mr. Price: The Chairman was on his feet and waiting for the
commotion to die down.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair wishes to advise the
gentleman from Illinois that he may be able to demand a separate
vote in the House at a later time but his request comes too late at
this time. . . .
Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: Madam Chairman, the
House was not in order at the time that the
[[Page 9618]]
Chair put the vote on the Hansen amendment. Is it in order for a
vote to be taken when the chairman of the committee in charge of
the bill does not even know that a vote is being taken?
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair put the question to the
committee, looked to the committee, and then announced the result
of the vote.
Mr. Stratton: But there had been no final announcement of the
vote on the Simon amendment before the vote on the Hansen amendment
was taken.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair wishes to advise the
gentleman that the Chair did announce the vote on the Simon
amendment and then on the Hansen amendment and that no Member was
standing at the time seeking recognition when the voice vote was
announced on the Hansen amendment. . . .
Mr. [William L.] Dickinson [of Alabama]: Madam Chairman, I was
on my feet. I was deferring to the chairman, who would normally
make such a request. I did not make the request.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair will advise the gentleman
that no one was seeking recognition at the time. Merely standing is
not enough.
--Motion To Recommit
Sec. 8.21 While a Member desiring to offer a motion to recommit must
normally be on his feet seeking recognition when the Speaker states
the question to be on passage of the bill, it is not too late to
seek recognition where another minority Member has qualified as
opposed to the bill but where his motion has not been read by the
Clerk.
On Apr. 24, 1979,(15) during consideration of the State
Department authorization bill in the House, it was demonstrated that
until a Member desiring to offer a motion to recommit has had his
motion read by the Clerk, he is not entitled to the floor so as to
prevent another Member from seeking recognition to offer another
recommittal motion. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 125 Cong. Rec. 8360, 8361, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: (16) The question is on the engrossment
and third reading of the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and
was read the third time.
The Speaker: The question is on the passage of the bill.
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
motion at the desk.
The Speaker: The Chair is aware that the gentleman is standing
and the Chair intends to recognize the gentleman. . . .
Is there any member of the committee that desires to make a
motion to recommit on the minority side? . . .
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.
The Speaker: Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
[[Page 9619]]
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the bill.
The Speaker: The Clerk will----
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I was recognized.
The Speaker: The Chair under the precedents of the House, will
recognize the gentleman from Michigan to make a motion if he
qualifies. . . .
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, had not the Speaker said to the
gentleman from Maryland, ``Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?''
And the gentleman from Maryland was thus recognized.
The Speaker: The Chair appreciates that the gentleman is
opposed to the bill; but under the precedents of the House, the
Clerk has not reported the motion. . . .
Mr. Bauman: I make a point of order against recognizing the
gentleman from Michigan or anyone else, because he did not rise in
a timely fashion to make the motion. Once the Chair recognizes a
Member, the precedents will support the fact that he has the right
to offer the motion.
The Speaker: On the point of order, the gentleman's motion has
not been read yet; so the Chair will recognize the gentleman from
Michigan, a senior member of the committee, who is standing. . . .
Mr. [William S.] Broomfield [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, I offer
a motion to recommit.
The Speaker: Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. Broomfield: Yes, I am, Mr. Speaker. . . .
The Speaker: The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Broomfield moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 3363, to
the Committee on Foreign Affairs. . . .
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman makes a point of order
that the gentleman is not in order in making the motion, since
another Member had already been recognized. The Chair has already
conferred that recognition and had inquired whether or not the
gentleman from Maryland was opposed.
The Speaker: In the opinion of the Chair, until the motion has
been read, the gentleman has not been recognized for that purpose.
Mr. Bauman: Well, the gentleman did not yield to anyone else to
offer a motion.
The Speaker: The gentleman had not been recognized for that
purpose and consequently--the Chair asked the gentleman if he was
in opposition. The gentleman replied. The gentleman was not then
recognized for that purpose. That is the statement and the opinion
of the Chair. The Chair did not recognize the gentleman by
directing the Clerk to report the motion. The Chair is trying to
follow the precedents of the House.
Now, the Chair has ruled on the gentleman's point of order and
the gentleman from Michigan is entitled to 5 minutes. The Chair so
recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Broomfield).
Minority Leader Recognized in Opposition to Motion To Recommit
Sec. 8.22 The Speaker recognized the Minority Leader to call
[[Page 9620]]
up a reported bill in the House, pursuant to unanimous consent
previously obtained by the Minority Leader permitting its
consideration under the hour rule, and subsequently recognized the
Minority Leader in opposition to a motion to recommit with
instructions offered by the ranking minority member of the
reporting committee.
The following proceedings took place in the House on Sept. 29,
1982,(17) during consideration of the Export Administration
Act Amendments (H.R. 6838):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 128 Cong. Rec. 26019, 26031-33, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, under the
special order granted on Tuesday, September 28, 1982, I call up the
bill (H.R. 6838) to amend the Export Administration Act of 1979 to
terminate certain export controls imposed on December 30, 1981, and
June 22, 1982, and ask for its immediate consideration. . . .
The Clerk read the bill, as follows:
H.R. 6838
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That
section 6 of the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C.
App. 2405) is amended by adding at the end thereof the
following new subsection:
``(1) Termination of Certain Controls.--Those export
controls imposed under this section on December 30, 1981, and
June 22, 1982, on goods or technology shall not be effective on
or after the date of the enactment of this subsection.''.
The Speaker: (18) Under the agreement, the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Michel) is recognized for 1 hour. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Michel: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.
The previous question was ordered.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (19) The question is on the
engrossment and third reading of the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Joseph G. Minish (N.J.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and
was read the third time.
Mr. [William S.] Broomfield [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, I offer
a motion to recommit.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. Broomfield: I am, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit. . . .
The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Broomfield) is recognized for
5 minutes in support of the motion to recommit. . . .
Mr. Michel: Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to
recommit.
Sec. 8.23 A Member must be on his feet actively seeking recognition to
demand a recorded vote when the Chair puts the question on agreeing
to an amendment, and the demand comes too late
[[Page 9621]]
after the Chair has inquired as to the purpose of another Member
rising and an amendment has been tendered.
On July 21, 1983,(20) during consideration of H.R. 2969
(Department of Defense Authorization Act, 1994) the following
proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 129 Cong. Rec. 20187, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The amendment was agreed to.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: (1) For what purpose does
the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gore) rise?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Marty Russo (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Albert A.] Gore [Jr., of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, I have
an amendment at the desk.
Mr. [Raymond J.] McGrath [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make
the point of order that a quorum is not present, and I demand a
recorded vote on the last amendment.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman's request comes too
late on the last amendment.
Mr. McGrath: Mr. Chairman, I was standing.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman was not seeking
recognition for that specific purpose.
Mr. McGrath: I was on my feet, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the Gore
amendment. The Chair did not see the gentleman on his feet and the
gentleman was not actively seeking recognition when the Chair put
the question on the amendment.
Sec. 8.24 A Member must be on his feet seeking recognition to demand a
recorded vote when the Chair announces the result of a voice vote
on an amendment to an amendment, and the demand comes too late when
the Chair has then put the question on an amendment to the
substitute.
On Sept. 6, 1979,(2) during consideration of the foreign
assistance appropriations for fiscal year 1980 (H.R. 4473) in the
Committee of the Whole, the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 125 Cong. Rec. 23351, 23353, 23355, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Miller of Ohio: On page 23, after
line 12, insert the following section:
Sec. 527. Of the total budget authority provided in this
Act, for payments not required by law, 5 per centum shall be
withheld from obligation and expenditure: . . .
Mr. [David R.] Obey [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment as a substitute for the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Obey as a substitute for the
amendment offered by Mr. Miller of Ohio: On page 23, after line
12, insert the following:
``Sec. 527. Of the total budget authority provided in this
Act, except
[[Page 9622]]
for payments required for law two percentum shall be withheld
from obligation and expenditure: . . .
Mr. [Clarence E.] Miller of Ohio: 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. Miller of Ohio to the amendment
offered by Mr. Obey as a substitute for the amendment offered
by Mr. Miller
of Ohio: In line 2, in lieu of ``two
per centum'' insert ``five per centum''. . . .
Mr. [Matthew F.] McHugh [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment to the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. McHugh to the amendment offered by
Mr. Miller of Ohio:
Strike out ``five'' appearing in the first sentence and
insert in lieu thereof ``two''. . . .
The Chairman: (3) The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) to the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Miller).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Abraham Kazen, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The amendment to the amendment was agreed to.
The Chairman: The question now is on the Miller amendment to
the Obey substitute. For what purpose does the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Miller) rise?
Mr. Miller of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Chairman: The Chair will state to the gentleman that his
request comes too late. The Chair held back as long as he could on
the announcement, and the gentleman was not on his feet before the
Chair put the question on the next amendment.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Miller) to the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) as a substitute for the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Miller).
Seeking Recognition To Ask for Yeas and Nays
Sec. 8.25 Where the Chair has put a question to a voice vote, announced
the result and by unanimous consent laid the motion to reconsider
on the table, it is then too late to ask for the yeas on that
question where the Member was not seeking recognition at the time
the question was put.
On Oct. 13, 1978,(4) during consideration of House
Resolution 1434 (providing for consideration of several conference
reports) in the House, the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 124 Cong. Rec. 36966, 36975, 36976, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 1434
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution, any rule
of the House to the contrary notwithstanding, it shall be in order
in the House to consider en bloc the conference reports on
[[Page 9623]]
the bills H.R. 4018, H.R. 5146, H.R. 5037, H.R. 5289 (and H.R. 5263
if first adopted by the Senate), and all points of order against
said conference reports are hereby waived. After debate in the
House on said conference reports, which shall continue not to
exceed four hours, to be equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Ad Hoc Committee on
Energy, the first hour of which shall be confined solely to the
conference report on the bill H.R. 5289, the previous question
shall be considered as ordered on said conference reports to one
vote on their final adoption, and the vote on said conference
reports shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the
question or to a motion to reconsider. . . .
Mr. [Richard] Bolling [of Missouri]: . . . Mr. Speaker, I yield
back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on
the resolution.
The Speaker: (5) The question is on ordering the
previous question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John B.] Anderson of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, on that I
demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas
207, nays 206. . . .
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The Speaker: The question is on the resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. . . .
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, has the
question on the passage of the rule been put?
The Speaker: The Chair will state that the Chair has put the
question and announced that the ayes had it and the resolution was
agreed to and that the motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The gentleman from Maryland must be fully aware of what took
place.
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Maryland was
listening for the question and failed to hear it.
The Speaker: The Chair will state that the Chair waited and
nobody asked for a vote on the rule.
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Maryland was on his
feet and did not hear the question being put. I wish to ask for the
yeas and nays.
The Speaker: The gentleman was given ample time to ask for a
vote on the rule. The Chair has been nothing but patient.
The House appreciates the seriousness of the pending motions
and would appreciate having the Members take their seats.
Members Seeking Allocation of Time Under Limitation
Sec. 8.26 Members seeking an allocation of time under a limitation of
debate in Committee of the Whole should stand when the limitation
is agreed to, and not after a Member recognized before the
limitation was agreed to has concluded his remarks.
[[Page 9624]]
On Aug. 1, 1978,(6) the Committee of the Whole had under
consideration the foreign aid
authorization bill (H.R. 12514)
when the following proceedings
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 124 Cong. Rec. 23716, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I move
that all debate on the pending amendments and all amendments
thereto conclude at 4:30. . . .
So the motion was agreed to.
The Chairman: (7) The gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Yatron) is recognized for 5 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Don Fuqua (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair will allocate the time to the standing Members after
the gentleman from Pennsylvania concludes.
Mr. [Benjamin S.] Rosenthal [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I have
a parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Rosenthal: Mr. Chairman, when is it appropriate for Members
requesting time to stand? Now, or at the conclusion of the
gentleman's remarks?
The Chairman: The Members will stand now.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Yatron) has the floor and
may proceed.
Objecting to Unanimous-consent Request
Sec. 8.27 A Member who is objecting to a unanimous-consent request must
stand to be recognized by the Chair.
On Apr. 28, 1976,(8) the following proceedings occurred
in the Committee of the Whole during consideration of House Concurrent
Resolution 611, the first concurrent resolution on the budget for
fiscal year 1977:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 122 Cong. Rec. 11622, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert L.] Leggett [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that I may be permitted to proceed for 3
additional minutes.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: (9) Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from California?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Gillis W. Long (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Clarence D.] Long of Maryland: Mr. Chairman, I object.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Maryland is not
standing to make the objection.
Sec. 8.28 A Member must stand and address the Chair to object to a
unanimous-consent request.
During consideration of the Nuclear Fuel Assistance Act (H.R. 8401)
in the Committee of the Whole on July 30, 1976,(10) the
following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 122 Cong. Rec. 24768, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Abraham] Kazen [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that I may be permitted
[[Page 9625]]
to yield my time to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Waggonner).
The Chairman: (11) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Texas?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Otis G. Pike (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Richard L.] Ottinger [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I
object.
The Chairman: Objection is heard.
Mr. [Melvin] Price [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I make the
point of order that the objection is not in order since the
gentleman from New York was not standing at the time he made the
objection.
The Chairman: Is there objection to the unanimous-consent
request of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Kazen) to yield his time
to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Waggonner)?
There was no objection.
Sec. 8.29 A Member must stand when objecting to a unanimous-consent
request.
On Oct. 13, 1978,(12) the following proceedings occurred
in the Committee of the Whole during consideration of S. 2727 (the
Amateur Sports Act of 1978):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 124 Cong. Rec. 37071, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Harold L.] Volkmer [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent to be allowed to proceed for 2 additional
minutes.
The Chairman: (13) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Missouri?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. John H. Krebs (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [James F.] Lloyd of California: Mr. Chairman, I object. . .
.
Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, under the rules
of the House, I understand that a Member must stand in order to
object.
The Chairman: The Chair will state that the gentleman from
California (Mr. Lloyd) did stand at the time.
Sec. 8.30 In order to object to a unanimous-consent request, a Member
must rise and be identified.
The following proceedings occurred in the House on Oct. 2,
1984,(14) during consideration of H.R. 6300, the balanced
budget bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 130 Cong. Rec. 28522, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Guy V.] Molinari [of New York]: I would like to ask
unanimous consent that the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Weber) be
permitted to proceed in order.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (15) Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from New York? . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Objection was heard, but the Member making the objection was
not identified.]
Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, who is
the objector? Can we identify the objector, please?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair states that objection was
heard.
Mr. Walker: The Record would have to reflect the objection. Who
objected, Mr. Speaker?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair placed the request and
objection was heard.
[[Page 9626]]
Mr. Molinari: A parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. . . .
Mr. Speaker, we have others in this room besides Members of the
House. It is conceivable that somebody who is not a Member of this
House could have uttered those statements and I think we are
entitled to know who it is, if anybody is a sitting Member of this
body that has raised an objection.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct. Is there
objection?
Mr. [Leon E.] Panetta [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I object.
Mr. [Anthony L.] Coelho [of California]: I object.
Sec. 8.31 While a Member must be on his feet to object to a unanimous-
consent request, the Chair may, in his discretion, entertain a
parliamentary inquiry to permit an explanation of a unanimous-
consent order to which no Member objected in timely fashion.
The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on
June 19, 1985,(16) during consideration of H.R. 1872
(Department of Defense authorization for fiscal 1986):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 131 Cong. Rec. 16367, 16368, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Les] Aspin [of Wisconsin]: . . . I would propose that we
limit time on these two amendments until 5:30, with the time to be
divided equally between the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter)
and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Fascell), who would have half
of the time, and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and the
gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Byron), who would have half of the
time, and that if additional amendments are offered after that, we
have an equal division of time after the amendments are offered,
and that there be 10 minutes on that side for the amendment and 10
minutes in opposition to the amendment.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: (1) Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Wisconsin?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Richard J. Durbin (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John Edward] Porter [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, reserving
the right to object, I might suggest to the chairman of the
committee that we simply make it an hour on each side rather than
try to divide it up in any other way.
Mr. Aspin: In other words, an hour on each side.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The unanimous-consent request, then,
is that there be 1 hour of debate on each side of the two pending
amendments, followed by 20 minutes, equally divided, on any other
amendment offered to the Porter amendment or to a substitute
therefor.
Mr. Aspin: On the pending amendments, Mr. Chairman, with the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) and the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Fascell) controlling 1 hour and the gentleman from Missouri
(Mr. Skelton) and the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Byron)
controlling 1 hour. At that point we will proceed to vote on
[[Page 9627]]
those amendments. If at that point other amendments are offered,
Members will have 10 minutes on that side to debate those
amendments at the time.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: Is the gentleman proposing that there
be 10 minutes allowed for each side for each other amendment to the
Porter amendment or to a substitute amendment therefor?
Mr. Aspin: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from Wisconsin?
Hearing none, it is so ordered.
Mr. [Thomas F.] Hartnett [of South Carolina]: Reserving the
right to object, Mr. Chairman----
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman was not on his feet
seeking recognition when the Chair asked for any objection to the
request.
Mr. Hartnett: There are only two microphones, Mr. Chairman, and
we cannot have them all. I was on my feet----
The Chairman Pro Tempore: Even if the gentleman was not at the
microphone, if he had been standing on his feet at that time, the
Chair would have recognized him, the Chair will say to the
gentleman from South Carolina. The Chair was looking in his
direction and saw the gentleman sitting in his chair. . . .
Mr. Hartnett: Mr. Chairman, if I might make a parliamentary
inquiry. . . .
Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that when a gentleman or
gentlewoman wishes to be recognized, they must rise from their
seat. I was in my seat, and I was rising to be heard. I do not
think you have to be standing at all times in order to be
recognized. I was in my seat, I asked to be recognized, and I rose
to a point of recognition. . . .
Mr. Aspin: Mr. Chairman, could I ask the Chair to ask the
gentleman from South Carolina if he would tell us what his concern
is with the unanimous-consent request?
Mr. Hartnett: I did not understand it, Mr. Chairman. That is
what I wanted to ask.
Mr. Aspin: Mr. Chairman, if I could, I would like to try to
answer the gentleman's question.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: For the purpose of clarification of
what the unanimous-consent agreement was, the Chair will then ask
the gentleman from Wisconsin to restate what his request was. . . .
Just for the clarification of the members of the Committee, the
unanimous-consent request was already agreed to. The gentleman from
Wisconsin was clarifying the unanimous-consent request for the
benefit of the gentleman from South Carolina.
Member Permitted by Unanimous Consent To Take Seat After Yielding for
Debate
Sec. 8.32 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.
[[Page 9628]]
On July 28, 1983,(2) during consideration of H.R. 2760
(prohibition on covert assistance to Nicaragua) in the Committee of the
Whole, the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 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).
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: (3) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from New York?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 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.
Member-elect Permitted by Unanimous Consent To Debate
Sec. 8.33 During debate on a privileged resolution disposing of the
question of the right of a Member-elect to be sworn, the Member-
elect may participate in the debate only by unanimous consent.
On Jan. 3, 1985,(4) during the organization of the
House, the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 131 Cong. Rec. 380-82, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: (5) According to the precedents, the
Chair will swear in all Members of the House at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Wright).
Mr. [James C.] Wright [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, upon my
responsibility as a Member-elect of the 99th Congress, I object to
the oath being administered to the gentleman from Indiana, Mr.
McIntyre, and I base this upon facts and statements which I
consider to be reliable. . . .
Mr. Speaker, I have a privileged resolution at the Clerk's
desk, and I ask for its immediate consideration.
[[Page 9629]]
The Clerk read the resolution as follows:
H. Res. 1
Resolved, That the question of the right of Frank McCloskey
or Richard McIntyre to a seat in the Ninety-ninth Congress from
the Eighth Congressional District of Indiana shall be referred
to the Committee on House Administration, when elected, and
neither Frank McCloskey nor Richard McIntyre shall be sworn
until the Committee on House Administration reports upon and
the House decides such question. . . .
The Speaker: The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Wright), under the
precedents, is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. Wright: Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I shall
yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Frenzel), and
pending that, I yield myself such time as I may consume. . . .
Mr. [Bill] Frenzel [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, I yield 5
minutes to the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. McIntyre.
The Speaker: The gentleman does not have the right to
participate in debate unless the House agrees. If there is an
objection from the House, the gentleman may not
speak.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. See also 1 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 474.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Without objection, the gentleman is entitled to 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. [Richard] McIntyre [of Indiana]: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In Seeking Recognition on Point of Personal Privilege, Member Must
Inform Chair of the Basis for His Question Before the Chair Will
Bestow Recognition
Sec. 8.34 A Member was recognized for one hour on a question of
personal privilege based on violation of his rights as a Member,
arising from unauthorized printed alterations in his statements
made during subcommittee hearings in the prior Congress.
On June 28, 1983,(7) Mr. Judd Gregg, of New Hampshire,
rose to a question of personal privilege, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 129 Cong. Rec. 17674, 17675, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Gregg: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of personal
privilege.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (8) The gentleman will
state the question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Gregg: Mr. Speaker, on July 21 and July 22, of last year, I
participated as a member of the Science and Technology Committee in
joint hearings before that committee. The printed hearing record of
those hearings was not received until April 27, of this year. Upon
review of that official record, I discovered that several
statements which I had made during the course of those hearings
were materially altered in such a way as to reflect upon my in
[[Page 9630]]
tegrity and conduct during those hearings.
While the falsification of a House document is clearly a matter
involving the integrity of the proceedings of this body, the
alterations of my remarks, without my permission, affects my rights
as an individual Member in my representative capacity. I therefore
rise to a question of privilege in order to clarify the record on
this matter.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman states an appropriate
point of personal privilege, and the gentleman is therefore
recognized for 1 hour.
Parliamentarian's Note: Questions of personal privilege under Rule
IX normally involve cases where a Member's reputation has been damaged,
particularly in press accounts; but Rule IX describes as the second
category of privileged questions, the ``rights, reputation, and conduct
of Members, individually.''
CHAPTER 29
Consideration and Debate
B. RIGHT TO RECOGNITION
Sec. 9. Power and Discretion of Speaker or Chairman
The rules of the House give the Chair considerable discretion in
deciding whom to recognize, and a decision on recognition is not
subject to appeal.(9) The Chair is governed in the exercise
of his power of recognition by the standing rules, which in some cases
prohibit recognition for specific purposes (10) or which
extend priority to Members with certain qualifications.(11)
The Chair is also governed by the usages and precedents of the House
which establish priorities of recognition based on a fixed order of
business.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. See Rule XIV clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 753 (1995). See
also Sec. Sec. 9.5, 9.6, and 9.61, infra, for further
discussion of the principle that decisions on recognition are
not subject to appeal. For the parameters of the Chair's
discretion, see House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 753-757
(1995).
10. See, for example, Sec. Sec. 11.14-11.16, infra.
11. See, for example, Rule XIV clause 3, House Rules and Manual
Sec. 759 (1995) (right of committee member to open and close
debate). For prior rights of committee members to recognition,
see Sec. 13, infra.
12. See Sec. 12, infra, for the order of recognition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross References
Chair's discretion as to recognition on specific questions and motions,
see Sec. Sec. 16 et seq., infra.
Chair's discretion over recognition for unanimous-consent requests, see
Sec. 10, infra.
Chair's discretion over yielding of time, see Sec. Sec. 29-31, infra.
Chair's recognition for interruptions, see Sec. 32, infra.
Chair's recognition of Member to control debate, see Sec. Sec. 24 (role
of manager), 26 (management by reporting committee),
[[Page 9631]]
27 (designation of manager and opposition), and 28 (effect of
special orders), infra.
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole and his authority generally, see
Ch. 19, supra.
Chairman's discretion over duration of debate in Committee of the
Whole, see Sec. 74, infra.
Clerk's power of recognition before the election of the Speaker at the
convening of Congress, see Ch. 1, supra.
Distribution and alternation of time by Chair, see Sec. 25, infra.
Limitations on Chair's power of recognition, see Sec. 11, infra.
Recognition under limitation on five-minute debate as within Chair's
discretion, see Sec. 22, infra.
Recognition for one-minute and special-order speeches, see Sec. 73,
infra.
Speaker and his authority generally, see Ch. 6, supra.
Speaker's discretion over duration of debate in the House, see Sec. 67,
infra. -------------------
Generally
Sec. 9.1 The power of recognition rests with the Speaker and is subject
to his discretion.
On Apr. 8, 1964,(13) the House was considering House
Resolution 665, providing for taking a House bill with Senate
amendments from the Speaker's table and concurring in the amendments.
Before consideration of the resolution had been completed, the Speaker
declared a recess pursuant to previously granted authority. When the
recess expired, the Speaker announced that the unfinished business was
the reading of another bill which had just been engrossed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 110 Cong. Rec. 7302, 7304, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Oliver P. Bolton, of Ohio, raised a parliamentary inquiry
whether the business properly before the House as uncompleted business
was the resolution being considered before the recess. Mr. Richard
Bolling, of Missouri, then withdrew the resolution in question. Mr.
Bolton objected to the recognition of Mr. Bolling for that purpose,
stating that recognition of Mr. Bolling was out of order while Mr.
Bolton's inquiry went unanswered.
Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, responded that the
withdrawal of the resolution terminated the inquiry (becoming merely
hypothetical). Mr. Bolton objected that the inquiry was made before the
resolution was withdrawn and the Speaker stated: ``The Chair will state
that the Chair has the power of recognition.''
Sec. 9.2 Although members of the committee reporting a bill under
consideration usually have preference of recognition, the power of
recogni
[[Page 9632]]
tion remains in the discretion of the Chair.
On July 19, 1967,(14) in the Committee of the Whole,
Chairman Joseph L. Evins, of Tennessee, recognized Mr. Edmond
Edmondson, of Oklahoma, for a parliamentary inquiry and then recognized
him to offer an amendment to the pending amendment. Mr. William C.
Cramer, of Florida, made the point of order that William M. McCulloch,
of Ohio, the Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, which had
reported the bill, had been on his feet seeking recognition to offer an
amendment at the time and that members of the committee reporting the
bill had the prior right
to be recognized. The Chairman overruled the point of order and stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 113 Cong. Rec. 19416, 19417, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair is trying to be fair and trying to recognize Members
on both sides. The Chair will recognize the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. McCulloch).
The Chairman recognized Mr. McCulloch for a unanimous-consent
request and then recognized Mr. Edmondson for debate on his amendment.
Sec. 9.3 Rule XXV, which provides that ``questions as to the priority
of business shall be decided by a majority without debate,'' merely
precludes debate on motions to go into Committee of the Whole, on
questions of consideration, and on appeals from the Chair's
decisions on priority of business, and should not be utilized to
permit a motion directing the Speaker to recognize Members in a
certain order or to otherwise establish an order of business; thus,
the Speaker has declined to recognize a Member who sought to compel
recognition of Members for scheduled special orders.
On July 31, 1975,(15) the Speaker (16)
declined to recognize a Member who sought to make a motion under Rule
XXV to compel recognition of Members for scheduled ``special orders'':
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 121 Cong. Rec. 26249, 26251, 94th Cong. 1st Sess. For further
discussion of recognition for special orders, see
Sec. Sec. 9.63-9.65 and Sec. 10, infra.
16. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Phillip Burton [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point
of order that a quorum is not present. . . .
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I make a
point of order. . . .
Mr. Speaker, I would like to make the point of order to this
effect: Under the new rules of the House, is it not true that once
the House has pro
[[Page 9633]]
ceeded to the closing business of the day, granting requests for
absences and special orders, that it is no longer in order to make
a point of order that a quorum is not present?
The Speaker: The Chair has not started to recognize Members for
special orders yet. All the business on the Chair's desk has been
completed. . . .
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the
rules preclude a quorum at this point because personal requests
have already been read from the desk. A leave of absence was
granted to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Teague).
Under the new rules, Mr. Speaker, a quorum does not lie after
this point of business in the day.
The Speaker: If the Chair understands the gentleman's point of
order, it relates to the fact, which is a new rule, not the rule we
used to follow. The rule is that once a special order has started,
the Member who has the special order and is speaking cannot be
taken off his feet by a point of order of no quorum. However, there
is nothing in the rules of which the Chair is aware that requires
the Chair to begin to call a special order at any particular time.
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I move under rule XXV that the House
proceed to recognize the Members previously ordered to have special
orders today, and on that I ask for a rollcall vote.
Mr. [Michael T.] Blouin [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, I move that the
House do now adjourn.
The question was taken.
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, on that, I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas
137, nays 202, not voting 95, as follows: . . .
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, under rule XXV, I again renew my
motion that the Chair proceed to the recognition of other Members
who have previously been granted special orders for today.
The Speaker: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California
(Mr. Danielson).
Mr. [George E.] Danielson [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise
and extend my remarks.
The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from California?
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, there is a motion pending.
Mr. Speaker, I object.
The Speaker: Objection is heard.
Mr. [Richard] Bolling [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I move that
the House do now adjourn.
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. [John J.] Rhodes [of Arizona]: Mr. Speaker, I demand the
yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas
142, nays 205, not voting 87, as follows: . . . .
Points of Order Against Chair's Exercise of Discretion
Sec. 9.4 A Member designated in a resolution (discharged from
[[Page 9634]]
the Committee on Rules) to call up a bill having died, the Speaker
overruled a point of order against his recognition of another
Member, in favor of the bill, to call it up.
On Oct. 12, 1942,(17) the following resolution creating
a special order of business was called up in the House following
adoption of a successful motion to discharge the Committee on Rules
from its further consideration:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 88 Cong. Rec. 8080, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolved, That upon the day succeeding the adoption of this
resolution, a special order be, and is hereby, created by the House
of Representatives, for the consideration of H.R. 1024, a public
bill which has remained in the Committee on the Judiciary for 30 or
more days without action. That such special order be, and is
hereby, created, notwithstanding any further action on said bill by
the Committee on the Judiciary, or any rule of the House. That on
said day the Speaker shall recognize the Representative from
California, Lee E. Geyer, to call up H.R. 1024, a bill to amend an
act to prevent pernicious political activities, as a special order
of business, and to move that the House resolve itself into the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the
consideration of said H.R. 1024. After general debate, which shall
be confined to the bill and shall continue not to exceed 4 hours,
to be equally divided and controlled by the Member of the House
requesting the rule for the consideration of said H.R. 1024 and the
Member of the House who is opposed to the said H.R. 1024, to be
designated by the Speaker, the bill shall be read for amendment
under the 5-minute rule. At the conclusion of the reading of the
bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to
the House with such amendments as may have been adopted, and the
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, and
the amendments thereto, to final passage, without intervening
motion, except one motion to recommit. The special order shall be a
continuing order until the bill is finally disposed of.
Mr. Samuel F. Hobbs, of Alabama, made a point of order against
consideration of the resolution, on the grounds that the Member named
in the resolution, Mr. Geyer, had died and that therefore the
resolution should not be in order for consideration by the House.
Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled as follows:
A matter not exactly on all fours with this, but similar to it,
was ruled on a few weeks ago. On that occasion both the chairman
and the ranking minority member of the committee were absent. A
point of order was made against consideration of the bill because
of that fact.
In ruling on the point of order at that time the Chair made the
following statement:
``The Chair thinks the Chair has rather a wide range of
latitude here. The Chair could hold, and some future
[[Page 9635]]
Speaker might hold, that, since the chairman and the ranking
minority member of the committee are not here, there could be no
general debate because there was nobody here to control it; but the
present occupant of the Chair is not going to rule in such a
restricted way.
``The Chair is going to recognize the next ranking majority
member and the next ranking minority member when the House goes
into the Committee of the Whole.''
We have here even a stronger case than that. The absence of a
living Member may be his or her fault; the absence of a dead signer
of this petition is not his fault.
There is a rule followed by the chancery courts which might
well be followed here. It is that equity never allows a trust to
fail for want of a trustee. Applying that rule to the instant case,
the Chair holds that the consideration of this legislation will not
be permitted to fail for want of a manager. After all, an act of
God ought not, in all good conscience, deprive this House of the
right to consider legislation; especially so, since this House has
by its vote on the motion to discharge expressed its intent.
The Chair will recognize some Member other than Mr. Geyer to
call up the bill on tomorrow; for, if the Chair were to hold that
only Mr. Geyer could have called up this motion, Mr. Geyer being
absent not through any act of his own but through an act of God,
the Chair would be making such a restricted ruling that now and in
the future it might prevent the House of Representatives from
working its will.
The Chair overrules the point of order made by the gentleman
from Alabama.
On the following day, Oct. 13, 1942,(18) the Speaker
recognized Mr. Joseph A. Gavagan, of New York, to move that the House
resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole pursuant to House
Resolution 110; the Speaker reiterated his ruling of the previous day
when Mr. Hobbs made a point of order against the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Id. at p. 8120.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: Speaker Rayburn had ruled, on July 23,
1942,(19) that where a resolution creating a special order
of business provided for general debate in Committee of the Whole to be
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of a committee, and both were absent, the Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole could recognize the next ranking majority and
minority members of the committee to control the debate in Committee of
the Whole. The authority to control the general debate may also be
delegated by the chairman and ranking minority member to the chairman
and ranking minority member of the subcommittee with jurisdiction over
the measure (see Ch. 21, supra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Id. at pp. 6542-44.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals From Decision on Recognition
Sec. 9.5 An appeal from the decision of the Speaker on a
[[Page 9636]]
question of recognition does not lie.
On June 2, 1930,(20) Speaker Nicholas Longworth, of
Ohio, ruled that the motion to postpone consideration of a vetoed bill
was not an essential motion whose defeat required recognition to pass
to a Member leading the opposition to the motion. Mr. Charles R. Crisp,
of Georgia, and Mr. John N. Garner, of Texas, objected to the ruling,
and Mr. Garner attempted to appeal from the Chair's ruling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 72 Cong. Rec. 9913, 9914, 71st Cong. 2d Sess.
See Rule XIV clause 2, and comments thereto, House Rules
and Manual Sec. 753 (1995). The rule provides that the Speaker
shall decide on recognition, and since 1881 the Chair has
declined to entertain appeals from decisions on recognition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Carl R. Chindblom, of Illinois, made the point of order that an
appeal did not lie on a matter of recognition. The Speaker responded:
This is a matter purely of recognition. The Chair wants to be
absolutely fair. If he thought that there was any possible
unfairness in recognizing the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Knutson), he would be the last one to recognize him. . . .
The question is whether this was an essential motion dealing
with the merits of the question. The Chair does not think so, and
the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
Sec. 9.6 A decision of the Chair on a matter of recognition is not
subject to appeal or to a point of order.
On July 2, 1980,(1) during consideration of the Rail Act
of 1980 (H.R. 7235) in the Committee of the Whole, the following
proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 126 Cong. Rec. 18292, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert C.] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment to the amendment offered as a substitute for the
amendment.
The Chairman: (2) The Clerk will report the
amendment to the substitute amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Les AuCoin (Oreg.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Edward R.] Madigan [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, a point of
order. . . .
I understand that the procedure is that the members of the
subcommittee would be recognized for amendments first. . . .
I further understand that the gentlewoman from Maryland, a
member of the subcommittee, was on her feet seeking recognition for
the purpose of offering an amendment, as well as the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Broyhill). . . .
The Chairman: The Chair will respond to the gentleman by saying
to him that the normal procedure is to recognize members of the
full committee by seniority, alternating from side to side, which
the Chair has been doing. The gentleman was recognized under that
procedure, and the Chair's
[[Page 9637]]
recognition is not in any event subject to challenge.
Therefore, the gentleman is recognized, and any point of order
that the gentleman from Illinois would make on that point would not
be sustained.
Sec. 9.7 A decision of the Chair on the exercise of his discretionary
power of recognition (in this case, for a unanimous-consent
request) is not subject to appeal.
On July 23, 1993,(3) the Chair discussed the
appealability of the Chair's refusal to recognize for
a unanimous-consent request for consideration of a reported bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 139 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 103d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Steve] Gunderson [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, my
parliamentary inquiry is this: Is it possible to ask unanimous
consent to bring H.R. 2667 for its immediate consideration?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (4) The leadership on both
sides of the aisle has to agree to allow that unanimous-consent
request. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. John P. Murtha (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Gunderson: Mr. Speaker, I have [a] parliamentary inquiry.
Is it possible to ask unanimous consent at any time during the
day to bring up an appropriation bill for its immediate
consideration?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The chairman or his designee could
bring the bill up.
Mr. Gunderson: . . . If, for example, I were to move or ask
unanimous consent to do that and the Chair did not recognize me,
would it be possible at that point to literally appeal the ruling
of the Chair for another Member to bring it up?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Under a previous agreement between the
leaderships of the Democrat and Republican side, only the chairman
of
the committee would be recognized to bring up the bill after
agreement of both leaderships by a unanimous-consent request.
Another Member would not be recognized for that reason, and the
denial of recognition to make a unanimous-consent request is not
appealable.
Parliamentarian's Note: The precedents distinguish between
discretionary exercises of recognition, the conferral or denial of
which is not appealable, and ``exercises of interpretive authority,''
in which the Chair bases his decision on a rule of order. Of course,
the distinction blurs in some cases. Thus, even where a decision of the
Chair is couched in terms of a denial or conferral of recognition, a
decision may be appealable where it is based on an explicit or implicit
interpretation of the rules and precedents, or where it is in fact a
decision on a question of order. For further discussion of this issue,
see Deschler-Brown, Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, Ch.
31 Sec. 8.
[[Page 9638]]
Decision on Recognition Cannot Give Rise to Question of Privilege
Sec. 9.8 It is not in order to raise as a question of the privileges of
the House a proposition to amend or interpret the rules of the
House or
to impinge on the Chair's power of recognition; thus, where the
Speaker Pro Tempore had announced that he would not entertain
requests to address the House for one minute prior to legislative
business, a resolution directing that the Speaker exercise his
prerogative and reinstitute the custom of allowing one-minute
speeches at the beginning of the session was held not to raise a
question of the privileges of the House.
On July 25, 1980,(5) the following proceedings occurred
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 126 Cong. Rec. 19762-64, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (6) . . . As the Chair
announced yesterday, requests to address the House for 1 minute
will be entertained at the conclusion of the legislative business
today, rather than at the beginning. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair believes there is genuine value in the 1-minute rule
in the exercise of free expression . . . . For all its value,
however, the Chair does not believe that the 1-minute rule must
necessarily precede, nor be permitted to postpone, the business of
the House. . . .
Mr. [E. G.] Shuster [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a
point of privilege.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his
privilege.
Mr. Shuster: Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged resolution.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the resolution.
The Clerk read as follows:
Whereas the custom of allowing one-minute speeches is a
longstanding tradition of the House. . . .
Whereas the ability of the
Minority to be heard rests to a
large degree on the one-minute speeches. . . .
Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Speaker exercise his prerogative and
reinstitute the custom of allowing one-minute speeches at the
beginning of the session.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair must declare that a question
of the privileges of the House under rule IX cannot impinge upon
the Speaker's right of recognition. The gentleman's proposal is
not, under rule IX, a privileged resolution, and the Chair will so
rule. The Chair does not entertain the resolution at this time.
Parliamentarian's Note: As further examples of the above principle,
Members may not, under the guise of raising a question of the
privileges of the House, give
[[Page 9639]]
directions to the Speaker infringing on his discretionary power of
recognition, by requiring that he give priority in recognition to any
Member seeking to call up a matter highly privileged pursuant to a
statutory provision, over a member from the Committee on Rules seeking
to call up a privileged report from that committee; (7)] or
by requiring that he state the question on overriding a veto before
recognizing for a motion to refer (thereby overruling prior decisions
of the Chair to change the order of precedence of
motions).(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. See 133 Cong. Rec. 5403, 100th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 11, 1987.
8. See 134 Cong. Rec. 20281, 100th Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 3, 1988.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recognition for General Debate
Sec. 9.9 Where the time for, and apportionment of, general debate in
the Committee of the Whole has not been fixed by the House, the
Chair has discretion as to whom he will recognize under the hour
rule.
On July 27, 1937,(9) the Committee of the Whole was
conducting general debate on a bill, where the House had not fixed the
time of debate or how it should
be apportioned. Chairman Wright Patman, of Texas, recognized Mr. John
Taber, of New York, for one hour of debate. Mr. Bertrand H. Snell, of
New York, was refused recognition by the Chair, who stated ``the
question of recognition is one to be determined by the Chair.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 81 Cong. Rec. 7686, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman then answered a parliamentary inquiry:
Mr. [Earl C.] Michener [of Michigan]: Under the rules of the
House, when we go into the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union, as we have in this instance, without fixing the
time for debate, am I correct in saying that anyone recognized by
the Chair is recognized for an hour, and has the Chair the
discretion of recognizing certain individuals and then permitting
those individuals to yield their time to other individuals, to the
exclusion of other Members who are seeking recognition?
The Chairman: That has been the practice.
Sec. 9.10 The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole recognized five
Members successively for a total of one hour's debate, where such
debate had not been fixed by the House.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 87 Cong. Rec. 3917-39, 77th Cong. 1st Sess., May 12, 1941.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Announcement of Policies Concerning Recognition
Sec. 9.11 Recognition is a matter within the discretion of the
[[Page 9640]]
Chair, and the Chair may refuse to curtail his discretion by
announcing in advance whom he will recognize if a certain
parliamentary situation develops.
On Mar. 1, 1967,(11) Mr. Joe D. Waggonner, Jr., of
Louisiana, stated a lengthy parliamentary inquiry on the procedures for
consideration of House Resolution 278, relating to the right of Member-
elect Adam C. Powell, of New York, to be sworn in. Part of the inquiry
referred to control of
debate and recognition for debate and motions if a hypothetical
parliamentary situation arose. Speaker John W. McCormack, of
Massachusetts, responded as follows to the inquiry on recognition:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 113 Cong. Rec. 4997, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question of recognition is one that the Chair will pass
upon if that time [situation hypothesized by Mr. Waggonner] should
arise.
On Oct. 8, 1969,(12) Mr. John D. Dingell, of Michigan,
inquired of Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, whether, if
the previous question were voted down on the pending appropriation
bill, he would be recognized to offer an amendment. The Speaker
responded:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 115 Cong. Rec. 29219, 29220, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair is not going to give a preliminary opinion as to whom
the Chair might recognize.
Sec. 9.12 The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole does not
anticipate the order in which amendments may be offered nor does he
declare in advance the order of
recognition, but where he knows a Member desires recognition to
offer an amendment, he may indicate that he will protect the
Member's rights.
On Sept. 8, 1966,(13) Chairman Edward P. Boland, of
Massachusetts, answered a parliamentary inquiry as to the order of
recognition for offering amendments under the five-minute rule:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 112 Cong. Rec. 22020, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert G.] Stephens [Jr., of Georgia]: It is my
understanding that the procedures will be for the Minish amendment
to be considered and after the Minish amendment is disposed of then
I will offer a substitute and it is my understanding I will be
recognized immediately after the amendment for the purpose of
submitting that substitute. Is that the correct parliamentary
situation?
The Chairman: Recognition, of course, is within the discretion
of the Chair, but the Chair will protect the gentleman's rights.
Sec. 9.13 The Speaker on occasion has announced his policy concerning
recognition for certain purposes, including
[[Page 9641]]
the times during the legislative day when recognition for such
purposes would be granted.
Formerly, Rule XI prohibited committees from sitting at any time
when the House was in session; the rule was narrowed to proscribe
sittings during the five-minute rule by the Legislative
Reorganization Act of 1970.(14)
Subsequently, certain committees were exempted from this rule
(including the Committees on Appropriations, the Budget, and Rules, the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, the Committee on Ways and
Means and the Committee on House Administration). A provision that
special leave to sit be granted if ten Members did not object was added
to the rule in the 95th Congress.(15) In the 103d Congress
the prohibition against sitting during proceedings under the five-
minute rule was stricken altogether (16) but was reinstated
in modified form in the 104th.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Sec. 117(b); 84 Stat. 1140.
15. H. Res. 5, 123 Cong. Rec. 53-70, 95th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 4,
1977. For the Speaker's announcement in the 98th Congress of
his policy concerning recognition for requests for committees
to sit during the five-minute rule, see 129 Cong. Rec. 3385,
98th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 3, 1983.
16. H. Res. 5, 139 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 103d Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 5,
1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the time the rule was in effect, the Speaker (17)
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair announces that he will recognize Members to make
requests for committees to sit during the 5-minute rule only at
certain times during the legislative day. While the precedents
indicate that such requests when pending are not votes requiring
the presence of a quorum, the Chair wishes to avoid the need for a
call of the House pending such requests but at the same time to
assure predictability as to when he will accord recognition.
Therefore, the Speaker intends to set up the following guidelines:
. . .
The Speaker's guidelines for recognition for requests for
committees to sit during the five-minute rule pursuant to clause 2(i),
Rule XI, requiring 10 objections to preclude permission following
announcement of the legislative schedule, were intended to afford
predictability as to when recognition would be granted, to avoid
discretionary calls of the House pending such requests, to distinguish
between hearing and meeting requests, and to permit meeting requests
only on days when legislative votes are scheduled but not after the
completion of legislative business.
Sec. 9.14 Pursuant to the Speaker's policy announced in the
[[Page 9642]]
98th Congress in regard to recognition for requests that committees
and subcommittees be permitted to sit during the five-minute rule,
the Speaker Pro Tempore indicated on a day when no rollcall votes
were scheduled, that such a request (except as to hearings) should
be withheld until the next day, when Members had been advised there
could be rollcall votes.
The following exchange occurred in the House on May 23, 1983:
(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 129 Cong. Rec. 13365, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Norman Y.] Mineta [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Public Buildings and
Grounds of the Committee on Public Works and Transportation and the
Committee on Public Works and Transportation have permission to sit
during the 5-minute rule in the House on Wednesday, May 25, 1983.
The Speaker Pro Tempore:(19) The Chair will advise
the gentleman that under the Speaker's statement he will have to
make that request tomorrow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. John P. Murtha (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recognition To Offer Amendments
Sec. 9.15 Recognition among Members seeking the floor in the Committee
of the Whole for the purpose of offering amendments is within the
discretion of the Chair.
On Dec. 15, 1937,(20) Mr. Gerald J. Boileau, of
Wisconsin, raised
a parliamentary inquiry as to whether perfecting amendments had
priority over substitute amendments:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 82 Cong. Rec. 1590, 75th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Boileau: Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, and I
do so to propound a parliamentary inquiry as to the order in which
amendments are to be offered. The amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from New Jersey is now pending. Would not perfecting
amendments have priority of consideration over a substitute
amendment?
The Chairman: (1) The Chair has no knowledge of what
amendments may be offered; but ordinarily a perfecting amendment
has precedence over a motion to substitute insofar as voting is
concerned. If the unanimous-consent request is granted, it is the
understanding of the Chair that amendments will be offered section
by section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Boileau: Nevertheless, it is the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from New Jersey that would be before the House.
The Chairman: That is before the Committee now.
Mr. Boileau: Would not perfecting amendments have priority over
an amendment to substitute?
The Chairman: So far as voting is concerned, yes.
[[Page 9643]]
Mr. Boileau: I appreciate that fact, but may I propound a
further parliamentary inquiry, whether or not a Member rising in
his place and seeking recognition would not have a prior right to
recognition for the purpose of offering a perfecting amendment to
the amendment now pending?
The Chairman: It does not necessarily follow that such Member
would have a prior right. Recognition is in the discretion of the
Chair.
Mr. Boileau: I recognize it does not necessarily follow, but I
am trying to have the matter clarified. Therefore I ask the Chair
whether or not a Member who qualifies as offering a perfecting
amendment does not have prior right of recognition in offering such
amendment?
The Chairman: . . . [T]he Chair does not feel he should estop
himself of his own discretion in the matter of recognitions.
Mr. Boileau: Does the Chair then rule that is within the
discretion of the Chair rather than a right of the Member?
The Chairman: In answer to the gentleman's inquiry, the Chair
is of the opinion it is within the province of the Chair whom the
Chair will recognize, having in mind the general rules of the
House.
On June 29, 1939,(2) Chairman Jere Cooper, of Tennessee,
indicated that where a Member
had been recognized to offer an amendment but not for debate thereon,
the Chair could in his discretion refuse to recognize members of the
committee reporting the bill to offer amendments if they had not been
on their feet seeking recognition:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 84 Cong. Rec. 8311, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Harold] Knutson [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I have an
amendment at the Clerk's desk which I would like to offer at this
time.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Knutson: Strike out all of section
1 and insert the following----
Mr. [Hamilton] Fish [Jr., of New York] (interrupting the
reading of the amendment): Mr. Chairman, would it be in order for
the committee members to be recognized first to offer amendments?
Mr. Knutson: I have already been recognized.
The Chairman: If there is any member of the committee seeking
recognition, he is entitled to recognition.
Mr. Fish: Mr. Chairman, I would like to be recognized.
Mr. Knutson: I already have the floor, and have been
recognized.
Mr. H. Carl Andersen [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, the
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Knutson] has already been recognized.
The Chairman: Recognition is in the discretion of the Chair,
and the Chair will recognize members of the committee first. Does
the acting chairman of the committee seek recognition?
Mr. [Sol] Bloom [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I would like to
ask whether the committee amendments to section 1 have been agreed
to?
The Chairman: The only one the Chair knows about is the one
appear
[[Page 9644]]
ing in the print of the bill, and that has been agreed to.
Mr. Bloom: In line 16, there is a committee amendment.
Mr. Knutson: Mr. Chairman, I was recognized by the Chair.
The Chairman: The Chair feels that inasmuch as members of the
committee were not on their feet and the gentleman from Minnesota
had been recognized, the gentleman is entitled to recognition.
Sec. 9.16 While recognition of Members to offer amendments is within
the Chair's discretion and cannot be challenged on a point of
order, the Chair under the precedents alternates recognition
between majority and minority members of the committee reporting
the bill.
During consideration of the Outer Continental Shelf Act (H.R. 6218)
in the Committee of the Whole on June 11, 1976,(3) the
following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 122 Cong. Rec. 17764, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: (4) The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Murphy).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. [John M.] Murphy of New York: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Murphy of New York; On page 59,
lines 12 to 20, strike paragraphs 5(a), (6), (7), and (8) and
renumber subsequent paragraphs accordingly.
Mr. [Hamilton] Fish [Jr., of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a point
of order.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. Fish: Mr. Chairman, the minority has amendments to offer,
including a substitute amendment to title II. It is my
understanding that the minority would have its turn at the same
time as the majority in considering the amendments.
The Chairman: The Chair would advise the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Fish) that that would not come under the category of a
point of order; but the Chair would further advise the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Fish) that since the gentleman has raised the
point, the Chair will alternate from side to side.
Sec. 9.17 The order of recognition to offer amendments is within the
discretion of the Chair, who may either base his initial
recognition on committee seniority or upon the preferential voting
status of the amendments sought to be offered; thus, where both a
pending amendment and a substitute therefor are open to perfecting
amendments, the Chair has the discretion of first recognizing
either the senior committee member, or a junior committee member
whose amendment would be first voted upon, where both
[[Page 9645]]
amendments could ultimately be pending at the same time.
The following proceedings occurred during consideration of the
Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1979 in the
Committee of the Whole on May 15, 1979: (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 125 Cong. Rec. 11135, 11136, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: (6) For what purpose does the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Seiberling) rise?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Paul Simon (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John F.] Seiberling [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I have an
amendment at the desk.
The Chairman: Is this to the Udall substitute?
Mr. Seiberling: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk
to the Udall-Anderson bill, which is actually a series of technical
amendments which I will ask unanimous consent to offer en bloc. . .
.
The Chairman: Since there is no other amendment pending to the
Udall substitute, the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio may be
offered. . . .
Mr. [John B.] Breaux [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, assuming
there is an amendment to be offered to the so-called Breaux-Dingell
merchant marine version, that would take precedence over an
amendment to the so-called Udall-Anderson interior bill?
The Chairman: The Chair has the option either to recognize the
senior Member first or to first recognize that Member seeking to
offer the amendment which will be preferential and first voted
upon.
Mr. [Thomas J.] Huckaby [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I have
amendments at the desk for the Breaux-Dingell bill.
The Chairman: The Clerk will report the
amendments.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Mr. Seiberling was senior to Mr. Huckaby on the Committee on
Interior and Insular Affairs, but Mr. Huckaby's amendment was
to be voted on first and he represented the majority position
on the committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Don H.] Clausen [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. Chairman, what is the parliamentary situation? Is there an
amendment to be offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Seiberling)
or the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Huckaby)?
The Chairman: The Chair will state that the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Seiberling) sought recognition to amend the Udall substitute,
but the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Huckaby) has an amendment to
the Merchant Marine and Fisheries amendment in the nature of a
substitute, and he will be recognized. The Chair will recognize the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Seiberling) later for the purposes of
offering his amendment. . . .
Mr. Huckaby: Mr. Chairman, I offer amendments to the amendment
in the nature of a substitute.
The Chairman: The Clerk will report the amendments.
Parliamentarian's Note: Mr. Huckaby's amendments to the original
amendment were subse
[[Page 9646]]
quently agreed to.(8) Mr. Seiberling then indicated that he
had amendments to the substitute, and Mr. Huckaby that he had further
amendments to the original amendment. As noted above, the Chair would
have discretion to recognize either Member; but the Chair indicated
that in either case, the question would not be put on amendments to the
substitute until all amendments to the original amendment had been
disposed of.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 125 Cong. Rec. 11152, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 9.18 While alternation of recognition between the majority and
minority Members controlling debate in the House, or continued
recognition of that Member having the most time remaining, are two
customary factors governing recognition by the Chair, neither
factor is binding on the Chair, who may exercise discretion in
conferring recognition where control has been equally divided, and
may entertain a motion for the previous question by the manager of
the measure if neither side seeks to yield further time.
On June 23, 1983,(9) Speaker Pro Tempore Jim Moody, of
Wisconsin, responded to several parliamentary inquiries regarding
procedures for recognition. The proceedings in the House during
consideration of House Concurrent Resolution 91 (revising the fiscal
1983 congressional budget and setting forth the fiscal 1984 budget)
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 129 Cong. Rec. 17089, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The time of the gentleman has expired.
Does the gentlewoman seek recognition?
Mrs. [Lynn] Martin of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, could the Chair
inform us how much time each side of the aisle has remaining?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Oklahoma has 35
minutes left and the gentleman from Ohio has 21\1/2\ minutes left.
Mrs. Martin of Illinois: Then we will allow the other side of
the aisle to catch up.
Mr. [James R.] Jones of Oklahoma: Does the gentlewoman want to
yield back her time?
Mrs. Martin of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, I am reserving the
balance of my time.
Mr. Jones of Oklahoma: Our side just spoke. If the gentlewoman
does not want to use her time and have her side go forward, the
gentlewoman can reserve her time and we can reserve ours and we can
dispense with the rest of the debate.
Mrs. Martin of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the outstanding
chairman, the gentleman from Oklahoma, will he then yield that time
to us?
Well, we will reserve our time for now and await the
gentleman's decision.
[[Page 9647]]
Mr. Jones of Oklahoma: Mr. Speaker, I would like to state a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Jones of Oklahoma: Mr. Speaker, if we reserve our time, is
the previous question then in order?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Will the gentleman restate the
question?
Mr. Jones of Oklahoma: The gentlewoman has reserved her time.
If we reserve our time, is the previous question then in order?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: If neither side yields time, the Chair
will entertain a motion for the previous question from the manager
of the motion.
Mr. [E. G.] Shuster [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Shuster: Mr. Speaker, if not the rules of the House, is it
not the tradition of the House that the side with the most time
remaining takes the floor?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: That is one variable. Alternating from
side to side is another tradition of the House.
--Committee Amendments
Sec. 9.19 Where a bill consisting of several titles was considered as
read and open to amendment at any point under a special ``modified
closed rule'' permitting germane amendments only to certain
portions of titles
but permitting committee amendments to any portion of the bill, the
Chair first
recognized a Member to offer committee amendments to title I and
then recognized other Members to offer amendments to that title.
On Aug. 7, 1974,(10) during consideration of the Federal
Election Campaign Act of 1974 (H.R. 16090) in the Committee of the
Whole, Chairman Richard Bolling, of Missouri, made the following
statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 120 Cong. Rec. 27258, 27259, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: No amendments, including any amendment in the
nature of a substitute for the bill, are in order to the bill
except the following:
In title 1: Germane amendments to subsection 101(a) proposing
solely to change the money amounts contained in said subsection,
providing they have been printed in the Congressional Record at
least 1 calendar day before being offered; and the text of the
amendment to be offered on page 13, following line 4, inserted in
the Congressional Record of August 5, 1974, by Mr. Butler.
In title 2: Germane amendments to the provisions contained on
page 33, line 17, through page 35, line 11, providing they have
been printed in the Record at least 1 calendar day before being
offered; and the amendment printed on page E5246 in the Record of
August 2, 1974.
In title 4: Germane amendments which have been printed in the
Record
[[Page 9648]]
at least 1 calendar day before they are offered, except that
sections 401, 402, 407, 409 and 410 shall not be subject to
amendment; and the text of the amendment printed on page H7597 in
the Congressional Record of August 2, 1974.
Amendments are in order to any portion of the bill if offered
by direction of the Committee on House Administration, but said
amendments shall not be subject to amendment.
Are there any Committee on House Administration amendments to
title I?
Mr. [Frank] Thompson [Jr.] of New Jersey: Mr. Chairman, I offer
three committee amendments to title I of the bill and I ask
unanimous consent that they be considered en bloc.
The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New Jersey?
There was no objection.
The Chairman: The Clerk will report the committee amendments.
The Clerk read as follows:
Committee amendments: . . .
The Chairman: The question is on the amendments offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Thompson).
The committee amendments were agreed to.
The Chairman: Are there further committee amendments to title
I?
Mr. [Pierre S.] du Pont [IV, of Delaware]: Mr. Chairman, I
offer an amendment to title I.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. du Pont: Page 2, line 16, strike
``$5,000'' and insert in lieu thereof ``$2,500''.
Mr. du Pont: Mr. Chairman, as required by the rule adopted by
the House today, my amendment was published at pages E5306 and
E5307 of yesterday's Record.
Yielding for Amendments
Sec. 9.20 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,(11) during consideration of
H.R. 8603, the Postal Reorganization Act Amendments of 1975:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 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: (12) The Chair will state that the
gentleman from Maine
[[Page 9649]]
cannot yield for the purpose of the gentleman from Delaware
offering an amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 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.
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:
. . .
Effect of Special Rules
Sec. 9.21 Where a special rule providing for the consideration of a
measure provides for the apportionment of time ``between those
favoring and those opposing'' the measure, it is within the
discretion of the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole as to
those Members he will recognize to control the time.
On Dec. 18, 1929,(13) Speaker Nicholas Longworth, of
Ohio, answered a parliamentary inquiry on the procedure of recognition
in the Committee of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 72 Cong. Rec. 907, 908, 71st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [George] Huddleston [of Alabama]: Mr. Speaker, the rule
under which we are to consider the resolution provides that the
time in general debate shall be equally divided and controlled by
those favoring and those opposing the resolution. I think it would
be informative to the House to know just how that division is to be
made.
The Speaker: The Chair would think that that would be in the
discretion of the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Huddleston: Then the Chairman of the Committee of the
Whole, the Speaker thinks, has discretion to recognize any Member
who may gain his attention, and that Member having gained the floor
would be entitled to an hour?
The Speaker: Not necessarily.
Mr. Huddleston: To what time would he be entitled?
Mr. [J. Charles] Linthicum [of Maryland]: The resolution
provides that.
The Speaker: The Chair would think that the Member being
recognized in favor of the proposition would be entitled to control
half the time and the Member announcing himself opposed to the
proposition would be entitled to control half of the time.
Mr. Huddleston: The Speaker thinks that that would be the
interpretation even though it gave the Member so recognized an hour
and a half, when, under the rules of the House, a Member is
entitled only to one hour?
The Speaker: The resolution provides that the time for general
debate
[[Page 9650]]
shall be equally divided and controlled by those favoring and
opposing the resolution.
Mr. Huddleston: It does not provide that it shall be
apportioned to any particular Member.
The Speaker: The Chair would think that the Member announcing
his opposition to the resolution would be entitled to control an
hour and a half.
Sec. 9.22 Where a special rule permits both the offering of specified
perfecting amendments in a certain order and pro forma amendments,
the Chair has discretion to recognize Members to offer pro forma
amendments to debate the underlying text between consideration of
perfecting amendments.
The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on
May 26, 1982,(14) during consideration of House Concurrent
Resolution 345 (the first concurrent resolution on the budget for
fiscal year 1983):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 128 Cong. Rec. 12141, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Henry A.] Waxman [of California]: At the appropriate time
after we have completed this amendment, I will seek to strike the
last word to make other comments that may be of interest to
Members.
Mr. [Edward R.] Madigan [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: (15) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Madigan: Is the procedure that has just been suggested by
the gentleman from California one that would be in order?
The Chairman: The Chair will entertain pro forma amendments
between amendments.
Mr. Madigan: Further pursuing my parliamentary inquiry, Mr.
Chairman, how would the gentleman from California be able to be
recognized to speak in behalf of something that he says he is not
going to offer?
The Chairman: Between amendments, no amendment is pending. That
is why a pro forma amendment presumably to one of the substitutes
will be allowed. It provides an opportunity for discussion between
amendments.
Sec. 9.23 Where a special rule adopted by the House makes in order a
designated amendment to a bill in Committee of the Whole but gives
no special priority or precedence to such an amendment, the Chair
is not required to extend prior recognition to offer that amendment
but may rely on other principles of recognition such as alternation
between majority and minority parties and priority of perfecting
amendments over motions to strike.
[[Page 9651]]
On June 21, 1979,(16) during consideration of H.R. 111,
the Panama Canal Act of 1979, the Chair, after recognizing the manager
of the bill to offer a pro forma amendment under the five-minute rule,
recognized the ranking minority member to offer
a perfecting amendment, prior
to recognizing another majority member seeking recognition on behalf of
another committee with jurisdiction over a portion of the bill to move
to strike that portion, where the motion to strike was made in order
but given no preferential status in the special rule governing
consideration of the bill. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 125 Cong. Rec. 15999, 16000, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John M.] Murphy of New York: Mr. Chairman, I move to
strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise at this time with so many Members in the
well and on the floor to ask as many Members as possible to try to
stay on the floor throughout the next hour and 50 minutes. . . .
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Bauman: Page 187, strike out line
19 and all that follows through line 20 on page 189 and insert
in lieu thereof the following:
Chapter 2--IMMIGRATION
Sec. 1611. Special Immigrants.--(a) Section 101(a)(27) of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(27)),
relating to the definition of special immigrants, is amended--
Ms. [Elizabeth] Holtzman [of New York] (during the reading):
Mr. Chairman, I want to raise a point of order. . . .
Mr. Chairman, at the time that the last amendment was voted on,
I was on my feet seeking to offer an amendment on behalf of the
Committee on the Judiciary with respect to striking in its entirety
section 1611 of the bill. The right to offer that amendment is
granted under the rule, in fact on page 3 of House Resolution 274.
I want to ask the Chair whether I am entitled to be recognized or
was entitled to be recognized to make first a motion, which was a
motion to strike the entire section before amendments were made to
the text of the bill.
The Chairman: (17) Unless an amendment having
priority of consideration under the rule is offered, it is the
Chair's practice to alternate recognition of members of the several
committees that are listed in the rule, taking amendments from the
majority and minority side in general turn, while giving priority
of recognition to those committees that are mentioned in the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Thomas S. Foley (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Holtzman) is a member of
such a committee, but following the adoption of the last amendment
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Murphy), the chairman of the
Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, sought recognition to
strike the last word. Accordingly, the Chair then recognized
[[Page 9652]]
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman) to offer a floor
amendment, which is a perfecting amendment to section 1611 of the
bill.
The rule mentions that it shall be in order to consider an
amendment as recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary, to
strike out section 1611, if offered, but the rule does not give any
special priority to the Committee on the Judiciary to offer such
amendments, over perfecting amendments to that section.
Ms. Holtzman: Mr. Chairman, may I be heard further? The
gentleman said that he was going to recognize members of the
committees that had a right to offer amendments under the rule
alternately. I would suggest to the Chair that no member of the
Committee on the Judiciary has been recognized thus far in the
debate with respect to offering such an amendment and, therefore,
the Chair's principle, as I understood he stated it, was not being
observed in connection with recognition.
The Chairman: The Chair would observe that the Chair is
attempting to be fair in recognizing Members alternately when they
are members of committees with priority and that the rule permits
but does not give the Committee on the Judiciary special priority
of recognition over other floor amendments, which under the
precedents would take priority over a motion to strike.
Second, the Chair would like to advise the gentlewoman from New
York that recognition is discretionary with the Chair and is not
subject to a point of order. Does the gentlewoman have any further
comment to make on the point of order?
The Chair overrules the point of order and recognizes the
gentleman in the well.
Parliamentarian's Note: The amendment offered by Mr. Bauman struck
out section 1611 of the bill and inserted a new section, whereas the
amendment made in order under the rule on behalf of the Committee on
the Judiciary was an amendment to strike that section; thus adoption of
the Bauman amendment precluded the offering of the Judiciary Committee
amendment. It would have made little difference if Ms. Holtzman was
recognized first, since the Bauman amendment could have been offered as
a perfecting amendment while the Holtzman motion to strike was pending
and if the Bauman amendment was adopted the motion to strike would have
necessarily fallen and would not have been voted on.
If the Holtzman amendment, and the amendments to be offered on
behalf of the Committees on Foreign Affairs and Post Office and Civil
Service, had been committee amendments formally recommended in reports
on H.R. 111, they would have been automatically considered by the
Committee of the Whole, but only the Committee on Merchant Marine and
Fisheries had formally reported H.R. 111.
[[Page 9653]]
Effect of Limitation on Five-minute Debate; Allocation of Time
Sec. 9.24 Priority of recognition under a limitation of time for debate
under the five-minute rule is in the complete discretion of the
Chair, who may disregard committee seniority and consider amendment
sponsorship.
On June 26, 1979,(18) it was demonstrated that where the
Committee of the Whole has agreed to a limitation on debate under the
five-minute rule on a section of a bill and all amendments thereto,
distribution of the time under the limitation is within the discretion
of the Chair. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 125 Cong. Rec. 16677, 16678, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
Under consideration was H.R. 3930, the Defense Production
Act Amendments of 1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [William S.] Moorhead of Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman, I move
that all debate on section 3 and all amendments thereto cease at
6:40 p.m. . . .
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes
209, noes 183, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 41, as follows: .
. .
The Chairman: (19) The Chair will attempt to explain
the situation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee has just voted to end all debate on section 3 and
all amendments thereto at 6:40. The Chair in a moment is going to
ask those Members wishing to speak between now and then to stand.
The Chair will advise Members that he will attempt, once that list
is determined, to recognize first those Members on the list with
amendments which are not protected by having been printed in the
Record. . . .
Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, did I understand
the Chair correctly that Members who are protected by having their
amendments printed in the Record will not be recognized until the
time has run so that those Members will only have 5 minutes to
present their amendments, but that other Members will be recognized
first for the amendments which are not printed in the Record?
The Chairman: Those Members who are recognized prior to the
expiration of time have approximately 20 seconds to present their
amendments. Those Members whose amendments are printed in the
Record will have a guaranteed 5 minutes after time has expired. . .
.
The Chair will now recognize those Members who wish to offer
amendments which have not been printed in the Record.
The Chair will advise Members he will recognize listed Members
in opposition to the amendments also for 20 seconds. . . .
Mr. [Richard] Kelly [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, is it not
regular order that the Members of the Committee with amendments be
given preference and recognition?
[[Page 9654]]
The Chairman: The Chair would advise the gentleman once the
limitation of time has been agreed to and time divided, that
priority of recognition is within the complete discretion of the
Chair.
Sec. 9.25 Where the Committee of the Whole has agreed to a limitation
on debate, distribution of the remaining time is largely within the
discretion of the Chair.
On June 19, 1975,(20) during consideration of the Energy
Conservation and Conversion Act of 1975 (H.R. 6860) in the Committee of
the Whole, Chairman William H. Natcher, of Kentucky, exercised his
discretion as to recognition for debate, as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 121 Cong. Rec. 19785-87, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Al] Ullman [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that all debate on the bill and all amendments cease in 2
minutes.
The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Oregon?
There was no objection.
The Chairman: Under the rule, the Chairman has the right at
this time to recognize one Member on each side. The Chair will do
that. All debate on the bill is limited to 2 minutes. The Chair
would be unable to recognize 40 or 50 Members for 1 second or 2
seconds.
Mr. [William A.] Steiger of Wisconsin: Mr. Chairman, I offer a
preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Steiger of Wisconsin moves that the Committee do now
rise and report the bill back to the House with the
recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken. . . .
Mr. [John H.] Rousselot [of California]: Why, on a motion which
the gentleman from Wisconsin made, is he not allowed 5 minutes?
The Chairman: The Chair would like to state to the gentleman
from California that all debate on the bill and all amendments
thereto is limited to two minutes. . . .
Mr. Rousselot: But he has 5 minutes on a preferential motion.
The Chairman: All time has been fixed on the bill, and all
amendments thereto, and the time was 2 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Phillip
Burton) for 1 minute in opposition to the preferential motion.
Sec. 9.26 A limitation of debate on a bill and all amendments thereto
to a time certain in effect abrogates the five-minute rule; and
decisions regarding the division of the remaining time and the
order of recognition of those Members desiring to speak are largely
within the discretion of the Chair, who may defer recognition of
listed Members whose amendments have been printed in the Record and
who are therefore guaranteed five minutes notwithstanding the
limitation.
[[Page 9655]]
The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on
June 4, 1975,(1) during consideration of the Voting Rights
Act Extension (H.R. 6219):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 121 Cong. Rec. 16899, 16901, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Don] Edwards of California: Mr. Chairman, I move that all
debate on the bill and all amendments thereto terminate at 6:45
p.m.
The Chairman: (2) The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from California.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The motion was agreed to. . . .
The Chairman: With the permission of the Committee, the Chair
will briefly state the situation.
There are a number of Members who do not have amendments that
were placed in the Record, and the Chair feels that he must try to
protect them somewhat, so he proposes to go to a number of Members
on the list so they will at least get some time. The time allotted
will be less than a minute.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. de la
Garza).
Sec. 9.27 A limitation of debate on amendments in the Committee of the
Whole to a time certain in effect abrogates the five-minute rule;
and decisions regarding the division of the remaining time and the
order of recognition are largely within the discretion of the
Chair.
As an example of the Chair's exercise of discretion, on June 14,
1977,(3) where the Committee of the Whole had limited debate
under the five-minute rule to a time certain, and an equal division of
the remaining time among all the Members seeking recognition would have
severely restricted each Member in his presentation, the Chair
allocated the time equally between two Members on opposing sides of the
question, to be yielded by them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 123 Cong. Rec. 18826, 18833, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Tom] Bevill [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, I move that all
debate on these amendments and all amendments thereto, cease at 4
o'clock and 45 minutes p.m.
The Chairman: (4) The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bevill).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The motion was agreed to. . . .
The Chairman: The Chair has before him a list of more than 25
Members to occupy the next 10 minutes. It has been suggested that
it would be possible for the Chair to recognize the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Bevill) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Conte) to allocate those 10 minutes.
Accordingly, the Chair will recognize the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Conte) for 5 minutes, and the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Bevill) for 5 minutes.
Mr. John T. Myers [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
[[Page 9656]]
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. John T. Myers: How did the Chair make that decision?
The Chairman: The Chair has the authority to allocate time
under a limitation, and it is obvious to the Chair that this is the
most rational way to handle the 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Conte).
Sec. 9.28 A limitation to a time certain on debate on an amendment in
Committee of the Whole in effect abrogates the five-minute rule;
recognition is in the discretion of the Chair under such limitation
and the Chair may recognize under the limitation a Member who has
already spoken on the amendment.
On Aug. 4, 1977,(5) during consideration of the National
Energy Act (H.R. 8444) in the Committee of the Whole, a motion was made
to limit debate on a pending amendment and the following proceedings
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 123 Cong. Rec. 27006, 27007, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Thomas L.] Ashley [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I move that
debate on this amendment conclude at 2 o'clock.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The question is on the motion offered
by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ashley).
The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr.
Ashbrook) there were--ayes 37, noes 20.
So the motion was agreed to. . . .
The Chairman: (6) . . . The Chair recognizes the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Howard).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, a point of
order. . . .
Under the rules of the House, are not Members who have already
spoken to wait until all other Members are recognized until they
speak again on a pending amendment?
The Chairman: No one was up at the time the Chair rapped the
gavel, and the gentleman from New Jersey was standing at the time
the Chair recognized him. We will be going back and forth, but of
course, the limitation abrogates the 5-minute rule.
Sec. 9.29 Parliamentarian's Note: When a relatively short period of
time for debate under the five-minute rule has been fixed in the
Committee of the Whole, the Chairman in his discretion may take
note of all those Members seeking recognition and divide the
remaining time among them, though each may have less than five
minutes to speak. But where the Committee of the Whole fixes debate
at a longer period, such as an hour and a half, the Chair may
decline to apportion the time among those Members on their feet.
[[Page 9657]]
On Feb. 22, 1950,(7) the Committee of the Whole limited
debate on a pending amendment and amendments thereto to one hour and a
half.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 96 Cong. Rec. 2240, 81st Cong. 2d Sess. See also Sec. 22, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman Francis E. Walter, of Pennsylvania, responded as follows
to parliamentary inquiries:
Mr. [Jacob K.] Javits [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Javits: Mr. Chairman, is the Chair disposed to divide the
time in view of the fact that it has been limited, and to announce
the Members who will be recognized?
The Chairman: In view of the fact that one hour and a half
remains for debate, and since it was impossible for the Chair to
determine the number of Members who were on their feet, I believe
it is advisable to follow the strict rule.
Sec. 9.30 Where the Committee of the Whole has agreed that debate under
the five-minute rule close at a certain
time on an amendment and
all amendments thereto, the Chair attempts to divide the time
equally among the Members desiring recognition; but where part of
the fixed time is consumed by voting, it may not be possible for
the Chair to reach each Member on his list before the time expires,
and no point of order lies against the inability of the Chair to
recognize each Member on the list.
On June 27, 1977,(8) the situation described above
occurred in the Committee of the Whole, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 123 Cong. Rec. 20916, 20918, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert W.] Kastenmeier [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I
move that all debate on this amendment and all other amendments to
the bill close at 5:40 p.m.
The Chairman: (9) The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kastenmeier).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Bill D. Burlison (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr.
Ashbrook) there were--ayes 46, noes 20. . . .
The Chairman: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Kastenmeier) to close debate.
Mr. Kastenmeier: Mr. Chairman, this is, of course, the Legal
Services Liquidation Act of 1977, as proposed by the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Ashbrook). It must be rejected. . . .
The Chairman: All time has expired.
Mr. [Robert] McClory [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, the Chair has
not recognized me yet. The Chair read my name, but the Chair has
not recognized me yet.
The Chairman: The Chair would advise the gentleman from
Illinois that we have run out of time.
[[Page 9658]]
Mr. McClory: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. McClory: Mr. Chairman, when there is a time limitation and
Members are standing, it is my understanding that the Chair must
divide the time equally among the Members standing.
Mr. Chairman, I was standing and my name was read.
The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman that
according to the motion, which limited all debate to 5:40 p.m., we
are bound by the clock. Time consumed by voting has required the
Chair to reallocate time. Therefore, the Chair overrules the point
of order.
Sec. 9.31 Where debate has been limited to a time certain
on an amendment and all amendments thereto, the Chairman may
utilize his discretion in allocating debate time and continue to
recognize Members under the five-minute rule; but he may choose at
a later time to divide any remaining debate time among those
Members standing and reserve some time for the committee to
conclude debate.
The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on
Nov. 2, 1983,(10) during consideration of the Department of
Defense appropriations for fiscal year 1984 (H.R. 4185):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 129 Cong. Rec. 30504, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Joseph P.] Addabbo [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment and all
amendments thereto close at 2 o'clock. . . .
The Chairman Pro Tempore: (11) Is there objection to
the unanimous-consent request of the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Addabbo) . . . ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Abraham Kazen, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I have a
parliamentary inquiry. . . .
Under the unanimous-consent agreement, does that mean only
those who were standing at the time the agreement was entered into
may enter into the debate?
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair will continue to allow time
under the 5-minute rule.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Approximately 90 minutes of time for debate remained at this point.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With about 30 minutes remaining under the limitation, the Chair
(13) stated: (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).
14. 129 Cong. Rec. 30512, 98th Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 2, 1983.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair recognizes that there are more Members rising that
wish to participate in the debate than time will permit.
The Chair has the discretion of dividing the time among Members
who wish to participate in the debate, and the Chair would also
make a request that those who have already entered into the debate
not seek further time.
[[Page 9659]]
Those Members who wish to participate in the debate will please
rise.
The Chair will reserve 2 minutes for the gentleman from Alabama
(Mr. Edwards) to conclude the debate.
Members standing will be recognized for 1\1/2\ minutes each.
--Reallocation of Time
Sec. 9.32 Where the Committee of the Whole has limited debate on an
amendment to a time certain and the time allocated by the Chair
among those initially desiring to speak is not totally consumed,
the Chair may either reallocate the remaining time among other
Members in his discretion or may proceed again under the five-
minute rule.
On Aug. 4, 1977,(15) the Committee of the Whole had
under consideration the National Energy Act (H.R. 8444) and had agreed
to limit debate on an amendment when the following proceedings
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 123 Cong. Rec. 27021, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Gary A. Myers [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I have a
parliamentary inquiry. . . .
The parliamentary inquiry is, Mr. Chairman, did the House not
limit itself to debate until 2 o'clock?
The Chairman: (16) The gentleman is correct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Edward P. Boland (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Gary A. Myers: Under that limitation, I would like to ask
unanimous consent to speak on the unclaimed time of the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Whalen).
The Chairman: The Chair will state that the gentleman from
Pennsylvania may claim his own time. . . .
Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania desire to strike the
requisite number of words and be recognized?
Mr. Gary A. Myers: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
The Chairman: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Pennsylvania.
Mr. Kazen: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Kazen: Supposing there are 20 of us who want to do the same
thing.
The Chairman: If there are 20 who want to do the same thing,
and they can all do it before 2 o'clock, they will all be
recognized, or if feasible, the Chair could divide the remaining
time among other Members seeking recognition who were not included
in the original limitation.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gary A. Myers) has now
been recognized.
Denial of Recognition for Unanimous-consent Request; Consideration of
Bill
Sec. 9.33 The Chair may, by declining recognition to a Member to make a
unanimous-consent request for the con
[[Page 9660]]
sideration of a measure, refuse to permit the request to be
entertained, and thus register his personal objection as a Member
of the House.
The following proceedings occurred in the House on Jan. 23, 1984:
(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 130 Cong. Rec. 83, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: . . . Mr. Speaker, I
ask unanimous consent that an open rule permitting consideration of
House Joint Resolution 100, the voluntary school prayer
constitutional amendment, be called up for immediate consideration
within the next 10 legislative days.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (18) The Chair cannot and
will not entertain that request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Richard B. Ray (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I have made a unanimous-consent
request. That is a perfectly proper request by any Member of this
body, and it is either objected to or is not objected to. I do not
understand the procedure that the Chair is using by not
entertaining the unanimous-consent request.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will inform the gentleman
that the Chair can object by declining recognition.
Sec. 9.34 The Chair himself may object to a unanimous-consent request
for the consideration of legislation, by denying recognition for
the request, and it is the policy of the Chair to refuse
recognition for requests to consider legislation not approved by
the leadership.
The following exchange occurred in the House on Nov. 15, 1983:
(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 129 Cong. Rec. 32746, 32747, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that the resolution introduced by the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Fish) specifying a rule for consideration of
House Joint Resolution 1 be made in order for consideration by the
House on Wednesday or any day thereafter.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (20) The Chair cannot
entertain that motion without consultation with the leadership. The
Chair will not recognize the gentleman for that purpose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Ronald Coleman (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary inquiry is that this
is a unanimous-consent request and it is entirely in order.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair has the same right to object
as any Member, and I do so object.
Sec. 9.35 The Chair may refuse to entertain unanimous-consent requests
for the consider
[[Page 9661]]
ation of legislation that does not have the approval of the
leadership.
On Nov. 16, 1983,(1) the following proceedings occurred
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 129 Cong. Rec. 33138, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that House Resolution 373 be made in order for
consideration in the House on Thursday or any day thereafter.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair cannot recognize for that
purpose.
Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, it is a unanimous-consent request.
Mr. [John F.] Seiberling [of Ohio]: I object, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair cannot recognize for that
purpose. There is objection nevertheless.
Mr. Walker: Let it be noted here this evening that the
objection to considering the resolution by which we would consider
ERA under the rules of the House and with an amendment and in open
debate was objected to from the Democratic side of the aisle. Let
that be noted.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state there is
precedent for denying the unanimous-consent request of the
gentleman dating back to May of 1982 and yesterday and furthermore
there was objection heard.
Sec. 9.36 The Speaker's authority to decline to recognize individual
Members to request unanimous consent for the consideration of bills
and resolutions derives from clause 2 of Rule XIV, on the Speaker's
general power of recognition, and from the precedents developed
under that rule.
The following exchange occurred in the House on Jan. 26, 1984:
(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 130 Cong. Rec. 449, 450, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [William E.] Dannemeyer [of California]: A parliamentary
inquiry, Mr. Speaker. . . .
Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I have heard that we have
had some addition to the customs or procedures or even the rules of
the House, which seems to say that before I as a Member can ask
unanimous-consent requests that I must obtain the approval of the
leadership of the majority to pose that request.
My parliamentary inquiry is this, Mr. Speaker. Where in the
rules does it say that? What is the specific provision in the rules
that authorizes the Speaker to make that kind of a rule for this
House? . . .
The Speaker: (3) Clause 2 of rule XIV.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
4. See House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 753-757 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Dannemeyer: Is it the position of the Speaker that section
2 of rule XIV authorizes what has come to become a gag rule here?
The Speaker: No. The Chair believes that it has been the custom
of
[[Page 9662]]
this body through the years to give the power to the Speaker of the
House that the House be run in an efficient
manner and that the business of the
House should be done in an orderly
fashion and that obstruction should be avoided.
Sec. 9.37 Pursuant to the Speaker's announced policy in the 98th
Congress on recognition for unanimous-consent requests for the
initial consideration of bills and resolutions, the Chair will
decline recognition for such unanimous-consent requests without
assurances that the majority and minority leadership and committee
and subcommittee chairmen and ranking minority members have no
objection thereto.
On Oct. 2, 1984,(5) the Chair having declined
recognition for a unanimous-consent request that a balanced budget
amendment to the Constitution be brought to the floor for immediate
consideration, discussion took place relating to the Speaker's power of
recognition (6) and, specifically, to the effect of
announced guidelines governing recognition for requests for the initial
consideration of bills.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 130 Cong. Rec. 28516-18, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
6. See Rule XIV, clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 753 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Thomas F.] Hartnett [of South Carolina]: . . . If you are
sincere, Mr. Chairman, if your colleagues over there who now say
let us have a balanced budget really mean what they say, when you
know the American people are not going to be fooled by this move.
Let us have companion legislation, the balanced budget amendment.
The Speaker is here. Let us bring by unanimous consent the
balanced budget amendment to the Constitution to the floor of the
House right now and let us vote on both of these bills if you mean
what you say. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent, to recall or
discharge from the committee the balanced budget amendment to the
Constitution so that we can bring it to the floor of the House with
House Joint Resolution 243.
I ask unanimous consent that it be brought before the House
right now.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (7) . . . Under the rules
and precedents, the motion is not to be entertained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry. . . .
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman did not make a motion, it is my
understanding. The gentleman asked unanimous-consent request. Is
the Speaker ruling that unanimous-consent requests are not in
order? We have already had one previous unanimous-consent request
that was granted during the course of debate. How would this one
not be in order?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Under the Speaker's announcement of
guidelines for unanimous-consent requests to consider legislative
business, this request is not recognized. . . .
[[Page 9663]]
Ms. [Bobbi] Fiedler [of California]: Mr. Speaker, before you
had dialog with the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Hartnett)
regarding his parliamentary inquiry as it related to the balanced
budget amendment and his right to ask for a unanimous-consent
request in relationship to it. . . .
I would like to ask of the Chair if the Chair will make the
inquiry as to whether the Democratic side leadership will also ask
to support his right under unanimous consent to bring the balanced
budget amendment, attach it to the existing bill.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair has not been advised that
there is an intention to change the guidelines that were announced
earlier in the year for the purpose that they were issued. . . .
Ms. Fiedler: Will the Chair inquire as to whether or not the
leadership on the Democratic side is willing to change the existing
rules? I realize that the Chair has indicated twice now that he has
not been informed that they have changed, but I am making a request
that he ask the leadership if they will make that change.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair states that this is not a
proper parliamentary inquiry. The Chair has not been advised that
there is a change in the policy that was issued the first week of
the session. . . .
Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, we are still trying to sift our way
through the Chair's previous ruling with regard to the request of
the gentleman from South Carolina.
Can the requirement that the Chair cites, can that requirement
be waived by unanimous consent?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question has to do with whether or
not recognition will be granted for that purpose, and the Chair's
ruling is based on guidelines that were issued on January 25, 1984,
and the Chair would read from the statement that was made at that
time by the Speaker.
The Speaker said:
As indicated on page 476 of the House Rules and Manual, the
Chair has established a policy of conferring recognition upon
Members to permit consideration of bills and resolutions by
unanimous consent only when assured that the majority and
minority leadership and committee and subcommittee chairmen and
ranking minority members have no objection.
Consistent with that policy, and with the Chair's inherent
power of recognition under clause 2, rule XIV, the Chair and
any occupant of the chair appointed as Speaker pro tempore,
pursuant to clause 7, rule I, will decline recognition for
unanimous-consent requests for consideration of bills and
resolutions without assurances that the request has been
cleared by that leadership.
This denial of recognition by the Chair will not reflect
necessarily any personal opposition on the part of the Chair to
orderly consideration of the matter in question, but will
reflect the determination upon the part of the Chair that
orderly procedures will be followed, that is, procedures
involving consultation and agreement between floor and
committee leadership on both sides of the aisle.
It is that guideline that the Chair is following in this
instance. . . .
Mr. Walker: The guidelines that the Chair has cited, what I am
inquiring is, can those guidelines be set aside by unanimous
consent?
[[Page 9664]]
The Speaker Pro Tempore: It is the Chair's power of recognition
that is involved, and that is the question that is being decided in
conformance with the guidelines, not other questions.
Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I have a further parliamentary
inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Walker: If the House so deems that we could set aside those
guidelines by unanimous consent, is that a proper request? That is
the question of this gentleman.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will again state that what
is involved directly or indirectly, is a question of recognition,
and not other or further questions, and it is that question that is
being decided in conformance with the guidelines.
Demand for Yeas and Nays; Recognition During Division Vote
Sec. 9.38 The Chair declined to recognize a Member to demand the yeas
and nays when the Chair was counting on a division vote.
On June 10, 1937,(8) Speaker William B. Bankhead, of
Alabama, declined to recognize a Member while counting on a division
vote:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 81 Cong. Rec. 5574, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: The question is on the motion to recommit offered
by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Jenkins].
Mr. [Thomas A.] Jenkins of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, I demand a
division.
The Speaker: The gentleman from Ohio demands a division. All
those in favor of the motion will rise and stand until counted.
Mr. Jenkins of Ohio (interrupting the count): Mr. Speaker, I
ask for the yeas and nays.
The Speaker: The gentleman's request is not in order while the
House is dividing.
Mr. [Carl E.] Mapes [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a point of
order.
The Speaker: The Chair thinks it has discretion to conclude the
count on a division before entertaining another request.
Mr. Mapes: I never knew the Chair to make such a ruling before.
The Speaker: The Chair now makes it.
Mr. Mapes: As a lawyer said in addressing the court, ``If Your
Honor says so, that is the law.''
The House divided; and there were--ayes 33, noes 176.
The Speaker: The Chair thinks it proper to state to the
gentleman from Michigan that he meant no disrespect to the
gentleman, and the Chair feels the gentleman was not deprived of
any parliamentary privilege.
Mr. Jenkins of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were refused.
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
Demand for Tellers; Due Diligence
Sec. 9.39 A demand for tellers on a question in the House is
[[Page 9665]]
entertained by the Chair after a division vote, a quorum count and
announcement by the Chair of the result of the division vote, if a
Member was on his feet seeking recognition at the proper time.
On June 5, 1940,(9) Speaker Pro Tempore Sam Rayburn, of
Texas, ruled that where a recorded vote was refused on a bill, a
division vote was had, a point of no quorum was made, a quorum was
counted, and the Speaker announced that the bill had passed, a Member
could be recognized to demand a teller vote, where he had been on his
feet seeking recognition for that purpose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 86 Cong. Rec. 7626, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Demand for Division Vote
Sec. 9.40 Where a Member was on his feet seeking recognition to demand
a division vote on an amendment, the Chair recognized him although
the Chair had announced that the ayes had it on a voice vote.
On Feb. 2, 1948,(10) Chairman Charles B. Hoeven, of
Iowa, recognized Mr. John D. Dingell, of Michigan, to demand a division
vote on the pending amendment, although the Chair had announced that
the ayes had it on a voice vote, where Mr. Dingell had shown due
diligence:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 94 Cong. Rec. 922, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I ask for a division.
Mr. [Harold] Knutson [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, the request
comes too late.
Mr. Dingell: No; it does not come too late. Let the Chair rule
on that.
The Chairman: Was the gentleman on his feet when he made the
request?
Mr. [Sam] Rayburn [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, we have always been
very liberal in the House about the matter of votes or whether
Members were on their feet. We have always been very liberal in the
matter of allowing division votes. As far as I am concerned I do
not care anything about it.
The Chairman: If there is any doubt in the minds of the
membership the Chair will resolve the doubt in favor of the
gentleman from Michigan.
The question was taken; and there were--ayes 202, noes 37.
So the committee amendment was agreed to.
Recognition for Call of House
Sec. 9.41 While a point of no quorum is not in order during debate in
the House when the Speaker has not put a pending question, he may,
in his discretion under Rule XV clause 6, recognize any Member to
move a call of the House.
[[Page 9666]]
On Mar. 30, 1977,(11) a resolution (H. Res. 445)
providing for the consideration in the House as in the Committee of the
Whole of another resolution (H. Res. 433, providing for the
continuation of the Select Committee on Assassinations) was called up
for immediate consideration following which a point of no quorum was
made. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 123 Cong. Rec. 9554, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Richard] Bolling [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, by direction
of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 445 and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution as follows:
H. Res. 445
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider the resolution (H. Res. 433) to
provide for the continuation of the Select Committee on
Assassinations, in the House as in the Committee of the Whole.
The Speaker: (12) The gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Bolling) is recognized for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [J. J.] Pickle [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of
order that a quorum is not present. I move a call of the House.
The Speaker: The gentleman's point of order is not in order at
this particular time.
Mr. Pickle: Mr. Speaker, I renew my point of order that a
quorum is not present.
The Speaker: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri
(Mr. Bolling) to move a call of the House.
Parliamentarian's Note: Rule XI clause 4(b) prohibits dilatory
motions during the consideration of a privileged report from the
Committee on Rules, but presumably that clause applies only when the
report is being considered under the hour rule in the House, and not
when the report is considered under the provisions of a special rule
allowing debate and amendments. Although no clear precedents exist as
to the applicability of ``dilatory'' motions (e.g., to refer, to
recommit, or to lay on the table) to a report of the Committee on Rules
being considered in the House as in the Committee of the Whole, the
better practice is to view such motions as being in order if properly
offered.
Motion That Sergeant at Arms Maintain Presence of Quorum
Sec. 9.42 During a filibuster by roll calls in the House the Speaker,
in response to a parliamentary inquiry, indicated his reluctance to
entertain a motion that the Sergeant at Arms take action to keep a
quorum present in the Chamber for the remainder of the day.
[[Page 9667]]
On Aug. 1, 1946,(13) the House was considering a report
from the Committee on Un-American Activities on contempt proceedings
against George Morford. Repeated roll calls were made to prevent
consideration thereof. Mr. W. Sterling Cole, of New York, raised a
parliamentary inquiry whether it was in order to make a motion that the
Sergeant at Arms take whatever action was necessary to keep a quorum
present in the House Chamber for the remainder of the day, any House
rules to the contrary notwithstanding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 92 Cong. Rec. 10639, 10640, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Tex-as, stated:
The Chair would rather not recognize the gentleman for such
motion at this time.
Mr. Cole then asked when such a motion would be in order, and the
Speaker responded:
Well, the Chair would like to be the judge of that. Not now.
Dilatory Tactics
Sec. 9.43 The Speaker announced that he would not hold a motion to be
dilatory unless it was ``obvious to everybody'' that dilatory
tactics were being used and that a filibuster was being conducted.
On July 25, 1949,(14) the House was considering House
Resolution 276, making in order the consideration of H.R. 3199, the
Federal Anti-Poll Tax Act. A series of roll calls was demanded to
prevent adoption thereof. After the previous question had been ordered
on the resolution, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, entertained a motion
by Mr. Robert L. F. Sikes, of Florida, that the House adjourn. The
Speaker then made the following statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 95 Cong. Rec. 10096, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair desires to make a statement. Since the present
Speaker has occupied the chair he has yet to hold a motion to be
dilatory, and will not until it becomes obvious to everybody that
dilatory tactics are being indulged in and that a filibuster is
being conducted.
Sec. 9.44 The Speaker declined
to recognize a point of no quorum immediately after a vote by yeas
and nays which disclosed that 362 Members were present.
On July 25, 1949,(15) a series
of roll calls delayed adoption of House Resolution 276, making in order
the consideration of H.R. 3199, the Federal Anti-Poll Tax Act. A motion
to adjourn was
[[Page 9668]]
made and entertained by Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, and the yeas and
nays were had on the motion, resulting in 110 yeas and 252 nays.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 95 Cong. Rec. 10096, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Tom Pickett, of Texas, immediately made the point of order that
a quorum was not present. The Speaker declined to entertain the point
of no quorum and stated:
The roll call just disclosed that there were 362 Members
present, quite a substantial quorum.
Parliamentarian's Note: The Speaker's declination to entertain the
point of no quorum came shortly after he had made the statement that he
had yet to hold a motion to be dilatory, and would not so hold until it
was obvious to everybody that dilatory tactics were being indulged in
and that a filibuster was being conducted.
Sec. 9.45 The Speaker, on a Calendar Wednesday, recognized the chairman
of a committee to call up a bill in spite of repeated motions to
adjourn, thereby inferentially holding such motions dilatory.
On Feb. 15, 1950,(16) which was a Calendar Wednesday,
Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, directed the Clerk to call the roll of
committees and recognized the Chairman of the Committee on the District
of Columbia to call up a bill, ignoring repeated motions to adjourn.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 96 Cong. Rec. 1811, 1812, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: The Clerk will call the committees.
The Clerk called the Committee on the District of Columbia.
Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The Chair does not yield to the gentleman for a
parliamentary inquiry at this time.
Mr. [Howard W.] Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, I move that the
House do now adjourn.
The Speaker: The Clerk has called the Committee on the District
of Columbia. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina
[Mr. McMillan].
Mr. Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do
now adjourn. That motion is always in order.
The Speaker: The Chair has recognized the gentleman from South
Carolina [Mr. McMillan].
Mr. [William M.] Colmer [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I offer
a preferential motion.
The Speaker: The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. McMillan]
has been recognized.
Mr. Colmer: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
The Speaker: The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. McMillan]
has been recognized.
[[Page 9669]]
Demand for Reading of Engrossed Copy of Bill (Under Former Rule); Due
Diligence
Sec. 9.46 A Member who was on his feet and who had shown due diligence
was recognized to demand the reading of the engrossed copy of a
bill even though the bill had been ordered engrossed and read a
third time.
On Apr. 13, 1946,(17) H.R. 6064, extension of the
Selective Training and Service Act, was ordered engrossed and read a
third time. Mr. Edward E. Cox, of Georgia, then sought recognition to
demand the reading of an engrossed copy of the bill. Speaker Sam
Rayburn, of Texas, recognized Mr. Cox for that purpose, stating that he
had been on his feet seeking recognition at the proper time (when the
question was put on the engrossment and third reading).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 92 Cong. Rec. 3669, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: A Member may no longer demand the reading
of an engrossed bill.
Debate on Points of Order
Sec. 9.47 Debate on points of order against an amendment is within the
discretion of the Chair and does not come out of debate time on the
merits of the amendment under the five-minute rule; thus, the
proponent of an amendment against which a point of order has been
reserved does not reserve a portion of his time under the five-
minute rule to oppose any points of order if made, as separate
debate time is permitted on points of order at the discretion of
the Chair.
During consideration of H.R. 7014, the Energy Conservation and Oil
Policy Act of 1975, on Aug. 1, 1975,(18) the proposition
described above was demonstrated in the Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 121 Cong. Rec. 26945, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: (19) Are there further amendments to
title III?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Brown of Ohio: Strike out Title
III, as amended, and reinsert all except for Section 301, as
amended.
Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a
point of order against the amendment.
Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I also reserve a
point of order.
Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, the thrust of this amendment
is to
[[Page 9670]]
strike from the bill the provisions of the Staggers pricing
amendment, section 301, by revising title III to strike the whole
title and to reinsert all in the title, except section 301.
Mr. Chairman, may I speak on the amendment?
The Chairman: The gentleman has been recognized for 5 minutes,
so the gentleman may proceed.
Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, may I reserve 2 minutes of my
time to speak on the points of order?
The Chairman: The Chair will recognize the gentleman to speak
on the points of order at the appropriate time.
Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I have not yet made the point of
order. I reserved it.
The Chairman: The Chair has recognized the gentleman from Ohio
to speak on the gentleman's amendment for 5 minutes. Then the
gentlemen who reserved the points of order may press them or they
may not.
Reservation of Point of Order
Sec. 9.48 Reservation of a point of order against an amendment is
within the discretion of the Chair, who may permit debate to be had
by the proponent on the merits of his amendment before hearing
arguments on the point of order.
The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on
May 12, 1981,(20) during consideration of H.R. 3512
(supplemental and continuing appropriations, rescissions and deferrals
for fiscal year 1981):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 127 Cong. Rec. 9320, 9323, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of sections
151 through 166 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975
(Public Law 94-163), $3,883,408,000, to become available for
obligation October 1, 1981, and to remain available until expended.
Mr. [James R.] Jones of Oklahoma: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Jones of Oklahoma: Page 63, line
19, strike out ``$3,883,408,000'' and insert in lieu thereof
``$883,408,000''.
Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a
point of order on the amendment. . . .
Mr. [Timothy E.] Wirth [of Colorado]: I ask unanimous consent
the gentleman have 3 additional minutes.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Wirth)?
Mr. [Joseph M.] McDade [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I have
a parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. McDade: Is there not a point of order pending?
The Chairman Pro Tempore: As soon as the time of the gentleman
from Oklahoma (Mr. Jones) has expired, the point of order will be
disposed of.
Mr. McDade: Mr. Chairman, there is a point of order pending
which the Chair has yet to rule upon. I have a substitute which I
would like to offer to this matter. My understanding of
[[Page 9671]]
the precedents is that when a point of order is pending, there
cannot be discussions on matters other than the point of order.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The point of order has only been
reserved and debate on the merits of the amendment has begun. It
will be disposed of momentarily as soon as the time of the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Jones) has expired.
Debate Under Reservation of Objection
Sec. 9.49 Recognition for a reservation of objection to a unanimous-
consent request is within the discretion of the Speaker and
sometimes he refuses to permit debate under such a reservation and
immediately puts the question on the request.
On Dec. 3, 1969,(1) Speaker John W. McCormack, of
Massachusetts, recognized Mrs. Edith S. Green, of Oregon, to make a
unanimous-consent request for the granting of a special order to
address the House. Mr. Roman C. Pucinski, of Illinois, attempted to
reserve the right to object and to debate the matter, but the Speaker
immediately put the question on the request:
1. 115 Cong. Rec. 36748, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair will state that it will not recognize anyone else at
this moment. Either the gentlewoman receives permission, or she
does not.
Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from
Oregon?
There was no objection.
Recognition for Hypothetical Questions
Sec. 9.50 The Chair does not recognize Members for hypothetical
questions.
On Sept. 14, 1944,(2) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan,
raised a parliamentary inquiry as to why a report on the amounts of
money requested by military establishments, sent to the Committee on
Appropriations, had been concealed from Members of Congress. Speaker
Pro Tempore Orville Zimmerman, of Missouri, responded that he had no
knowledge of any such report and was not in a position to answer the
inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 90 Cong. Rec. 7772, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hoffman then stated his inquiry in the form of a ``hypothetical
question.'' The Speaker Pro Tempore stated:
The Chair does not entertain a hypothetical question.
On Mar. 1, 1967,(3) the House was considering House
Resolution 278, relating to the right to be
[[Page 9672]]
sworn of challenged Member-elect Adam C. Powell, of New York. Mr. Joe
D. Waggonner, Jr., of Louisiana, stated a lengthy parliamentary inquiry
on the procedure for recognition should the previous question be voted
down on the resolution. Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts,
declined to answer that part of the parliamentary inquiry that involved
a hypothetical parliamentary situation:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 113 Cong. Rec. 4997, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: . . . Both the chairman and the ranking minority
member of the select committee control the allocation of time. The
question of recognition is one that the Chair will pass upon if
that time should arise.
On the other questions of the gentleman from Louisiana the
Chair will determine them as they arise in accordance with the
rules of the House and the precedents.
Motion To Discharge Bill
Sec. 9.51 The Speaker may recognize any Member who has signed a
discharge petition to move to discharge the bill in question.
On Oct. 12, 1942,(4) Mr. Joseph A. Gavagan, of New York,
who had signed a petition to discharge a bill from committee, moved the
discharge of the bill and was recognized by Speaker Sam Rayburn, of
Texas, for 10 minutes on the motion. Mr. Sam Hobbs, of Alabama, made a
point of order against the motion on the ground that Mr. Gavagan did
not have the authority to call it up.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 88 Cong. Rec. 8066, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker declared:
The rule states that the Chair may recognize any Member who
signed the petition to make the motion just made by the gentleman
from New York [Mr. Gavagan], whom the Chair has recognized for that
purpose.
Suspension of Rules
Sec. 9.52 Recognition for a motion to suspend the rules is entirely
within the discretion of the Speaker.
On Mar. 16, 1964,(5) Mr. Chet Holifield, of California,
moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill S. 2448, to amend the
Atomic Energy Act. He moved to pass that bill instead of H.R. 9711,
which was on the suspension list and which dealt with the same subject
matter. Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, responded to a
parliamentary inquiry as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 110 Cong. Rec. 5291, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John P.] Saylor [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state the parliamentary
inquiry.
[[Page 9673]]
Mr. Saylor: Mr. Speaker, the House Calendar lists a bill to
come up under suspension and it is a House bill. Does it not
require unanimous consent to suspend the rules and take up a Senate
bill?
The Speaker: The Chair will advise the gentleman from
Pennsylvania, under the rules of the House, the Speaker may
recognize a Member on a motion to suspend the rules.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. See also 80 Cong. Rec. 2239, 2240, 74th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 17,
1936.
The Committee on Rules has reported and the House has
adopted resolutions authorizing the Speaker to recognize
Members for motions to suspend the rules on days other than
regular suspension days. See, for example, H. Res. 422, 107
Cong. Rec. 16562, 16563, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 21, 1961.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 9.53 Pursuant to Rule XXVII clause 1, the Speaker may in his
discretion decline to recognize a Member to move to suspend the
rules.
On Mar. 5, 1974,(7) the proceedings described above were
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 120 Cong. Rec. 5316, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
REQUEST TO SUSPEND RULES AND CONSIDER HOUSE RESOLUTION 807
Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, I move that the rules
be suspended and the House proceed to the consideration of the
resolution, House Resolution 807, disapproving pay increases.
The Speaker: (8) The Chair will state that the
gentleman from Iowa has not consulted the Chair and the Chair is
not going to recognize the gentleman from Iowa for that purpose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair would like to state further that the request of the
gentleman from Iowa violates the ``Gross'' rule whereby he has
requested that notification of suspensions be given 24 hours in
advance.
Mr. Gross: What kind of a rule is that?
The Speaker: The Gross rule.
Privileged Questions
Sec. 9.54 The Speaker announced his intention to recognize a Member to
call up resolutions disapproving certain Presidential
reorganization plans before recognizing another Member to call up a
conference report, pending the arrival from the Senate of the
original papers accompanying the conference report.
On Sept. 28, 1970,(9) Speaker John W. McCormack, of
Massachusetts, made the following announcement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 116 Cong. Rec. 33870, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair has been informed and understands that the original
papers on the next conference report have not been messaged over to
the House as yet. They will be here shortly.
[[Page 9674]]
The Chair will recognize the gentleman from California (Mr.
Holifield) in connection with the first reorganization plan [H.
Res. 1209], and if the papers arrive between consideration of the
first and second reorganization plans, the Chair will recognize the
gentleman from West Virginia [on the conference report] at that
time.
Sec. 9.55 In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Speaker stated
that where matters of equal privilege are pending, the order of
their consideration is subject to the Speaker's recognition.
On Sept. 22, 1966,(10) Speaker John W. McCormack, of
Massachusetts, answered a parliamentary inquiry as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 112 Cong. Rec. 23691, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [William M.] Colmer [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
Under the rules of the House, as I understand them, this rule,
House Resolution 1007, to bring up the so-called House Un-American
Activities Committee bill, is a privileged matter, and if it is not
programed, then the gentleman handling the rule or any member of
the Rules Committee, may call it up as a privileged matter. Is my
understanding correct about that?
The Speaker: The gentleman's understanding is correct. Of
course, the question of recognition is with the Chair, where there
are two similar preferential matters, but the gentleman's
understanding is correct that after 7 legislative days a member of
the Rules Committee could call it up.
If it were a question of recognition, if the same preferential
status existed at the same time, recognition rests with the Chair.
Sec. 9.56 When more than one Member seeks recognition to call up
privileged business it is within the discretion of the Speaker as
to whom he shall recognize.
On Aug. 27, 1962, which was District of Columbia
Monday,(11) Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, moved to
suspend the rules and pass Senate Joint Resolution 29, proposing an
amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Mr. Thomas G.
Abernethy, of Mississippi, made a point of order against recognition of
Mr. Celler on the ground that he (Mr. Abernethy) wanted to offer a
District of Columbia bill and that pursuant to Rule XXIV clause 8 of
the House rules, District of Columbia business was privileged. He
alleged that the Speaker was permitted only to recognize for District
of Columbia business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 108 Cong. Rec. 17654, 17655, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, ruled as follows:
Several days ago on August 14 unanimous consent was obtained to
transfer
[[Page 9675]]
the consideration of business under suspension of the rules on
Monday last until today. That does not prohibit the consideration
of a privileged motion, and a motion to suspend the rules today is
a privileged motion. The matter is within the discretion of the
Chair as to the matter of recognition.
Sec. 9.57 The Speaker declined to recognize a Member to call up a
resolution calling on the Office of Price Administration to furnish
certain information, the resolution not being privileged.
On July 17, 1946,(12) Mr. Albert Thomas, of Texas,
offered a ``privileged'' resolution calling on the Office of Price
Administration to furnish certain information. In response to an
inquiry by Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, Mr. Thomas stated that a
similar resolution was pending before the Committee on Banking and
Currency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 92 Cong. Rec. 9246, 79th Cong. 2d Sess. For the privilege of
resolutions of inquiry, see Ch. 15, Sec. 2, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker refused to recognize Mr. Thomas to call up the
resolution for consideration:
The Speaker: The Clerk may read the resolution, if there is no
objection, but it is not a privileged resolution and the Chair will
not recognize for its consideration at this time because it is not
privileged.
If the gentleman desires, and if there is no objection, the
Clerk may read the resolution.
Parliamentarian's Note: The resolution was not privileged as it was
directed to the OPA and not to the head of a department.
Sec. 9.58 When a Member asserts that he rises to a question of the
privileges of the House, the Speaker may hear the question and may
then refuse recognition if the resolution is not admissible as a
question of privilege under Rule IX.
On June 27, 1974,(13) it was demonstrated that a Member
may not, by raising a question of the privileges of the House under
Rule IX, attach privilege to a question not otherwise in order under
the rules of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 120 Cong. Rec. 21596-98, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
Mr. [John B.] Anderson of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
resolution (H. Res. 1203) involving a question of privileges of the
House, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution as follows:
H. Res. 1203
Whereas on January 31, 1973, the House of Representatives
voted to establish a ten-member, bipartisan Select Committee on
Committees charged with conducting a ``thorough and complete
study of rules X and XI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives; and
Whereas the select committee was further ``authorized and
directed to report to the House . . .
[[Page 9676]]
Whereas on March 21, 1974, the select committee reported
House Resolution 988 in conformance with its mandate; and
Whereas the chairman of the select committee has failed to
seek a rule making House Resolution 988 in order for
consideration by the House; and
Whereas, clause 27(d)(1) of House Rule XI states, ``It
shall be the duty of the chairman of each committee to report
or cause to be reported promptly to the House any measure
approved by his committee and to take or cause to be taken
necessary steps to bring the matter to a vote;'' . . .
Resolved, That the chairman of the select committee be
directed to forthwith seek a rule making in order for
consideration by the House, House Resolution 988; and be it
further
Resolved, That the House Committee on Rules be directed to
give immediate consideration to such request. . . .
Mr. [Thomas P.] O'Neill [Jr., of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I
make the point of order that the resolution offered by the
gentleman from Illinois does not raise the question of privilege. .
. .
Mr. Anderson of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, I desire to be heard on
the point of order. My question of privilege arises under rule IX
which provides that, and I quote:
Questions of privilege shall be, first, those affecting the
rights of the House collectively, its safety, dignity and the
integrity of its proceed-ings. . . .
Mr. Speaker, I rest my question of privilege on that clause
which declares those questions privileged which relate to the
integrity of the proceedings of the House. It is my contention that
there has been a deliberate attempt to delay House consideration of
House Resolution 988, the so-called Bolling-Martin Committee Reform
Amendments of 1974, and that this intentional delay not only
interferes with and flouts the integrity of the proceedings of this
body, but is in clear violation of clause 27(d)(1) of rule XI of
the Rules of the House.
Under that rule, and I quote:
It shall be the duty of the chairman of each committee to
report or cause to be reported promptly to the House any
measure approved by his committee and to take or cause to be
taken necessary steps to bring the matter to a vote. . . .
The Speaker: (14) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Anderson) has submitted a
resolution which he asserts involves a question of the privileges
of the House under rule IX. Following the preamble of the
resolution, the resolution provides that:
Resolved, That the chairman of the Select Committee be
directed to forthwith seek a rule making in order for
consideration by the House, House Resolution 988, and be it
further
Resolved, That the House Committee on Rules be directed to
give immediate consideration to such request.
As indicated in ``Hinds' Precedents,'' volume III, section
2678, Speakers are authorized to make a preliminary determination
as to those questions presented which may involve privileges. As
reaffirmed by Speaker McCormack on October 8, 1968 (Record p. 30214
to 30216) when a Member asserts that he
[[Page 9677]]
rises to a question of the privileges of the House, the Speaker may
hear the question and then, if the matter is not one admissible as
a question of privilege of the House he can refuse recognition.
The Chair has listened to the arguments concerning the
privileged status of this resolution and has examined the
precedents of the House in this regard. It will be noted that the
gentleman from Illinois has relied heavily on section 2609, volume
III of ``Hinds' Precedents,'' in which it was held by Speaker Reed
that a report having been ordered to be made by a select committee
but not being made within a reasonable time, a resolution directing
the report to be made raised a question of the privileges of the
House.
That case is distinguishable from the present instance in that
in this instance the chairman has made the report and the
resolution is pending on the calendar of the House and it does not
become privileged until the House has adopted a resolution reported
from the Committee on Rules providing for the consideration of
House Resolution 988. The Chair does not feel that a question of
privilege of the House under rule IX should be used as a mechanism
for giving privilege to a motion which would not otherwise be in
order under the Rules of the House, in this case, namely, a motion
to direct the Committee on Rules to take a certain action.
The Chair now would refer to Hinds' Precedents, volume III,
section 2610, wherein Speaker Crisp ruled that a charge that a
committee had been inactive in regard to a subject committed to it
did not constitute a question of privilege of the House. . . .
The rules did not provide at the time of Speaker Reed's ruling,
as is now the case in clause 27(d)(2) of Rule XI, for a mandatory
filing of the reports within 7 calendar days after the measure has
been ordered reported upon signed request by a committee majority.
In the instant case, however, the Select Committee on
Committees has filed its report and the Chair is not aware that the
chairman of the Select Committee on Committees has in any sense
violated the rule cited by the gentleman from Illinois. For these
reasons, the Chair holds that the gentleman's resolution does not
present a question of the privileges of the House under [rule] IX
and the resolution may not be considered.
One-minute Speeches
Sec. 9.59 Recognition for one-minute speeches is within the discretion
of the Speaker, and he sometimes withholds such recognition in the
hopes of expediting the business of the House.
On June 17, 1970,(15) after the disposition of a voting
rights bill, Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, recognized a
Member for a unanimous-consent request to address the House for one
minute. Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, stated, under a reservation of
objection to the request, that the Speaker had announced at the
[[Page 9678]]
beginning of the day that he was not recognizing for one-minute
speeches, in order to expedite the legislative business of the House.
Mr. Gross suggested that the refusal to so recognize was motivated by a
desire to prevent debate on the bill to be considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 116 Cong. Rec. 20245, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker responded:
The Chair will state to the gentleman from Iowa that earlier in
the day the Chair did make the statement that the Chair would not
entertain unanimous-consent requests for 1-minute speeches to be
delivered until later on in the day.
I am sure that the gentleman from Iowa clearly understood that
statement on the part of the Speaker. At that particular time the
Chair stated that the Chair would recognize Members for unanimous-
consent requests to extend their remarks in the Record or
unanimous-consent requests to speak for 1 minute with the
understanding that they would not take their time but would yield
back their time.
I think the Chair clearly indicated that the Chair would
recognize Members for that purpose at a later time during the day.
As far as the Chair is concerned the custom of the 1-minute speech
procedure is adhered to as much as possible because the Chair
thinks it is a very healthy custom.
The Chair had the intent, after the disposition of the voting
rights bill,
to recognize Members for 1-minute speeches or further unanimous-
consent requests if they desired to do so.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See also 114 Cong. Rec. 22633, 22634, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., July 22,
1968, for a colloquy between the Speaker and minority Members
on the importance of the ``one-minute'' speech and recognition
by the Speaker for that purpose.
For a discussion of the use of the ``one-minute'' speech in
the practice of the House, see Sec. 73, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 9.60 Recognition for one-minute speeches is within the discretion
of the Speaker; and when the House has a heavy legislative
schedule, he sometimes refuses to recognize Members for that
purpose until the completion of legislative business.
On July 24, 1980,(17) Speaker Pro Tempore James C.
Wright, Jr., of Texas, made an announcement regarding one-minute
speeches, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 126 Cong. Rec. 19386, 19387, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair desires to announce that in
view of the need to complete the legislative schedule, which has
been long delayed, the Chair will recognize Members at this time
only for unanimous-consent requests to revise and extend their
remarks and not for 1-minute speeches.
Members will be recognized for 1-minute speeches at the
conclusion of the legislative business today.
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
[[Page 9679]]
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, it has, of course, been traditional in
the House to allow 1-minute speeches at the discretion of the
Chair, as the Chair has just indicated.
Is this denial of 1-minute speeches to be the policy for the
remainder of the session, or is it just for today?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair cannot and would not attempt
to set a policy for the remainder of the session. For the remainder
of this week, today and tomorrow, the Chair desires to complete the
legislative program that is scheduled for this week and to allow
Members to leave at 3 o'clock tomorrow.
Subsequently, a Member took the floor for a special-order speech to
criticize the decision of the Speaker Pro Tempore to refuse to
recognize for one-minute speeches prior to legislative business on that
day: (18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Id. at pp. 19445, 19446.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Under a previous order of the House,
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman) is recognized for 60
minutes.
(Mr. Bauman asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I take this time to observe with
sorrow the events that occurred earlier today. I did not wish to
explore them at length during the 1-minute speech which I was
finally permitted, but I do think they deserve some comment. I will
try to confine myself to the 1-hour the House permits me under
special order.
I happen to believe that the conduct of the President's
brother, Billy Carter, has raised valid questions that need to be
answered. . . .
So I would just suggest that we all re-examine our position and
only put aside the traditions of the House and the free speech of
Members if it is absolutely necessary for good reason.
Sec. 9.61 A point of order against the manner in which the Chair is
conducting the proceedings of the House may interrupt the reading
of an enrolled bill (by title) by the Clerk; but in this instance,
the Chair's refusal to recognize for unanimous-consent requests to
address the House before legislative business was held not to be
subject to a point of order, since such question of recognition is
within the discretion of the Chair, who may refuse to entertain
such requests at all.
The proceedings of the House on July 25, 1980,(19)
wherein a point of order was overruled, were as follows:
19. 126 Cong. Rec. 19762-64, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (20) . . . As the Chair
announced yesterday, requests to address the House for 1 minute
will be entertained at the conclusion of the legislative business
today, rather than at the beginning. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair believes there is genuine value in the 1-minute rule
in the exer
[[Page 9680]]
cise of free expression . . . . For all its value, however, the
Chair does not believe that the 1-minute rule must necessarily
precede, nor be permitted to postpone, the business of the House.
Subsequently, a resolution was offered relating to structural
deficiencies in the West Front of the Capitol, and a motion to table
the resolution was agreed to. Thereupon the following point of order
was raised:
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair lays before the House the
following enrolled bill.
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I make a
point of order at this point. . . .
The Clerk proceeded to read the enrolled bill.
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will suspend.
A Member is seeking recognition to make a point of order. . . .
[T]he Chair will ask the gentleman to state his point of order.
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, prior to the privileged or
nonprivileged motions just offered by the gentleman from
Pennsylvania, the Chair unilaterally issued a ruling regarding the
1-minute speeches and stated in essence, if I recall, that these
speeches would not be permitted today or during his tenure as
Speaker pro tempore because of the press of legislative business in
the remainder of the session. . . .
I make a point of order against the ruling of the Chair. I make
a point of order that the Chair cannot in fact deny the 1-minute
speeches on the ground which he stated, and as authority for that,
I cite chapter 21, section 7 of Deschler's, wherein there are
several instances, including those referring to July 22, 1968; June
17, 1970; and October 19, 1966, where the Chair declined to
recognize Members for 1-minute speeches because of the press of
business, a heavy legislative schedule, which is Deschler's phrase,
and proceeding to unfinished business.
Mr. Speaker, my point of order is that the traditions of the
House, as evidenced in these precedents, indicate the Chair has the
discretion to deny 1-minute speeches on those grounds, but that the
ruling of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Wright), the Speaker pro
tempore, has, in fact, allowed an arbitrary ground to be used at a
time when there is no press of heavy legislative business
manifested by the fact that the Speaker and others have announced
that we will adjourn today at 3 o'clock when we can easily stay
here and deal with any pressing legislative business if that
exists.
Further my point of order is that the Speaker has departed from
past traditions and, therefore, has exceeded his discretion in
regard to 1-minutes as supported by the traditions of the House.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is prepared to rule on the
point of order, unless other Members insist on being heard. The
Chair is prepared to rule.
The gentleman's point of order in the first place comes too
late. But the Chair is prepared to state that in any event it is
not a sustainable point of order.
[[Page 9681]]
The gentleman from Maryland is aware, because he is a scholar
of the rules of the House, and he is aware of the great thrust of
the very section to which he made reference, paragraph 7 of chapter
21 of Deschler's Procedure.
The Chair would simply recite one or two of the precedents
therein reported. Recognition for 1-minute speeches is within the
discretion of the Speaker, and his evaluation of the time consumed
is a matter for the Chair and is not subject to challenge or
question by parliamentary inquiry.
Parliamentarian's Note: In the above instance, the Chair
entertained an appeal from his ruling that no point of order lay
against his refusal to entertain unanimous-consent requests to address
the House before legislative business, even though such a point of
order, addressed to a question of recognition, is not ordinarily
subject to appeal.(1) The appeal was laid on the
table.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. See 2 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 1425-1428; 6 Cannon's Precedents
Sec. 292; and 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 2429, 2646, 2762.
2. 126 Cong. Rec. 19764, 96th Cong. 2d Sess., July 25, 1980.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 9.62 Recognition is within the discretion of the Chair, who may
deny a Member recognition to speak under the ``one-minute rule'' in
order to uphold order and decorum in the House as required under
clause 2 of Rule I; thus, the Speaker inquired of a Member in the
well seeking recognition, as to his purpose in utilizing an object
for demonstration in debate, and then denied that Member
recognition pursuant to his authority under clause 2 of Rule XIV,
when he determined that the object might subject the House to
ridicule.
On Aug. 27, 1980,(3) the following proceedings occurred
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 126 Cong. Rec. 23456, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: (4) The Chair would ask the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) what he intends to do with the
doll. The Chair is not going to allow the Congress to be held up to
ridicule and will object to any such exhibit being used in debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [E. G.] Shuster [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, if I may
respond, I simply want to introduce this duck as a symbol of the
lameduck session that I want to speak to.
The Speaker: The Chair is of the opinion the Member would be
holding the House up to ridicule and would ask the gentleman to
make the speech without utilizing the apparatus or the doll or
anything of that nature.
Mr. Shuster: Mr. Speaker, this is certainly not the intention.
The Speaker: That is the way the Chair feels about it and the
Chair so rules.
[[Page 9682]]
(Mr. Shuster asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Parliamentarian's Note: The original transcript shows that the
Speaker first inquired as to Mr. Shuster's purpose and then denied him
recognition, and that Mr. Shuster was then recognized for one minute.
Thus, the Speaker was exercising his power of recognition, and was not
unilaterally preventing the use of a demonstration during debate, which
would be a matter to be determined by a vote of the House, under Rule
XXX.
Special-order Speeches
Sec. 9.63 The Speaker is not required to recognize Members for
scheduled ``special order'' speeches immediately upon completion of
legislative business but may continue to recognize other Members
for unanimous-consent requests and permissible motions.
On July 31, 1975,(5) the proposition stated above was
demonstrated in the House as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 121 Cong. Rec. 26243-47, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. John L. Burton [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I move that
the House do now adjourn.
The Speaker: (6) The motion is not in order since we
just had a vote on a similar motion and there has been no
intervening business or debate. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair will take unanimous-consent requests.
Mr. [John J.] Rhodes [of Arizona]: Mr. Speaker, I move that the
House recess subject to the call of the Chair.
The Speaker: The Chair will state to the gentleman that is not
a privileged motion. The Chair cannot entertain that motion at this
time.
Mr. [William L.] Armstrong [of Colorado]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry. Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary inquiry is
will the Chair state what is the pending business before the House?
The Speaker: The Chair will state there is no pending business.
. . .
Mr. Armstrong: Mr. Speaker, under a previous order of the House
I have been granted a special order for 60 minutes. I ask to be
recognized at this time for that purpose.
The Speaker: The gentleman from Colorado does not have the
first special order.
Mr. [Barber B.] Conable [Jr., of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I
believe I have the first special order, and I ask to be recognized.
The Speaker: The Chair is not going to recognize any special
order at this time, and the Chair has that authority. . . .
Mr. [Joe D.] Waggonner [Jr., of Louisiana]: . . . Mr. Speaker,
is it not correct to say that if a unanimous-consent request to
allow the Committee on Rules until midnight to file a report on
[[Page 9683]]
the Turkish aid issue now being debated by the other body, was
granted, that the House could then adjourn and at the same time
work its will because then, if the Committee on Rules files a
report, it could be considered then under the rules of the House,
and if they did not file a report, the issue would be moot?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that that is an
accurate statement of the situation, as the Chair understands it. .
. .
Mr. [Dante B.] Fascell [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, there have
been some remarks made that the House would be denied its will and
there would be no way to consider the matter in the event the other
body agreed to some legislation tonight. Am I correct in the
proposition that if a bill is passed by the other body tonight,
there is a procedure under the rules whereby the matter could be
considered tomorrow? . . .
The Speaker: The Chair will state this. The regular rule is
that a report from the Rules Committee has to go over 1 day or it
takes a two-thirds vote for consideration on the day reported. The
other way is that a unanimous-consent request can be made, and if
the Committee on Rules can file it by 10 o'clock tomorrow, and the
House adjourns tonight, then it will take a majority vote for
consideration tomorrow after the House meets, just as it always
does on a subsequent legislative day.
Sec. 9.64 The Speaker may not be compelled by a motion under Rule XXV
to recognize Members for scheduled ``special orders'' immediately
upon completion of scheduled legislative business, but rather may
continue to exercise his power of recognition under Rule XIV clause
2 to recognize other Members for unanimous-consent requests and
permissible motions; thus, the Speaker has declined to recognize a
Member who sought to invoke Rule XXV to interfere with the
Speaker's power of recognition.
Rule XXV, which provides that ``questions as to the priority of
business shall be decided by a majority without debate,'' merely
precludes debate on motions to go into Committee of the Whole, on
questions of consideration, and on appeals from the Chair's decisions
on priority of business, and should not be utilized to permit a motion
directing the Speaker to recognize Members in a certain order or to
otherwise establish an order of business. Thus, for example, on July
31, 1975,(7) the Speaker (8) refused to recognize
a Member who sought to make a motion to direct recognition of Members
for special orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 121 Cong. Rec. 26249, 26251, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
8. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Phillip Burton [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point
of order that a quorum is not present.
[[Page 9684]]
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I make a
point of order. . . .
Mr. Speaker, I would like to make the point of order to this
effect: Under the new rules of the House, is it not true that once
the House has proceeded to the closing business of the day,
granting requests for absences and special orders, that it is no
longer in order to make a point of order that a quorum is not
present?
The Speaker: The Chair has not started to recognize Members for
special orders yet. All the business on the Chair's desk has been
completed. . . .
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the
rules preclude a quorum at this point because personal requests
have already been read from the desk. A leave of absence was
granted to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Teague).
Under the new rules, Mr. Speaker, a quorum does not lie after
this point of business in the day.
The Speaker: If the Chair understands the gentleman's point of
order, it relates to the fact, which is a new rule, not the rule we
used to follow. The rule is that once a special order has started,
the Member who has the special order and is speaking cannot be
taken off his feet by a point of order of no quorum. However, there
is nothing in the rules of which the Chair is aware that requires
the Chair to begin to call a special order at any particular time.
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I move under rule XXV that the House
proceed to recognize the Members previously ordered to have special
orders today, and on that I ask for a rollcall vote.
Mr. [Michael T.] Blouin [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, I move that the
House do now adjourn.
The question was taken.
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, on that, I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas
137, nays 202, not voting 95, as follows: . . .
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, under rule XXV, I again renew my
motion that the Chair proceed to the recognition of other Members
who have previously been granted special orders for today.
The Speaker: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California
(Mr. Danielson).
Mr. [George E.] Danielson [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise
and extend my remarks.
The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from California?
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, there is a motion pending.
Mr. Speaker, I object.
The Speaker: Objection is heard.
Mr. [Richard] Bolling [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I move that
the House do now adjourn.
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. [John J.] Rhodes [of Arizona]: Mr. Speaker, I demand the
yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas
142, nays 205, not voting 87, as follows: . . . .
[[Page 9685]]
Sec. 9.65 Once special orders have begun, it is customary not to resume
legislative business, however this custom is not binding on the
House and the Speaker has the authority to recognize for further
business; thus, on occasion the Speaker has announced that he would
begin to call the special orders, which action would not prejudice
calling up of further legislative business later that day.
On Aug. 1, 1975,(9) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma,
made the following statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 121 Cong. Rec. 26952-54, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: . . . The normal procedure, as the Members know,
special orders are called when the legislative business has ended.
We have not called special orders yet.
We have at least three bills, to my knowledge, that may come
over here from the Senate.
The Chair would like to take the special orders and reserve the
authority to call up these bills at a later time. . . .
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER
The Speaker: Without prejudice to calling up other legislative
business which might come over to the House from the Senate, the
Chair will call the special orders at this time.
Recognition for Legislative Business After Special-order Speeches
Sec. 9.66 The Speaker announced, after a point of order had been
sustained against the consideration of further scheduled
legislative business for the day (necessitating consideration of a
resolution by the Committee on Rules and by the House), that he had
the prerogative and intention to recognize Members for
consideration of further legislative business after special-order
speeches had been conducted in order to complete the schedule for
the day, notwithstanding the customary, but non-binding, practice
that legislative business is not conducted once special-order
speeches have begun.
The following proceedings occurred in the House on Mar. 22, 1983:
(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 129 Cong. Rec. 6501, 6503, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 9686]]
POINT OF ORDER AGAINST CONSIDERATION OF HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
91, FIRST CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET--FISCAL YEAR 1984
Mr. [Tom] Loeffler [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of
order against consideration of this budget resolution.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (11) The gentleman will
state his point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Charles E. Bennett (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Loeffler: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the
consideration of House Concurrent Resolution 91, which is the House
concurrent budget resolution for fiscal year 1984, on the grounds
that its consideration would violate the provisions of clause
2(l)(6) of rule XI of the rules of the House [prohibiting the
consideration of any measure or matter in the House reported by any
committee (except the Committee on Rules) unless copies of the
report and reported measure have been available to Members for at
least three days]. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair believes that while House
Resolution 144 was intended to permit immediate consideration of
House Concurrent Resolution 91, the provisions of clause 2(l)(6),
rule XI do technically--under the second sentence of that clause--
separately require a 3-day availability of the Budget Committee's
report. That part of the rule was not separately waived, and
although the 10-day rule was waived effectively, the Chair will
sustain the point of order and advise that under that rule the
Rules Committee may immediately report out and call up a special
order waiving the 3-day rule.
The Speaker: (12) The Chair's understanding now is
that the Rules Committee will meet and will report back somewhere
around the time of 8:30. The Chair will go to Special Orders at
this particular time and we could ask for a recess subject to the
call of the Chair and the reporting of the Rules Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following a parliamentary inquiry that interceded at this point,
the Speaker made the following announcement:
The Speaker: The Chair announces, it is the intention and the
prerogative of the Speaker after special orders to call up
business, in case there is anybody lingering out there that thinks
the Speaker does not have that power.
Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I had
understood that it is not formalized by the rules, but there is an
informal arrangement that had been agreed to early in the Congress
that we would not take up business after special orders had been
started.
Is that now going to be canceled at the discretion of the
Chair, is that my understanding of what the Speaker is saying?
The Speaker: I am sure as the gentleman appreciates, it is the
special duty of the Speaker to see that the program of the day is
put through. When the occasion arises when there is an exception,
the Speaker would act in the best interests of the majority of the
House and not just an individual or
[[Page 9687]]
two in the eyes of the Speaker, and consequently it would be
understood by the precedents that that is the way the Speaker would
act and the Speaker would recognize for consideration of
legislation.
Motion To Recommit
Sec. 9.67 The Chair will generally recognize a minority Member (who is
opposed to the measure) to offer a motion to recommit, but is not
required to recognize any particular minority Member where no
minority committee member seeks recognition.
On Feb. 3, 1944,(13) the Committee of the Whole was
considering S. 1285, providing voting for members of the armed
services. A discussion about recognition for a motion to recommit
ensued, and Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, took the floor to explain
the Chair's position:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 90 Cong. Rec. 1221, 1222, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Joseph W.] Martin [Jr.], of Massachusetts: I might say to
the gentleman from Missouri there has been a good deal of
discussion about this motion to recommit. We have had one contest
which was wrongly interpreted in which we fought to preserve the
integrity of the rules of the House and to protect a right that has
always belonged to the minority. . . .
I am perfectly willing for the Chairman to recognize the
gentleman from California [Mr. Anderson] to make that motion, and
he is, I know, opposed to the bill. . . .
Mr. [John J.] Cochran [of Missouri]: Unless he is opposed to
the bill he is not qualified.
Mr. [John Z.] Anderson of California: Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. Cochran: I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. Anderson of California: I will say to the gentleman from
Missouri that I have a motion to recommit which will request the
Committee on Election of President, Vice President, and
Representatives in Congress to report back the bill forthwith with
the Worley bill in it. I trust that I will be recognized. . . .
Mr. Rayburn: Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Cochran: I yield to the distinguished Speaker of the House.
Mr. Rayburn: I trust that this colloquy will not take away from
the Speaker what has always been his prerogative, to recognize any
member of the minority to offer a motion to recommit when no member
of the committee offers a motion.
Mr. Cochran: In my opinion no Member on the minority side who
is a member of the committee can stand up, in view of the fact that
they all signed the report, and say he is opposed to the bill.
Therefore some person outside of the committee will have to do it.
Mr. Martin of Massachusetts: Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman
yield?
Mr. Cochran: I yield.
Mr. Martin of Massachusetts: There will be no minority member
of the com
[[Page 9688]]
mittee, in my opinion, who can stand up and say he is opposed to
the bill, but I would like to address a word or two to my beloved
friend, the Speaker. I realize it rests with the Speaker to
recognize the Member to make the motion to recommit. The clear
intent of the rule, however, in my opinion, is to give that weapon
of recommitment to the minority and not to any minority of the
minority.
Mr. Rayburn: I just wanted to make it entirely clear that I
always recognize somebody in the minority if they qualify, but I
could not allow anybody to commit me to recognize any particular
member of the minority.
Motion To Adjourn
Sec. 9.68 Where the two Houses have adopted a concurrent resolution
permitting an adjournment of the House to a day certain in excess
of three days upon motion made by the Majority Leader or a Member
designated by him, the Speaker may recognize the Member so
designated to move to adjourn pursuant to the concurrent
resolution, over another Member whose motion to adjourn if agreed
to would only permit the House to adjourn overnight.
On Aug. 4, 1983,(14) the following proceedings occurred
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 129 Cong. Rec. 23244, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker Pro Tempore:(15) The Chair recognizes
the gentleman from Texas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. William H. Gray, 3d (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Hank] Brown of Colorado: Mr. Speaker, I have a privileged
motion. I move the House adjourn.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Texas.
Mr. [Henry B.] Gonzalez [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
House Concurrent Resolution 153, I move that the House do now
adjourn.
The motion was agreed to.
Recognition for Debate Under Reservation of Right To Object to Adoption
of Adjournment Resolution
Sec. 9.69 A concurrent resolution providing for an adjournment of more
than three days for the House and Senate is not debatable, but the
Chair may in his discretion recognize for debate under a
reservation of the right to object (to adoption of the resolution).
On Aug. 27, 1980,(16) the following proceedings occurred
in
the House during consideration
of Senate Concurrent Resolution 118:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 126 Cong. Rec. 23459, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker laid before the House the privileged Senate
concurrent reso
[[Page 9689]]
lution (S. Con. Res. 118) providing for a recess of the Senate from
August 27 to September 3, 1980, and an adjournment of the House
from August 28 to September 3, 1980.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate concurrent resolution.
The Clerk read the Senate concurrent resolution, as follows:
S. Con. Res. 118
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives
concurring), That when the Senate completes its business on
Wednesday, August 27, 1980, it stand in recess until 10 o'clock
a.m. on Wednesday, September 3, 1980, and that when the House
completes its business on Thursday, August 28, 1980, it stand
adjourned until 12 o'clock noon on Wednesday, September 3,
1980.
The Speaker:(17) Without objection, the Senate
concurrent resolution is concurred in.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, are we
permitted to debate this matter?
The Speaker: No, it is not debatable.
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I
wondered whether any Member intended to explain the necessity for
the recess, in view of the fact there has been some objection quite
obviously from the minority about recessing at all because of the
announced lameduck session. . . .
The Speaker: The Chair will state that this is a long-announced
recess, since the beginning of the year, and Members from both
sides of the aisle expect to be home, of course, and in their
district through Labor Day. . . .
The leadership, I am sure, was in agreement with this earlier
in the year when the schedule for the year was printed.
The question comes on adoption of the Senate concurrent
resolution. Without objection----
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I would further reserve the right to
object, unless the Chair wants to put the question.
The Speaker: The Chair would like to put the question unless
the gentleman desires to say something further. Does the gentleman
reserve the right to object to adopting the concurrent resolution
by unanimous consent?
Mr. Bauman: I reserve the right to object, Mr. Speaker.
I am only saying, Mr. Speaker, that the legislative schedule
has been changed before. We have been told that we will recess on
October 4, as opposed to staying and completing our work, and then
we will come back into further session after the election. If that
kind of a major change can be made, it seems to me there is still
time for us to consider the possibility of staying in session, as
has been suggested by the minority leader, the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Rhodes).
The Speaker: The Chair will put the question, and the Members,
if they desire to vote on it, may vote as they see fit.
Mr. Bauman: I thank the Chair and I urge a vote against the
recess so that we can stay here and finish our business and avoid a
lameduck session.
The Speaker: The question is on the Senate concurrent
resolution.
[[Page 9690]]
CHAPTER 29
Consideration and Debate
B. RIGHT TO RECOGNITION
Sec. 10. Recognition for Unanimous-consent Requests; One-minute and
Special-order Speeches
The Speaker or Chairman of the Committee of the Whole has
discretion whether or not to entertain unanimous-consent requests.
Requests are not entertained which are prohibited by
rule,(18) which unduly delay legislative
business,(19) or which affect legislation and the order of
business without the consent of the leadership and of relevant
committees.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See Sec. Sec. 10.34, 11.14-11.17, infra.
19. See Sec. Sec. 10.7, 10.8, 10.32, 10.34, infra.
20. See Sec. Sec. 10.9, 10.14-10.25, 10.27, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair has entertained a unanimous-consent request which limits
the Chair's power of recognition,(1) but either the Speaker
or Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may make his own objection to
any unanimous-consent request by refusing to entertain
it.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. See Sec. Sec. 10.1 and 11.4, infra.
2. See Sec. Sec. 10.1, 10.6, infra. For a discussion of recognition
for unanimous-consent requests which waive the requirements of
existing rules, see Sec. 11.1, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recognition for one-minute speeches (by unanimous consent) and the
order of such recognition(3) are entirely within the
discretion of the Speaker; and when the House has a heavy legislative
schedule, the Speaker may refuse to recognize Members for that purpose
until the completion of legislative business.(4) It is not
in order to raise as a question of the privileges of the House a
resolution directing the Speaker to recognize for such speeches, since
a question of privilege cannot amend or interpret the rules of the
House.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. See Sec. 10.55, infra.
4. See Sec. Sec. 10.58-10.60, infra.
5. See Sec. 10.58, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the 98th Congress, the Speaker has announced a policy for
recognition for one-minute and special-order speeches as follows: (1)
alternation of recognition between majority and minority Members; (2)
recognition first for special-order speeches of five minutes or less,
alternating between majority and minority Members, in the order in
which requests were granted; and (3) final recognition for special-
order speeches of between five minutes and one hour, alternating
between majority and minority Members, in the order in which requests
were granted.(6) In the 101st Congress, the Chair continued
the practice of alternating recognition, but
[[Page 9691]]
began a practice of recognizing Members in an order as suggested by
their party leadership, for one-minute speeches, before others seeking
such recognition in the well. While the Chair's calculation of time
consumed under one-minute speeches is not subject to challenge, the
Chair endeavors
to recognize majority and then minority Members by allocating time in a
non-partisan manner.(7) Prior to legislative business, the
Speaker will traditionally recognize a Member only once by unanimous
consent for a one-minute speech, and will not entertain a second
request.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. See Sec. 10.48, infra.
7. See Sec. 10.50, infra.
8. See Sec. 10.61, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When Members are addressing the House during ``one-minute
speeches,'' the Chair declines to entertain unanimous-consent requests
for extensions of that time; Members who continue beyond the expiration
of that time as announced by the Chair are not engaging in proper
debate.
Since Feb. 23, 1994, the Speaker's announced policies for
recognition for special-order speeches have been as
follows:(9) (1) recognition does not extend beyond midnight;
(2) recognition is granted first for speeches of five minutes or
less;(10) (3) recognition for longer speeches is limited
(except on Tuesdays) to four hours equally divided between the majority
and minority; (4) the first hour for each party is reserved to its
respective Leader or his designees; (5) time within each party is
allotted in accordance with a list submitted to the Chair by the
respective Leader; (6) the first recognition within a category
alternates between the parties from day to day, regardless of when
requests were granted; (7) Members may not enter requests for five-
minute special orders earlier than one week in advance; and (8) the
respective Leaders may establish additional guidelines for entering
requests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. See Sec. 10.64, infra.
10. The Chair will not entertain a unanimous-consent request to extend
a five-minute special order. See the proceedings of Mar. 7,
1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beginning in the second session of the 103d Congress, the House by
unanimous consent agreed (without prejudice to the Speaker's ultimate
power of recognition) to convene 90 minutes early on Mondays and
Tuesdays for morning-hour debate.(11) On May 12,
1995,(12) the House extended and modified this order,
changing morning-hour debates on Tuesdays after May 14 of each year in
the following manner: (1) the
[[Page 9692]]
House convenes one hour early (rather than 90 minutes); (2) time for
debate is limited to 25 minutes for each party; and (3) in no event is
morning-hour debate to continue beyond 10 minutes before the House is
to convene.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See Sec. 10.64, infra.
12. 141 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also in the 103d Congress,(13) the House agreed by
unanimous consent to conduct, at a time designated by the Speaker,
``Oxford-style'' debates: structured debate on a mutually agreeable
topic announced by the Speaker with four participants from each party
in a format announced by the Speaker.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See Sec. 10.64, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Members may obtain permission to address the House by requests made
by the acting Majority and Minority Leaders at the end of the day
through their respective Cloak Rooms, or by individual requests agreed
to on the floor for that day or for a future day. For the request to be
entertained, it should seek ``permission to address the House at the
conclusion of legislative business, consistent with the Speaker's
announced policy of recognition.''(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See Sec. 10.48, infra. For discussion of special-order speeches
generally, see Sec. Sec. 10.65 et seq., infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the House customarily does not consider legislation after the
Speaker has begun to recognize Members for ``special-order speeches,''
there is no House rule prohibiting consideration of legislative
business at any time the House is in session; thus, for example, the
Speaker has recognized a Member between ``special-order speeches'' to
request consideration of a House concurrent resolution by unanimous
consent.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See Sec. 18.25, infra. See also Sec. Sec. 10.69-10.71, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time taken during points of order raised during a special-order
speech does not come out of the time of the Member speaking, and so a
Member is not deprived of his allotted time.
Cross References
Chair's power of recognition generally, see Sec. 9, supra.
Unanimous-consent agreements on control and distribution of time, see
Sec. Sec. 25 (distribution and alternation), 28 (effect of special
orders), 29 (yielded time), infra.
Unanimous-consent agreements on duration of debate, see Sec. Sec. 71
(in the House) and 80 (in Committee of the Whole), infra.
Unanimous-consent consideration of bills, see Sec. 16, infra.
Unanimous-consent consideration in House as in Committee of the Whole,
see Sec. 4, supra.
Unanimous-consent consideration of Senate amendments, see Sec. 17,
infra.
Unanimous-consent withdrawals and explanations in relation to calls to
order, see Sec. 51, infra.
Yielding for unanimous-consent requests, see Sec. 29, infra.
[[Page 9693]]
-------------------Agreement That Member Be
Allowed To Speak at Certain Time as Not Infringing on Chair's Power
Sec. 10.1 An agreement by the Committee of the Whole to
a unanimous-consent request that a Member be allowed to speak at a
certain time is not necessarily an infringement of the Chair's
power of recognition, but the Chairman may, just as any other
Member, interpose an objection to such a request.
On Dec. 9, 1947,(16) Chairman Earl C. Michener, of
Michigan, presiding in the Committee of the Whole, made the following
statement on a proposed unanimous-consent request to allow a certain
Member to speak at a certain time:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 93 Cong. Rec. 11231, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the Chair understands the rule, the presiding officer in the
Committee is in a dual capacity. First, he is selected to be the
presiding officer during the consideration of the bill. But by
accepting such appointment he does not lose his right to vote and
object as any other Member. That is, his district is not deprived
of its rights by virtue of the Chairman selection. That being true,
the Chair not making any objection, I cannot see how the rights of
the Chair are infringed upon if the Committee, by unanimous
consent, wants to provide that a certain individual may speak at a
certain hour during the Committee consideration. If the Chair is
agreeable and all Members are agreeable.
One Request Pending at a Time
Sec. 10.2 Only one unanimous-consent request may be pending at one
time; thus, while there is pending in Committee of the Whole a
unanimous-consent request that a Member be allowed additional time
under the five-minute rule, the Chair will dispose of that request
before recognizing another Member to ask unanimous consent to limit
debate on the pending amendment.
On May 10, 1977,(17) the proceedings described above
occurred in the Committee of the Whole as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 123 Cong. Rec. 14111, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: (18) The time of the gentleman from
Oregon has again expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Mark W.] Hannaford [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that the gentleman from Oregon be allowed to
proceed for an additional 2 minutes.
The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
[[Page 9694]]
Mr. [Garry] Brown of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, reserving the
right to object, I wonder if we could get an understanding with the
chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ashley)
on a time limit.
Mr. [Thomas L.] Ashley [of Ohio]: . . . Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment and amendments
thereto conclude at 10 minutes to 4.
The Chairman: The Chair will state that originally there is
also a unanimous-consent request that the gentleman from Oregon
(Mr. AuCoin) be granted an additional 2 minutes.
Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
There was no objection.
Obtaining Recognition To Reserve Right To Object
Sec. 10.3 In order to obtain recognition to reserve the right to object
to a unanimous-consent request, a Member must be on his feet
seeking recognition for that purpose when the Chair inquires
whether there is an objection to the request; but a Member who was
seeking recognition at the proper time may be recognized by the
Chair even if the Chair has already stated he heard no objection.
On June 23, 1977,(19) the Committee of the Whole having
under consideration the foreign assistance and related agencies
appropriation bill for 1978 (H.R. 7797), the following proceedings
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 123 Cong. Rec. 20583, 20584, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John M.] Murphy of New York: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent to proceed for 5 additional minutes.
The Chairman: (1) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from New York?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Abraham Kazen, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There being no objection----
Mr. [Clarence D.] Long of Maryland: Mr. Chairman, I reserve the
right to object. I wonder if we could try and get a limitation on
debate. I wonder if the gentleman could cut that down to a couple
of minutes.
Mr. Murphy of New York: I think that if my colleague would bear
with me, 5 minutes is a small amount of time to address ourselves
to a vital area of interest in the Americas . . . .
Mr. Long of Maryland: Further reserving the right to object, at
the conclusion of the gentleman's testimony I would like----
Mr. [Ronald V.] Dellums [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I
object.
The Chairman: Objection is heard.
Mr. [Mario] Biaggi [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a point of
order.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Biaggi: The time for objecting has passed. If the Chair
will read back, he has stated no objections were heard.
The Chairman: The Chair will indicate to the gentleman from New
York that the gentleman from Maryland was
[[Page 9695]]
on his feet seeking to reserve the right to object.
Member Must Stand When Objecting
Sec. 10.4 A Member must stand when objecting to a unanimous-consent
request.
On Oct. 13, 1978,(2) the following proceedings occurred
in the Committee of the Whole during consideration of S. 2727 (the
Amateur Sports Act of 1978):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 124 Cong. Rec. 37071, 95th Cong. 2d Sess. See also the discussion
of ``seeking recognition'' in Sec. 8, supra, particularly
Sec. Sec. 8.4-8.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Harold L.] Volkmer [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent to be allowed to proceed for 2 additional
minutes.
The Chairman: (3) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Missouri?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. John H. Krebs (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [James F.] Lloyd of California: Mr. Chairman, I object. . .
.
Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, under the rules
of the House, I understand that a Member must stand in order to
object.
The Chairman: The Chair will state that the gentleman from
California (Mr. Lloyd) did stand at the time.
Objecting Where Another Has Floor Under Reservation of Right To Object
Sec. 10.5 Where a Member has the floor under a reservation of the right
to object to a unanimous-consent request, any other Member may
object to the request.
The proceedings of June 23, 1977,(4) during
consideration of H.R. 7797, appropriations for agencies relating to
foreign assistance, are discussed in Sec. 10.3, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 123 Cong. Rec. 20583, 20584, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chair May Decline To Recognize for Unanimous-consent Request
Sec. 10.6 The Chair may decline to recognize a Member for the purpose
of submitting a unanimous-consent request, thereby interposing his
own objection.
On Dec. 15, 1937,(5) while the Committee of the Whole
was considering S. 2475, a wages and hours bill, Mr. Schuyler Otis
Bland, of Virginia, asked unanimous consent that any substitute offered
and adopted be open to amendment as if it were the
original bill. Chairman John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, responded
that he had already requested another Member to temporarily withhold
such a request,
[[Page 9696]]
and declined to recognize Mr. Bland to make the request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 82 Cong. Rec. 1517, 75th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: Mr. Bland was actually referring not to
substitutes, but to amendments in the nature of a substitute.
--Request That House Take Recess for Party Conference
Sec. 10.7 The Speaker declined to recognize for a unanimous-consent
request of the Minority Leader that the House take a recess for a
Republican Conference.
On Apr. 11, 1951,(6) shortly after the convening of the
House, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, stated in response to a
parliamentary inquiry by the Minority Leader that he would decline to
entertain a unanimous-consent request for a recess:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 97 Cong. Rec. 3673, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Joseph W.] Martin [Jr.] of Massachusetts: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Martin of Massachusetts: I inquire if the Speaker would
agree that the House would take a recess of 2 hours. I make this
request because of the tragic situation that prevails in the world.
I should like, if I could, to have a Republican conference. If the
Speaker will permit me to make that request, I shall do so.
The Speaker: The Chair will say that that is a very unusual
request. The Chair does not think it has ever been made in the
history of the Congress.
Mr. Martin of Massachusetts: Of course, these are very unusual
conditions.
The Speaker: The Chair is perfectly willing to agree with the
gentleman from Massachusetts on that point. However, there is an
amendment coming up to the bill that the Chair thinks will take
some hours, in all probability.
Mr. Martin of Massachusetts: The Chair understands that in
accordance with his policies and the policies I have previously
agreed with, too, we desire all our membership to be on the floor
when these various bills are being read for amendment. Because of
the tremendous importance of the situation in the world today, I
should like to submit that request, but, of course, I shall not
insist on it if the Speaker is not agreeable to it.
The Speaker: The gentleman from Massachusetts poses a very hard
question for the Chair. For the moment the Chair thinks he will not
entertain the request.
Note: The House was to consider the 1951 amendments to the
Universal Military Training and Service Act.
--Pending Disposition of Conference Report
Sec. 10.8 The Speaker announced that he would not recognize Members for
unanimous-consent requests pending the
[[Page 9697]]
disposition of a conference report where the floor manager of the
report had been in an accident and required medical attention.
On Oct. 6, 1962,(7) Speaker John W. McCormack, of
Massachusetts, made the following announcement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 108 Cong. Rec. 22709, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair desires to make a brief statement that the Chair will
not recognize any Member for unanimous-consent requests until after
the foreign assistance appropriations conference report is disposed
of.
In order that Members may understand the reason why the Chair
is doing this, last night our dear friend and distinguished
colleague, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Passman] had an
accident. He was sent to the Naval Hospital. He is in his office.
He is going to handle the conference report this morning.
. . . The Chair, and I know the Members, will all agree with
the thoughts and the action of the Chair to have the conference
report disposed of as quickly as possible so that the gentleman
from Louisiana may go back to the hospital for further treatment.
Request To Rerefer Bill
Sec. 10.9 The Speaker declined to recognize the chairman of a committee
for a unanimous-consent request to rerefer a bill where the
chairman of the other committee involved had not been consulted.
On Mar. 25, 1948,(8) Mrs. Edith Nourse Rogers, of
Massachusetts, asked unanimous consent for the rereferral of a bill
from the Committee on Veterans' Affairs to
the Committee on the Judiciary. Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of
Massachusetts, inquired whether Mrs. Rogers, chairwoman of the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs, had consulted with the chairman of the
Committee on the Judiciary. Mrs. Rogers responded that she had not and
the Speaker stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 94 Cong. Rec. 3573, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is customary to consult with the chairman of the committee
to whom the bill is to be referred. No harm will come if this
matter is delayed until Monday.
Mrs. Rogers withdrew the request.
Speaker May Decline Recognition for Request for Consideration of
Measure
Sec. 10.10 The Chair may, by declining recognition to a Member to make
a unanimous-consent request for the consideration of a measure,
refuse to permit the request to be entertained, and thus reg
[[Page 9698]]
ister his personal objection as a Member of the House.
The following proceedings occurred in the House on Jan. 23,
1984:(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 130 Cong. Rec. 83, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: . . . Mr. Speaker, I
ask unanimous consent that an open rule permitting consideration of
House Joint Resolution 100, the voluntary school prayer
constitutional amendment, be called up for immediate consideration
within the next 10 legislative days.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (10) The Chair cannot and
will not entertain that request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Richard B. Ray (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I have made a unanimous-consent
request. That is a perfectly proper request by any Member of this
body, and it is either objected to or is not objected to. I do not
understand the procedure that the Chair is using by not
entertaining the unanimous-consent request.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will inform the gentleman
that the Chair can object by declining recognition.
Sec. 10.11 The Speaker's authority to decline to recognize
individual Members to request unanimous consent for
the consideration of bills
and resolutions derives from clause 2 of Rule XIV, on the Speaker's
general power of recognition, and from the precedents developed
under that rule.
The following exchange occurred in the House on Jan. 26, 1984:
(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 130 Cong. Rec. 449, 450, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [William E.] Dannemeyer [of California]: A parliamentary
inquiry, Mr. Speaker. . . .
Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I have heard that we have
had some addition to the customs or procedures or even the rules of
the House, which seems to say that before I as a Member can ask
unanimous-consent requests that I must obtain the approval of the
leadership of the majority to pose that request.
My parliamentary inquiry is this, Mr. Speaker. Where in the
rules does it say that? What is the specific provision in the rules
that authorizes the Speaker to make that kind of a rule for this
House? . . .
The Speaker: (12) Clause 2 of rule
XIV.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
13. See House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 753-757 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Dannemeyer: Is it the position of the Speaker that section
2 of rule XIV authorizes what has come to become a gag rule here?
The Speaker: No. The Chair believes that it has been the custom
of this body through the years to give the power to the Speaker of
the House that the House be run in an efficient manner and that the
business of the House should be done in an orderly fashion and that
obstruction should be avoided.
[[Page 9699]]
Sec. 10.12 In recognizing Members to ask unanimous consent for the
consideration of bills, the Speaker takes into account the
complexity and importance of the bills involved.
On July 1, 1932,(14) Speaker John N. Garner, of Texas,
made the following statement in relation to the unanimous-consent
consideration of bills:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 75 Cong. Rec. 14511, 72d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order that gentlemen may understand the situation, let the
Chair state how it is the Chair recognizes certain gentlemen. The
Chair must decline to recognize a great many gentlemen who have
meritorious matters, because the Chair must have some yardstick
that can be applied to every Member of the House. The gentleman
from Minnesota [Mr. Pittenger] had a bill that had passed the House
unanimously, had gone to the Senate, and had an amendment placed on
it there, adding one name. The Chair thinks in a case of that kind,
where unanimous consent has to be given, it is well enough for the
Chair to recognize the Member for that purpose; but the Chair will
not recognize gentlemen to take up as an original proposition
private claims or other matters unless they are of an emergency
nature and apply to the general public rather than to one
individual.
Sec. 10.13 Where a Member who had been recognized to proceed for one
minute asked for the unanimous-consent consideration of a bill, the
Speaker held that the Member was not recognized for that purpose.
On Jan. 26, 1944,(15) Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of
Massachusetts, the Minority Leader, asked unanimous consent to proceed
for one minute, and on being recognized attempted to obtain unanimous
consent for the consideration of a bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 90 Cong. Rec. 746, 747, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Martin of Massachusetts: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent to proceed for 1 minute.
The Speaker:(16) The Chair will not recognize any
other Member at this time for that purpose but will recognize the
gentleman from Massachusetts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Martin of Massachusetts: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the
generosity of the Chair.
I take this minute, Mr. Speaker, because I want to make a
unanimous-consent request and I think it should be explained.
I agree with the President that there is immediate need for
action on the soldiers' vote bill. A good many of us have been
hoping we could have action for the last month. To show our
sincerity in having action not next week but right now, I ask
unanimous consent that the House immediately take
[[Page 9700]]
up the bill which is on the Union Calendar known as S. 1285, the
soldiers' voting bill.
The Speaker: The gentleman from Massachusetts was not
recognized for that purpose.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky.
Sec. 10.14 The Speaker declined to recognize a Member for
a unanimous-consent request to take a bill from the Speaker's table
and concur in the Senate amendments, where such a request was made
without the authorization of the chairman of the committee involved
and where
Members had been informed there would be no further legislative
business for the day.
On July 31, 1969,(17) Mr. Hale Boggs, of Louisiana,
asked unanimous consent to take the bill H.R. 9951 from the Speaker's
table and to concur in the Senate amendments thereto. Speaker John W.
McCormack, of Massachusetts, refused recognition for that purpose:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 115 Cong. Rec. 21691, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair will state that at this time the Chair does not
recognize the gentleman from Louisiana for that purpose.
The chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means is at present
appearing before the Committee on Rules seeking a rule and Members
have been told that there would be no further business tonight.
The Chair does not want to enter into an argument with any
Member, particularly the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana
whom I admire very much. But the Chair has stated that the Chair
does not recognize the gentleman for that purpose.
--Bills on Former Consent Calendar
Sec. 10.15 On former Consent Calendar days only eligible bills on the
calendar were called, and the Speaker could decline to recognize
Members with unanimous-consent requests for the consideration of
other bills on the calendar.
On May 6, 1946, which was Consent Calendar Day,(18)
Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, answered a parliamentary inquiry by Mr.
Overton Brooks, of Louisiana, relative to the call of a bill on the
Consent Calendar prior to the expiration of the three-day requirement
by the rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 92 Cong. Rec. 4527, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Brooks: Mr. Speaker, would it be in order to ask unanimous
consent for the immediate consideration of the bill H.R. 2325,
which is No. 419 on the Consent Calendar that was called today?
[[Page 9701]]
The Speaker: The Chair announced some time ago that since those
known as the objectors had examined only the eligible bills on the
Consent Calendar the Chair would not recognize Members to take up
the remaining bills, unless they involved emergencies.
Parliamentarian's Note: The Consent Calendar was abolished in the
104th Congress. The Corrections Calendar was established in its place.
See Rule XIII, clause 4.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 745a, 746 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Where Leadership Has Not Been Consulted
Sec. 10.16 Under an extension of guidelines announced by the Speaker on
the opening day of the Congress, the Chair will decline to
recognize for a unanimous-consent request for the consideration of
a (reported) bill unless given assurance of clearances from both
majority and minority floor and committee leaderships (guidelines
heretofore applicable to consideration of unreported measures).
On July 23, 1993,(20) the Chair discussed the role of
the leadership in determining whether requests for the consideration of
bills would be allowed:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 139 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 103d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Steve] Gunderson [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, my
parliamentary inquiry is this: Is it possible to ask unanimous
consent to bring H.R. 2667 for its immediate consideration?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (1) The leadership on both
sides of the aisle has to agree to allow that unanimous-consent
request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. John P. Murtha (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Gunderson: . . . Is it possible to bring an appropriation
bill to the floor for consideration without a rule?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Yes, if it is privileged and it has
been reported and available for 3 days and is called up by the
committee.
Mr. Gunderson: Can the 3-day rule be waived?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: By unanimous consent, yes.
Mr. Gunderson: Mr. Speaker, is it possible to move that H.R.
2667 be brought up for immediate consideration?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Only the committee can make that
motion.
Mr. Gunderson: Any member of the committee, Mr. Speaker, could
make that motion?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The chairman or a member authorized by
the committee. . . .
Mr. Gunderson: Mr. Speaker, I have one further parliamentary
inquiry.
Is it possible to ask unanimous consent at any time during the
day to bring up an appropriation bill for its immediate
consideration?
[[Page 9702]]
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The chairman or his designee could
bring the bill up.
Mr. Gunderson: . . . If, for example, I were to move or ask
unanimous consent to do that and the Chair did not recognize me,
would it be possible at that point to literally appeal the ruling
of the Chair for another Member to bring it up?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Under a previous agreement between the
leaderships of the Democrat and Republican side, only the chairman
of the committee would be recognized to bring up the bill after
agreement of both leaderships by a unanimous-consent request.
Another Member would not be recognized for that reason, and the
denial of recognition to make a unanimous-consent request is not
appealable.
Mr. Gunderson: . . . The chairman of the Appropriations
Committee can bring up H.R. 2667 for immediate consideration at any
time?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Prior to the 3-day availability, he
could bring it up by unanimous consent, but as the gentleman knows,
these things are traditionally handled with the concurrence of both
leaderships and very carefully orchestrated before unanimous
consent is requested in order to be sure that it is adhered to.
Sec. 10.17 Pursuant to the Speaker's announced policy in the 98th
Congress on recognition for unanimous-consent requests for the
initial consideration of bills and resolutions, the Chair will
decline recognition for such unanimous-consent requests without
assurances that the majority and minority leadership and committee
and subcommittee chairmen and ranking minority members have no
objection thereto.
On Oct. 2, 1984,(2) the Chair having declined
recognition for a unanimous-consent request that a balanced budget
amendment to the Constitution be brought to the floor for immediate
consideration, discussion took place relating to the Speaker's power of
recognition(3) and, specifically, to the effect of announced
guidelines governing recognition for requests for the initial
consideration of bills.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 130 Cong. Rec. 28516-18, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
3. See Rule XIV, clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 753 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Thomas F.] Hartnett [of South Carolina]: . . . If you are
sincere, Mr. Chairman, if your colleagues over there who now say
let us have a balanced budget really mean what they say, when you
know the American people are not going to be fooled by this move.
Let us have companion legislation, the balanced budget amendment.
The Speaker is here. Let us bring by unanimous consent the
balanced budget amendment to the Constitution to the floor of the
House right now and let us vote on both of these bills if you mean
what you say. Mr. Speaker, I ask
[[Page 9703]]
unanimous consent, to recall or discharge from the committee the
balanced budget amendment to the Constitution so that we can bring
it to the floor of the House with House Joint Resolution 243.
I ask unanimous consent that it be brought before the House
right now.
The Speaker Pro Tempore:(4) . . . Under the rules
and precedents, the motion is not to be entertained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry. . . .
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman did not make a motion, it is my
understanding. The gentleman asked unanimous-consent request. Is
the Speaker ruling that unanimous-consent requests are not in
order? We have already had one previous unanimous-consent request
that was granted during the course of debate. How would this one
not be in order?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Under the Speaker's announcement of
guide-lines for unanimous-consent requests to consider legislative
business, this request is not recognized. . . .
Ms. [Bobbi] Fiedler [of California]: Mr. Speaker, before you
had dialog with the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Hartnett)
regarding his parliamentary inquiry as it related to the balanced
budget amendment and his right to ask for a unanimous-consent
request in relationship to it. . . .
I would like to ask of the Chair if the Chair will make the
inquiry as to whether the Democratic side leadership will also ask
to support his right under unanimous consent to bring the balanced
budget amendment, attach it to the existing bill.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair has not been advised that
there is an intention to change the guidelines that were announced
earlier in the year for the purpose that they were issued. . . .
Ms. Fiedler: Will the Chair inquire as to whether or not the
leadership on the Democratic side is willing to change the existing
rules? I realize that the Chair has indicated twice now that he has
not been informed that they have changed, but I am making a request
that he ask the leadership if they will make that change.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair states that this is not a
proper parliamentary inquiry. The Chair has not been advised that
there is a change in the policy that was issued the first week of
the session. . . .
Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, we are still trying to sift our way
through the Chair's previous ruling with regard to the request of
the gentleman from South Carolina.
Can the requirement that the Chair cites, can that requirement
be waived by unanimous consent?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question has to do with whether or
not recognition will be granted for that purpose, and the Chair's
ruling is based on guidelines that were issued on January 25, 1984,
and the Chair would read from the statement that was made at that
time by the Speaker.
The Speaker said:
[[Page 9704]]
As indicated on page 476 of the House Rules and Manual, the
Chair has established a policy of conferring recognition upon
Members to permit consideration of bills and resolutions by
unanimous consent only when assured that the majority and
minority leadership and committee and subcommittee chairmen and
ranking minority members have no objection.
Consistent with that policy, and with the Chair's inherent
power of recognition under clause 2, rule XIV, the Chair and
any occupant of the chair appointed as Speaker pro tempore,
pursuant to clause 7, rule I, will decline recognition for
unanimous-consent requests for consideration of bills and
resolutions without assurances that the request has been
cleared by that leadership.
This denial of recognition by the Chair will not reflect
necessarily any personal opposition on the part of the Chair to
orderly consideration of the matter in question, but will
reflect the determination upon the part of the Chair that
orderly procedures will be followed, that is, procedures
involving consultation and agreement between floor and
committee leadership on both sides of the aisle.
It is that guideline that the Chair is following in this
instance. . . .
Mr. Walker: The guidelines that the Chair has cited, what I am
inquiring is, can those guidelines be set aside by unanimous
consent?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: It is the Chair's power of recognition
that is involved, and that is the question that is being decided in
conformance with the guidelines, not other questions.
Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I have a further parliamentary
inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Walker: If the House so deems that we could set aside those
guidelines by unanimous consent, is that a proper request? That is
the question of this gentleman.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will again state that what
is involved directly or indirectly, is a question of recognition,
and not other or further questions, and it is that question that is
being decided in conformance with the guidelines.
Parliamentarian's Note: An announcement that the above policies
concerning recognition for requests for the consideration of bills and
resolutions would be continued in the 100th Congress was made by the
Chair on Jan. 6, 1987.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. See 133 Cong. Rec. 21, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 10.18 The Speaker may decline to recognize unanimous-consent
requests for consideration of bills if the Member making such
request has not consulted the leadership.
On July 11, 1946,(6) Mrs. Clare Boothe Luce, of
Connecticut, asked for the unanimous-consent consideration of House
Joint Resolution 372, to reinstate rent control. Speaker Sam Rayburn,
of Texas, refused to recognize her to make the request after she
disclosed that she had not consulted or notified the leadership.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 92 Cong. Rec. 8726, 8728, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. John Phillips, of California, later objected to the refusal of
rec
[[Page 9705]]
ognition as based on a ``technicality.'' The Speaker then made the
following statement:
. . . For a long time, ever since 1937 at least, the present
occupant of the chair knows that when Members intend to ask
unanimous consent to bring up a bill they have always properly
consulted with both the majority and minority leaders of the House
and with the Speaker. That has been the unfailing custom. The Chair
is exercising that right and intends to continue to exercise it as
long as he occupies the present position because the Chair wants
the House to proceed in an orderly fashion.
Mrs. Luce: Mr. Speaker, may I now ask unanimous consent to
bring up the bill tomorrow?
The Speaker: The Chair will meet that question when the time
comes.
The Chair would certainly like the courtesy of being consulted
in advance.
Sec. 10.19 Recognition for unanimous-consent requests to consider
legislation is within the discretion of the Chair, who normally
refuses recognition for legislative requests at a time when the
membership has been advised that no further business would be
scheduled, and who may inquire whether the majority leadership has
been notified of and has assented to the making of
the request at a particular
time before bestowing recognition.
The following proceedings occurred in the House on Dec. 17,
1982,(7) during consideration of H.R. 5536 (authorizing the
Secretary of the Interior to engage in a feasibility study of water
resources development in Nebraska):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 128 Cong. Rec. 32033-35, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (8) For what purpose does
the gentleman from California (Mr. Burton) rise?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Romano L. Mazzoli (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Phillip Burton [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I rise for the
purpose of making a unanimous-consent request which has been
cleared from the other side, and the unanimous-consent request is
as follows.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would direct a question to
the gentleman from California and state that at this late hour, at
5 minutes to 1 o'clock in the morning, the Chair was unaware that
any further substantive business would come up before the House.
The Chair was only aware of the business which has just been
concluded, which is the general debate on the Immigration Reform
and Control Act. The Chair was unaware of this matter and has not
had a chance to consult with leadership on whether or not this
matter would fit within the array of legislation. . . .
The Chair would ask the gentleman, has the gentleman had an
opportunity to check with the leadership of the House? . . .
Mr. Phillip Burton: Mr. Speaker, I am unaware of any Member in
our
[[Page 9706]]
leadership who is opposed to this. I am aware of about a 20th of
the Members of the House who are for this proposal.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair understands. The Chair would
suggest that, because of the membership of the House having left
the House thinking the only matter before it would be the
Immigration Reform and Control Act under general debate, is at a
disadvantage in being unable to be aware of the gentleman's motion.
Mr. Phillip Burton: Mr. Speaker, it is not a motion. It is a
unanimous-consent request and I would urge regular order to see if
there is objection to the request.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would ask the gentleman's
indulgence. Given the nature of the circumstance, the Chair would
ask if the gentleman would kindly withhold his motion. . . .
The Chair is suggesting that the gentleman might under the
circumstances, given the peculiar nature and the hour, which is 1
o'clock, might under the circumstances withhold his unanimous-
consent request until the Chair has had an opportunity to check
with the leadership. . . .
Mr. Phillip Burton: . . . I will demand regular order, the
request being I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's
table the bill (H.R. 5536), an act to authorize the Secretary of
the Interior to engage in a feasibility study of water resource
development and for other purposes in the Central Platte Valley,
Nebr., with a Senate amendment thereto and concur in the Senate
amendment with an amendment. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: . . . I believe that the Chair might
be able to help the two gentlemen who are trying to struggle to
find a solution by suggesting that the Chair could guarantee that
the gentleman would be the first order of business tomorrow when
the House does convene. I could give that assurance and would
communicate that to the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
If that would be satisfactory to the gentleman from California
and the gentleman from Pennsylvania, then it would give us time to
check with our respective leadership.
Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Further reserving the
right to object, I would say the gentleman from Pennsylvania is in
some way here trying to be helpful to the Chair since I have no
minority Members on this side with whom to consult with on this
request.
I certainly think that that suggestion would be acceptable to
this gentleman if the gentleman from California would agree to
that.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Does the gentleman from California
find that satisfactory under these difficult circumstances?
Mr. Phillip Burton: . . . I will yield . . . because of our
distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania's suggestion.
So I would ask this be put over until the first order of
business tomorrow.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman and I withdraw
my reservation of objection.
Sec. 10.20 The Speaker on occasion has reiterated his pol-
[[Page 9707]]
icy of conferring recognition upon Members to permit consideration
of bills and resolutions by unanimous consent only when assured
that
the majority- and minority-elected floor leadership and committee
and subcommittee chairmen and ranking minority members have no
objection.
Several Members having propounded unanimous-consent requests to
permit consideration of various legislative measures by a day certain
under an ``open rule'' procedure, the Speaker on Jan. 25,
1984,(9) reiterated the Chair's policy of conferring
recognition upon Members to permit consideration of bills and
resolutions only when assured that the majority and minority floor and
committee and subcommittee leaderships have no objection. This policy
was intended in part to prevent the practice whereby one side might
force the other to go on record as objecting to propositions regarding
which they have only procedural or technical objections rather than
substantive opposition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 130 Cong. Rec. 354, 355, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that an open rule permitting consideration of
House Joint Resolution 100, the voluntary school prayer
constitutional amendment, be called up for immediate consideration
within the next 10 legislative days.
Mr. [Bill] Alexander [of Arkansas]: Mr. Speaker, I object.
The Speaker: (10) Objection is heard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair will read the following statement:
As indicated on page 476 of the House Rules and Manual, the
Chair has established a policy of conferring recognition upon
Members to permit consideration of bills and resolutions by
unanimous consent only when assured that the majority and
minority floor leadership and committee and subcommittee
chairmen and ranking minority members have no objection.
Consistent with that policy, and with the Chair's inherent
power of recognition under clause 2, rule XIV, the Chair, and
any occupant of the Chair appointed as Speaker pro tempore
pursuant to clause 7, rule I, will decline recognition for
unanimous-consent requests for consideration of bills and
resolutions without assurances that the request has been
cleared by that leadership. This denial of recognition by the
chair will not reflect, necessarily, any personal opposition on
the part of the Chair to orderly consideration of the matter in
question, but will reflect the determination upon the part of
the Chair that orderly procedures will be followed, that is,
procedures involving consultation and agreement between floor
and committee leadership on both sides of the aisle. . . .
Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, do I understand now that the
unanimous-consent procedure cannot be used by anyone to bring
legislation to the floor unless that has been specifically cleared
by both the majority and the minority leadership; is that correct?
[[Page 9708]]
The Speaker: That has been the custom and it will continue to
be the custom. . . .
Mr. Walker: I just want to clarify then that the entire matter
then of utilizing unanimous-consent requests for any kind of
legislative business, such as bringing up legislation, will be
denied to all parties.
The Speaker: Unless the Chair has assurances that proper
clearance has taken place. . . .
Mr. [Newt] Gingrich [of Georgia]: . . . The Speaker mentioned
fairness on both sides and both sides be knowledgeable. . . .
[C]ould the Chair describe how fairness to both sides and how both
sides might be knowledgeable might proceed? . . .
The Speaker: The Chair intends to go through the legitimate
leadership of the gentleman's side of the aisle, and the elected
leadership on the other side of the aisle.
Mr. Gingrich: So in the future the legitimate leadership on our
side of the aisle might legitimately expect to be informed?
The Speaker: The Chair considers the legitimate leadership as
the leadership that was elected, not caucuses within the party.
Sec. 10.21 The Chair himself may object to a unanimous-consent request
for the consideration of legislation, by denying recognition for
the request, and it is the policy of the Chair to refuse
recognition for requests to consider legislation not approved by
the leadership.
The following exchange occurred in the House on Nov. 15,
1983:(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 129 Cong. Rec. 32746, 32747, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that the resolution introduced by the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Fish) specifying a rule for consideration of
House Joint Resolution 1 be made in order for consideration by the
House on Wednesday or any day thereafter.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (12) The Chair cannot
entertain that motion without consultation with the leadership. The
Chair will not recognize the gentleman for that purpose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Ronald Coleman (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary inquiry is that this
is a unanimous-consent request and it is entirely in order.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair has the same right to object
as any Member, and I do so object.
Sec. 10.22 The Chair may refuse to entertain unanimous-consent requests
for the consideration of legislation that does not have the
approval of the leadership.
On Nov. 16, 1983,(13) the following proceedings occurred
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 129 Cong. Rec. 33138, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 9709]]
Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that House Resolution 373 be made in order for
consideration in the House on Thursday or any day thereafter.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair cannot recognize for that
purpose.
Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, it is a unanimous-consent request.
Mr. [John F.] Seiberling [of Ohio]: I object, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair cannot recognize for that
purpose. There is objection nevertheless.
Mr. Walker: Let it be noted here this evening that the
objection to considering the resolution by which we would consider
ERA under the rules of the House and with an amendment and in open
debate was objected to from the Democratic side of the aisle. Let
that be noted.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state there is
precedent for denying the unanimous-consent request of the
gentleman dating back to May of 1982 and yesterday and furthermore
there was objection heard.
Sec. 10.23 In enforcing the Speaker's announced policy regarding
recognition of Members requesting unanimous consent for the
consideration of bills and resolutions, the Chair indicated that
the Speaker would accept the word of any Member that he had
obtained the clearance of the majority and minority floor and
committee leaderships and that such permission need not be reduced
to writing.
On Jan. 31, 1984,(14) the following proceedings occurred
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 130 Cong. Rec. 1063, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [George W.] Gekas [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, a point
of parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (15) The gentleman will
state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Jim Bates (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Gekas: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I had a colloquy with Speaker
O'Neill in which I asserted to him and represented to him that I
had had the clearance of the minority leadership in order to gain
unanimous consent to bring to the House's attention legislation on
the line-item veto, the line-item veto which is in controversy
today as a measure of controlling spending.
During that colloquy the Speaker, Speaker O'Neill, interrupted
my representation that I had the clearance of the minority and
said, ``Do you have it in writing?''
The point of my parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker, is whether
or not that requirement, as was implicit
in that question posed by Speaker O'Neill, is a rule of the House
or in conformity with or in concordance with the Speaker's own
pronouncement in that regard?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The inquiry should properly be
addressed to the Speaker but the Chair, of course, takes the word
of the Member.
Mr. Gekas: I thank the Speaker.
[[Page 9710]]
Sec. 10.24 On one occasion, a unanimous-consent request for the
consideration of legislation (a joint resolution making urgent
supplemental appropriations) was made and then withdrawn because
the Chair had not previously received assurances that the request
had been cleared by the necessary parties (in this case, the
Minority Leader).
The following exchange occurred in the House on Feb. 29, 1984:
(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 130 Cong. Rec. 3895, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that it be in order on Tuesday next or any day
thereafter to consider the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 493) making
an urgent supplemental appropriation for the Department of Health
and Human Services for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1984,
in the House.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (17) The Chair has not
received assurances that this has been cleared by the minority
leader.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Esteban E. Torres (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Whitten: Mr. Speaker, I discussed it with the Speaker and
the assistant majority leader, and I also have advised the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Conte) on the Republican side.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that the matter
has to be cleared by the minority leader.
Mr. Whitten: I presume it was, but personally I do not know; I
have not seen him.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair has not received that
assurance.
Will the gentleman withhold his request until assurance is
received?
Mr. Whitten: I will be glad to, Mr. Speaker.
Sec. 10.25 Pursuant to the Speaker's previously announced policy, the
Chair declined to recognize a Member to request unanimous consent
for the consideration of an unreported measure, where the request
had not been cleared with the minority leadership.
On June 6, 1984,(18) the following proceedings occurred
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 130 Cong. Rec. 15174, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mrs. [Katie] Hall of Indiana: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service be
discharged from further consideration of House joint resolution
(H.J. Res. 247) to designate April 24, 1984, as National Day of
Remembrance of Man's Inhumanity to Man, and ask for its immediate
consideration.
Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.
Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: A parliamentary
inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (19) The Chair understands
that this has not
[[Page 9711]]
been cleared by the leadership on the minority side. Since the
Speaker has made the statement that those types of requests would
not be entertained, under such circumstances the Chair does not
recognize the gentlewoman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. John P. Murtha (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Recognition for Request To Dispose of Senate Amendments Accorded to
Committee Chairman
Sec. 10.26 In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Chair announced
guidelines for recognition for unanimous-consent requests to
dispose of Senate amendments to House-passed bills on the Speaker's
table, indicating that the Chair will entertain a unanimous-consent
request for the disposition of a Senate amendment to a House-passed
bill on the Speaker's table, only if made by the chairman of the
committee with jurisdiction, or by another member of the committee
where the Chair has been advised by the chairman of the committee
that such member has been authorized formally or informally by the
committee to make the request.
The following exchange occurred in the House on Apr. 26, 1984:
(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 130 Cong. Rec. 10193, 10194, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Daniel E.] Lungren [of California]: . . . Mr. Speaker,
since we have moved with such dispatch on the question dealing with
the labor unions' concern, I would like to direct to the Chair a
parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (1) The gentleman will
state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Thomas S. Foley (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Lungren: Mr. Speaker, it deals with a piece of legislation
that has come out of the same committee and is a variation of H.R.
3635, the Child Protection Act of 1983, which we passed 400 to 1 on
November 11, 1983.
There was an agreement worked out between the Members of the
House and the Senate for a compromise. That went to the Senate.
They passed our version, with an amendment in the nature of a
substitute and it is my information that H.R. 3635 was sent to the
Speaker's desk from the Senate on April 2 or 3 of this year.
My parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker, is: Is H.R. 3635
presently at the Speaker's desk?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct.
Mr. Lungren: Mr. Speaker, does that mean that the Senate
amendment, H.R. 3635, has not yet been referred to a committee?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct.
Mr. Lungren: And can the Chair inform me at this time and
inform the
[[Page 9712]]
House as to what procedure might be available to us at this time to
allow for immediate consideration of that Senate amendment?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would advise the gentleman
that the Chair would only recognize for a request by the chairman
or another member if authorized by the committee.
Mr. Lungren: Authorization of the committee, that means
authorization of the Democratic leadership?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Authorization of the committee.
Mr. Lungren: Does the Chair mean that it takes an official vote
of the committee or an agreement by the chairman of the committee
itself?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Speaker would look to the chairman
of the committee.
Request for Restoration of Bills to Private Calendar
Sec. 10.27 The Speaker declines to recognize Members for unanimous-
consent requests that bills stricken from the Private Calendar be
restored thereto where they have not consulted with the official
objectors for that calendar.
On Apr. 19, 1948,(2) Mr. Thomas J. Lane, of
Massachusetts, asked unanimous consent that a bill stricken from the
Private Calendar be restored thereto. Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of
Massachusetts, inquired whether Mr. Lane had consulted with the
objectors and Mr. Lane responded that he had not. The Speaker stated
that the Chair could not entertain the request until Mr. Lane had taken
up the matter with the objectors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 94 Cong. Rec. 4573, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Permission for Majority Leader To Announce Legislative Program Pending
Motion To Adjourn
Sec. 10.28 While the motion to
adjourn takes precedence
over any other motion under clause 4 of Rule XVI, the Speaker may
through his power of recognition recognize the Majority Leader by
unanimous consent for one minute to announce the legislative
program prior to entertaining the motion to adjourn; and on one
occasion, the Speaker recognized the Majority Leader to announce
the program for the remainder of the day and declined to recognize
a Member to offer a motion to adjourn pending that announcement,
although the Majority Lead-er had neglected to obtain unanimous
consent to address the House for one minute, and the Speaker
[[Page 9713]]
then suggested that decorum would best be maintained by unanimous-
consent permission to announce the leadership program pending a
motion to adjourn.
On Dec. 14, 1982,(3) the following proceedings occurred
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 128 Cong. Rec. 30549, 30550, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: (4) The Chair recognizes the majority
leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Wright).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Denny] Smith of Oregon: Mr. Speaker, I have a preferential
motion I send to the desk.
The Speaker: The gentleman will be seated. The Speaker has the
right of recognition.
Mr. Smith of Oregon: Mr. Speaker, I have a preferential motion.
Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Regular order, Mr.
Speaker.
The Speaker: The Chair recognizes the majority leader, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Wright).
LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM
Mr. [James C.] Wright [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, let me
simply announce for the benefit of the Members that it is our
intention now to have no further votes tonight. We plan to take up
the things that we put off last night in order that Members might
go and attend the reception in the White House, the remaining
suspension, as was agreed with the Republican leadership and our
leadership last night, but we will not have any votes. We will roll
the votes until tomorrow, let the votes be the first thing
tomorrow.
Mr. Smith of Oregon: Mr. Speaker, I offer a preferential
motion.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state his preferential motion.
Mr. Smith of Oregon: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now
adjourn.
The Speaker: The question is on the preferential motion offered
by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Smith).
The question was taken, and the Speaker announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. Smith of Oregon: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas
122, nays 202, not voting 109, as follows: . . .
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER
The Speaker: The Chair will make the following statement:
It is the usual and customary practice in this House that when
we come to the end of a proceeding, as we did, that the majority
leader then announces the program for the remainder of the night.
The majority leader had informed me that he was going to make that
announcement. Normally it is a unanimous-consent request, and that
is what the Chair anticipated that the majority leader would do.
It is the prerogative and the duty of the Speaker of the House
to run this body in an expeditious manner and he should be informed
when motions are going to be made, whether they are privileged or
otherwise, and when he is suddenly confronted with a privileged
[[Page 9714]]
motion, then it is my opinion, while the Chair appreciates that he
follows the rules of the House, it does not improve the decorum of
the House. The Speaker at all times tries to be fair, and thought
he was being fair with the Members when he was recognizing the
majority leader to inform the membership what the program was for
the remainder of the evening.
Speaker May Recognize for Unanimous-consent Request Prior to Motion To
Discharge
Sec. 10.29 The rule providing that motions to discharge committees
shall be in order ``immediately'' after the reading of the Journal
on appropriate days was construed not to prohibit the Speaker from
recognizing for unanimous-consent requests prior to recognition for
motions to discharge.
On Oct. 12, 1942,(5) which was Discharge Calendar Day,
Mr. Joseph A. Gavagan, of New York, called up a motion to discharge the
Committee on Rules from the consideration of a resolution providing for
the consideration of a bill. Mr. Howard W. Smith, of Virginia, made a
point of order against the motion on the ground that the rule providing
for discharge motions on the second
and fourth Mondays [Rule XXVII clause 4] directed that such motions
shall be in order ``immediately'' after the reading of the Journal, and
that prior to the making of the motion miscellaneous business had
intervened, such as sending bills to conference (by unanimous consent)
and passing a bill (considered by unanimous consent).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 88 Cong. Rec. 8066, 8067, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Tex-as, ruled as follows:
The Chair is ready to rule. . . .
The Chair recognized all the time that the word ``immediately''
is in this rule, as he has read the rule every day for the past 6
days.
In ruling on a matter similar to this some time ago, the Chair
had this to say, although the matter involved was not exactly on
all-fours with this point of order, but it is somewhat related:
The Chair thinks the Chair has a rather wide range of
latitude here and could hold, being entirely technical, that a
certain point of order might be sustained.
The Chair is not going to be any more technical today than he
was at that time. The Chair recognized the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Doughton) on a highly important matter in order to
expedite the business of the Congress, not only the House of
Representatives but the whole Congress.
The Chair does not feel that the intervention of two or three
unanimous-consent requests would put him in a position where he
could well hold that the word ``immediately'' in the
[[Page 9715]]
rule was not being followed when he recognized the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Gavagan).(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. For the ruling cited by the Speaker, see 88 Cong. Rec. 8120, 77th
Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 13, 1942 (ruling on recognition of a
Member to handle a bill where the Member named in the
resolution providing for consideration had died).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Request To Address House on Future Date
Sec. 10.30 The Chair declines to recognize Members for unanimous-
consent requests to address the House prior to completion of
legislative business on future days.
On June 14, 1935,(7) Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of
Tennessee, responded as follows to a request for recognition for a
unanimous-consent request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 79 Cong. Rec. 9330, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Kent E.] Keller [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that on next Monday after the reading of the
Journal and the completion of business on the Speaker's desk I may
address the House for 15 minutes to answer an attack upon an
amendment I proposed to the Constitution made in the Washington
Times of June 12 by Mr. James P. Williams, Jr.
The Speaker: Under the custom that prevails and the action of
the Chair heretofore, the Chair cannot recognize the gentleman
today to make a speech on Monday. The Chair hopes the gentleman
will defer his request.
Sec. 10.31 The Speaker declined to recognize for a unanimous-consent
request for two Members to address the House with the privilege of
yielding to other Members.
On Oct. 17, 1945,(8) Mr. Hugh De Lacy, of Washington,
asked unanimous consent that on the next Tuesday, following legislative
business, he and Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, be allowed to address
the House on the subject of freedom of the air, with the privilege of
yielding to other Members. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, stated that
the request was unusual and that he would recognize for requests of Mr.
De Lacy and of Mr. Celler to address the House, but would not recognize
for the unanimous-consent request as put by Mr. De Lacy. Mr. De Lacy
withdrew the request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 91 Cong. Rec. 9727, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extensions of Remarks
Sec. 10.32 The Speaker announced that he would refuse recognition to
extend remarks in the Record if the request was made after there
had been a quorum call and where the House was about
[[Page 9716]]
to resolve into the Committee of the Whole.
On Feb. 8, 1945,(9) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, made
the following announcement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 91 Cong. Rec. 929, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
So many Members who were not on the floor at the proper time
have come to the Chair to ask that they be allowed to submit
requests to extend remarks that the Chair will now recognize
Members to submit unanimous-consent requests to extend remarks or
correct the Record.
Hereafter, when there is a legislative program, Members on the
floor at the beginning of the session will have an opportunity to
submit such requests, but after the roll is called and the House is
ready to go into the Committee of the Whole no Member will be
recognized for any purpose.
Sec. 10.33 Where there was no legislative program for the day, the
Speaker recognized a Member to extend his remarks ``at this point
in the Record'' regardless of the number of words.
On Feb. 6, 1945,(10) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas,
responded as follows to a parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 91 Cong. Rec. 839, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert F.] Rich [of Pennsylvania]: I wish to ask the Chair
how it is that if a Member on this side asks for a minute in which
to address the House he is permitted to insert 300 words or less,
but that when some Members on the other side of the aisle make
similar requests they are permitted to put in 7\1/3\ pages, or some
8,000 words? How does the discrimination come about?
The Speaker: There is no discrimination because there was no
legislative program on yesterday and anyone had the right to extend
his remarks ``at this point'' in the Record.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Extending remarks in the Record generally, see Ch. 5, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 10.34 The Speaker may decline to recognize Members to extend their
remarks where a motion to discharge a committee is pending.
On June 11, 1945,(12) Mr. Vito Marcantonio, of New York,
called up a motion to discharge the Committee on Rules from the further
consideration of a resolution providing an order of business. Mr. John
E. Rankin, of Mississippi, moved that the motion be laid on the table,
but Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled that the motion to table was
not in order. Mr. Rankin then asked unanimous consent to extend his
remarks at ``this point in the Record.'' The Speaker ruled:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 91 Cong. Rec. 5892, 5895, 5896, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair cannot recognize Members to extend their remarks
until this matter has been disposed of.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See Rule XXVII clause 3, House Rules and Manual Sec. 908 (1995):
``[T]he House shall proceed to its consideration (motion to
discharge) in the manner herein provided without intervening
motion except one motion to adjourn.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 9717]]
Sec. 10.35 Where a Member had requested permission to insert certain
remarks in the Record but had delayed submission thereof to the
printer, the Speaker declined to recognize another Member to make
the same request.
On Nov. 17, 1943,(14) Mr. John E. Rankin, of
Mississippi, asked unanimous consent to extend his remarks and to print
therein a radio address of Mr. Wright Patman, of Texas. Speaker Sam
Rayburn, of Texas, responded that he would not recognize Mr. Rankin for
the request, Mr. Patman having previously asked unanimous consent to
insert the address in the Record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 89 Cong. Rec. 9626, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Request That Speech Made to Joint Meeting Be Printed as House Document
Sec. 10.36 The Speaker declined to entertain a unanimous-consent
request that a speech made to a joint meeting by the General of the
Army be printed as a House document.
On May 2, 1951,(15) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas,
refused to entertain a request that a speech be printed as a House
document:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 97 Cong. Rec. 4755, 4756, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mrs. [Edith Nourse] Rogers of Massachusetts: Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent, in view of the great interest in the speech of
Gen. Douglas MacArthur, that it may be ordered printed as a House
document.
The Speaker: The Chair thinks
the gentlewoman from Massachusetts should refer to the Joint
Committee on Printing.
Mrs. Rogers of Massachusetts: Mr. Speaker, I introduced a bill
for that purpose, but I had hoped we could get it done by unanimous
consent.
The Speaker: The Chair does not like to start doing things like
that; it is very unusual. We do have a Joint Committee on Printing.
The Chair cannot entertain the request.
Request To Revoke Special Rule; Consideration of Conference Reports
Sec. 10.37 The Speaker declined to recognize a Member to ask unanimous
consent for the revocation of a special rule, previously agreed to,
permitting the consideration of conference reports on the same day
reported.
On Sept. 25, 1961,(16) Speaker Pro Tempore John W. McCor
[[Page 9718]]
mack, of Massachusetts, declined to recognize for a unanimous-consent
request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 107 Cong. Rec. 21183, 21184, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, I have a unanimous-
consent request to make concerning the procedure of the House. I
ask unanimous consent that the action by which clause 2 of rule
XXVIII was suspended a week ago last Saturday be revoked, and that
clause 2, rule XXVIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives
be restored.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to be heard briefly on my reasons
for so doing.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Under the circumstances the Chair
declines to recognize the gentleman from Iowa to submit the
request.
Special Rule Providing for Reading Committee Amendment by Sections;
Request To Read Substitute by Sections
Sec. 10.38 Where the House has by special rule provided for reading by
sections in Committee of the Whole of a committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute as an original bill, any amendment offered
thereto must be read in its entirety; the Committee may not by
unanimous consent order that an amendment in the nature of a
substitute for the committee amendment be in turn read by sections
for amendment.
The proceedings of Mar. 25, 1975,(17) demonstrate that,
while the Chair may through the power of recognition encourage the
orderly offering of amendments to a pending amendment in the nature of
a substitute which has been read in its entirety, a unanimous-consent
request to read the substitute for amendment by sections is not in
order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 121 Cong. Rec. 8490, 8491, 94th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration
was H.R. 4222, to amend the National School Lunch Act and Child
Nutrition Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [James G.] O'Hara [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr.
O'Hara: In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the
Committee to the text of the bill, H.R. 4222, insert the
following:
That this Act may be cited as ``The National School Lunch
Act and Child Nutrition Act of 1966 Amendments of 1975''.
school breakfast program
Sec. 2: Section 4(a) of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 is
amended by inserting immediately after ``and June 30, 1975,''
the following: ``and subsequent fiscal years''.
Mr. O'Hara (during the reading): Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with and
that it be printed in the Record.
The Chairman: (18) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Michigan?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Otis G. Pike (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 9719]]
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, reserving
the right to object. For all intents and purposes it now appears
that the original committee substitute, made in order by the rule,
is to be junked and instead we are being asked to consider this new
substitute which the gentleman from Michigan has just now offered.
The original rule on this bill provided that the committee
substitute be read for purposes of amendment, as is usual. If the
gentleman now obtains unanimous consent to consider his substitute
as read and open to amendment, all sorts of confusion can result.
No one will have any control over what amendments will be presented
and in which order and debate may be cut off.
Mr. O'Hara: Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Bauman: I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. O'Hara: Mr. Chairman, while it is being read in the Record
it will not be open to amendment section by section. It would be
open to amendment when the entire amendment is read.
Mr. Bauman: That is precisely what we object to. . . .
Mr. [Albert H.] Quie [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, this is
significant to what the gentleman is talking about. If the
substitute is read, it is my understanding of the rules of the
House that we cannot stop at the end of each section for
amendments, but the entire substitute has to be read before it
would be open for amendments.
May I inquire of the Chairman, is that right?
The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I
wonder if the gentleman from Michigan would make a unanimous-
consent request that his amendment be read section by section. This
would accomplish the purpose we are after.
The Chairman: The Chair will state that the Chair would not
entertain a request of that nature. The amendment must be read in
its entirety under the rules of the House, if the gentleman from
Maryland insists upon his objection. The Chair would encourage that
amendments be made to each section once it has been read, but it
cannot be open for amendment prior to the reading.
Request To Add Members as Co-sponsors of Bill
Sec. 10.39 Although the Chair, in accordance with Rule XXII, clause
4(b)(1), under which only the chief sponsor of a bill may add
cosponsors, may decline to entertain a unanimous-consent request on
the floor by a Member not the chief sponsor to add all Members as
cosponsors of a
bill under consideration, the Chair may permit instead a listing in
the Record of the Members' names.
On Dec. 18, 1985,(19) the following proceedings occurred
in the House during consideration of House Resolution 345 (concerning
[[Page 9720]]
the deaths of members of the 101st Air-Assault Division in an airplane
crash):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 131 Cong. Rec. 37762, 37763, 37765, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [William] Nichols [of Alabama]: Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be
discharged from further consideration of the resolution (H. Res.
345) to express the sentiment of Congress regarding the deaths of
members of the 101st Air Assault Division in an airplane crash on
December 12, 1985, at Gander, Newfoundland, Canada, while en route
home for the season's holiday, and ask for its immediate
consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (20) Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Alabama?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Dale E. Kildee (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Larry J.] Hopkins [of Kentucky]: Mr. Speaker, reserving
the right to object, I do so so that the chairman might have an
opportunity to explain his position.
I yield to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Nichols).
Mr. Nichols: . . . Mr. Speaker, the resolution merely expresses
our sorrow at the deaths of the 248 members of the 101st Airborne
Division. . . .
Mr. Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, in withdrawing my reservation of
objection, I ask that all Members' of the House of Representatives
names be added to this resolution.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: . . . Did the gentleman ask that all
Members' names be listed in the Record as cosponsors?
Mr. Hopkins: That is correct, Mr. Speaker, that all Members'
names be listed in the Record as cosponsors of this resolution. I
ask unanimous consent for that permission.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from Kentucky?
There was no objection.
The list of Members' names referred to is as follows: . . .
Limitation on Debate--Request Not Entertained Until Resolution Read or
Considered as Read
Sec. 10.40 The Chair may decline to entertain a unanimous-consent
request that all debate on a pending measure be limited, in advance
of completion of reading of that measure in its entirety and in the
absence of a unanimous-consent agreement to consider the measure as
having been read.
On July 16, 1975,(1) during consideration of House
Resolution 591 (establishing a Select Committee on Intelligence) in the
Committee of the Whole, Mr. Richard Bolling, of Missouri, made a
unanimous-consent request, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 121 Cong. Rec. 23112, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Bolling: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the necessary
number of
[[Page 9721]]
words. . . . I am going to ask unanimous consent that the
resolution be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open
to amendment at any point.
The Chairman: (2) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Missouri?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Frank E. Evans (Colo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I object.
The Chairman: Objection is heard.
Mr. Bolling: Mr. Chairman, then I can only ask unanimous
consent that all debate on the resolution and all amendments
thereto close at 2:30.
The Chairman: The gentleman should be advised that that request
cannot be made until the resolution has been read.
--Request Not Entertained During Reading of Amendment
Sec. 10.41 The Chair will not entertain a unanimous-consent request
regarding the limitation of time for debate on an amendment during
the reading of the amendment.
During consideration of the Energy Conservation and Oil Policy Act
of 1975 (H.R. 7014) in the Committee of the Whole on Sept. 18,
1975,(3) the proceedings described above occurred as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 121 Cong. Rec. 29322, 29323, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [James M.] Jeffords [of Vermont]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Jeffords: Page 331, after line 10,
add the following:
TITLE VI--ENERGY LABELING AND EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR BEVERAGE
CONTAINERS
definitions and coverage
Sec. 601.--For purposes of this part--
(1) The term ``beverage container'' means a bottle, jar,
can, or carton of glass, plastic, or metal, or any combination
thereof, used for packaging or marketing beer . . . or a
carbonated soft drink of any variety in liquid form which is
intended for human consumption. . . .
Mr. Jeffords (during the reading): Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and
printed in the Record due to the fact that it was printed in the
Record with the exception of two words which I shall explain. . . .
Mr. [Phillip H.] Hayes of Indiana: Mr. Chairman, I object. . .
.
Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to
make a unanimous consent request with regard to a limitation of
time. . . .
The Chairman:(4) The Chair will state to the
gentleman from Michigan that the reading of the amendment has not
been completed and we should dispose of the reading of the
amendment prior to such a request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk will proceed to read the amendment.
[[Page 9722]]
Request That Debate End Ten Minutes After Subsequent Amendment Offered
Sec. 10.42 Where there was pending an amendment and a substitute
therefor, the Chair declined to entertain a unanimous-consent
request that debate end ten minutes after another Member ``has had
an opportunity to offer'' a further substitute, where the offering
of such substitute might be precluded by the adoption of the
pending substitute.
During consideration of the Defense Production Act Amendments of
1979 (H.R. 3930) in the Committee of the Whole on June 26,
1979,(5) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 125 Cong. Rec. 16670, 16672, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer
amendments as a substitute for the amendments.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendments offered by Mr. Michel as a substitute for the
amendments offered by Mr. Wright of Texas: On page 5, line 2,
strike out the period after ``section'' and insert in lieu
thereof ``and at least 2,000,000 barrels per day crude oil
equivalent of synthetic fuels . . . .
Mr. [William S.] Moorhead of Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman, I see
only about five or six Members standing. I ask unanimous consent
that all debate on the Wright amendment and all amendments thereto
close in 15 minutes.
The Chairman:(6) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Pennsylvania?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [James M.] Jeffords [of Vermont]: Reserving the right to
object, the gentleman knows I have a substitute which I think ought
to be considered . . . and I just cannot agree to 15 minutes unless
I am sure I am going to have 5 minutes myself in order to be able
to explain the substitute.
Mr. Moorhead of Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that all debate on the Wright amendment and all amendments
thereto close 10 minutes after the gentleman has had an opportunity
to offer his substitute amendment.
The Chairman: The Chair would advise the gentleman that in the
event the amendment offered as a substitute by the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Michel) were adopted, no other substitute would be in
order and the request would be unworkable.
Request To Extend Debate Time--Not Entertained Pending Demand for
Recorded Vote
Sec. 10.43 A time limitation on debate imposed by the Committee of the
Whole, pursuant to Rule XXIII clause 6, may be rescinded or modi
[[Page 9723]]
fied only by unanimous consent; and a unanimous-consent request to
extend debate time on an amendment may not be entertained while
there is pending a demand for a recorded vote on that amendment.
During consideration of the Energy Conservation and Oil Policy Act
of 1975 (H.R. 7014) in the Committee of the Whole on Sept. 17,
1975,(7) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 121 Cong. Rec. 28904, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: (8) When the Committee rose on Friday,
August 1, 1975, all time for debate on title III of the committee
amendment in the nature
of a substitute and all amendments thereto had expired and there
was pending the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Brown) to title III on which a recorded vote had been requested by
the gentleman from Ohio.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Without objection, the Clerk will again read the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).
There was no objection.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Brown of Ohio: Strike out sections
301, 302, 303.
Renumber the succeeding sections of title III accordingly.
. . .
Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I have a
parliamentary inquiry. . . . The parliamentary inquiry, Mr.
Chairman is, Would it be in order at this point while the vote is
pending to ask unanimous consent of the House that 2 minutes may be
granted on either side of the aisle for a discussion at this point
of the pending vote?
The Chairman: Such a request would be in order only if the
gentleman first withdrew his request for a recorded vote. . . .
Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, then I ask unanimous consent
to withdraw my request for a recorded vote at this point.
The Chairman: That does not require unanimous consent. The
gentleman withdraws his request for a recorded vote.
Does the gentleman now ask unanimous consent for debate time? .
. .
Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 1
minute be granted to the Democratic side in the hands of the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and 1 minute to the
Republican side to be in the hands of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Brown).
The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
Consideration of Resolution Inviting Non-members To Address House
Sec. 10.44 The Speaker has declined to recognize Members proposing the
unanimous-consent consideration of res
[[Page 9724]]
olutions inviting non-members to address the House.
On Feb. 23, 1943,(9) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas,
declined to recognize Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, to request
unanimous consent for the consideration of a resolution inviting
Captain Eddie Rickenbacker to address a joint session of Congress. The
Speaker stated that in any event the resolution would have to be
referred to the Committee on Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 89 Cong. Rec. 1212, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Oct. 11, 1943,(10) Speaker Rayburn stated that he
would decline to recognize a Member to ask unanimous consent for the
consideration of a resolution inviting certain Senators to address the
House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Id. at p. 8197.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: . . . The Chair does not intend to recognize a
Member to ask unanimous consent for the present consideration of a
resolution inviting Senators to address the House in open or
executive session, because the Chair thinks that is tantamount to
an amendment to the rules of the House and, therefore, is a matter
for the House to determine. If resolutions like that are
introduced, they will be sent to the proper committee.
Mr. Rankin: A parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Rankin: Of course, the Speaker has a right to refuse to
recognize me for that purpose, but I think if the Speaker will
investigate the rules he will find that we have a right to invite
those men to come here to address the Members in the House.
The Speaker: The Chair has already investigated that and finds
it otherwise. Members of the Senate have the privilege of the
floor, but they do not have the privilege of addressing the House
of Representatives.
Request That Committee Be Permitted To Sit (Under Former Practice)
Sec. 10.45 Pursuant to the Speaker's policy announced in the 98th
Congress in regard to recognition for requests that committees and
subcommittees be permitted to sit during the five-minute rule, the
Speaker Pro Tempore indicated on a day when no rollcall votes were
scheduled, that such a request (except as to hearings) should be
withheld until the next day, when Members had been advised there
could be rollcall votes.
The following exchange occurred in the House on May 23,
1983:(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 129 Cong. Rec. 13365, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Norman Y.] Mineta [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous
[[Page 9725]]
consent that the Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Grounds of
the Committee on Public Works and Transportation and the Committee
on Public Works and Transportation have permission to sit during
the 5-minute rule in the House on Wednesday, May 25, 1983.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (12) The Chair will advise
the gentleman that under the Speaker's statement he will have to
make that request tomorrow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. John P. Murtha (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: The provision prohibiting committees from
sitting during proceedings under the five-minute rule was stricken by
H. Res. 5, 103d Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 5, 1993. The prohibition of Rule
XI, clause 2(i), was reinstated in modified form in the 104th Congress
and also applies to committee meetings during joint sessions and joint
meetings. House Rules and Manual Sec. 710 (1995).
Request To Withdraw Disorderly Words
Sec. 10.46 Although a Member whose words have been taken down as
disorderly must take his seat, the Speaker may recognize him for a
unanimous-consent request to withdraw the words in question.
On June 12, 1947,(13) Mr. Chet Holifield, of California,
referred in debate to the Committee on Un-American Activities as the
``Un-American Committee.'' Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, demanded
that those words be taken down and Mr. Holifield attempted to deliver
further remarks. Mr. Rankin objected that ``the gentleman cannot speak
until this matter is disposed of.'' Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of
Massachusetts, responded ``the gentleman is correct, unless he (Mr.
Holifield) makes a unanimous-consent request.'' When Mr. Rankin
asserted that a Member whose words were being taken down could make no
unanimous-consent request under the rules, the Speaker declared:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 93 Cong. Rec. 6895, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair can always recognize anyone to propound a unanimous-
consent request. Of course, it would be within the province of the
gentleman from Mississippi to object, but the Chair can put
unanimous-consent requests at any time.
Request To Be Allowed To Proceed for One Minute Pending Demand That
Another Member's Words Be Taken Down
Sec. 10.47 The Chair does not entertain a unanimous-consent request
that a Member be allowed to proceed for one minute pending a demand
that another Member's words be taken down.
[[Page 9726]]
On Jan. 21, 1964,(14) while the House was in the
Committee of the Whole, certain words used in debate by a Member were
demanded to be taken down and reported to the House. Before the
Committee rose, Mr. James Roosevelt, of California, asked unanimous
consent to proceed for one minute. Chairman William S. Moorhead, of
Pennsylvania, refused to entertain the request.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 110 Cong. Rec. 756, 757, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
15. Pending a demand to take down words, no debate is in order and
recognition may not be sought (except to permit the Member
called to order to withdraw the disorderly words by unanimous
consent). See Sec. Sec. 48 et seq., infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaker Announced Policy for Recognition for One-minute and Special-
order Speeches
Sec. 10.48 The Speaker, in announcing a new policy for recognition for
one-minute speeches and for special-order requests indicated that
he would: (1) alternate recognition between majority and minority
Members in the order in which they seek
recognition; (2) recognize
Members for special-order speeches first who want to address the
House for five minutes or less, alternating between majority and
minority Members, otherwise in the order in which permission was
granted; and (3) then recognize Members who wish to address the
House for longer than five minutes and up to one hour, alternating
between majority and
minority Members in the order in which permission was granted by
the House.
On Aug. 8, 1984,(16) Speaker Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr., of
Massachusetts, made the following announcement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 130 Cong. Rec. 22963, 98th Cong. 2d Sess. Recognition for one-
minute speeches is discussed in Sec. Sec. 10.48-10.63, infra;
for special orders in Sec. Sec. 10.64-10.78, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: After consultation with and concurrence by the
minority leader, the Chair announces that he will institute a new
policy of recognition for ``1-minute'' speeches and for special
order requests. Beginning September 5, the Chair will alternate
recognition for 1-minute speeches between majority and minority
Members, in the order in which they seek recognition in the well
under present practice from the Chair's right to the Chair's left,
with possible exceptions for Members of the leadership and Members
having business requests. The Chair, of course, reserves the right
to limit 1-minute speeches to a certain period of time or to a
special place in the pro
[[Page 9727]]
gram on any given day, with notice to the leadership.
With respect to recognition for ``special-order speeches'' at
the end of legislative business of the day, the Chair will
recognize first those Members who wish to address the House for 5
minutes or less, alternating between majority and minority members,
otherwise in the order in which those permissions were granted by
the House. Thereafter, the Chair will recognize those Members who
wish to address the House for longer than 5 minutes up to 1 hour,
alternating between majority and minority members in the order in
which those permissions were granted by the House.
Thus all Members can continue to obtain permissions to address
the House in the same ways as are presently utilized, either by
requests made by the acting majority and minority leaders at the
end of the day through their respective Cloak Rooms or by
individual requests agreed to on the floor for that day or for a
future day. For the request to be entertained, it should state
``permission to address the House at the conclusion of legislative
business, consistent with the Speaker's announced policy of
recognition''. Thus, Members should be on notice that a special
order for more than 5 minutes, although agreed to at a prior time,
may be preceded by a series of special orders of 5 minutes or less,
or by a longer special order of a Member of the other party.
Further refinements of this policy based upon experience may be
announced by the Chair in the future after consultation with the
minority leader.
The Speaker implemented the above stated policy for the first time
on Sept. 5, 1984: (17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 130 Cong. Rec. 24289, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: This is the day on which a new precedent will be
established. We will call one Member from the majority side on the
1-minute speeches and then one Member from the Republican side, as
the Chair so notified the House at an earlier date.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Stratton).
Parliamentarian's Note: An announcement that the above policies
concerning recognition for one-minute and special-order speeches would
be continued in the 100th Congress was made by the Chair on Jan. 6,
1987.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See 133 Cong. Rec. 21, 22, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One-minute Speeches--Chair Announced Procedure
Sec. 10.49 The Speaker announced the procedure whereby (and the time at
which) Members would be recognized to make speeches up to one
minute in length.
On Jan. 23, 1975,(19) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma,
made the following statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 121 Cong. Rec. 1163, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 9728]]
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER
The Speaker: May the Chair state, particularly for the benefit
of new Members, that we generally open the proceedings, after the
prayer and disposition of the Journal and things which are
immediately on the Speaker's desk, by recognizing Members for
individual requests and for speeches up to 1 minute.
The Chair habitually and regularly starts at the extreme right
and goes all the way around; then comes back and starts over. If
Members want to be heard, the Chair wants to take them in that
order. So, Members will be recognized in the order from the first
seat to the Speaker's right to the last seat on the Speaker's left,
and then the process will be repeated, if other Members come in.
--Chair Endeavors To Be Nonpartisan
Sec. 10.50 While the Chair's calculation of time under the ``one-minute
rule'' is not subject to challenge, the Chair endeavors to
recognize majority and then minority Members by allocating time in
a nonpartisan manner.
The following exchange occurred in the House on Aug. 4, 1982:
(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 128 Cong. Rec. 19319, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry. . . .
[C]an the Chair tell me how long 1 minute is?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (1) Does the gentleman
request additional time?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Cecil Heftel (Ha.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I am just inquiring. We have had
several long speeches here this morning. I thought that we were
limited in the 1-minute time frame to 1 minute each. . . .
I am making a parliamentary inquiry of the Chair as to whether
or not that is the rule of the House that is supposed to be obeyed.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: It is, by precedent, and since the
Chair wants to be fair, the Chair would like to extend to the
gentleman and his side of the aisle any additional 1-minute
speeches that they require immediately. Would the gentleman like to
use it now?
Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Chair. I think there are a
number of Members who are waiting yet to speak, and I would
certainly yield such time as I might consume to Members on the
Republican side who have yet to speak so that everyone has an
opportunity to speak this morning.
I thank the Chair.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will recognize them after
recognizing Members on the right side of the aisle, and the Chair
will in fairness extend to them as much time under the 1-minute
rule as they need.
--Recognition Is Within Discretion of Chair
Sec. 10.51 Recognition for one-minute speeches is within
[[Page 9729]]
the discretion of the Speaker who may continue to recognize Members
appearing in the well on the majority side prior to recognizing
minority Members (although at that time the Speaker customarily
recognized first those Members who were in the Chamber at the
beginning of the daily session and then those arriving later).
During the period for one-minute speeches in the House on Mar. 18,
1981,(2) Speaker Pro Tempore George E. Danielson, of
California, in responding to a parliamentary inquiry, reiterated the
rule that recognition was within the discretion of the Speaker. The
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 127 Cong. Rec. 4617-19, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Mr. Frank asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. [Barney] Frank [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, the
American administration in El Salvador makes little sense either
politically or geopolitically. . . .
(Mr. Markey asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. [Edward J.] Markey [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, over
13,000 deaths have been reported in the past 15 months in El
Salvador, a country just larger than my own State of Massachusetts.
A majority of these deaths have been attributed to the rightist
government in power since 1979. . . .
Mr. [Kenneth B.] Kramer [of Colorado]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
Are we still proceeding under the normal rules for 1-minute
speeches?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will advise the gentleman
from Colorado that recognition at this time is within the total
discretion of the Speaker.
The House is proceeding under the 1-minute practice.
The gentleman will be recognized.
The Chair assures the gentleman that he will be recognized. . .
.
Mr. [Lawrence J.] DeNardis [of Connecticut]: Mr. Speaker, I
positioned myself here 55 minutes ago to speak on an education and
labor matter, and I want to say, for the record, that my associates
on the minority side of the aisle, who were here promptly at 3
o'clock, have had to wait, I would say unnecessarily and unfairly
long, to have our opportunity to speak.
Sec. 10.52 URecognition Uof UMembers for ``one-minute speeches'' prior
to legislative business is within the discretion of the Speaker,
who may announce his intention to alternate recognition between
majority and minority Members for one hour before recognizing a
Member to call
up scheduled legislative business.
[[Page 9730]]
On June 26, 1981,(3) Speaker Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr., of
Massachusetts, made the following statement in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 127 Cong. Rec. 14351, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: The Chair desires to make the following
announcement:
There are a considerable number of requests for 1-minute
speeches. Following the doctrine of fairness, the Chair will
recognize one Member from the Democratic side and then one from the
Republican side, and at the hour of 11 o'clock will recognize the
chairman of the Budget Committee to offer a motion to resolve into
the Committee of the Whole.
Sec. 10.53 While at one time the Chair normally conferred recognition
from his right to his left upon those Members who are standing in
the well when the time for one-minute speeches prior to legislative
business begins, the order of recognition is within the discretion
of the Chair who may continue to recognize majority Members
arriving at a later time before recognizing minority Members.
On Apr. 20, 1978,(4) Speaker Pro Tempore James C.
Wright, Jr., of Texas, responded to a parliamentary inquiry regarding
the order of recognition for one-minute speeches:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 124 Cong. Rec. 10987, 10988, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Maryland will state
his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has been observing this
House for about 25 years now in various capacities and was under
the impression that the Speaker's normal custom was to recognize
Members for 1-minute speeches from his right to left allowing those
Members who were there from the beginning to speak. This morning we
have seen a parade of Members on the majority side of the aisle
fill up the seats of Members who have already taken their 1-minute
speeches while several other Members on the minority side of the
aisle have been sitting here for more than an hour. I just wondered
if that is not still the custom of the House?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is advised that recognition
lies within the discretion of the Chair. This Member has observed
the Chair, I think without exception, recognizing from his right
side to his left. The Chair has no control of the number of Members
who might seek recognition. But the Chair is seeking to protect the
rights of all Members of the House and the gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. Bauman) may be assured that the rights of all Members will be
protected.
Sec. 10.54 While the Chair strives for fairness in recognizing Members
for one-minute
[[Page 9731]]
speeches prior to legislative business and has recognized minority
Members prior to later arriving majority Members, the order of
recognition for one-minute speeches is in the discretion of the
Chair.
On June 28, 1983,(5) Speaker Pro Tempore George E.
Brown, Jr., of California, responded to a parliamentary inquiry of Mr.
Gerald B. Solomon, of New York, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 129 Cong. Rec. 17671, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, I am just concerned with fairness. We
have heard a lot about it on the floor here this morning, but I
understand it is the Speaker's policy to recognize those Members
who wish to address the House for 1 minute in the order in which
they came.
We naturally give the Democrats first preference, but it seems
in recent days we see Members sitting here, like myself, for an
hour and 10 minutes now and then we have other Members coming in on
the Democratic side in the last 5 minutes. I would hope that the
Speaker would continue his policy of once the Democrats have been
recognized in the order in which they came, follow through with the
Republicans in the act of fairness and then go back to those who
came in later.
Is that the policy of the Chair, Mr. Speaker?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: It is in the discretion of the Chair
to recognize Members as he sees fit; however, the Chair invariably
seeks to be fair in his procedures.
Sec. 10.55 The order of recognition for one-minute speeches prior to
legislative business is within the discretion of the Chair and is
not subject to challenge on a point of order.
On Nov. 15, 1983,(6) during the time for one-minute
speeches in the House, the following exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 129 Cong. Rec. 32657, 32658, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Mickey] Edwards of Oklahoma: Mr. Speaker, I make a point
of order.
I noticed in the recognition of Members as they sat around the
room here to be recognized for 1-minute speeches that one Member
was just recognized who had not been sitting in order to
participate.
I would inquire of the Speaker if it is his intention now to
continue to recognize the Republican Members before accepting any
more Democrats who are not currently sitting to be recognized.
The Speaker Pro Tempore:(7) The Chair would state
that this is not really a point of order. Recognition is within the
discretion of the Chair, and the Chair is attempting to be fair.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It was the Chair's present intention to recognize a minority
Member gen
[[Page 9732]]
tleman from Ohio, who stands seeking recognition at this time. This
is what the Chair intends to do.
Parliamentarian's Note: Various protocols have been enunciated
by Speakers regarding the order
of one-minute speech recognition. See Sec. 10.48, supra.
Sec. 10.56 Recognition for one-minute speeches is within the discretion
of the Chair, who may decline recognition until a later time in the
legislative day.
On May 16, 1984,(8) pursuant to clause 5 of Rule I, the
Speaker postponed the vote on his approval of the Journal until a time
certain that day, in order to
permit a period of one-minute speeches and then a quorum call or record
vote on the Journal prior to declaring a recess for a joint meeting.
Questions arose during the proceedings as to whether one-minute
speeches would be resumed after the recess:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 130 Cong. Rec. 12481, 12483, 12484, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker:(9) The Chair has examined the Journal
of the last day's proceedings and announces to the House his
approval thereof. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Vin] Weber [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause
1, rule I, I demand a vote on the Speaker's approval of the
Journal.
The Speaker: The Chair intends to have a quorum call before the
President of Mexico comes, at about 10:25.
Does the gentleman withhold his motion?
Mr. Weber: No, I will not, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: The question is on the Chair's approval of the
Journal.
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. Weber: 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: The Chair will postpone the vote on the Journal
until 10:25 a.m. . . .
The Chair will recognize 1-minute speeches.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Wright). . .
.
The Speaker Pro Tempore:(10) The Chair will announce
that it intends to take one more Member on the Democratic side, and
then, because the House intends to vote at 10:25, the Chair will
move to the Republican side. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Pat Williams (Mont.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Daniel E.] Lungren [of California]: Mr. Speaker, does this
mean that when we come back after we have received the President of
Mexico, we will resume 1-minutes?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: That is a possibility.
Mr. Lungren: Well, Mr. Speaker, that is really not an answer to
my question. Are we or are we not going to do it? Because we have
had 20 minutes of Democratic one minutes, and per
[[Page 9733]]
haps 4 minutes of Republican 1-minutes.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will answer the gentleman
that that is a possibility because it will be up to the judgment of
the Speaker. . . .
Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, the
gentleman in the chair is the Speaker at this point. What we need
is a ruling as to whether or not the minority side is going to be
accorded the right to 1-minutes, since many of us have been sitting
here after, or before members of the majority side were recognized.
Now, it seems to us that we deserve our opportunity to have our 1-
minutes considered here, too.
Is the Chair going to allow 1-minutes or not?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will again tell the
gentleman of the minority that the decision as to
the earlier gentleman's request as to whether or not 1-minutes will
proceed immediately after the recess, the Chair announces that
decision will be the Speaker's.
The Chair will also announce that the Republican side of the
aisle, as well as the Democratic side, will have an opportunity for
1-minutes sometime during the course of the day. . . .
Mr. Weber: Mr. Speaker, does the Chair mean that the
Republicans will be given the opportunity to do the 1-minutes prior
to the beginning of legislative business?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: No, some time during the day.
Mr. Weber: Perhaps at the end of legislative business?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: That will be a decision for the
Speaker.
Sec. 10.57 Recognition is within the discretion of the Chair, who may
deny a Member recognition to speak under the ``one-minute rule'' in
order to uphold order and decorum in the House as required under
clause 2 of Rule I; thus, the Speaker inquired of a Member in the
well seeking recognition, as to his purpose in utilizing an object
for demonstration in debate, and then denied that Member
recognition pursuant to his authority under clause 2 of Rule XIV,
when he determined that the object might subject the House to
ridicule.
On Aug. 27, 1980,(11) the following proceedings occurred
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 126 Cong. Rec. 23456, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: (12) The Chair would ask the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) what he intends to do with the
doll. The Chair is not going to allow the Congress to be held up to
ridicule and will object to any such exhibit being used in debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [E. G.] Shuster [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, if I may
respond, I simply want to introduce this duck as a symbol of the
lameduck session that I want to speak to.
The Speaker: The Chair is of the opinion the Member would be
holding
[[Page 9734]]
the House up to ridicule and would ask the gentleman to make the
speech without utilizing the apparatus or the doll or anything of
that nature.
Mr. Shuster: Mr. Speaker, this is certainly not the intention.
The Speaker: That is the way the Chair feels about it and the
Chair so rules.
(Mr. Shuster asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Parliamentarian's Note: The original transcript shows that the
Speaker first inquired as to Mr. Shuster's purpose and then denied him
recognition, and that Mr. Shuster was then recognized for one minute.
Thus, the Speaker was exercising his power of recognition, and was not
unilaterally preventing the use of a demonstration during debate, which
would be a matter to be determined by a vote of the House, under Rule
XXX.
--Chair May Recognize After Legislative Business
Sec. 10.58 The elected Speaker Pro Tempore (the Majority Leader)
reiterated his policy announced on the previous day to refuse to
entertain unanimous-consent requests to address the House for
one minute before legislative business because of the press of
legislative business during the remainder of the week, but stated
that any policy for the remainder of the session with respect to
one-minute speeches would be a matter for the Speaker to determine.
During the proceedings of the House on July 25,
1980,(13) the Speaker Pro Tempore made the following
statement regarding recognition for one-minute speeches:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 126 Cong. Rec. 19762-64, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (14) . . . As the Chair
announced yesterday, requests to address the House for 1 minute
will be entertained at the conclusion of the legislative business
today, rather than at the beginning. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair believes there is genuine value in the 1-minute rule
in the exercise of free expression . . . . For all its value,
however, the Chair does not believe that the 1-minute rule must
necessarily precede, nor be permitted to postpone, the business of
the House. . . .
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry. . . .
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the gentleman from Maryland heard the
Chair answer a question regarding 1-minute speeches. The gentleman
from Maryland asked the Chair whether or not limits on such
speeches is to be a policy to be followed for the remainder of the
session, and the Chair, as recorded
[[Page 9735]]
on page H6404, said that the Chair was not announcing a policy for
the remainder of the session, but only for Thursday and Friday.
Do I take the Chair's announcement this morning to mean that
this will be the policy for the remainder of this session?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: No; as the Chair stated yesterday in
response to a question from the gentleman from Maryland, the
present occupant of the chair is not in a position to announce a
policy for the remainder of the session, and so stated.
The policy for the remainder of the session would be more
appropriately determined and stated by Speaker O'Neill. At this
present time, that is all the Chair has to say, or all that he
properly should or could say.
Parliamentarian's Note: In the above instance, a resolution
directing that the Speaker ``exercise his prerogative and reinstitute
the custom of allowing one-minute speeches at the beginning of the
session'' was held not to raise a question of the privileges of the
House.(15) In general, it is not in order to raise as a
question of the privileges of the House a proposition to amend or
interpret the rules of the House or to impinge on the Chair's power of
recognition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 126 Cong. Rec. 19762, 96th Cong. 2d Sess., July 25, 1980.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 10.59 On occasion the Speaker has announced his intention to
recognize for one-minute speeches after completion of the first
item of legislative business, rather than at the beginning of the
day.
On Nov. 10, 1983,(16) after putting the question on
approval of the Journal, the Speaker made an announcement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 129 Cong. Rec. 32097, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: (17) The question now is on the
approval of the Journal. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair will announce that following the vote we will go
directly to consideration of the continuing resolution. Following
the completion of the continuing resolution, we will then take the
1-minute addresses for the day.
Sec. 10.60 Recognition for one-minute speeches is within the discretion
of the Speaker; and when the House has a heavy legislative
schedule, he sometimes refuses to recognize Members for that
purpose until the completion of legislative business.
On July 24, 1980,(18) Speaker Pro Tempore James C.
Wright, Jr., of Texas, made an announcement regarding one-minute
speeches, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 126 Cong. Rec. 19386, 19387, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair desires to announce that in
view
[[Page 9736]]
of the need to complete the legislative schedule, which has been
long delayed, the Chair will recognize Members at this time only
for unanimous-consent requests to revise and extend their remarks
and not for 1-minute speeches.
Members will be recognized for 1-minute speeches at the
conclusion of the legislative business today.
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, it has, of course, been traditional in
the House to allow 1-minute speeches at the discretion of the
Chair, as the Chair has just indicated.
Is this denial of 1-minute speeches to be the policy for the
remainder of the session, or is it just for today?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair cannot and would not attempt
to set a policy for the remainder of the session. For the remainder
of this week, today and tomorrow, the Chair desires to complete the
legislative program that is scheduled for this week and to allow
Members to leave at 3 o'clock tomorrow.
Subsequently, a Member took the floor for a special-order speech to
criticize the decision of the Speaker Pro Tempore to refuse to
recognize for one-minute speeches prior to legislative business on that
day: (19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Id. at pp. 19445, 19446.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Under a previous order of the House,
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman) is recognized for 60
minutes.
(Mr. Bauman asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I take this time to observe with
sorrow the events that occurred earlier today. I did not wish to
explore them at length during the 1-minute speech which I was
finally permitted, but I do think they deserve some comment. I will
try to confine myself to the 1-hour the House permits me under
special order.
I happen to believe that the conduct of the President's
brother, Billy Carter, has raised valid questions that need to be
answered. . . .
So I would just suggest that we all re-examine our position and
only put aside the traditions of the House and the free speech of
Members if it is absolutely necessary for good reason.
--Second Request Not Entertained
Sec. 10.61 Under the Speaker's power of recognition as traditionally
exercised prior to legislative business, a Member may be recognized
for
a ``one-minute speech'' only once, and a second unanimous-consent
request on that day will not be entertained.
On May 1, 1985,(20) the following exchange occurred in
the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 131 Cong. Rec. 9995, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 9737]]
The Speaker Pro Tempore:(1) For what purpose does
the gentleman from New York rise?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. John P. Murtha (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Thomas J.] Downey of New York: Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise
and extend my remarks.
Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Pennsylvania will
state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, am I not correct that, having given
one 1-minute speech, the gentleman is not entitled to a second 1-
minute speech today?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: That is the custom, if the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Downey) has had a 1-minute speech. . . .
(Mr. [Byron L.] Dorgan of North Dakota asked and was given
permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. Downey of New York: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield
to me?
Mr. Dorgan of North Dakota: I yield to the gentleman from New
York.
--On Calendar Wednesday
Sec. 10.62 Although the call of committees on Calendar Wednesday should
precede unanimous-consent requests for the conduct of other
business, the Speaker has on occasion recognized Members by
unanimous consent for one-minute speeches prior to the call of
committees.
While the precedents(2) indicate that the call of
committees should ordinarily precede unanimous-consent requests for the
conduct of other business, the Speaker may make exceptions. Thus, on
Mar. 21, 1984,(3) the Speaker recognized a Member for a
unanimous-consent request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. See 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 882-888.
3. 130 Cong. Rec. 6187, 6188, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: I ask unanimous
consent to proceed for 1 minute, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker:(4) What has the gentleman got in his
hand?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, this is a demonstration of what I
have. I am not certain I am going to be able to use it under the
rules.
The Speaker: If the gentleman does not think so, why is he
trying?
Mr. Walker: I will explain that in my speech, but I certainly
would not want to violate the rules.
The Speaker: Without objection, the Speaker recognizes the
gentleman and will be watching carefully.
Mr. Walker: I thank the Speaker, and I know that the Speaker
always watches very carefully everything that I do. . . .
Mr. Speaker, we have to be amused by an article in this
morning's Washington Post . . . .
[[Page 9738]]
The Speaker: This is Calendar Wednesday. The Clerk will call
the committees.
The Clerk called the committees.
--Recognition During Reading of Journal
Sec. 10.63 A Member by unanimous consent secured recognition during the
reading of the Journal.
On Apr. 9, 1964,(5) during the reading of the Journal,
Mr. Charles A. Halleck, of Indiana, raised a parliamentary inquiry
whether there was any method by which he could be recognized for one
minute. Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, responded that
unanimous consent could be granted for such recognition, and the House
granted unanimous consent for the purpose of that recognition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 110 Cong. Rec. 7356, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recognition and Limitation of Time for Special Order Speeches;
``Oxford-style'' Debates
Sec. 10.64 Pursuant to several unanimous-consent requests, the House
agreed to a 90-day trial period from February 23 through May 23,
1994, [subsequently extended on several occasions] and agreed on a
format of recognition and limitation of time for each party for
special-order speeches, including periodic ``Oxford style''
structured debates and morning-hour debates; the Speaker then
announced the applicable guidelines for recognition during such
speeches and debate.
The following unanimous-consent request was agreed to on Feb. 11,
1994:(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Cong. Rec. p. ____, 103d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Richard A.] Gephardt [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, following
my unanimous-consent request to put in place an agreed upon format
for recognitions to address the House during a 90-day trial period
beginning February 23, 1994, including a morning hour debate, an
oxford style debate and a restriction on special order speeches,
the Speaker will announce his guidelines for recognition. In so
doing it is stipulated that the establishment of this format for
recognition by the Speaker is without prejudice to the Speaker's
ultimate power of recognition under clause 1, rule XIV should
circumstances so warrant.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the special orders
previously granted by the House to address the House on dates
through May 23, 1994 be vacated;
Further that during the period beginning February 23, 1994 and
for 90
[[Page 9739]]
days thereafter, on Mondays and Tuesdays of each week the House
convene 90 minutes earlier than the time otherwise established by
order of the House solely for the purpose of conducting morning
hour debates to be followed by a recess declared by the Speaker
pursuant to clause 12, rule I under the following conditions:
(1) Prayer by the Chaplain, approval of the Journal and the
pledge of allegiance to the flag to be postponed until the
resumption of the House session following the completion of morning
hour debate;
(2) Debate to be limited not to exceed 30 minutes allocated to
each party, with initial and subsequent recognition alternating
daily between parties to be conferred by the Speaker only pursuant
to lists submitted by the majority leader and minority leaders
respectively (no Member on such lists to be permitted to address
the House for longer than 5 minutes except for the majority leader
and minority leader respectively);
Further, that on (every third) Wednesday, beginning on a day to
be designated by the Speaker and mutually agreed upon by the
majority leader and minority leader, it shall be in order, at a
time to be determined by the Speaker, for the Speaker to recognize
the majority leader and minority leader (or their designees),
jointly, for a period of not to exceed 2 hours, for the purpose of
holding a structured debate. The topic of the debate, when mutually
agreed upon by the majority leader and minority leader, shall be
announced by the Speaker. The format of the debate, which shall
allow for participation by four Members of the majority party and
four from the minority party in the House, chosen by their
respective party leaders, with specified times for presentations
and rebuttals by all participants, and periods of questioning of
each Member by others participating, shall be announced to the
House by the Speaker.
The Speaker:(7) Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from Missouri?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Thomas S. Foley (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
Subsequently, the Speaker announced the following guidelines for
implementation of the unanimous-consent agreement:
The Speaker: With respect to special orders to address the
House for up to 1 hour at the conclusion of legislative business or
on days when no legislative business is scheduled, the Chair
announces that:
First, Tuesdays, following legislative business, there will be
an unlimited period of special orders not extending beyond
midnight, with recognition for 5-minute and then for longer special
orders alternating between the parties and with initial
recognition, for longer special orders, rotating on a daily basis
between the parties, and with the first hour of recognition on each
side reserved to the House leadership--majority leader and whip and
minority leader or their designee;
Second, on Mondays, Wednesdays, except those Wednesdays when
Oxford style debates are in order, Thursdays and Fridays, the Chair
will recognize Members from each party for up to 2 hours of special
order debate at the conclusion of legislative business and
[[Page 9740]]
5-minute special orders, or when no legislative business is
scheduled, not extending beyond midnight, again with initial
recognition alternating between the parties on a daily basis and
with the allocation of time within each 2-hour period, or short
period if pro rated to end by midnight, to be determined by a list
submitted to the Chair by the House leadership, majority leader and
whip and minority leader or designees, respectively, and with the
first hour of recognition on each side reserved to the House
leadership, majority leader and whip and minority leader or their
designees. Members will be limited to signing up for all such
special orders no earlier than 1 week prior to the special order,
and additional guidelines may be established for such sign-ups by
the majority and minority leaders, respectively. One-minute
speeches on those days both prior to and at the conclusion of
legislative business shall be at the discretion of the Speaker;
Third, pursuant to clause 9(b)(1) of rule I, during this trial
period the television cameras will not pan the Chamber, but a crawl
indicating morning hour or that the House has completed its
legislative business and is proceeding with special order speeches
will appear on the screen. Other television camera adaptations
during this period may be announced by the Chair;
Fourth, special orders to extend beyond the 4-hour period may
be permitted at the discretion of the Chair with advance
consultation between the leaderships and notification to the House.
Parliamentarian's Note: On subsequent occasions, the House extended
the above unanimous-consent agreement.(8) On May 12, 1995,
the House extended the agreement by unanimous consent, but changed the
Tuesday morning hour to 9 a.m.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. See the proceedings of May 23, 1994; June 10, 1994; Jan. 4, 1995;
Feb. 16, 1995; and May 12, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proceedings of May 12, 1995, were as follows:
Mr. [Richard K.] Armey [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that the order of the House of January 4, 1995, relating to
morning hour
debates be continued through the adjournment of the 2d session of
the 104th Congress sine die, except that on Tuesdays the House
shall convene for such debate 1 hour earlier than the time
otherwise established by order of the House rather than 90 minutes
earlier; and the time for such debates shall be limited to 25
minutes allocated to each party rather than 30 minutes to each; but
in no event shall such debates continue beyond the time that falls
10 minutes before the appointed hour for the resumption of
legislative business, and with the understanding that the format
for recognition for special order speeches first instituted on
February 23, 1994, be continued for the same period. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Meetings of the leadership following the February 11 proceedings
produced further guide
[[Page 9741]]
lines for implementation of the special-order and morning-hour
procedures. The guidelines provided, among other matters, for
alternation of recognition between the parties, and for procedures
whereby Members sign up in advance for special orders, the majority in
the Majority Leader's office and the minority in the cloakroom, the
lists to be approved on the floor. For the Oxford-style debates, each
leader would designate four participants for the debate every third
Wednesday, to be held on a mutually agreeable topic announced by the
Speaker. Guidelines for the morning hour on every Monday and Tuesday
also provided for allocation of time and for the procedure of signing
up with the party leaders.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. See the procedures agreed to in meetings of the leadership for
special orders, Oxford debates, and morning hours (Feb. 17,
1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recognition for Special-order Speeches--Speaker's Guidelines
Sec. 10.65 Pursuant to the Speaker's guidelines of Aug. 8, 1984,
recognition for special-order speeches of five minutes occurred in
the order in which they were requested, alternating between
majority and minority Members with each Member controlling his own
time (in the absence
of unanimous consent to permit recognition out of that order).
On Oct. 21, 1985,(10) during the period designated for
special-order speeches, the Chair responded to a parliamentary inquiry
regarding the order of recognition:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 131 Cong. Rec. 28129, 28130, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (11) Under a previous order
of the House, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. [Eldon D.] Rudd) is
recognized for 5 minutes. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Glenn English (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [George W.] Gekas [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry. . . .
Mr. Speaker, since the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Rudd), the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), and myself are all going
to engage in the same discussion, is it possible to amalgamate the
special orders entered into for the three of us into one block of
time and allow us to yield back and forth so that we can complete a
three-way dialog on it?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will call the Members' names
in the order they appear here. No other Members are seeking special
orders today. We will call Members' names in order. . . .
Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. [Howard] Coble) is recognized for 5 minutes. . . .
[[Page 9742]]
Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Gekas: Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleague, the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Rudd), and I would only ask that he give me a
chance to say something in response to the gentleman who is in the
well.
Parliamentarian's Note: In this case, the Chair observed that
Representative Morris K. Udall, of Arizona, a Democrat, was listed
after Representative Coble, but was not present, and so the three
Republican Members (Mr. Rudd, Mr. Coble, and Mr. Gekas) would be
recognized in sequence, each to control his own time, and unanimous
consent was not required to permit Mr. Gekas to be recognized ahead of
Mr. Udall.
--Discretion of Speaker
Sec. 10.66 The Speaker may not be compelled by a motion under Rule XXV
to recognize Members for scheduled
``special orders'' immediately upon completion of scheduled
legislative business, but rather may continue to exercise his power
of recognition under Rule XIV clause 2 to recognize other Members
for unanimous-consent requests and permissible motions; thus, the
Speaker has declined to recognize a Member who sought to invoke
Rule XXV to interfere with the Speaker's power of recognition.
Rule XXV, which provides that ``questions as to the priority of
business shall be decided by a majority without debate,'' merely
precludes debate on motions to go into Committee of the Whole, on
questions of consideration, and on appeals from the Chair's decisions
on priority of business, and should not be utilized to permit a motion
directing the Speaker to recognize Members in a certain order or to
otherwise establish an order of business. Thus, for example, on July
31, 1975,(12) the Speaker (13) refused to
recognize a Member who sought to make a motion to direct recognition of
Members for special orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 121 Cong. Rec. 26249, 26251, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
13. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Phillip Burton [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point
of order that a quorum is not present.
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I make a
point of order. . . .
Mr. Speaker, I would like to make the point of order to this
effect: Under the new rules of the House, is it not true that once
the House has proceeded to the closing business of the day,
granting requests for absences and special orders, that it is no
longer
[[Page 9743]]
in order to make a point of order that a quorum is not present?
The Speaker: The Chair has not started to recognize Members for
special orders yet. All the business on the Chair's desk has been
completed. . . .
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the
rules preclude a quorum at this point because personal requests
have already been read from the desk. A leave of absence was
granted to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Teague).
Under the new rules, Mr. Speaker, a quorum does not lie after
this point of business in the day.
The Speaker: If the Chair understands the gentleman's point of
order, it relates to the fact, which is a new rule, not the rule we
used to follow. The rule is that once a special order has started,
the Member who has the special order and is speaking cannot be
taken off his feet by a point of order of no quorum. However, there
is nothing in the rules of which the Chair is aware that requires
the Chair to begin to call a special order at any particular time.
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I move under rule XXV that the House
proceed to recognize the Members previously ordered to have special
orders today, and on that I ask for a rollcall vote.
Mr. [Michael T.] Blouin [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, I move that the
House do now adjourn.
The question was taken.
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, on that, I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas
137, nays 202, not voting 95, as follows: . . .
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, under rule XXV, I again renew my
motion that the Chair proceed to the recognition of other Members
who have previously been granted special orders for today.
The Speaker: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California
(Mr. Danielson).
Mr. [George E.] Danielson [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise
and extend my remarks.
The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from California?
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, there is a motion pending.
Mr. Speaker, I object.
The Speaker: Objection is heard.
Mr. [Richard] Bolling [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I move that
the House do now adjourn.
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. [John J.] Rhodes [of Arizona]: Mr. Speaker, I demand the
yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas
142, nays 205, not voting 87, as follows: . . . .
Sec. 10.67 The Speaker is not
required to recognize Members for scheduled ``special-order''
speeches immediately
upon completion of legislative business but may
continue to recognize other Members for unanimous-con
[[Page 9744]]
sent requests and permissible motions.
On July 31, 1975,(14) the proposition stated above was
demonstrated in the House as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 121 Cong. Rec. 26243-47, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. John L. Burton [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I move that
the House do now adjourn.
The Speaker: (15) The motion is not in order since
we just had a vote on a similar motion and there has been no
intervening business or debate. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair will take unanimous-consent requests.
Mr. [John J.] Rhodes [of Arizona]: Mr. Speaker, I move that the
House recess subject to the call of the Chair.
The Speaker: The Chair will state to the gentleman that is not
a privileged motion. The Chair cannot entertain that motion at this
time.
Mr. [William L.] Armstrong [of Colorado]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry. Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary inquiry is
will the Chair state what is the pending business before the House?
The Speaker: The Chair will state there is no pending business.
. . .
Mr. Armstrong: Mr. Speaker, under a previous order of the House
I have been granted a special order for 60 minutes. I ask to be
recognized at this time for that purpose.
The Speaker: The gentleman from Colorado does not have the
first special order.
Mr. [Barber B.] Conable [Jr., of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I
believe I have the first special order, and I ask to be recognized.
The Speaker: The Chair is not going to recognize any special
order at this time, and the Chair has that authority. . . .
Mr. [Joe D.] Waggonner [Jr., of Louisiana]: . . . Mr. Speaker,
is it not correct to say that if a unanimous-consent request to
allow the Committee on Rules until midnight to file a report on the
Turkish aid issue now being debated by the other body, was granted,
that the House could then adjourn and at the same time work its
will because then, if the Committee on Rules files a report, it
could be considered then under the rules of the House, and if they
did not file a report, the issue would be moot?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that that is an
accurate statement of the situation, as the Chair understands it. .
. .
Mr. [Dante B.] Fascell [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, there have
been some remarks made that the House would be denied its will and
there would be no way to consider the matter in the event the other
body agreed to some legislation tonight. Am I correct in the
proposition that if a bill is passed by the other body tonight,
there is a procedure under the rules whereby the matter could be
considered tomorrow? . . .
The Speaker: The Chair will state this. The regular rule is
that a report from the Rules Committee has to go over 1 day or it
takes a two-thirds vote for consideration on the day reported. The
other way is that a unanimous-consent request can be made, and if
the Committee on Rules can file it by
[[Page 9745]]
10 o'clock tomorrow, and the House adjourns tonight, then it will
take a majority vote for consideration tomorrow after the House
meets, just as it always does on a subsequent legislative day.
--Previous Order of House: Veterans Day Speeches
Sec. 10.68 After a recess of approximately six hours and eleven
minutes, the Speaker called the House to order, and under a
previous order of the House, recognized a majority and minority
member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs for special-or-der
speeches in commemora-tion of Veterans Day.
The following proceedings occurred in the House on Nov. 11,
1983:(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 129 Cong. Rec. 32289, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the
Speaker at 6 o'clock p.m.
IN COMMEMORATION OF VETERANS DAY
The Speaker: (17) Under a previous order of the
House, the gentleman from California (Mr. Edwards) will be
recognized for 30 minutes; and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr.
Hammerschmidt) will be recognized for 30 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr.
Edwards).
--Before or After Legislative Business
Sec. 10.69 Once special orders have begun, it is customary not to
resume legislative business, however this custom is not binding on
the House and the Speaker has the authority to recognize for
further business; thus, on occasion the Speaker has announced that
he would begin to call the special orders, which action would not
prejudice calling up of further legislative business later that
day.
On Aug. 1, 1975,(18) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma,
made the following statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 121 Cong. Rec. 26952-54, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: . . . The normal procedure, as the Members know,
special orders are called when the legislative business has ended.
We have not called special orders yet.
We have at least three bills, to my knowledge, that may come
over here from the Senate.
The Chair would like to take the special orders and reserve the
authority to call up these bills at a later time. . . .
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER
The Speaker: Without prejudice to calling up other legislative
business
[[Page 9746]]
which might come over to the House from the Senate, the Chair will
call the special orders at this time.
Sec. 10.70 The Speaker announced that he was awaiting a message from
the Senate, and that he would recognize for requests and special
orders while reserving the right to call up the Senate message on
its arrival.
On Nov. 20, 1975,(19) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma,
made the following statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 121 Cong. Rec. 37301, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: The House is waiting for a message from the Senate
but the Chair will take requests from the acting floor leaders at
this time, reserving the right to call up the message whenever it
gets here.
Sec. 10.71 The Chair announced, having consulted with both sides of the
aisle, that he would entertain one or more special-order speeches
previously granted for the day, not necessarily in the order in
which granted, with the understanding that further legislative
business scheduled for the day, and possible rollcall votes, would
follow such speeches, and that other special-order speeches might
follow all legislative business.
On Oct. 4, 1984,(20) the Chair made an announcement
regarding proceedings in the House for the remainder of the day:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 130 Cong. Rec. 30015, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker Pro Tempore:(1) The Chair desires to
make an announcement. After consultation with both sides of the
aisle, the Chair will entertain one or more special order speeches
previously granted at this time, not necessarily in the order in
which granted, with the understanding that further legislative
business scheduled for the day, and possible rollcall votes, will
follow those speeches for which the Chair recognizes. Other special
orders may follow all legislative business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Theodore S. Weiss (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Entertaining Unanimous-consent Request, Concerning Legislative
Business, During Special Orders
Sec. 10.72 While the Chair will not ordinarily entertain unanimous-
consent requests involving legislative business during ``special-
order speeches'' when no further legislative business is scheduled,
he may entertain a request for late filing of a report when assured
that the minority has no objection to the request or to its being
made during special orders.
The following proceedings occurred in the House on Nov. 21,
[[Page 9747]]
1985,(2) during the period designated for special-order
speeches:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 131 Cong. Rec. 32946, 32947, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (3) Under a previous order
of the House, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Nelson) is recognized
for 5 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Kenneth J. Gray (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Bill] Nelson [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, due to official
business, I was unable to be present and voting for rollcall Nos.
414 through 416 on November 20, 1985. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Under a previous order of the House,
the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Weaver) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. [James] Weaver [of Oregon]: . . . Mr. Speaker, according to
estimates prepared by the Congressional Budget Office, my bill will
save the American taxpayers $30 billion over the next 5 years. . .
.
Mr. [William H.] Natcher [of Kentucky]: Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that the Committee on Appropriations may have
until midnight tonight to file a report on a joint resolution
making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1986.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Does the Chair understand that this
has been cleared with the other side?
Mr. Natcher: This has been cleared, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from Kentucky?
There was no objection.
--Committee on Rules Filing Privileged Report During Special Orders
Sec. 10.73 The Committee on Rules has on occasion filed a privileged
report during special-order speeches, unanimous consent not being
required.
Although it is true that legislative business generally does not
take place after special-order speeches have begun, the practice has
not been considered as prohibiting the filing of special rules. Thus,
on Nov. 4, 1983,(4) a privileged report from that committee
was submitted:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. See 129 Cong. Rec. 30954, 30956, 30957, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Tony P.] Hall of Ohio, from the Committee on Rules,
submitted a privileged report (Rept. No. 98-487) on the resolution
(H. Res. 362) providing for the consideration of the joint
resolution (H.J. Res. 403) making further continuing appropriations
for the fiscal year 1984, which was referred to the House Calendar
and ordered to be printed.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Under a previous order of the House,
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Walker) is recognized for 60
minutes.
Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, it has
been generally accepted in the House that we operate under certain
comity principles that permits us to operate in an
[[Page 9748]]
orderly fashion. We try around here to do certain things that move
the House forward, and on some irregular occasions there have been,
and I have been a part of many of those, attempts to slow down the
procedures of the House simply by utilizing the rules. . . .
Well, we do have a standing commitment in the House that we
will conduct no substantive business after special orders have been
arrived at. I would say to the gentleman it was his staff who
reminded me of that last winter when I stood on the floor and
protected just that procedure here late one evening. I think it was
around 1 o'clock in the morning, as a matter of fact. That is
precisely what this gentleman is referring to.
The filing of the rule, which is a controversial rule, is in my
mind a piece of business that violates that comity procedure . . .
.
Mr. [James C.] Wright [Jr., of Texas]: That would have been
substantive business of a type that manifestly is not considered to
be in order generally after you have begun special orders because
the unanimous consent by which a special order is granted is
usually predicated upon the request that upon completion of all
business, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, or wherever, might be
permitted to address the House for 60 minutes, or for however long.
But I think what the gentleman may not be aware of is that the
filing of rules is a matter separate and apart from the taking up
of legislative business. The filing of rules has occurred on
numerous occasions after special orders have begun.
--Recognition Before or After Recess
Sec. 10.74 Where legislative business has been completed prior to the
announced time for a recess, the Speaker has in his discretion
recognized some Members for special-order speeches until the
declaration of a recess and then recognized other Members for
special orders following the recess (for a joint session to receive
a message from the President).
On Jan. 25, 1984,(5) the Speaker responded to several
parliamentary inquiries regarding special-order speeches:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 130 Cong. Rec. 372, 373, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Under a previous order of the House,
the gentleman from California (Mr. Lungren) is recognized for 60
minutes.
Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: (6) The gentleman will state his
parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Walker: Do not the special orders normally come at the end
of the legislative day, and would we not be entitled to a special
order at the end of the legislative day?
The Speaker: Of course, if the gentleman wants the time, some
Member of his party can speak up for him; no problem. We are not
doing anything that is unusual.
Does the gentleman desire his time?
Mr. [Daniel E.] Lungren [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry at this point. . . .
[[Page 9749]]
It is my understanding the Speaker announced when he took the
chair this morning that we have to, for security reasons, leave no
later than 5 o'clock today.
The Speaker: The gentleman is correct.
Mr. Lungren: And since my special order is for an hour, I would
like to have that hour and not interfere with the sweep of the
House. I would be here immediately after the President's speech.
The Speaker: Does the gentleman want 20 minutes now and the
remainder later on this evening?
Mr. Lungren: That is a very, very nice suggestion on the part
of the Speaker, but I would like to collect my thoughts after the
President's speech.
The Speaker: The Chair will be happy to grant the gentleman's
request.
Mr. Lungren: I thank the Speaker.
The Speaker: Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Walker) is recognized for 60 minutes.
Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, would I also be entitled to collect my
thoughts so that I might utilize the time later on this evening? It
may take me a little time.
The Speaker: Well, if that is the gentleman's request, I would
be happy to grant it.
Mr. Walker: I thank the Speaker for that very much.
The Speaker: Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich) is recognized for 20 minutes.
Does the gentleman wish to take 20 minutes now?
Mr. [Newt] Gingrich [of Georgia]: The Speaker has been so
generous to us today and is, as always, such an able man in
presiding over this body and it is such a joy to work with him that
if the Speaker would not mind my taking 20 minutes now, I would be
very honored to take some time now.
The Speaker: The gentleman may have the 20 minutes now and is
so recognized.
Parliamentarian's Note: Representatives Lungren and Walker had one-
hour special orders, which would run longer than the remaining time
prior to the 5 p.m. recess. Thus, the Speaker recognized Representative
Gingrich, who had a 20-minute special order, and returned to the other
Members after the joint session.
--Question of Personal Privilege Takes Precedence
Sec. 10.75 Under Rule IX, a question of personal privilege takes
precedence over a special-order speech previously scheduled at the
conclusion of legislative business; on one occasion, a Member who
had received, by unanimous consent, permission to address the House
under a ``special order'' rose instead to a question of personal
[[Page 9750]]
privilege based on a press account criticizing him in his official
capacity and was recognized for one hour.
On Sept. 21, 1979,(7) the following proceedings occurred
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 125 Cong. Rec. 25656, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Jack] Brinkley [of Georgia]: . . . [P]rior to the
convening of the 96th Congress . . . [Mr. Claude D. Pepper, of
Florida] agreed to hold the record open on a proposed report from
the staff of the Select Committee on the Aging--in order to include
a presentation from American Family Life Assurance Co.
headquartered in my congressional district.
A Knight-Ridder reporter, noting my connection, made something
sinister of it. I had attended the conference with Congressman
Pepper; my public disclosure statement showed that I was a
stockholder.
--One Hour Limit
Sec. 10.76 A Member may not control more than one hour of debate in the
House (on a special order), even by unanimous consent.
On Oct. 16, 1979,(8) the following proceedings occurred
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 125 Cong. Rec. 28508, 28515, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker:(9) Under a previous order of the House,
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Rhodes) is recognized for 60
minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John J.] Rhodes [of Arizona]: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of
this special order is to outline what Congress should be doing to
help our Nation turn back inflation. It has been said that
inflation is the neutron bomb of our economy. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (10) The time of the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Rhodes) has expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. John G. Fary (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Delbert L.] Latta [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that the gentleman proceed for 5 additional minutes.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: That request is not in order.
--Relevancy in Debate; Principle as Applicable
Sec. 10.77 Unanimous-consent requests to address the House for up to
one hour may specify the subject of the ``special order'', and the
occupant of the Chair during that special order may enforce the
rule of relevancy in debate if the special order has been permitted
only on that subject.
Most special-order requests do not specify the subject to be
debated, and if granted by the House the Member recognized may speak on
any subject. Under Rule XIV, clause 1, however, if the question under
debate has
[[Page 9751]]
been specified by the House, the Member must confine his remarks to
that subject. On Jan. 23, 1984,(11) a Member indicated the
subject of special orders requested, and another Member asked for a
ruling that the special orders be strictly limited to those subjects:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 130 Cong. Rec. 90-93, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mrs. [Patricia] Schroeder [of Colorado]: Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that today, following legislative business and
any special orders heretofore entered into, the following Members
may be permitted to address the House, revise and extend their
remarks, and include extraneous material:
Ms. Oakar, for 15 minutes;
Mr. Annunzio, for 5 minutes;
Mr. Gonzalez, for 30 minutes . . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore:(12) . . . Is there
objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Colorado? . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Richard B. Ray (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mrs. Schroeder: Mr. Speaker, I also ask unanimous consent that
following legislative business on the following days, these special
orders be allowed so that Members may revise and extend their
remarks, and include therein extraneous material:
Mrs. Schroeder, to honor the prior Congressman, Mr. Rogers----
Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Regular order, Mr.
Speaker.
Mrs. Schroeder: Mr. Speaker, may I make a point? These are
requests for the honoring of members who were deceased over the
period that we have been adjourned.
Mr. Walker: Regular order, Mr. Speaker.
The unanimous-consent request is simply for time, and it is not
supposed to include the title of what it is that is being done. . .
.
Mrs. Schroeder: Yes, Mr. Speaker. There is precedent for
restating why we want special days assigned, and several Members,
prior Members of this body, were deceased during this period while
we have been adjourned.
Many Members would like to participate in the special orders,
and Members have requested certain days in advance so that we could
know that and send out a ``Dear Colleague'' in order to do that. .
. .
The three orders dealing with that are these:
Myself, representing the memory of Byron Rogers, which we hope
to do on January 30 for 60 minutes; and
Mr. Kastenmeier and Mr. Fascell on January 31, both wanting 60
minutes to the memory of our deceased prior chairman, Mr. Zablocki.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of
the gentlewoman from Colorado?
Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I do so
to request of the Chair whether or not these special orders will be
absolutely limited to those subject matters. I ask whether the
Chair will rule at this point that those special orders being
entered into will be absolutely limited to those subject matters
that were suggested by the gentlewoman from Colorado.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that the occupant
of
[[Page 9752]]
the chair at the time would have to rule on such matters.
--Yielding During Special-or-der Speeches
Sec. 10.78 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.
CHAPTER 29
Consideration and Debate
B. RIGHT TO RECOGNITION
Sec. 11. Limitations on Power of Recognition; Basis for Denial
Some limitations on the Speaker's power of recognition are inherent
in certain House rules (see Rule XIV and XXXII). Other restrictions
have developed in long-standing practices to which the Speaker adheres.
Cross References
Chair's interpretation of special rules as to recognition, see Sec. 28,
infra.
Chair's power of recognition limited by rules as to duration of debate,
see Sec. Sec. 67 et seq., infra (in the House) and Sec. Sec. 74 et
seq., infra (in Committee of the Whole).
Order of recognition as limitation on Chair's power, see Sec. Sec. 12-
15, infra. -------------------
Limitations on Power of Speaker
Sec. 11.1 In response to parliamentary inquiries, the Chair
[[Page 9753]]
indicated that the Speaker's power of recognition is subject to any
limitations imposed by the House rules.
On July 29, 1970,(15) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 17654, the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970.
A pending amendment thereto would have required the Congressional
Record to contain a verbatim account of floor proceedings. The
amendment also contained a provision authorizing Members to insert
remarks not spoken on the floor but requiring their printing in
distinctive type.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 116 Cong. Rec. 26419, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Dante B. Fascell, of Florida, made a number of parliamentary
inquiries as to the effect of
the pending amendment on the Chair's power of recognition. Chairman
William H. Natcher, of Kentucky, indicated: (1) that unless
specifically restricted by a rule of the House, the Speaker retains the
right of recognition; (2) that the Speaker may recognize for unanimous-
consent requests to waive the requirements of an existing rule unless
the rule in question specifies that it is not subject to waiver, even
by unanimous consent; and (3) that there are certain rules (such as the
prohibition against reference to gallery occupants in Rule XIV, clause
8, and Rule XXXII, clause 1, regarding admission to the floor) which
the Speaker himself cannot waive and which are not subject to waiver by
unanimous consent.
Recognizing for Questions of Privilege
Sec. 11.2 While one question of privilege is pending, the Chair does
not recognize a Member to present another question of privilege.
On Apr. 20, 1936,(16) Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of
Tennessee, ruled that while one Member had stated a question of
privilege and that question was pending, another Member could not rise
to another question of privilege:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 80 Cong. Rec. 5704-06, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Thomas L.] Blanton [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a
question of the privilege of the whole House and offer a privileged
resolution, which I ask the Clerk to read.
The Clerk read as follows:
House Resolution 490
Whereas during the House proceedings on April 17, 1936, the
gentleman from Washington [Mr. Zioncheck] attempted to speak
out of order and to indulge in personalities, when he was
admonished by the Chair, as follows----
Mr. [Marion A.] Zioncheck: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of
personal privilege.
[[Page 9754]]
The Speaker: The gentleman cannot do that while another
question of privilege is pending.
Mr. Zioncheck: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Zioncheck: The point of order is this: I know what the
contents are. I have no objection to them.
The Speaker: The gentleman is not stating a point of order. The
gentleman will please remain quiet while this resolution is being
read for the information of the House.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 665 (1995) for the principle that
two questions of privilege may not be pending at one time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recognition During Reading of Presidential Messages
Sec. 11.3 The Chair declines to recognize Members to submit
parliamentary inquiries during the reading of a message from the
President.
On Jan. 21, 1946,(18) Speaker Pro Tempore John W.
McCormack, of Massachusetts, laid before the House the message of the
President on the state of the Union and transmitting the budget. Mr.
Robert F. Rich, of Pennsylvania, interrupted the reading of the message
to raise a parliamentary inquiry. The Speaker Pro Tempore ruled that a
parliamentary inquiry could not be entertained during the reading of
the message.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 92 Cong. Rec. 164, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recognition on Questions of Equal Privilege
Sec. 11.4 Where two propositions of equal privilege are pending it is
for the Chair to decide whom he will recognize to call up one of
the propositions, but the House may by unanimous consent determine
such precedence.
On Sept. 11, 1945,(19) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas,
recognized Mr. Alfred L. Bulwinkle, of North Carolina, to make the
unanimous-consent request that when the House meets on the following
day, it immediately proceeds to the consideration of H.R. 3974. Mr.
Robert F. Rich, of Pennsylvania, stated under a reservation of
objection that he was under the impression that another bill was to be
the first order of business on the following day. The Speaker
responded:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 91 Cong. Rec. 8510, 8511, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is a question for the Chair, as to whether the Chair will
recognize the gentleman from Illinois to call up the rule or
recognize the gentleman from Oklahoma to call up the bill repealing
war time. The request being made at this time is for the war time
repeal bill to take precedence.
[[Page 9755]]
Recognition for Point of No Quorum
Sec. 11.5 The Speaker does not recognize Members for a point of no
quorum before the prayer is offered in the House.
On Apr. 12, 1946,(20) the House met at 10 o'clock a.m.
Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, immediately made the point of order
that a quorum was not present but Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas,
declined to recognize him. The prayer was offered and the Speaker then
inquired of Mr. Hoffman whether he desired to insist on his point of
order, and Mr. Hoffman withdrew it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 92 Cong. Rec. 3567, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: The prayer is not considered in House
practice as business requiring the presence of a quorum.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. See 6 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 663.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recognition During Absence of Quorum
Sec. 11.6 The Chair refuses to recognize Members for business after the
absence of a quorum has been announced by the Chair, and no
business is in order until a quorum has been established.
On June 8, 1960,(2) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan,
made a point of no quorum. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, counted and
announced that a quorum was not present. A call of the House was
ordered. Mr. Hoffman then attempted to seek recognition. The Speaker
declined, saying:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 106 Cong. Rec. 12142, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair cannot recognize the gentleman because a point of
order of no quorum has been made, and the Chair announced that
there was no quorum.
Sec. 11.7 Pending a point of order of no quorum, the Chair may not
recognize a Member to propound a parliamentary inquiry unrelated
thereto.
On July 23, 1942,(3) Mr. Wright Patman, of Texas, made
the point of order that a quorum was not present, and Mr. Earl C.
Michener, of Michigan, immediately attempted to state a parliamentary
inquiry. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 88 Cong. Rec. 6540, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair doubts the authority of the Chair to recognize the
gentleman to propound a parliamentary inquiry when a point of order
is made, unless the gentleman from Texas withholds it.
Sec. 11.8 The Chair does not recognize for a demand for a
[[Page 9756]]
teller vote pending his count of a quorum.
On Aug. 21, 1950,(4) in the Committee of the Whole,
Chairman Carl T. Durham, of North Carolina, ruled that he would not
entertain a demand for a teller vote while counting for a quorum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 96 Cong. Rec. 12960, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recognition Pending Call to Order
Sec. 11.9 The Chair does not recognize for debate pending the demand
that a Member's words be taken down.
On Jan. 21, 1964,(5) while the House was in the
Committee of the Whole, certain words used in debate by a Member were
demanded to be taken down and reported to the House. Before the
Committee rose, Mr. James Roosevelt, of California, asked unanimous
consent to proceed for one minute and Chairman William S. Moorhead, of
Pennsylvania, refused to entertain the request.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 110 Cong. Rec. 756, 757, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
6. Pending the demand, no debate is in order and recognition may not
be sought for any purpose (except the unanimous-consent request
of the Member called to order to withdraw the disorderly
words). See Sec. Sec. 48 et seq., infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recognition To Refer to Visitors
Sec. 11.10 The Chair declines to recognize Members to refer to gallery
occupants or to ask unanimous consent for that
purpose.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Rule XIV clause 8, House Rules and Manual Sec. 764 (1995) provides
``It shall not be in order for any Member to introduce or to
bring to the attention of the House during its sessions any
occupant in the galleries of the House; nor may the Speaker
entertain a request for the suspension of this rule by
unanimous consent or otherwise.'' See Sec. 45, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 27, 1954,(8) during debate on a bill, Mr.
Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, yielded to Mr. Walter H. Judd, of
Minnesota, who stated his intention to call attention to a ``French
nurse who is in the gallery.'' Chairman Benjamin F. James, of
Pennsylvania, ordered Mr. Judd to suspend since the rules of the House
prohibited references to persons in the gallery. Mr. Judd then asked
for unanimous consent to proceed out of order, and the Chairman
answered as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 100 Cong. Rec. 12253, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The gentleman may not proceed out of order for the purpose for
which he manifestly intends to use the time. The Chair regrets
extremely that he must so hold under the rules of procedure of
[[Page 9757]]
the House. We are all conscious of the great heroism of the person
to whom the Chair knows that the gentleman wishes to allude, but it
is a matter of extreme regret that because of the rules of the
House, reference may not be made to anyone in the gallery.
Recognition for Reference to the Senate
Sec. 11.11 The Chair declines to recognize a Member proposing to refer
to Senators or to proceedings of the Senate.
On May 25, 1937,(9) while the Committee of the Whole was
considering House Joint Resolution 361, for relief appropriations, Mr.
Alfred F. Beiter, of New York, stated his intention to read from
letters he had from members of the Senate, stating their sympathy with
a movement. Chairman John J. O'Connor, of New York, made a point of
order, on his own responsibility, against the reading of the
letters.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 81 Cong. Rec. 5013, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
10. For the prohibition against references in debate to the Senate and
for the duty of the Chair in relation to such references, see
Jefferson's Manual, House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 371-374
(1995), and Sec. 44, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recognition for Motion To Adjourn
Sec. 11.12 The Chair cannot refuse to recognize a Member having the
floor for a motion to adjourn.
On Mar. 16, 1945,(11) Mr. Robert F. Jones, of Ohio,
objected to the vote on a motion to recommit a general appropriations
bill on the ground that a quorum was not present. An automatic rollcall
was ordered, but a quorum failed to respond. Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of
Michigan, was recognized for a parliamentary inquiry and then stated
his intention to move that the House adjourn. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of
Texas, asked him to withhold his request and Mr. Hoffman responded:
``If the Chair is refusing recognition, I will.'' The Speaker stated
that he could not so refuse recognition for a motion to adjourn. Mr.
John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, then moved adjournment and the
motion was agreed to.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 91 Cong. Rec. 2379, 2380, 79th Cong. 1st Sess. For an occasion
where the Speaker inferentially treated the motion to adjourn
as dilatory, see Sec. 9.45, supra.
12. The Chair may refuse to recognize for a motion to adjourn where the
motion is obviously dilatory (see Sec. 9.45, supra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: This bill was considered under the general
rules of the House, since privileged for consideration. The special
order for consideration of a typical non-privileged bill provides
[[Page 9758]]
that ``the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill
and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion
except one motion to recommit.'' While that language would ordinarily
preclude an intervening motion to adjourn, the failure of a quorum to
vote on recommital or passage allows a motion to adjourn to intervene.
Requests Prohibited by Rule
Sec. 11.13 During the consideration of an omnibus private bill the
Chair refused to recognize Members for unanimous-consent requests
to extend the time for debate.
On July 20, 1937,(13) the House was considering omnibus
bills on the Private Calendar. Mr. Alfred F. Beiter, of New York, was
speaking for five minutes in opposition to an amendment which had been
offered and asked unanimous consent to address the House for an
additional minute when his time expired. Speaker William B. Bankhead,
of Alabama, ruled that such a request could not be made, the rule
limiting each side to five minutes' debate.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 81 Cong. Rec. 7293-95, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
14. For the rule on consideration of omnibus private bills, see Rule
XXIV clause 6 and comments thereto, House Rules and Manual
Sec. Sec. 893-895 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 11.14 The Speaker stated that he would not recognize a Member to
request an off-the-record meeting of Members in the House Chamber.
On Oct. 18, 1943,(15) John W. McCormack, of
Massachusetts, the Majority Leader, announced that an off-the-record
meeting of Members would be held in the auditorium of the Library of
Congress in order to hear the Chief of Staff of the Army and other
generals on the war situation. Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi,
objected that the meeting was an executive session of the House which
should be held in the House Chamber. Mr. McCormack responded that the
meeting was not an ``executive session of Congress.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 89 Cong. Rec. 8433, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Rankin asked Mr. McCormack to modify his announcement to ask
unanimous consent that the meeting be had in the House Chamber, but
Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, stated that he would not recognize a
Member to make such a request.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See Rule XXXI, House Rules and Manual Sec. 918 (1995) for the
prohibition against suspending requirements as to the use of
the Hall of the House.
Rule XXIX, providing for executive sessions, has rarely
been utilized in modern times. See Sec. 1, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 9759]]
Sec. 11.15 The Speaker has on occasion declined to recognize for
unanimous-consent requests that committees may sit during sessions
of the House while bills are being read for amendment.
On July 1, 1947,(17) Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of
Massachusetts, refused to recognize a Member for a unanimous-consent
request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 93 Cong. Rec. 8054, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Samuel K.] McConnell [Jr., of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker,
I ask unanimous consent that a subcommittee of the Committee on
Education and Labor holding hearings on minimum wages be allowed to
sit tomorrow during the session of the House.
The Speaker: The Chair cannot recognize the gentleman for that
purpose. Tomorrow the House will be reading the civil functions
appropriation bill for amendment, and committees cannot sit during
sessions of the House while bills are being read for amendment;
only during general debate.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See then Rule XI clause 3, House Rules and Manual Sec. 739 (1973):
``No committee of the House (except the Committee on
Appropriations, the Committee on Government Operations, the
Committee on Internal Security, the Committee on Rules, and the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct) may sit, without
special leave, while the House is reading a measure for
amendment under the five-minute rule.'' The present rule (Rule
XI clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 710 (1995) states:
``No committee of the House may sit during a joint session of
the House and Senate or during a recess when a joint meeting of
the House and Senate is in progress.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 11.16 During the consideration of the Private Calendar, no
reservation of objection is in order and the Chair does not
recognize Members for requests to make statements.
On May 5, 1936,(19) objection was made to the
consideration of a bill on the Private Calendar. Mr. Theodore
Christianson, of Minnesota, made the following request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 80 Cong. Rec. 6691, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Speaker, will not the gentlemen withhold their objection
for a moment? Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to make a
statement regarding this bill.
Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, ruled as follows:
The Chair cannot recognize the gentleman for that purpose under
the express provisions of the rule. Otherwise the Chair would be
glad to hear the gentleman. (20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See Rule XXIV clause 6, House Rules and Manual Sec. 893 (1995) for
the basis for the Speaker's ruling: ``Should objection be made
by two or more Members to the consideration of any bill or
resolution so called (from the Private Calendar), it shall be
recommitted to the committee which reported the bill or
resolution, and no reservation of objection shall be
entertained by the Speaker.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 9760]]
Control of Debate Time Prescribed by Statute
Sec. 11.17 Debate on an implementing revenue bill must
be equally divided and controlled among those favoring and those
opposing the bill under section 151(f)(2) of the Trade Act of 1974,
and unanimous consent is required to divide the time between the
chairman and ranking minority member of the committee if both favor
the
bill; in the absence of such
a unanimous-consent agreement, a Member opposed to the bill is
entitled to control 10 hours of debate in opposition, with priority
of recognition to opposing members of the Committee on Ways and
Means; and the Member recognized to control the time in opposition
may not be compelled to use less than that amount of time unless
the Committee rises and the House limits further debate in the
Committee of the Whole.
During consideration of the Trade Agreement Act of 1979 (H.R. 4537)
in the House on July 10, 1979,(1) the following proceedings
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 125 Cong. Rec. 17812, 17813, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Al] Ullman [of Oregon]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Section
151(f) of Public Law 93-618, the Trade Act of 1974, I move that the
House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 4537) to
approve and implement the trade agreements negotiated under the
Trade Act of 1974, and for other purposes, and pending that motion,
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that general debate on the
bill be equally divided and controlled between the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Conable) and myself. . . .
The Speaker: (2) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Ullman)?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the
right to object. . . .
I take this reservation for the purpose of propounding a
parliamentary inquiry to the Chair.
The rule, section 151, before consideration says:
Debate in the House of Representatives on an implementing
bill or approval resolution shall be limited to not more than
20 hours which shall be divided equally between those fa
[[Page 9761]]
voring and those opposing the bill or resolution. . . .
My query to the Chair as a part of my reservation is, if the
unanimous-consent request of the chairman is granted can the
chairman then move to terminate debate at any time during the
course of debate before the 20 hours have expired?
The Speaker: Reading the statute a motion further to limit the
debate shall not be debatable, and that would be made in the House,
either now or later, and not in the Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Ashbrook: Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to
object, if the gentleman from Ohio were to be recognized as
opposing the bill, does the gentleman have the absolute right to
the 10 hours regardless of the time that would be taken on the
other side?
The Speaker: Unless all general debate were further limited by
the House a member of the Committee on Ways and Means who is
opposed to the bill could seek to control the 10 hours of time. The
gentleman would be entitled to the 10 hours unless a request came
from a member of the Committee on Ways and Means who would be in
opposition. . . .
Mr. Ashbrook: I thank the Speaker.
I ask this for a very specific purpose. Further reserving the
right to object, it is my understanding then that the gentleman
from Oregon could not foreclose debate as long as whoever controls
the opposition time still has part of the 10 hours remaining. Is
that correct, under the statute providing for consideration of this
trade bill? . . .
The Speaker: Not unless the committee rose and the House
limited all debate.
A motion to limit general debate would not be entertained in
the Committee of the Whole and the Chair cannot foresee something
of that nature happening.
Member Recognized in Opposition Yielding Back Time
Sec. 11.18 Where debate on an amendment has been limited and equally
divided between the proponent and a Member opposed, and the Chair
has recognized the only Member seeking recognition in opposition to
the amendment, no objection lies against that Member subsequently
yielding back all the time in opposition.
On May 4, 1983,(3) the Committee of the Whole had under
consideration House Joint Resolution 13, calling for a freeze and
reduction in nuclear weapons. House Joint Resolution 13 was being
considered pursuant to a special rule agreed to on Mar.
16,(4) and a special rule providing for additional
procedures for consideration, agreed to on May 4.(5) Mr.
William S. Broomfield, of
[[Page 9762]]
Michigan, rose in opposition(6) to an
amendment(7) offered by Mr. Henry J. Hyde, of Illinois, to a
substitute amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 129 Cong. Rec. 11077, 11078, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
4. H. Res. 138, 129 Cong. Rec. 5666, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
5. H. Res. 179, 129 Cong. Rec. 11037, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
6. 129 Cong. Rec. 11078, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
7. Id. at p. 11077.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Broomfield: Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The Chairman: (8) The gentleman is recognized for 15
minutes in opposition to the amendment, for purposes of debate
only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Broomfield: Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. Hyde: Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time and
request a vote.
Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, we have
15 minutes in order to oppose the amendment?
The Chairman: No one stood up on that side of the aisle, and
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Broomfield) represented to the
Chair that he opposed the amendment and was recognized for 15
minutes in opposition, and he yielded back the balance of his time,
as did the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde). . . .
Mr. [Les] AuCoin [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, I have a
parliamentary inquiry. . . .
Mr. Chairman, my inquiry is this: This side, which opposes the
amendment, has been foreclosed an opportunity, not on this
amendment but on the previous amendment, to have 15 minutes in
opposition to the amendment because a Member on that side who voted
against an amendment that was hostile to the exact amendment said
he was opposed to it.
My parliamentary inquiry is, Mr. Chairman, is that in order?
The Chairman: As the Chair previously explained, no one on the
majority side of the aisle rose in opposition to that amendment.
The Chair looked to the other side of the aisle and the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Broomfield) rose, represented that he was in
opposition to the amendment and was recognized.
Parliamentarian's Note: Had another Member also been seeking to
control time in opposition at the time the first Member was recognized
and yielded back, the Chair could have allocated the time to that
Member so that it could have been utilized.
Member May Not Proceed After Debate Time Expires
Sec. 11.19 Where a Member has been notified by the Chair that his
debate time has expired, he is thereby denied further recognition
in the absence of permission of the House to proceed, and he has no
right to further address the House after that time.
On Mar. 16, 1988,(9) at the expiration of his one-minute
speech, a Member who persisted in address
[[Page 9763]]
ing the House was repeatedly notified by the Chair that his time had
expired and he had no further right to continue. The proceedings were
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 134 Cong. Rec. 4081, 4084, 100th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert K.] Dornan of California: In 10 years . . . I have
never heard on this floor so obnoxious a statement as I heard from
Mr. Coelho, which means ``rabbit'' in Portuguese, as ugly a
statement as was just delivered. Mr. Coelho said that we on our
side of the aisle and those conservative Democrats, particularly
those representing States which border the Gulf of Mexico, sold out
the Contras. That is absurd . . . . Panama is in chaos and
Communists in Nicaragua, thanks to the liberal and radical left
leadership in this House are winning a major victory, right now.
The Speaker Pro Tempore:(10) The time of the
gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan] has expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Gary L. Ackerman (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Dornan of California: Wait a minute. On Honduran soil and
on Nicaraguan soil.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Dornan of California: And it was set up in this House as
you set up the betrayal of the Bay of Pigs.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Dornan of California: I ask--wait a minute--I ask unanimous
consent for 30 seconds. People are dying.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Dornan of California: People are dying.
Mr. [Harold L.] Volkmer [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, regular
order, regular order.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The time of the gentleman has expired.
Will the Sergeant at Arms please turn off the microphone?
Mr. [Judd] Gregg [of New Hampshire]: . . . Under what rule does
the Speaker decide to close down the debate and pursue a policy of
shutting up the opposition by [not] allowing us access to the
public and to the media and to our own microphones, the microphones
of this House? . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: . . . Mr. Dornan grossly exceeded the
limits and abused the privilege far in excess of 1 minute, and the
Chair proceeded to restore order and decorum to the House. . . .
The Chair will state that unless a person receives permission
to address the House, under the rules of the House he is not
addressing the House. . . .
Mr. Gregg: . . . I have not heard the Chair respond to my
inquiry which is what ruling is the Chair referring to which allows
him to turn off the microphone of a Member who has the floor?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Clause 2 of rule I. . .
.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Rule XIV, clause 4, would also be applicable. It reads, 2. He shall
preserve order and decorum, and, in case of disturbance or
disorderly conduct in the galleries, or in the
lobby, may cause the same to be cleared. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair repeatedly rapped the gavel quite loudly for all to
hear and told the gentleman from California
[[Page 9764]]
[Mr. Dornan] that his time had expired.
CHAPTER 29
Consideration and Debate
B. RIGHT TO RECOGNITION
Sec. 12. Priorities in Recognition
The order in which Members are recognized, or whether they are
recognized at all, on matters before the House depends substantially on
the application of the standing rules and the precedents to each
specific motion or question. The purpose of this division is to
delineate the general principles governing recognition during the
deliberations of the House.
The discretion of the Speaker to determine the order of recognition
is based on Rule XIV clause 2:
When two or more Members rise at once, the Speaker shall name
the Member who is first to speak . . . .(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. House Rules and Manual Sec. 753 (1995). For the parliamentary law,
see Jefferson's Manual, House Rules and Manual Sec. 356 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker or the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole has the
power and discretion to decide the order of recognition,(13)
without the right of appeal,(14) but he is governed in his
decisions by the usages and precedents of the House.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See, for example, Sec. 12.1, infra.
14. See Sec. Sec. 9.5, 9.6, supra.
15. For a discussion of practices and precedents on the order of and
right to recognition, see Cannon's Procedure in the House of
Representatives 150-155, H. Doc. No. 122, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
(1959).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When a Member rises to seek recognition, the Chair first ascertains
the purpose for which he seeks recognition.(16) If
recognition for the purpose stated is required under the rules and
precedents to be first extended to a Member with certain
qualifications, such as being opposed to a measure, the Chair may
further inquire whether the Member meets those
qualifications.(17) The Chair generally takes judicial
notice of the committee rank and party alignment of a Member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See Sec. 8, supra. The inquiry ``for what purpose does the
gentleman rise'' does not confer recognition.
17. For examples of the Chair's inquiry whether a Member is opposed,
see Sec. Sec. 15.11, 15.12, 15.14, 15.15, infra. For discussion
of recognition of one opposed in order of rank, see Sec. 12.4,
infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Generally, prior recognition is extended to a member of the
committee which has reported the bill--often the chairman or senior
member or other committee member who has been designated as manager of
the bill.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 754, 756 (1995).
The rules provide that a committee manager may open and
close debate; see Rule XIV clause 3, House Rules and Manual
Sec. 759 (1995). For instances where the priority of committee
recognition was discussed, see Sec. Sec. 13.1 et seq., infra.
Usually, the Member in charge has been authorized by the
reporting committee, but on rare occasions a matter has been
brought directly before the House by a Member, who is entitled
to prior recognition. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 754
(1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 9765]]
Where the committee or Member in charge offers an ``essential''
motion and the motion is rejected by the House, recognition passes to
the opposition for controlling debate and for offering amendments and
motions on the pending matter.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See Sec. 15, infra, and House Rules and Manual Sec. 755 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair endeavors to alternate recognition to offer pro forma
amendments between majority and minority Members (giving priority to
committee members) rather than between sides of the
question.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See Sec. 12.6, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross References
Order of recognition on questions and motions, see Sec. Sec. 16 et
seq., infra.
Order of recognition determined by rules and principles on control and
management, see Sec. Sec. 24-27,
infra. -------------------
Members of Committee; Discretion of Chair
Sec. 12.1 Although members of the committee reporting a bill under
consideration usually have preference in recognition, the power of
recognition remains in the discretion of the Chair.
On July 19, 1967,(1) Chairman Joseph L. Evins, of
Tennessee, recognized in the Committee of the Whole Mr. Edmond
Edmondson, of Oklahoma, for a parliamentary inquiry and then recognized
him to offer an amendment to the pending amendment. Mr. William C.
Cramer, of Florida, made the point of order that William M. McCulloch,
of Ohio, the ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary,
which had reported the bill, had been on his feet seeking recognition
to offer an amendment at the time and that members of the committee
reporting the bill had the prior right to be recognized. The Chairman
declared:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 113 Cong. Rec. 19416, 19417, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair is trying to be fair and trying to recognize Members
on both sides. The Chair will recognize the gentleman from Ohio
[Mr. McCulloch].
The Chairman recognized Mr. McCulloch for a unanimous-consent
request, and then recognized Mr. Edmondson to debate his amendment.
Chairman of Committee
Sec. 12.2 In bestowing recognition under the five-minute rule in
[[Page 9766]]
the Committee of the Whole, the Chair gives preference to the
chairman of the legislative committee reporting the bill under
consideration.
On Nov. 15, 1967,(2) the Committee of the Whole was
considering under the five-minute rule a bill reported from the
Committee on Education and Labor, chaired by Mr. Carl D. Perkins, of
Kentucky. Mr. Edward J. Gurney, of Florida, sought recognition and when
Chairman John J. Rooney, of New York, asked for what purpose he rose,
he stated that he sought recognition to offer an amendment. The
Chairman then recognized Mr. Perkins, the chairman of the committee, to
submit
a unanimous-consent request to limit debate before recognizing Mr.
Gurney to offer his amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 113 Cong. Rec. 32655, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seniority as Affecting Priority of Recognition
Sec. 12.3 Recognition of Members to offer amendments under the five-
minute rule in the Committee of the Whole is within the discretion
of the Chair and he extends preference to members of the committee
which reported the bill according to seniority.
On July 21, 1949,(3) Chairman Eugene J. Keogh, of New
York, answered a parliamentary inquiry on the order of recognition for
amendments under the five-minute rule:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 95 Cong. Rec. 9936, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [James P.] Sutton [of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
Mr. H. Carl Andersen [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. H. Carl Andersen: Mr. Chairman, is it not the custom
during debate under the 5-minute rule for the Chair in recognizing
Members to alternate from side to side? At least I suggest to the
Chair that that would be the fair procedure. The Chair has
recognized three Democrats in a row.
The Chairman: The Chair will say to the gentleman that the
matter of recognition of members of the committee is within the
discretion of the Chair. The Chair has undertaken to follow as
closely as possible the seniority of those Members.
Mr. [Clifford R.] Hope [of Kansas]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Hope: For the information of the Chair, the gentleman from
Wisconsin, who has been seeking recogni
[[Page 9767]]
tion, has been a Member of the House for 10 years, and the
gentleman from Tennessee is a Member whose service began only this
year.
The Chairman: The Chair would refer the gentleman to the
official list of the members of the committee, which the Chair has
before him.
The Clerk will report the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Tennessee.
Sec. 12.4 In recognizing Members to move to recommit, the Speaker gives
preference first to the ranking minority member of the committee
reporting the bill, if opposed to the bill, and then to the
remaining minority members of that committee in the order of their
rank.
On June 18, 1957,(4) the House was considering H.R.
6127, the Civil Rights Act of 1957. In response to a parliamentary
inquiry, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, stated that the order of
recognition for a motion to recommit would be in the order of rank of
minority members of the committee reporting the bill, the Committee on
the Judiciary. When two minority members of the committee arose to
offer the motion, the Speaker recognized the member higher in rank:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 103 Cong. Rec. 9516, 9517, 85th Cong. 1st Sess. See also
Sec. 12.21, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Joseph W.] Martin [Jr., of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, on
a motion to recommit, for over 20 years it has been the custom for
the minority leader to select the Member who shall make that
motion. The leader has selected a member of the committee who is
absolutely opposed to the bill. My parliamentary inquiry is, does
he have preference over someone who would move to recommit with
instructions but who at the same time would not vote for the bill
even if the motion to recommit should prevail? So I propound the
inquiry whether a gentleman who is absolutely opposed to the bill,
who led the fight for the jury trial amendment in the committee,
would have preference over someone who would not vote for the bill
even in the event a motion to recommit prevailed.
The Speaker: The Chair in answer to that will ask the Clerk to
read the holding of Mr. Speaker Champ Clark, which is found in
volume 8 of Cannon's Precedents of the House of Representatives,
section 2767.
The Clerk read as follows:
The Chair laid down this rule, from which he never intends
to depart unless overruled by the House, that on a motion to
recommit he will give preference to the gentleman, at the head
of the minority list, provided he qualifies, and then go down
the list of the minority of the committee until it is gotten
through with. And then if no one of them offer a motion to
recommit the Chair will recognize the gentleman from Kansas
[Mr. Murdock], as the leader of the third party in the House.
Of course he would have to qualify. The Chair will state it
again. The present occupant of the chair laid down a rule here
about a year ago that in making this preferential motion for
recommitment the Speaker would
[[Page 9768]]
recognize the top man on the minority of the committee if he
qualified--that is, if he says he is opposed to the bill--and
so on down to the end of the minority list of the committee.
Mr. Martin: Will the Clerk continue the reading of the section?
I think there is a little more to it than that.
The Speaker: If the gentleman desires, the Clerk will read the
entire quotation. The Clerk will continue to read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Then, if no gentleman on the committee wants to make the
motion, the Speaker will recognize the gentleman from Illinois,
Mr. Mann, because he is the leader of the minority. Then, in
the next place, the Speaker would recognize the gentleman from
Kansas, Mr. Murdock. But in this case, the gentleman from
Kansas, Mr. Murdock, is on the Ways and Means Committee, which
would bring him in ahead, under that rule, of the gentleman
from Illinois, Mr. Mann.
Mr. Martin: The Chair does not think that preference should be
given to an individual who was going to make a motion to recommit
and who was absolutely opposed to the bill?
The Speaker: The Chair is not qualified to answer a question
like that. The Chair in response to the parliamentary inquiry of
the gentleman from Massachusetts will say that the decision made by
Mr. Speaker Champ Clark has never been overturned, and it has been
upheld by 1 or 2 Speakers since that time, especially by Mr.
Speaker Garner in 1932.
In looking over this list, the Chair has gone down the list and
will make the decision when someone arises to make a motion to
recommit. The Chair does not know entirely who is going to seek
recognition.
Mr. [Richard H.] Poff [of Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
motion to recommit.
The Speaker: Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. Poff: I am, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. [Russell W.] Keeney [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I also
offer a motion to recommit, and I, too, am opposed to the bill.
The Speaker: In this instance the Chair finds that no one has
arisen who is a member of the minority of the Committee on the
Judiciary until it comes down to the name of the gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. Poff]. He ranks the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
Kenney] and is therefore senior. Under the rules and precedents of
the House, the Chair therefore must recognize the gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. Poff].(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Where recognition is required by rule or precedent to pass to the
opposition, the Speaker inquires whether the Member seeking
recognition is opposed in fact to the measure or motion (see
Sec. Sec. 15.11, 15.12, 15.14, 15.15, infra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 12.5 Priority of recognition under a limitation of time for debate
under the five-minute rule is in the complete discretion of the
Chair, who may disregard committee seniority and consider amendment
sponsorship.
On June 26, 1979,(6) it was demonstrated that where the
Com
[[Page 9769]]
mittee of the Whole has agreed to a limitation on debate under the
five-minute rule on a section of a bill and all amendments thereto,
distribution of the time under the limitation is within the discretion
of the Chair. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 125 Cong. Rec. 16677, 16678, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
Under consideration was H.R. 3930, the Defense Production
Act Amendments of 1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [William S.] Moorhead of Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman, I move
that all debate on section 3 and all amendments thereto cease at
6:40 p.m. . . .
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes
209, noes 183, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 41, as follows: .
. .
The Chairman:(7) The Chair will attempt to explain
the situation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee has just voted to end all debate on section 3 and
all amendments thereto at 6:40. The Chair in a moment is going to
ask those Members wishing to speak between now and then to stand.
The Chair will advise Members that he will attempt, once that list
is determined, to recognize first those Members on the list with
amendments which are not protected by having been printed in the
Record. . . .
Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, did I understand
the Chair correctly that Members who are protected by having their
amendments printed in the Record will not be recognized until the
time has run so that those Members will only have 5 minutes to
present their amendments, but that other Members will be recognized
first for the amendments which are not printed in the Record?
The Chairman: Those Members who are recognized prior to the
expiration of time have approximately 20 seconds to present their
amendments. Those Members whose amendments are printed in the
Record will have a guaranteed 5 minutes after time has expired. . .
.
The Chair will now recognize those Members who wish to offer
amendments which have not been printed in the Record.
The Chair will advise Members he will recognize listed Members
in opposition to the amendments also for 20 seconds. . . .
Mr. [Richard] Kelly [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, is it not
regular order that the Members of the Committee with amendments be
given preference and recognition?
The Chairman: The Chair would advise the gentleman once the
limitation of time has been agreed to and time divided, that
priority of recognition is within the complete discretion of the
Chair.
Alternation Between Majority and Minority
Sec. 12.6 In recognizing Members to offer ``pro forma amendments''
under the five-minute rule, the Chair endeavors to alternate
between majority and minority Members, giving priority of
recognition
[[Page 9770]]
to committee members and, having no knowledge of whether specific
Members oppose or support the pending proposition, does not
endeavor to alternate between both sides of the question.
On Mar. 21, 1994,(8) the Committee of the Whole had
under consideration H.R. 6 (Improving America's Schools Act of 1994).
The following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 140 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 103d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Charles H.] Taylor of North Carolina: Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike the requisite number of words.
The Chairman: (9) The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from California (Mr. Cunningham), a member of the committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. David E. Price (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Taylor of North Carolina: Mr. Chairman, is it possible to
have some support statements made on the floor, since most have
been negative?
The Chairman: The Chair is to give priority to members of the
committee and does not confer recognition by stated position on the
issue. The gentleman will be recognized in due course.
Mr. [Randy] Cunningham [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I move to
strike the requisite number of words.
Sec. 12.7 The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole attempts to
alternate recognition during the five-minute rule between the
majority and minority, with preference being given to senior
members of the reporting committee; and a senior committee majority
member has no precedence in recognition over the minority manager
of the bill.
On Sept. 9, 1980,(10) during consideration of the Rail
Act of 1980 in the Committee of the Whole, the following exchange
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 126 Cong. Rec. 24865, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: (11) For what purpose does the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Madigan) rise?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Les AuCoin (Oreg.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Edward R.] Madigan [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I have an
amendment at the desk.
Mr. [Robert C.] Eckhardt [of Tex-as]: Mr. Chairman, am I not
entitled to recognition as a senior Member on the floor?
The Chairman: For what purpose does the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Eckhardt) rise?
Mr. Eckhardt: To offer an amendment, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: The Chair will state to the gentleman from Texas
that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Madigan) was on his feet. The
Chair heard the gentleman from Illinois first, and the Chair
recognized him first. The Chair has the prerogative of recognizing
Members at his discretion. The Chair is attempting to be fair. I
think the Chair has been fair in this instance.
[[Page 9771]]
Mr. Eckhardt: The gentleman from Texas was on his feet also.
The Chairman: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Madigan).
Sec. 12.8 The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole announced that
during consideration of an appropriation bill under the five-minute
rule he would alternate recognition between the majority and
minority sides of the aisle.
On July 30, 1969,(12) Chairman Chet Holifield, of
California, made an announcement on the order of recognition during
consideration under the five-minute rule of H.R. 13111, appropriations
for the Health, Education, and Welfare and Labor Departments:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 115 Cong. Rec. 21420, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair might state, under the procedures of the House, he is
trying to recognize first members of the subcommittee on
appropriations handling the bill and second general members of the
Committee on Appropriations. It is his intention to go back and
forth to each side of the aisle to recognize Members who have been
standing and seeking recognition the longest. The gentlewoman from
Hawaii sought recognition all yesterday afternoon, and the Chair
was unable to recognize her because of the procedures of the House,
having to recognize Members on both sides of the aisle who are
members of the committee. I wish the Members to know that the Chair
will recognize them under the normal procedures.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. For the practice of alternation of recognition, see House Rules and
Manual Sec. 756 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Principle as Affected by Recognition for Parliamentary Inquiry
Sec. 12.9 The fact that the Chair has recognized a Member to raise a
parliamentary inquiry does not prohibit the Chair from then
recognizing the same Member to offer an amendment, and the
principle of alternation of recognition does not require the Chair
to recognize a Member from the minority to offer an amendment after
recognizing a Member from the majority to raise a parliamentary
inquiry.
On July 2, 1980,(14) during consideration of the Rail
Act of 1980 (H.R. 7235) in the Committee of the Whole, it was
demonstrated that a decision of the Chair on a matter of recognition is
not subject to challenge. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 126 Cong. Rec. 18292, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert C.] Eckhardt [of Tex-as]: Mr. Chairman, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
[[Page 9772]]
The Chairman: (15) The gentleman will state his
inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Les AuCoin (Oreg.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Eckhardt: Mr. Chairman, I was not aware at the time that
this amendment was offered that it would purport to deal with a
number of very different subjects. I assume that it would not be in
order to raise a point of order concerning germaneness at this late
time, not having reserved it, but I would like to ask if the
question may be divided. There are several subjects that are quite
divisible in the amendment offered here, and that deal with
different matters.
The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman from Texas
that he is correct, it is too late to raise a point of order on the
question of germaneness.
The Chair will further advise the gentleman from Texas that a
substitute is not divisible.
Mr. Eckhardt: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the
amendment offered as a substitute for the amend-ment.
The Chairman: The Clerk will report the amendment to the
substitute amendment.
Mr. [Edward R.] Madigan [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, a point of
or-der. . . .
I understand that the procedure is that the members of the
subcommittee would be recognized for amendments first, and that the
gentleman from Texas sought recognition for the purpose of making a
parliamentary inquiry and was recognized for that purpose, and was
not recognized for the purpose of offering an amendment. . . .
The Chairman: The Chair will respond to the gentleman by saying
to him that the normal procedure is to recognize members of the
full committee by seniority, alternating from side to side, which
the Chair has been doing. The gentleman was recognized under that
procedure, and the Chair's recognition is not in any event subject
to challenge. . . .
Mr. Madigan: Further pursuing my point of order, and with all
due respect to the Chair, am I incorrect in assuming that the
gentleman from Texas was recognized for the point of raising a
parliamentary inquiry?
The Chairman: The gentleman is correct. He was recognized for
that purpose; then separately for the purpose of the amendment that
he is offering, which the Clerk will now report.
Members Simultaneously Seeking Recognition
Sec. 12.10 Where more than one Member seeks recognition, the Speaker
recognizes the Member in charge or a member of the reporting
committee, if he seeks recognition.
On Sept. 11, 1945,(16) Mr. Robert F. Rich, of
Pennsylvania, and Mr. Adolph J. Sabath, of Illinois, arose at the same
time seeking recognition during the five-minute rule on a bill being
handled by Mr. Sabath. Speaker Sam Ray
[[Page 9773]]
burn, of Texas, recognized Mr. Sabath since he had priority of
recognition as the Member in charge and then answered parliamentary
inquiries on the order of recognition:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 91 Cong. Rec. 8510, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Rich: After the reading of section 4 of the bill which
contained subsections (a), (b), and (c), could not a Member have
risen to strike out the last word and have been recognized?
The Speaker: The gentleman did not state for what purpose he
rose. The gentleman from Illinois who is in charge of the
resolution was on his feet at the same time. The Chair recognized
the gentleman from Illinois, and the gentleman from Illinois made a
preferential motion.
Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Hoffman: Must a Member on the floor addressing the Speaker
state the purpose for which he addresses the Speaker before he may
be recognized?
The Speaker: Two Members rose. The Speaker always has the right
to recognize whichever Member he desires. The Chair recognized the
gentleman from Illinois who was in charge of the resolution. The
gentleman from Illinois made a preferential motion; the Chair put
the motion and it was adopted.
On Nov. 15, 1967,(17) the Committee of the Whole was
considering under the five-minute rule a bill reported from the
Committee on Education and Labor, chaired by Carl D. Perkins, of
Kentucky. Mr. Edward J. Gurney, of Flor-ida, sought recognition and
when Chairman John J. Rooney, of New York, asked for what purpose he
rose, he stated that he sought recognition to offer an amendment. The
Chairman then recognized Mr. Perkins, the chairman of the committee, to
submit a unanimous-consent request to limit debate before recognizing
Mr. Gurney to offer his amendment.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 113 Cong. Rec. 32655, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
18. See Rule XIV clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 753 (1995):
``When two or more Members rise at once, the Speaker shall name
the Member who is first to speak. . . .'' See id. at
Sec. Sec. 754-757 for the usages and priorities which govern
the Chair when two or more Members rise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Absence of Agreement as to Control of Time
Sec. 12.11 During general debate on District of Columbia business in
Committee of the Whole, where there has been no agreement in the
House as to control of time, the Chair alternates in recognizing
between those for and against the pending legislation, giving
preference to members of the Committee on the District of Columbia.
[[Page 9774]]
On Apr. 11, 1932,(19) Chairman Thomas L. Blanton, of
Texas, answered a parliamentary inquiry on recognition in the Committee
of the Whole during general debate on a District of Columbia bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 75 Cong. Rec. 7990, 72d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [William H.] Stafford [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, when
the Committee on the District of Columbia has the call and the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union is
considering legislation, is it necessary, in gaining recognition,
that a Member has to be in opposition to the bill or is any Member
whatsoever entitled to one hour's time for general debate?
The Chairman: From the Chair's experience, gained through
having been a member of this committee for over 10 years, he will
state that where a bill is called up for general debate on District
day in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union,
and the chairman of the committee has yielded the floor, a member
of the committee opposed to the bill is entitled to recognition
over any other member opposed to the bill, and it was the duty of
the Chair to ascertain whether there were any members of the
committee opposed to the bill who would be entitled to prior
recognition. The Chair, having ascertained there were no members of
the committee opposed to the bill, took pleasure, under the
direction of the gentleman from Wisconsin, in recognizing the
gentleman from Mississippi.
Parliamentarian's Note: Ordinarily, consideration of District of
Columbia business in Committee of the Whole is preceded by a unanimous-
consent agreement in the House as to division and control of general
debate.
Announcement by Chair as to Recognition Under Five-minute Rule
Sec. 12.12 The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole announced that
during consideration of an appropriation bill under the five-minute
rule he would alternate recognition between the majority and
minority sides of
the aisle and would follow
the following priorities: first, members of the committee or
subcommittee handling the bill; second, members of the full
Committee on Appropriations; and finally, other Members of the
House.
On July 30, 1969,(20) Chairman Chet Holifield, of
California, made an announcement on the order of recognition during
consideration under the five-minute rule of H.R. 13111, appropriations
for the
[[Page 9775]]
Health, Education, and Welfare and Labor Departments:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 115 Cong. Rec. 21420, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair might state, under the procedures of the House, he is
trying to recognize first members of the subcommittee on
appropriations handling the bill and second general members of the
Committee on Appropriations. It is his intention to go back and
forth to each side of the aisle to recognize Members who have been
standing and seeking recognition the longest. The gentlewoman from
Hawaii sought recognition all yesterday afternoon, and the Chair
was unable to recognize her because of the procedures of the House,
having to recognize Members on both sides of the aisle who are
members of the committee. I wish the Members to know that the Chair
will recognize them under the normal procedures.
Recognition for Motion To Strike Enacting Clause Where Another Had Been
Recognized To Offer Amendment
Sec. 12.13 Under Rule XXIII clause 7, a motion to strike out the
enacting clause takes precedence over a motion to amend, and may be
offered where another Member has been recognized to offer an
amendment but prior to reading of the amendment by the Clerk.
During consideration of H.R. 6096, the Vietnam Humanitarian and
Evacuation Act, in the Committee of the Whole on Apr. 23,
1975,(1) the principle described above was demonstrated as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 121 Cong. Rec. 11513, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Chairman: (2) The Clerk will read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Otis G. Pike (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
preferential motion offered by mr. blouin
Mr. [Michael T.] Blouin [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a
preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Blouin moves that the Committee do now rise and report
the bill back to the House with the recommendation that the
enacting clause be stricken.
Mr. [Joe D.] Waggonner [Jr., of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I
have a parliamentary inquiry. . . .
I recognize that the gentleman has a preferential motion, but
is it not so that the Chair had recognized the gentleman from Texas
to offer his amendment?
The Chairman: The Chair had recognized the gentleman from
Texas, to offer an amendment but the preferential motion supersedes
that amendment.
Mr. Waggonner: Even after the gentleman had been recognized to
proceed?
The Chairman: He had not been recognized. The amendment had not
been read.
[[Page 9776]]
Mr. Waggonner: The gentleman had been recognized.
The Chairman: The gentleman had been recognized only for the
purpose of finding out the reason for which he sought recognition.
The gentleman stated that he had an amendment at the desk. The
Chair asked the Clerk to report the amendment, and before the
amendment was reported, a preferential motion was made.
The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Blouin) is recognized.
Amendments to General Appropriation Bill
Sec. 12.14 When a general appropriation bill has been read, or
considered as read, for amendment in its entirety, the Chair (after
entertaining points of order) first entertains amendments which are
not prohibited by clause 2(c) of Rule XXI, and then recognizes for
amendments proposing limitations not contained or authorized in
existing law pursuant to clause 2(d) of Rule XXI, subject to the
preferential motion that the Committee of the Whole rise and report
the bill to
the House with such amendments as may have been agreed to.
The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on
Oct. 27, 1983,(3) during consideration of H.R. 4139
(Department of Treasury and Postal Service appropriations for fiscal
1984):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 129 Cong. Rec. 29630, 29631, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Christopher H.] Smith of New Jersey: Mr. Chairman, I have
a parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: (4) The gentleman will state his
parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Philip R. Sharp (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Smith of New Jersey: Mr. Chairman, would it be in order at
this time to offer a change in the language that would not be
considered under the House rules to be legislating on an
appropriations bill?
The Chairman: The Chair will first entertain any amendment to
the bill which is not prohibited by clause 2(c), rule XXI, and will
then entertain amendments proposing limitations pursuant to clause
2(d), rule XXI.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
Mr. [Bruce A.] Morrison of Connecticut: Mr. Chairman, I reserve
a point of order against the amendment.
The Chairman: The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Smith of New Jersey: On page 49,
immediately after line 2, add the following new section:
``Sec. 618. No funds appropriated by this Act shall be
available to pay for an abortion, or the administrative
expenses in connection with
any health plan under the Federal
employees health benefit program
[[Page 9777]]
which provides any benefits or coverages for abortions. . . .
Mr. Morrison of Connecticut: Mr. Chairman, I would like to be
heard on my point of order. . . .
Mr. Chairman, my point of order is that this amendment
constitutes a limitation on an appropriation and cannot be
considered by the House prior to the consideration of a motion by
the Committee to rise.
The Chairman: The Chair must indicate to the gentleman that no
such preferential motion has yet been made.
The gentleman is correct that a
motion that the Committee rise and
report the bill to the House with
such amendments as may have been adopted takes precedence over an
amendment proposing a limitation.
Mr. Morrison of Connecticut: Mr. Chairman, then I move that the
committee do now rise. . . .
The Chairman: . . . It would be more appropriate if a motion to
rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as have
been adopted, pursuant to clause 2(d), rule XXI were offered
instead. . . .
Mr. [Edward R.] Roybal [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I move
that the Committee do now rise and report the bill back to the
House with sundry amendments, with the recommendation that the
amendments be agreed to and that bill, as amended, do pass.
[The motion was rejected.]
Mr. Smith of New Jersey: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Smith of New Jersey: On page 49,
immediately after line 2, add the following new section:
``Sec. 618. No funds appropriated by this Act shall be
available to pay for an abortion. . . .
Parliamentarian's Note: Mr. Smith was the only Member seeking
recognition to offer a limitation after the preferential motion was
rejected and could have been preempted by a member of the
Appropriations Committee or a more senior member offering an amendment
since principles governing priority of recognition would remain
applicable. A Member who has attempted to offer a limitation before the
motion to rise and report is rejected is not guaranteed first
recognition for a limitation amendment.
Member of Minority Opposed to Bill Has Priority Over Majority Member
Opposed To Control Time in Opposition to Motion To Suspend Rules
Sec. 12.15 To control the time in opposition to a motion to suspend the
rules and pass a bill (on which a second is not required), the
Speaker recognizes a minority Member who is opposed to the bill,
and if no minority member
of the reporting committee qualifies to control the time in
opposition, a minority Member who is opposed may be recognized.
[[Page 9778]]
The following proceedings occurred in the House on May 4,
1981,(5) during consideration of the Cash Discount Act (H.R.
3132):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 127 Cong. Rec. 8323, 8324, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Frank] Annunzio [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I move to
suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3132) to amend the Truth
in Lending Act to encourage cash discounts, and for other purposes.
. . .
The Speaker: (6) Pursuant to the rule, a second is
not required on this motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Annunzio) will be recognized
for 20 minutes, and the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Evans) will be
recognized for 20 minutes.
Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Walker: May I inquire, Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman from
Delaware (Mr. Evans) opposed to the bill?
The Speaker: Is the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Evans) opposed
to the bill?
Mr. [Thomas B.] Evans [Jr.] of Delaware: No; Mr. Speaker, I am
not opposed to the bill.
The Speaker: Is the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Walker)
opposed to the bill?
Mr. Walker: Yes; Mr. Speaker, I am.
The Speaker: The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Walker) is
entitled to the time that the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Evans)
would have had.
So the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Annunzio) will be
recognized for 20 minutes, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Walker) will be recognized for 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Annunzio).
Parliamentarian's Note: Representative Barney Frank, of
Massachusetts, a majority party member of the Banking Committee,
desired recognition to control the time in opposition, but a minority
member opposed is entitled to recognition over a majority member even
if on the committee.
Special Rule--Control of Time in Opposition
Sec. 12.16 Where a special rule limiting debate on an amendment under
the five-minute rule requires the time thereon to be equally
divided and controlled by the proponent of the amendment and a
Member opposed thereto, the Chair has discretion in determining
which Member to control the time in opposition, and may recognize
the majority chairman of the subcommittee with jurisdiction over
the subject matter of an amendment which has been offered by a
member of the minority, over the rank
[[Page 9779]]
ing minority member of the full committee managing the bill, to
control the time in opposition under the principle of alternation
of recognition.
On Sept. 24, 1984,(7) the Committee of the Whole had
under consideration House Joint Resolution 648 (continuing
appropriations) when an amendment was offered as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 130 Cong. Rec. 26769, 26770, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Hank] Brown of Colorado: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Chairman: (8) The Clerk will designate the
amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Brown of Colorado: Page 2, line
24, strike out the period at the end of section 101(b) and
insert in lieu thereof the following: ``: Provided, That 2
percent of the aggregate amount of new budget authority
provided for in each of the first three titles of H.R. 6237
shall be withheld from obliga-tion. . . .
The Chairman: Pursuant to House Resolution 588, the amendment
is considered as having been read.
The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Brown) will be recognized for
15 minutes and a Member opposed will be recognized for 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Brown). .
. .
Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I rise
in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. [Clarence D.] Long of Maryland: Mr. Chairman, I rise in
opposition to the amendment.
The Chairman: The Chair is required to choose between these two
distinguished gentlemen and would prefer to alternate the parties
in this case.
The Chair will recognize the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Long). The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 15 minutes in
opposition to the amendment.
Sec. 12.17 Where a special rule limited debate time on amendments to be
controlled by a proponent and opponent, the Chair accorded priority
of recognition in opposition to an amendment to
a minority member of one
of the reporting committees over a majority Member not on any
reporting committee.
The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on
Apr. 29, 1987,(9) during consideration of the Trade Reform
Act of 1987 (H.R. 3):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 133 Cong. Rec. 10488, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Claude] Pepper [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Chairman: (10) The Clerk will designate the
amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Anthony C. Beilenson (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Pepper: On page 278, after line
23, add the following section:
[[Page 9780]]
Sec. 199. The USTR shall request that all relevant agencies
prepare appropriate recommendations for improving the
enforcement of restrictions on importation of articles from
Cuba. . . .
Mr. [William V.] Alexander [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, would
the Chair state how the time will be divided on the amendment that
has been read?
The Chairman: The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Pepper] will be
entitled to 15 minutes and a Member in opposition will be entitled
to 15 minutes.
Mr. Alexander: Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the amendment, and
I would request that that time be assigned to me, if some Member of
the committee is not opposed.
The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman from Arkansas
if there is someone else on the committee who seeks time in
opposition, the Chair would designate that person in opposition.
Does the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Frenzel] seek time in
opposition?
Mr. [Bill] Frenzel [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I am opposed
to the amendment, and I also seek time in opposition.
The Chairman: The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Frenzel] will
have 15 minutes in opposition.
--All Amendments Except Pro Forma Amendments Prohibited
Sec. 12.18 Where the Committee of the Whole resumed consideration of a
bill under a special rule prohibiting amendments to a pending
amendment except pro forma amendments for debate, the Chair
announced that he would first recognize Members who had not offered
pro forma amendments on the preceding day, priority of recognition
being given to members of the reporting committee.
On Aug. 3, 1977,(11) the following proceedings occurred
in the Committee of the Whole during consideration of the National
Energy Act (H.R. 8444):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 123 Cong. Rec. 26444, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: (12) The Chair would like to make a
statement for the information of the Members of the Committee of
the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Edward P. Boland (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair has before it a list of those who spoke on this
amendment yesterday. The Chair will recognize those who have not
spoken on this amendment first and, of course, preference will be
given to the members of the ad hoc committee and any Member, of
course, under the rule has the right to offer pro forma amendments.
The Chair will adhere to that direction.
The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) did not speak on this
amendment yesterday, so as a member of the ad hoc committee, for
what purpose does the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) [rise]?
[[Page 9781]]
Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I move to
strike the last word.
--Permitting Simultaneous Pendency of Three Amendments in Nature of
Substitute Then Perfecting Amendments in Specified Order
Sec. 12.19 Where a special rule permitted the simultaneous pendency of
three amendments in the nature of a substitute and then permitted
the offering of pro forma amendments and of perfecting amendments
in a specified order, the Chair indicated that he would recognize
the proponent of each substitute under the five-minute rule and for
unanimous-consent extensions of time, then Members offering pro
forma amendments to debate any of the substitutes once pending, and
then Members designated to offer perfecting amendments.
The House having agreed to a special rule (13) for the
consideration of House Concurrent Resolution 345, the first concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal 1983, a discussion of the effect of
the rule took place on May 25, 1982. The special rule stated in part:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. H. Res. 477, 128 Cong. Rec. 11085, 11093, 97th Cong. 2d Sess., May
21, 1982.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 477
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order, section 305(a)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974
(Public Law 93-344) to the contrary notwithstanding, to move that
the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union for the consideration of the concurrent
resolution (H. Con. Res. 345) revising the congressional budget for
the United States Government for the fiscal year 1982. . . . No
amendment to the concurrent resolution shall be in order except
those listed in categories A and B as follows: (A) four amendments
in the nature of a substitute printed in the Congressional Record
of May 21, 1982 . . . (B) after all amendments in category A above
are disposed of, the following three amendments in the nature of a
substitute printed in the Congressional Record of May 21, 1982,
which shall be offered and voted on only in the following order but
which shall if offered be pending simultaneously as amendments in
the first degree and said amendments shall be in order any rule of
the House to the contrary notwithstanding: (1) an amendment in the
nature of a substitute by, and if offered by, Representative Latta
of Ohio; (2) an amendment in the nature of a substitute by, and if
offered by, Representative Aspin of Wisconsin; and (3) an amendment
in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of H. Con.
Res. 345 if offered by Representative Jones of Oklahoma. None of
the
[[Page 9782]]
said substitutes in category B shall be subject to amendment except
by pro forma amendments for the purpose of debate only and by the
following perfecting amendments printed in the Congressional Record
of May 21, 1982:
(1) the amendment by Representative Pease; . . .
(67-68) the amendments by Representative Clausen in the order
in which printed.
These perfecting amendments, if offered, shall be considered only
in the order listed in this resolution and shall be in order any
rule of the House to the contrary notwithstanding.
The discussion of the effect of the rule was as follows:
(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 128 Cong. Rec. 11681, 11682, 97th Cong. 2d Sess., May 25, 1982.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Trent] Lott [of Mississippi]: . . . As I understand it, we
have now completed the four substitutes under the so-called
category A substitutes, and we are prepared to move into category
B, where three substitutes may be offered.
I would like to inquire as to the order in which those three
would be offered and what then would be the parliamentary
situation.
The Chairman: (15) Perhaps it would be helpful if
the Chair re-read an earlier statement. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair proposes to recognize and allow debate by the three
Members proposing to whatever amount of time the committee
approves, each in order, until all are pending before the Committee
of the Whole. In other words, Mr. Latta will be recognized first.
He will have as much debate as is allowed to him under the 5-minute
rule by the Committee. Then Mr. Aspin will be recognized, if he
rises, to go through the same process. Then Mr. Jones will be third
on that list for the same
process. Then, the Committee will go
back and all the amendments in the
nature of a substitute will be subject
to amendment in the manner described. . . .
Mr. [Delbert L.] Latta [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, in listening to
what the Chair has just explained to the minority whip, I assume
the procedure will be, after I yield the floor in introducing my
substitute, then we will go immediately to Mr. Aspin, and as soon
as he yields the floor we will then go to Mr. Jones.
The Chairman: That is correct.
Mr. Latta: So we will not have any intervening debate at that
point.
The Chairman: No. The only possible exception to that is that
by unanimous consent--and the Chair tried to imply this--by
unanimous consent if the gentleman seeks additional time over 5
minutes of that provided, that he will be given that opportunity.
No other debate will intervene.
Mr. [John J.] Rhodes [of Arizona]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry. . . . Suppose an amendment is offered by the
proponent to one substitute but not to other substitutes. At that
particular time, as I understand the rule, the amendment would then
be available to other Members to offer to the substitutes which had
not been considered previous to that time. The question occurs as
to whether or not, after the amendment has been disposed of once,
whether another Mem
[[Page 9783]]
ber could come back to that amendment to offer it to another
substitute, or are all Members precluded from using an amendment
printed in the Record after the amendment which comes after that in
sequence, has been considered?
The Chairman: The Chair has consulted with the Parliamentarian,
and agrees that if one proposal is made and there is nobody who
rises when the request by the Chair is made, ``Is there an
additional offering of that amendment,'' then that amendment will
be closed off.
Amendment No. 1 will be over, and then the Committee will move
to amendment No. 2, and move to amendment No. 3 in exactly that
same fashion. In other words, each amendment will be dealt with by
itself and finally.
Mr. Rhodes: If I understand the Chair correctly, then if
amendment No. 1 is offered to Latta and disposed of, and amendment
No. 1 is not then offered to the other substitutes and no other
Member other than the proponent desires to offer it, then the
Committee goes to amendment No. 2, and any further offerings of
amendment No. 1 would be precluded?
The Chairman: That is correct.
Mr. Latta: Mr. Chairman, a further parliamentary inquiry. . . .
As I recall the rule, there is a slight variation. If, in the
situation the Chairman just explained, if say amendment No. 5 is
offered to our substitute and does not prevail, and then they offer
it to the Aspin substitute, or to the Jones substitute, then there
are only 10 minutes of debate allowed under the rule.
The Chairman: That is correct. The second and third offerings
would be under a 10-minute rule. . . .
Mr. [Les] Aspin [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, if we go through
the series where Mr. Latta offers his substitute and maybe asks for
additional time to explain it, and then explains his substitute;
then we go to the coalition substitute and I may ask for additional
time, and so forth; we finish the presentation of all three
substitutes, is it the intention of the Chair to recognize
additional Members for general debate on the substitutes, or is it
the intention of the Chair to go directly to the amendments at that
point?
The Chairman: The Chair will entertain pro forma amendments for
a time, and at the conclusion of that, he will go to numbered
amendments. . . .
Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry one more time. . . .
The question is prompted by the question of the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Aspin) because under normal procedure there would be
a presentation of a Member, and joined in by either cosponsors or
other Members. Would it make a more orderly process if at least a
selected few or limited number be recognized in general support of
the proposition that was introduced before getting to that
amendment stage?
The Chairman: The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta) can yield for
that purpose if he gets extra time, but it would make for a more
orderly process to get all three substitutes presented, with only
the principal proponent being allowed debate at that point. At the
end of those three being set in and available simultaneously, then,
as the Chair just said, he would entertain pro forma amendments by
Members who desire
[[Page 9784]]
to support or oppose any one of the three, and at the conclusion of
a reasonable time, then proceed to the numbered amendments.
After Rejection of Previous Question
Sec. 12.20 In response to parliamentary inquiries the Speaker advised
that if the previous question on a privileged resolution reported
by the Committee on Rules were voted down, the resolution would be
open to further consideration and debate, and that the Chair, under
the hour rule, would recognize the Member who appeared to be
leading the opposition.
On Oct. 19, 1966,(16) Mr. Claude D. Pepper, of Florida,
called up by direction of the Committee on Rules House Resolution 1013,
establishing a Select Committee on Standards and Conduct. Mr. Pepper
was recognized for one hour and offered a committee amendment to the
resolution, which amendment was agreed to. Speaker John W. McCormack,
of Massachusetts, then answered a series of parliamentary inquiries on
the order of recognition should Mr. Pepper move the previous question
and should the motion be defeated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 112 Cong. Rec. 27725, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, if the previous
question is refused, is it true that then amendments may be offered
and further debate may be had on the resolution?
The Speaker: If the previous question is defeated, then the
resolution is open to further consideration and action and debate.
Mr. [Joe D.] Waggonner [Jr., of Louisiana]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. Waggonner: Mr. Speaker, un-der the rules of the House, is
it not equally so that a motion to table would then be in order?
The Speaker: At that particular point, that would be a
preferential motion. . . .
Mr. [James G.] Fulton of Pennsylvania: Mr. Speaker, if the
previous question is refused and the resolution is then open for
amendment, under what parliamentary procedure will the debate
continue? Or what would be the time limit?
The Speaker: The Chair would recognize whoever appeared to be
the leading Member in opposition to the resolution.
Mr. Fulton of Pennsylvania: What would be the time for debate?
The Speaker: Under those circumstances the Member recognized in
opposition would have 1 hour at his disposal, or such portion of it
as he might desire to exercise. (17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. For the practice of recognizing Members opposed after rejection of
an essential motion, see House Rules and Manual Sec. 755
(1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 9785]]
For Motion To Recommit
Sec. 12.21 In response to a parliamentary inquiry the Speaker stated
that recognition to offer a motion to recommit is the prerogative
of a Member opposed to the bill, that the Speaker will first look
to minority members of the committee reporting the bill in their
order of seniority on the committee, second to other Members of the
minority and finally to majority Members opposed to the bill; thus,
a minority Member opposed to a bill but not on the committee
reporting it is entitled to recognition to offer a motion to
recommit over a majority Member who is also a member of the
committee.
On July 10, 1975,(18) during consideration of H.R. 8365
(Department of Transportation appropriations) in the House, the Speaker
put the question on passage of
the bill and then recognized Mr. William A. Steiger, of Wisconsin, a
minority Member, to offer a motion to recommit. The proceedings were as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 121 Cong. Rec. 22014, 22015, 94th Cong. 1st Sess. See also
Sec. 12.4, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: (19) The question is on the passage of
the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Steiger of Wisconsin: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to
recommit.
The Speaker: Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. Steiger of Wisconsin: I am, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: The gentleman qualifies. The Clerk will report the
motion to recommit.
Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry. . . .
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is not a member of the Committee on
Appropriations. As I understand the rule, a member of the Committee
on Appropriations must offer a motion to recommit.
The gentleman who offered the motion is not on the Committee on
Appropriations.
The Speaker: A member of the minority has priority over all the
members of the majority, regardless of whether he is on the
committee.
Mr. Yates: Mr. Speaker, may I continue with my statement on the
point of order.
The Speaker: You may.
Mr. Yates: ``Cannon's Precedents'' states, Mr. Speaker, that if
a motion is offered by a person other than a member of the
committee, a member of the committee takes precedence in offering a
motion to recommit.
The Speaker: A motion to recommit is the prerogative of the
minority, and
[[Page 9786]]
the Chair so rules and so answers the parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. Yates: Mr. Speaker, may I refer the attention of the Chair
to page 311.
I am quoting from page 311 of ``Cannon's Precedents.''
A member of the committee reporting the measure and opposed
to it is entitled to recognition to move to recommit over one
not a member of the committee but otherwise qualified.
And, Mr. Speaker, it cites volume 8, page 2768.
The Speaker: The Chair desires
to call the attention of the gentleman
on the question of the motion to ``Deschler's Procedure'' chapter
23, section 13. It provides that in recognizing Members who move to
recommit, the Speaker gives preference to the minority Member, and
these recent precedents are consistent with the one cited by the
gentleman from Illinois.
What the gentleman is saying is that because he is a member of
the Committee on Appropriations, he is so entitled. The Chair has
not gone over all the precedents, but the Chair can do it if the
gentleman desires him to do so.
The rule is not only that a member of the minority on the
Committee on Appropriations has preference over a majority member,
but any Member from the minority is recognized by the Speaker over
any Member of the majority, regardless of committee membership.
Mr. Yates: Mr. Speaker, if the Speaker will permit me to
continue----
The Speaker: The only exception is when no Member of the
minority seeks to make a motion to recommit.
Mr. Yates: Mr. Speaker, in that respect may I say that
``Cannon's Precedents'' is clear on that point; that where none of
those speaking, seeking recognition, are members of the committee
and otherwise equally qualified, the Speaker recognizes the Member
from the minority over the majority.
But the point is, Mr. Speaker, that I am a member of the
committee where the gentleman offering the motion to recommit on
the minority side is not a member of the committee.
I suggest, therefore, that under the precedents, I should be
recognized.
The Speaker: The Chair will state that in order that there can
be no mistake the Chair will ask the Clerk to read the following
passage from the rules and manual of the House.
The Clerk read as follows (from section 788):
Recognition to offer the motion to recommit, whether in its
simple form or with instructions, is the prerogative of a
Member who is opposed to the bill (Speaker Martin, Mar. 29,
1954, p. 3692); and the Speaker looks first to minority members
of the committee reporting the bill, in order of their rank on
the committee (Speaker Garner, Jan. 6, 1932, p. 1396; Speaker
Byrns, July 2, 1935, p. 10638), then to other Members on the
minority side (Speaker Rayburn, Aug. 16, 1950, p. 12608). If no
Member of the minority qualifies, a majority Member who is
opposed to the bill may be recognized (Speaker Garner, Apr. 1,
1932, p. 7327).
The Speaker: The Chair states that that definitely settles the
question, and the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin to
offer the motion to recommit.
The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
[[Page 9787]]
Mr. Steiger of Wisconsin moves to recommit the bill H.R.
8365 to the Committee on Appropriations.
--Conference Report; Bill Reported by Two Committees
Sec. 12.22 On one occasion, the Speaker Pro Tempore recognized the
ranking minority member of one of the two committees which had
originally reported a bill in the House, who was not a conferee on
the bill, to move to recommit a conference report, rather than the
second highest ranking minority member of the other committee which
had reported the bill, who was a conferee (although the highest
ranking minority member of a select committee normally has the
right to recognition to move to recommit a bill reported from a
select committee).
The following proceedings occurred in the House on June 27,
1980,(20) during consideration of the conference report on
S. 1308 (Energy Mobilization Board):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 126 Cong. Rec. 17371, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, I move the
previous question on the conference report.
The previous question was ordered.
motion to recommit
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (1) For what reason does
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Devine) rise?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. John P. Murtha (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Samuel L.] Devine [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion
to recommit.
Mr. [Manuel] Lujan [Jr., of New Mexico]: Mr. Speaker, I am a
member of the conference committee, and I am opposed to the bill.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Devine).
Mr. Devine: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit, and I am
opposed to the bill.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman qualifies.
Mr. Lujan: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Lujan: Mr. Speaker, does not a member of the conference
committee have preference in recognition to the ranking minority
member on the standing committee working on the bill?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown)
was on his feet at the time of the recommital motion. Does the
gentleman from Ohio, the second ranking minority member of the
conference committee, have a motion?
Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: I am unqualified for the
motion to recommit. I was standing, however, to make sure that the
motion to recommit was protected for the minority, and when the
Chair recognized the gen
[[Page 9788]]
tleman from Ohio (Mr. Devine), the ranking minority member of the
Commerce Committee, I took my seat. . . .
Mr. Lujan: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear an answer to my
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: As the gentleman knows, the Chair's
control over recognition is not subject to challenge and the Chair
recognized the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Devine).
The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Devine) is recognized for a
motion.
Mr. Devine: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is the gentleman opposed to the
conference report?
Mr. Devine: I am opposed to the bill, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman qualifies.
The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Devine moves to recommit the conference report to
accompany the Senate bill, S. 1308, to the committee of
conference.
Parliamentarian's Note: Ordinarily, the prior right to recognition
to move to recommit should belong to a member of a conference committee
(the committee reporting the bill).
For Motion To Refer
Sec. 12.23 While recognition to offer a motion to recommit a bill or
joint resolution (previously referred to committee) under clause 4
of Rule XVI is the prerogative of the minority party if opposed to
the bill, recognition to offer a motion to refer under clause 1 of
Rule XVII after the previous question has been moved or ordered on
a resolution (not previously referred to committee) does not depend
on party affiliation or upon opposition to the resolution.
During consideration of House Resolution 1042 (directing the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to investigate the
unauthorized publication of the report of the Select Committee on
Intelligence) in the House on Feb. 19, 1976,(2) the
following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 122 Cong. Rec. 3914-21, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: I rise to a question
involving the privileges of the House, and I offer a privileged
resolution.
The Clerk read the resolution as follows:
H. Res. 1042
Resolution requiring that the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct inquire into the circumstances leading to the
public publication of a report containing classified material
prepared by the House Select Committee on Intelligence
Whereas the February 16, 1976, issue of the Village Voice,
a New
[[Page 9789]]
York City newspaper, contains the partial text of a report or a
preliminary report prepared by the Select Committee on
Intelligence of the House, pursuant to H. Res. 591, which
relates to the foreign activities of the intelligence agencies
of the United States and which contains sensitive classified
information . . . Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct be and it is hereby authorized and directed to inquire
into the circumstances surrounding the publication of the text
and of any part of the report of the Select Committee on
Intelligence, and to report back to the House in a timely
fashion its findings and recommendations thereon.
The Speaker: (3) The gentleman from New York (Mr.
Stratton) is recognized for 1 hour. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Stratton: I yield for the purposes of debate only to the
distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. O'Neill). . . .
Mr. [Thomas P.] O'Neill [Jr., of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker,
some of the Members have been curious as to why the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Stratton) has the floor at this time and why the
resolution is privileged.
It is privileged because he believes that the rules of the
House and the processes of the integrity of the House have been
transgressed.
I believe that Mr. Stratton's motion to usurp the normal
procedure is transgressing on the rights of all our membership
here, and especially the rights of the members of the Rules
Committee which normally would have jurisdiction over this issue.
We should demand the normal course. We should not just say, ``Here,
we will send this to the Ethics Committee and the Ethics Committee
will make an investigation, because we are going to bypass the
Committee on Rules.'' That is exactly what Mr. Stratton desires. I
want the Members to know that when the time comes, after the hour
provided to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Stratton) is over, and
after that gentleman has moved the previous question, that I will
rise, and I will expect that the Speaker will recognize me and I
will then move, at that time, that, pursuant to clause 1 of rule
XVII, that the resolution be referred to the Committee on Rules. .
. .
Mr. Stratton: Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time
and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The Speaker: Without objection, the previous question is
ordered.
There was no objection.
Mr. O'Neill: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to rule XVII, clause 1, I
move to refer the resolution to the Committee on Rules.
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, a point of
order.
The Speaker: The gentleman from Maryland will state the point
of order.
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the
gentleman's motion comes too late. The Chair has already put the
previous question and it has been moved.
The Speaker: The motion to refer a resolution is in order after
the previous question is ordered under clause 1, rule XVII. . . .
Mr. [John B.] Anderson of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman
from Mas
[[Page 9790]]
sachusetts, the distinguished majority leader, has offered, in
effect, a motion to recommit the original resolution. Is it not
true that under the practices and procedures of this House one who
is opposed to the motion and who is on the minority side of the
aisle is entitled to control of the motion to recommit? Would I not
be entitled to preference over the gentleman from Massachusetts in
offering a motion to recommit which is, in effect, what the
gentleman from Massachusetts has offered?
The Speaker: The gentleman is referring to the procedure under
rule XVI. In this rather unique situation, the resolution has not
been before a committee and the House technically cannot recommit a
resolution that has never been previously referred to committee.
This is a motion to commit or refer under rule XVII and not a
motion to recommit under clause 4, rule XVI.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. See also 2 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 1456.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: If the Majority Leader had offered the
motion to refer under clause 1 of Rule XVII when the previous question
was moved but before it was ordered, the motion to refer would itself
have been debatable as well as amendable.
Under Motion To Suspend Rules
Sec. 12.24 Alternation of recognition is not followed during the 40
minutes of debate on a motion to suspend the rules.
On Sept. 20, 1961,(5) Mr. William R. Poage, of Texas,
moved to suspend the rules and pass a bill. After a second was ordered,
Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 107 Cong. Rec. 20491, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I understand that under the rules it is not necessary to rotate
time under a suspension of the rules.
Speaker Pro Tempore John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, responded
``That is correct.''
On Apr. 16, 1962,(6) Mr. James Roosevelt, of California,
moved to suspend the rules and pass a bill. Speaker Pro Tempore Carl
Albert, of Oklahoma, stated, in response to a parliamentary inquiry by
Mr. Gross, that under suspension of the rules it was not necessary to
rotate the time between opposing and favoring sides of the
question.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 108 Cong. Rec. 6682, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
7. The practice of alternation is not followed where a limited time is
controlled by Members in the House, as in the 40 minutes'
debate provided for suspension of the rules and where the
previous question has been moved without debate on a debatable
question (see 2 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 1442).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 12.25 In recognizing a Member to demand a second (under a former
rule) on a
[[Page 9791]]
motion to suspend the rules and pass a bill or agree to
an amendment, the Speaker gave preference to a majority Member
opposed to the bill or amendment over a minority Member who did not
qualify as being opposed.
During consideration of House Joint Resolution 644 (further
continuing appropriations for fiscal year 1981) in the House on Dec.
15, 1980,(8) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 126 Cong. Rec. 34191, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: (9) Is a second demanded?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a
second.
The Speaker: The gentleman from Illinois demands a second.
Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a point of
order. Does the gentleman object to the resolution?
The Speaker: There is no objection. This is for suspension of
the rules.
Mr. Stratton: Well, he fails to qualify for a second. I demand
a second.
Mr. Michel: I recognize the gentleman's prerogative, Mr.
Speaker. I am not opposed to the joint resolution.
The Speaker: The gentleman from New York has the second, since
he qualifies as being opposed to the motion.
Without objection, a second will be considered as ordered.
There was no objection.
The Speaker: The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Whitten) will
be recognized for 20 minutes, and the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Stratton) will be recognized for 20 minutes.
Parliamentarian's Note: Prior to the 102d Congress, certain motions
to suspend the rules were required to be seconded, if demanded, by a
majority by tellers, but this requirement was eliminated from Rule
XXVII in the 102d Congress (see H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1991).
Sec. 12.26 A Member of the minority who was opposed to a bill
considered under suspension of the rules had the right to
recognition, over a majority Member opposed to the bill, to demand
a second thereon (under a former rule) and
to control the twenty minutes of debate in opposition thereto.
On Nov. 17, 1980,(10) the House had under consideration
S. 885 (Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act
of 1980) when the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 126 Cong. Rec. 29788-801, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Abraham] Kazen [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I move to
suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 885) to assist the
electrical con
[[Page 9792]]
sumers of the Pacific Northwest through use of the Federal Columbia
River Power System to achieve cost-effective energy conservation,
to encourage the development of renewable energy resources, to
establish a representative regional power planning process, to
assure the region of an efficient and adequate power supply, and
for other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
Strike out all after the enacting clause of S. 885 and
insert the text of H.R. 8157 as amended.
short title and table of contents
Section 1. This Act, together with the following table of
contents, may be cited as the ``Pacific Northwest Electric
Power Planning and Conservation Act''. . . .
The Speaker: (11) Is a second demanded?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [F. James] Sensenbrenner [Jr., of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker,
I demand a second.
Mr. [James] Weaver [of Oregon]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a second.
The Speaker: The gentleman from Wisconsin from the minority is
entitled to the second.
Mr. Weaver: Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
I am opposed to the bill.
The Speaker: Is the gentleman from Wisconsin opposed to the
bill?
Mr. Sensenbrenner: I am opposed to the bill.
The Speaker: Without objection, a second will be considered as
ordered.
There was no objection.
The Speaker: The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Kazen) will be
recognized for 20 minutes, and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner) will be recognized for 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Kazen).
Parliamentarian's Note: Prior to the 102d Congress, certain motions
to suspend the rules were required to be seconded, if demanded, by a
majority by tellers, but this requirement was eliminated from Rule
XXVII in the 102d Congress (see H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1991).
CHAPTER 29
Consideration and Debate
B. RIGHT TO RECOGNITION
Sec. 13. -- Of Members of Committee
Cross References
Committee management and amendments, see Ch. 27, supra.
House committees, their powers and jurisdiction, see Ch. 17, supra.
Opening and closing debate as prerogative of committee members, see
Sec. 7, supra.
Priority of committee members on specific questions and motions, see
Sec. Sec. 16 et seq., infra.
Recognition of members of Committee on Rules on special orders, see Ch.
21, supra.
Recognition of members of conference committees, see Ch. 33, infra.
Seniority and derivative rights, see Ch. 7, supra.
Special orders vesting control in committee members, see Sec. 28,
infra.
[[Page 9793]]
-------------------Generally
Sec. 13.1 As a customary practice and in the absence of other
considerations, members of the committee which reported a bill are
entitled to prior recognition thereon.
On Feb. 10, 1941,(12) Chairman Clarence Cannon, of
Missouri, responded to a parliamentary inquiry on the practice of
extending priority for recognition to members of the committee
reporting a bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 87 Cong. Rec. 875, 876, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Lyle H.] Boren [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a
parliamentary inquiry. I want it thoroughly understood that I
recognize fully the custom of members of the committee being
recognized ahead of any other Member on the floor, not a member of
the committee. I am quite willing to withdraw my amendment for that
purpose, but as I understood it the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr.
Cooper] rose to make the point of order that my recognition at that
time was not in order. I understood the Chair sustained the point
of order and recognized the gentleman from New York [Mr. Crowther].
I should like to be enlightened as to under what rule of the House
that point of order is sustained after the Chair had recognized me
for the purpose of offering an amendment.
The Chairman: The gentleman from New York [Mr. Crowther] is a
member of the committee reporting the bill and, therefore, entitled
to prior recognition.
Mr. [Jack] Nichols [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary
inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Nichols: Is there a rule of the House that gives the
members of the committee the right to recognition ahead of other
Members of the House? Is that a rule of the House?
The Chairman: It is a procedure of long standing.
Mr. Nichols: It is not a rule of the House.
The Chairman: In the absence of other considerations, members
of the committee in charge of the bill are entitled to prior
recognition. The rule is essential to expedition in legislation and
its importance is too obvious to require justification.
Parliamentarian's Note: No point of order was actually made or
sustained relative to recognition. The Chair simply gave priority of
recognition to a committee member, Mr. Crowther, to offer an amendment.
Sec. 13.2 During amendment of a bill in Committee of the Whole, the
Chairman first recognizes members of the committee reporting the
bill, if on their feet seeking recognition.
On June 29, 1939,(13) Chairman Jere Cooper, of
Tennessee, ruled
[[Page 9794]]
that a Member who had been recognized to offer an amendment could not
be deprived of recognition by members of the committee reporting the
bill, if not on their feet seeking recognition:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 84 Cong. Rec. 8311, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Harold] Knutson [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I have an
amendment at the Clerk's desk which I would like to offer at this
time.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Knutson: Strike out all of section
1 and insert the following----
Mr. [Hamilton] Fish [Jr., of New York] (interrupting the
reading of the amendment): Mr. Chairman, would it be in order for
the committee members to be recognized first to offer amendments?
Mr. Knutson: I have already been recognized.
The Chairman: If there is any member of the committee seeking
recognition, he is entitled to recognition.
Mr. Fish: Mr. Chairman, I would like to be recognized.
Mr. Knutson: I already have the floor, and have been
recognized.
Mr. H. Carl Andersen [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, the
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Knutson] has already been recognized.
The Chairman: Recognition is in the discretion of the Chair,
and the Chair will recognize members of the committee first. Does
the acting chairman of the committee seek recognition?
Mr. [Sol] Bloom [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I would like to
ask whether the committee amendments to section 1 have been agreed
to?
The Chairman: The only one the Chair knows about is the one
appearing in the print of the bill, and that has been agreed to.
Mr. Bloom: In line 16, there is a committee amendment.
Mr. Knutson: Mr. Chairman, I was recognized by the Chair.
The Chairman: The Chair feels that inasmuch as members of the
committee were not on their feet and the gentleman from Minnesota
had been recognized, the gentleman is entitled to recognition.
Priority Over Member Who Introduced Bill
Sec. 13.3 Members of the committee reporting a bill are entitled to
prior recognition over the Member who introduced the bill.
On July 8, 1937,(14) Chairman Marvin Jones, of Texas,
answered a parliamentary inquiry on the order of recognition on the
pending bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 81 Cong. Rec. 6946, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, what is the
order of priority on the bill? Does the author of the bill precede
a member who is not a member of the committee?
The Chairman: If the Chair understands the rule correctly, the
members of the committee which report the bill have preference.
After that all members of the Committee of the Whole are on equal
standing.
[[Page 9795]]
Opposition to Substitute Amendment--Proponent of Amendment Does Not
Have Priority
Sec. 13.4 The proponent of an amendment may be recognized to control
the time in opposition to a substitute offered therefor, but a
member of the committee reporting the bill has priority of
recognition to control such time.
On May 4, 1983,(15) during consideration of House Joint
Resolution 13 (nuclear weapons freeze) in the Committee of the Whole,
the Chair responded to a parliamentary inquiry regarding priority of
recognition for debate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 129 Cong. Rec. 11074, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Norman D.] Dicks [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment as a substitute for the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Dicks as a substitute for the
amendment offered by Mr. Levitas: In view of the matter
proposed to be inserted, insert the following: ``with
negotiators proceeding immediately to pursuing reductions.''. .
. .
Mr. [Elliott H.] Levitas [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I have a
parliamentary inquiry. . . .
My parliamentary inquiry is twofold, Mr. Chairman.
The first is that under the rule if I am opposed to the
amendment being offered as a substitute for my amendment, can I be
recognized in opposition thereto?
My second inquiry is: Is the substitute open for amendment?
The Chairman: (16) The answer to the second question
is the substitute is open for amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is appropriate under the rules to offer an amendment. In
terms of whom the Chair recognizes in opposition, the Chair would
be inclined to recognize a member of the committee, if a member of
the committee seeks recognition in opposition to the amendment.
If a committee member does not seek recognition for that
purpose the Chair would be inclined to recognize the gentleman.
Members of Committee or Subcommittee
Sec. 13.5 The Chair, in giving preference of recognition on
appropriation bills, does not distinguish between members of the
full committee and members of the subcommittee which handled the
bill.
On Apr. 7, 1943,(17) Chairman Luther A. Johnson, of
Texas, recognized Mr. Frank B. Keefe, of Wisconsin, in opposition to a
pro forma amendment. Mr. Keefe was
[[Page 9796]]
a member of the Committee on Appropriations, which had reported the
pending bill. Mr. John H. Kerr, of North Carolina, objected that he
asked to be recognized, as a member of the subcommittee which had
handled the bill. The Chairman stated as follows on the priority of
recognition:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 89 Cong. Rec. 3067, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the Chair understands it, a member of the Committee on
Appropriations has the same right as those who are members of that
committee who happen to be members of a subcommittee. That is the
parliamentary procedure, as the Chair understands it. The Chair has
recognized the gentleman from Wisconsin. Had he not done so, he
certainly would have recognized the gentleman from North Carolina.
Sec. 13.6 Priority of recognition to offer amendments under the five-
minute rule in Committee of the Whole is extended to members of the
full committee reporting the bill, alternating between the majority
and minority, and the Chair does not distinguish between members of
the subcommittee which considered the bill and other members of the
full committee.
On July 2, 1980,(18) during consideration of the Rail
Act of 1980 (H.R. 7235) in the Committee of the Whole, it was
demonstrated that a decision of the Chair on a matter of recognition is
not subject to a point of order. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 126 Cong. Rec. 18292, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert C.] Eckhardt [of Tex-as]: Mr. Chairman, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: (19) The gentleman will state his
inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Les AuCoin (Oreg.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Eckhardt: Mr. Chairman, I was not aware at the time that
this amendment was offered that it would purport to deal with a
number of very different subjects. I assume that it would not be in
order to raise a point of order concerning germaneness at this late
time, not having reserved it, but I would like to ask if the
question may be divided. There are several subjects that are quite
divisible in the amendment offered here, and that deal with
different matters.
The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman from Texas
that he is correct, it is too late to raise a point of order on the
question of germaneness.
The Chair will further advise the gentleman from Texas that a
substitute is not divisible.
Mr. Eckhardt: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the
amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment.
The Chairman: The Clerk will report the amendment to the
substitute amendment.
Mr. [Edward R.] Madigan [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, a point of
order.
[[Page 9797]]
The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. Madigan: Mr. Chairman, I understand that the procedure is
that the members of the subcommittee would be recognized for
amendments first, and that the gentleman from Texas sought
recognition for the purpose of making a parliamentary inquiry and
was recognized for that purpose, and was not recognized for the
purpose of offering an amendment.
I further understand that the gentlewoman from Maryland, a
member of the subcommittee, was on her feet seeking recognition for
the purpose of offering an amendment, as well as the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Broyhill). . . .
The Chairman: The Chair will respond to the gentleman by saying
to him that the normal procedure is to recognize members of the
full committee by seniority, alternating from side to side, which
the Chair has been doing. The gentleman was recognized under that
procedure, and the Chair's recognition is not in any event subject
to challenge.
Therefore, the gentleman is recognized, and any point of order
that the gentleman from Illinois would make on that point would not
be sustained.
Mr. Madigan: Further pursuing my point of order, and with all
due respect to the Chair, am I incorrect in assuming that the
gentleman from Texas was recognized for the point of raising a
parliamentary inquiry?
The Chairman: The gentleman is correct. He was recognized for
that purpose; then separately for the purpose of the amendment that
he is offering, which the Clerk will now report.
Sec. 13.7 The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole announced that in
recognizing Members under the five-minute rule for consideration of
an appropriation bill, he would alternate recognition between the
majority and minority sides of the aisle and would follow these
priorities: first, members of the subcommittee handling the bill;
second, members of the full Committee on Appropriations; and
finally, other Members of the House.
On July 30, 1969,(20) Chairman Chet Holifield, of
California, made an announcement on the order of recognition during
consideration under the five-minute rule of H.R. 13111, appropriations
for the Health, Education, and Welfare and Labor Departments:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 115 Cong. Rec. 21420, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair might state, under the procedures of the House, he is
trying to recognize first members of the subcommittee on
appropriations handling the bill and second general members of the
Committee on Appropriations. It is his intention to go back and
forth to each side of the aisle to recognize Members who have been
standing and seeking recognition the longest. The gentlewoman from
Hawaii sought recognition all yesterday afternoon, and the Chair
was unable to recognize her
[[Page 9798]]
because of the procedures of the House, having to recognize Members
on both sides of the aisle who are members of the committee. I wish
the Members to know that the Chair will recognize them under the
normal procedures.
Parliamentarian's Note: The Chair normally follows the list of full
committee seniority and is not bound by subcommittee rankings.
Alternation Between Majority and Minority
Sec. 13.8 While recognition of Members to offer amendments is within
the Chair's discretion and cannot be challenged on a point of
order, the Chair under the precedents alternates recognition
between majority and minority members of the committee reporting
the bill.
During consideration of the Outer Continental Shelf Act (H.R. 6218)
in the Committee of the Whole on June 11, 1976,(1) the
following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 122 Cong. Rec. 17764, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: v(2) The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Murphy).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. [John M.] Murphy of New York: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Murphy of New York; On page 59,
lines 12 to 20, strike paragraphs 5(a), (6), (7), and (8) and
renumber subsequent paragraphs accordingly.
Mr. [Hamilton] Fish [Jr., of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a point
of order.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. Fish: Mr. Chairman, the minority has amendments to offer,
including a substitute amendment to title II. It is my
understanding that the minority would have its turn at the same
time as the majority in considering the amendments.
The Chairman: The Chair would advise the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Fish) that that would not come under the category of a
point of order; but the Chair would further advise the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Fish) that since the gentleman has raised the
point, the Chair will alternate from side to side.
Sec. 13.9 While the Chair endeavors to alternate recognition for the
purpose of offering amendments, and controlling time in opposition
thereto, between majority and minority Members, members of the
committee reporting a pending bill are entitled to prior
recognition over non-committee members regardless of their party
affiliation.
On May 4, 1983,(3) during consideration of House Joint
Resolu
[[Page 9799]]
tion 13 (nuclear weapons freeze) in the Committee of the Whole, the
Chair, in responding to an inquiry, indicated that priority in
recognition is with the committee reporting the pending legislation:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 129 Cong. Rec. 11068, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Stephen J.] Solarz [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment to the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Solarz to the amendment offered by
Mr. Levitas: Strike out the matter proposed to be added to the
resolution by the Levitas amendment and insert in lieu thereof
the following: ``, with reductions to be achieved as soon as
possible after the achievement of a mutual and verifiable
freeze''.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: (4) The gentleman from New
York (Mr. Solarz) is recognized for 15 minutes, for purposes of
debate only, on his amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Leon E. Panetta (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [James G.] Martin of North Carolina: Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield for a parliamentary inquiry?
Mr. Solarz: Certainly. I am happy to yield for that purpose.
Mr. Martin of North Carolina: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary
inquiry.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Martin of North Carolina: Mr. Chairman, I would appreciate
if the Chair would put a little time over here.
Is it customary and is it correct order for the business of the
House of Representatives for the Chair to sequentially recognize
only Members of the majority party time and time again, both to
make an amendment, to take the position opposing that amendment,
and then to offer the next amendment; is that regular order?
The Chairman Pro Tempore: Under the precedents the priority in
this instance is with the committee members to offer an amendment
to the amendment.
Mr. Martin of North Carolina: I beg pardon?
The Chairman Pro Tempore: Priority in this instance by the
Chair is with the committee members, regardless of party.
Mr. Martin of North Carolina: That means the Chair will not
recognize anyone on the Republican side until after all this has
been disposed of, is that what the Chair is saying? Is that the
Chair's prerogative?
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair has indicated its position
on recognition up to this point.
Sec. 13.10 In recognizing members of the committee reporting a bill to
offer amendments in the Committee of the Whole, the Chairman has
discretion whether to first recognize a minority or majority
member.
On June 4, 1948,(5) while the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 6801, the foreign aid appropriation bill, for
amendment, Chairman Albert M. Cole, of Kan
[[Page 9800]]
sas, recognized Everett M. Dirksen, of Illinois (a majority member), to
offer an amendment. Mr. Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, objected that the
minority was entitled to recognition to move to amend the bill. The
Chairman responded:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 94 Cong. Rec. 7189, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the rules of the House, any member of the committee may
offer an amendment, and it is in the discretion of the Chair as to
which member shall be recognized.
Sec. 13.11 While the Chair endeavors to alternate recognition for the
purpose of offering amendments between majority and minority
Members, members of the committee reporting a pending
bill are entitled to prior recognition over noncommittee members
regardless of their party affiliation.
On July 22, 1974,(6) during consideration of the Surface
Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1974,(7) the Chairman
(8) of the Committee of the Whole indicated that he would
continue to accord prior recognition to minority members of the
Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs to offer amendments to a bill
reported from that committee over majority noncommittee Members, but
that he would alternate between parties if majority committee members
sought recognition. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 120 Cong. Rec. 24454, 24457, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
7. H.R. 11500.
8. Neal E. Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Craig] Hosmer [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment to the amendment offered by Mrs. Mink as a substitute for
the amendment offered by Mr. Hosmer to the committee amendment in
the nature of a substitute.
Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I do not know
whether a point of order or a parliamentary inquiry is in order;
but I would like to make one or the other.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. Hays: It is my understanding that under the long-standing
rules of the House and the Committee of the Whole that we alternate
from the Democratic side to the Republican side, or vice versa,
whichever the case may be.
Now, there are Members on this side who want to offer
amendments. If the Chair is going to consistently listen to three
in a row that the gentleman from California has had, we do not know
where we stand.
The Chairman: The Chair understands the gentleman's
parliamentary inquiry; but the Chair believes that as long as
members of the committee seek recognition, they are entitled to
recognition first; at least, up to a certain point, and if a member
of the committee from the majority side stands, he could be
recognized.
[[Page 9801]]
Subjects Beyond Jurisdiction of Committee
Sec. 13.12 Where the Committee of the Whole was considering, under a
special rule waiving points of order, a bill that extended to a
number of legislative subjects that were beyond the jurisdiction of
the reporting committee (a general appropriations bill containing a
variety of legislative provisions), the Chairman ruled that he
would not limit recognition to the members of the committee
reporting a bill, but that his decision was not to be taken as a
precedent for other bills.
On Mar. 5 and 6, 1941,(9) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 3737, a general appropriation bill, pursuant to House
Resolution 126, waiving all points of order against the bill. As to
distribution of recognition for debate on the bill, Chairman John E.
Rankin, of Mississippi, ruled that, contrary to normal practice,
recognition would not be limited to members of the Committee on
Appropriations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 87 Cong. Rec. 1846, 1921, 1922, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: Permit the Chair to make a statement.
On yesterday the question of recognizing members of the
committee to the exclusion of other Members of the House was
raised. The Chair stated that since we were operating under a rule
that makes in order legislation on an appropriation bill, the Chair
did not feel the policy that has grown up in recent years of
recognizing members of the committee to the exclusion of other
Members of the House should be followed. The Chair does not know
what attitude future Chairmen of the Committee of the Whole may
assume, but the present occupant of the chair wishes to lay down
what the Chair believes to be a sound principle in this respect.
There are 40 members of the Committee on Appropriations. They
have control of all the time for general debate on bills coming
from that committee just as members of the Committee on Foreign
Affairs, members of the Committee on Ways and Means, or other
committees have control of the time under general debate on bills
coming from their respective committees. There is no written or
adopted rule of this House giving members of the committee in
control of the bill the exclusive right to recognition under the 5-
minute rule over other Members of the House, but a custom to that
effect seems to have grown up in recent years which the Chair
thinks is wrong.
It is all right to give preference to the chairman of a
subcommittee or to the ranking minority member on that subcommittee
in connection with important amendments under the 5-minute rule,
but the Chair does not think it is fair to the rest of the
membership of the House to follow a policy, and gradually petrify
it into the rules of the House, of recognizing all mem
[[Page 9802]]
bers of a committee handling the bill under the 5-minute rule to
the exclusion of other Members of the House.
Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I trust the
Chair has no intention of announcing a formal decision, which would
be in contravention of the practice of the House, which has been in
effect for a hundred years. From time immemorial the members of the
committee in control of the bill and charged with its passage have
been given precedence in recognition, other things being equal.
Mr. [Clifton A.] Woodrum of Virginia: Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Cannon of Missouri: I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. Woodrum of Virginia: That does not apply alone to the
Appropriations Committee; it applies to all committees.
Mr. Cannon of Missouri: The gentleman is correct. There is no
code applying to any one committee more than to any other
committee. And that rule--like all rules of the House--is justified
by reason and logic. There is a reason for it. The members of a
committee through months--sometimes years--of work on a certain
class of legislation or a recurring bill are naturally more
familiar with it, and under the rules of the House are responsible
for its disposition. And it naturally follows that they must be in
position to secure the floor and must be accorded priority of
recognition when that subject or that bill is under consideration
in order to expedite the business of the House. There is no
specific provision in the body of the rules, but the practice has
not only been established in the long history of the American
Congress but came down to us from the English Parliament from which
we received originally our parliamentary code. And as Speaker
Cannon and Speaker Reed both said authoritatively, the greater
portion of our procedure is the unwritten law--more binding than
the letter of the law--because not subject to amendment save
through the long processes of evolution.
In all the years I have been on the floor, 30 years next month,
I have never heard from the Chair a decision questioning this rule,
nor a suggestion that it was not a reasonable rule, or a rule that
should not be strictly enforced. As I understand it, the Chairman
is about to decide that while this is the rule and practice of the
House, that due to the fact that a resolution was adopted when this
bill was brought in, the Chair is warranted for the time being in
recognizing another priority; but does not pass on the rule itself
under normal circumstances. I realize the Chairman would not at
this late date propose to set aside, even temporarily, a rule which
has been in effect from the beginning of the Republic and which is
based upon sound parliamentary logic.
The Chairman: Let the Chair say in reply to the gentleman from
Missouri, whom the Chair regards as one of the greatest
parliamentarians on earth, that the Chair is not setting aside any
rule.
Mr. Woodrum of Virginia: Mr. Chairman, I would like to withdraw
my request for recognition.
The Chairman: The Chair is not discussing that.
Mr. Woodrum of Virginia: Mr. Chairman, I will withdraw my
request for recognition.
[[Page 9803]]
The Chairman: The Chair desires to finish his statement.
The Chair may say to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Cannon]
that there is no written rule on this subject, but within the last
two or three decades appropriations have been taken away from other
committees and concentrated in the hands of one committee. The
Chair is not speaking any more with reference to the Committee on
Appropriations than any other committee. It is perfectly fair for a
committee to have charge of general debate and probably debate
under the 5-minute rule to a large extent, but the Chair does not
think it is fair--especially under conditions such as we have here,
where a rule has been adopted making legislation that ordinarily
comes from the Committee on Agriculture and from other committees
of the House in order on the bill--the Chair does think it fair to
the rest of the membership of the House to recognize members of the
Committee on Appropriations under the 5-minute rule to the
exclusion of the other Members of the House.
So far as the present occupant of the chair individually is
concerned, if the time should come when that matter is presented,
the Chair might go a step further and apply it to all measures
coming before the House and considered under the 5-minute rule. If
we are going to have legislation by the entire Congress we will
have to come to that decision ultimately.
Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary
inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Taber: Would the Chair feel the same way with reference to
a bill being considered from the Committee on Agriculture or from
the Committee on World War Veterans?
The Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Taber: Or from the Committee on Foreign Affairs?
The Chairman: Yes. The Chair is not singling out any committee.
A great many Members of the House are vitally interested in the
various provisions of these bills, and the Chair does not think it
is right to exclude them until the committee has exhausted and
closed debate.
Mr. [Everett M.] Dirksen [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, a further
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Dirksen: Is this to be regarded as a ruling today, or is it
merely an observation of the Chair?
The Chairman: It is a ruling as far as this bill is concerned.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina.
Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: Will the gentleman
yield for a parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. [Hampton P.] Fulmer [of South Carolina]: I yield to the
gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. McCormack: Mr. Chairman, is it my understanding that the
ruling just made by the Chair confines itself to the pending bill?
The Chairman: That is right.
Mr. McCormack: And by reason of the rule adopted making in
order certain provisions which are legislative, the Chair feels,
under those circumstances, that the broader application should be
applied to this bill only?
[[Page 9804]]
The Chairman: Yes. The Chair may say to the gentleman from
Massachusetts that if the present occupant were in the chair when
one of these relief bills came in, which also covers a multitude of
various phases of legislation, the Chair would assume the same
attitude.
Mr. McCormack: May I say that the Chair is absolutely correct
so far as this bill is concerned, but may I say for the Record, so
that some future Chairman might not construe the broad remarks of
the Chair as a precedent, that the present Chairman is confining
himself in his ruling to the present bill.
The Chairman: That is correct.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr.
Fulmer].
May Lose Priority
Sec. 13.13 Members of the committee reporting a bill under
consideration usually have preference of recognition, but such
preference may be lost if they do not seek recognition in a timely
manner.
On Aug. 8, 1967,(10) Chairman Daniel D. Rostenkowski, of
Illinois, recognized under the five-minute rule a Member not on the
committee which reported the bill because a committee member's request
for recognition was untimely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 113 Cong. Rec. 21842, 21843, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: For what purpose does the gentleman from Michigan
rise?
Mr. [James G.] O'Hara of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
Mr. [Clark] MacGregor [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. MacGregor: Mr. Chairman, is it not customary when two
Members rise at approximately the same time that the Chairman
recognizes a member of the committee first?
The Chairman: The Chair will state that the gentleman from
Michigan was on his feet, and the Chair recognized the gentleman
from Michigan.
Mr. MacGregor: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Minnesota was
on his feet, and had asked for recognition before the teller vote
was taken.
The Chairman: The Chair will state that the Chair saw the
gentleman from Michigan on his feet first, and the Chair recognized
the gentleman from Michigan.
Where Committee Member Does Not Seek Recognition
Sec. 13.14 In recognizing Members under the five-minute rule, the Chair
attempts to give preference to members of the committee reporting
the bill; but the Chair may recognize another where a committee
member is standing but not actively seeking recognition by
addressing the Chair.
On Aug. 4, 1978,(11) during consideration of the foreign
aid ap
[[Page 9805]]
propriation bill for fiscal 1979 (H.R. 12931) in the Committee of the
Whole, it was demonstrated that, in order to be recognized, a Member
must be on his feet and must address the Chair at the appropriate time:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 124 Cong. Rec. 24439, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: (12) The Clerk will read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Abraham Kazen, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
TITLE II--FOREIGN MILITARY CREDIT SALES
Foreign Military Credit Sales
For expenses not otherwise provided for, necessary to
enable the President to carry out the provisions of sections 23
and 24 of the Arms Export Control Act, $648,000,000. . . .
The Chairman: Are there amendments to title II?
For what purpose does the gentleman from Iowa rise?
Mr. [Thomas R.] Harkin [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Chairman: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa (Mr.
Harkin).
Mr. [Clarence E.] Miller of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I am a member
of the committee.
The Chairman: The Chair has recognized the gentleman from Iowa
(Mr. Harkin).
Mr. Miller of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I was on my feet at the time.
The Chairman: The Chair will tell the gentleman that he might
have been on his feet, but the Chair was not aware that he
addressed the Chair. . . .
Let the Chair make this announcement for the last time during
the consideration of this bill. On yesterday twice the Chair
admonished the members of this Committee that if they had
amendments pending, it was their duty to be standing and to address
the Chair seeking recognition. Otherwise the Chair would have no
way of knowing that they had an amendment to offer. The Chair is
for the third and last time admonishing the Committee that those
who have amendments not only be on their feet but seek recognition.
On this particular occasion the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Miller)
did not seek the Chair's attention, and the Chair did recognize the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Harkin), who did seek the Chair's
attention.
Absence of Chairman
Sec. 13.15 Where the chairman and ranking minority member of the
reporting committee, named in a resolution to control debate on the
bill, are absent, the Speaker or Chairman of the Committee of the
Whole may recognize the next ranking majority and minority members
(if
the chairman and ranking minority member have not designated other
members to control the time).
On July 23, 1942,(13) the House adopted a resolution
from the
[[Page 9806]]
Committee on Rules providing for debate on a bill to be divided between
the Chairman and the ranking minority member of the reporting
committee--the Committee on Election of the President, Vice President,
and Representatives in Congress. The chairman and ranking minority
member both being absent, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, declared, in
response to a parliamentary inquiry, that the Chair would recognize the
next ranking majority member and the next ranking minority member to
control debate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 88 Cong. Rec. 6542-46, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John E.] Rankin of Mississippi: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Rankin of Mississippi: Mr. Speaker, we have been unable to
find a man in the House on either side who was present when this
bill was voted out. A majority of the members of the committee who
are here are opposed to the bill. We feel that the time ought to be
divided not between the Members who are for the bill but know
nothing about it any more than the rest of us, but between the
members of the committee who are for the bill and the members of
the committee who are opposed to the bill. I would like to have the
Chair's ruling on that proposition.
The Speaker: The Chair thinks the Chair has a rather wide range
of latitude here. The Chair could hold and some future Speaker
might hold that since the chairman and ranking minority member of
the committee are not here there could be no general debate because
there was nobody here to control it, but the present occupant of
the chair is not going to rule in such a restricted way.
The Chair is going to recognize the next ranking majority
member and the next ranking minority member when the House goes
into the Committee of the Whole.
When the House had resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole,
Chairman Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, responded as follows to a similar
inquiry:
Mr. Rankin of Mississippi: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary
inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Rankin of Mississippi: Mr. Chairman, there is not a member
of the committee present who was present when this bill was voted
out. A majority of the members of the committee who are present are
opposed to this bill. . . .
The Chairman: The Chair will say in response to the
parliamentary inquiry, that the Speaker held only a few moments ago
that the ranking majority Member, acting as chairman of the
committee, and the ranking minority Member present, would have
control of the time under the rule that has been adopted for the
consideration of the bill.
Recognition for Points of Order
Sec. 13.16 Members of the committee reporting a bill have
[[Page 9807]]
priority of recognition to make points of order against proposed
amendments to the bill.
On Mar. 30, 1949,(14) Mr. Henry M. Jackson, of
Washington, and Mr. Carl T. Curtis, of Nebraska, simultaneously arose
in the Committee of the Whole to make a point of order against a
pending amendment on the ground that it constituted legislation on an
appropriation bill. Chairman Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, recognized Mr.
Jackson in preference over Mr. Curtis since Mr. Jackson was a member of
the committee which had reported the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 95 Cong. Rec. 3520, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pro Forma Amendments
Sec. 13.17 Where the Committee of the Whole resumed consideration of a
bill under a special rule prohibiting amendments to a pending
amendment except pro forma amendments for debate, the Chair
announced that he would first recognize Members who had not offered
pro forma amendments on the preceding day, priority of recognition
being given to members of the reporting committee.
On Aug. 3, 1977,(15) the following proceedings occurred
in the Committee of the Whole during consideration of the National
Energy Act (H.R. 8444):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 123 Cong. Rec. 26444, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: (16) The Chair would like to make a
statement for the information of the Members of the Committee of
the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Edward P. Boland (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair has before it a list of those who spoke on this
amendment yesterday. The Chair will recognize those who have not
spoken on this amendment first and, of course, preference will be
given to the members of the ad hoc committee and any Member, of
course, under the rule has the right to offer pro forma amendments.
The Chair will adhere to that direction.
The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) did not speak on this
amendment yesterday, so as a member of the ad hoc committee, for
what purpose does the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) [rise]?
Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I move to
strike the last word.
Opposition to Motion To Discharge
Sec. 13.18 The chairman of a committee having jurisdiction over a bill
is entitled to prior recognition for debate in opposition to a
motion to dis
[[Page 9808]]
charge the committee, and if the chairman is not opposed to the
motion the next ranking member of the committee is recognized for
that purpose, and so on, in order of rank.
On Jan. 13, 1936,(17) Mr. Wright Patman, of Texas, moved
to discharge the Committee on Ways and Means from the further
consideration of H.R. 1, for the immediate cash payment of adjusted
service certificates. Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, stated
that 20 minutes' debate would be had on the motion, to be equally
divided between those for and against the motion. He stated that he
would recognize Robert L. Doughton, of North Carolina (chairman of the
Committee on Ways and Means), to control half the time. Mr. Hamilton
Fish, Jr., of New York, stated that he wished to be heard in opposition
to the motion. The Speaker responded:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 80 Cong. Rec. 336, 337, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The chairman of the committee before which the bill is pending
is entitled to be recognized in opposition, if he desires.
On May 23, 1938,(18) Mrs. Mary T. Norton, of New Jersey,
moved to discharge the Committee on Rules from the further
consideration of House Resolution 478, making in order the
consideration of a bill. Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama,
stated that Mrs. Norton would control 10 minutes' debate in favor of
the motion. The Speaker further stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 83 Cong. Rec. 7274, 7275, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does the gentleman from New York, chairman of the Committee on
Rules, desire recognition in opposition to the resolution?
Mr. [John J.] O'Connor of New York: Mr. Speaker, I cannot
qualify in opposition because I am wholeheartedly in favor of the
bill.
The Speaker: The gentleman from Georgia [the next ranking
member on the committee]?
Mr. [Edward E.] Cox [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, I am proud to
say I am in position to qualify. I claim the time and will yield to
the gentleman from Texas.
The Speaker: The Chair will recognize the gentleman from
Georgia for 10 minutes in opposition to the resolution, and the
gentlewoman from New Jersey is now recognized for 10
minutes.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See also 96 Cong. Rec. 12543, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 15, 1950;
96 Cong. Rec. 12441, 12442, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 14, 1950;
89 Cong. Rec. 4807, 4808, 78th Cong. 1st Sess., May 24, 1943;
and 88 Cong. Rec. 8067, 8068, 77th Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 12,
1942.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 9809]]
Where Portion of Bill Is Considered Read and Open to Amendment
Sec. 13.19 Where a pending title of a bill is open to amendment and a
unanimous-consent request is made that the next two succeeding
titles also be considered as open to amendment, all three titles
would be open to amendment, with priority in recognition being
given to members of the committee reporting the bill.
The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on
Jan. 29, 1980,(20) during consideration of the Water
Resources Development Act (H.R. 4788):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 126 Cong. Rec. 973, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Ray] Roberts [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that titles III and IV be considered as read and open for
amendment at any point.
The Chairman: (1) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Texas? . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Allen E.] Ertel [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, am I
under the understanding at this point that titles II, III, and IV
are now open to amendment?
The Chairman: That is correct, if no objection is heard.
Mr. Ertel: I have no objection.
Mr. [Don H.] Clausen [of California]: Mr. Chairman, reserving
the right to object, I want to make sure we are going to be
proceeding in an orderly manner. I am assuming we will proceed
through title II for the consideration of the amendment and then
follow on with the consideration of titles III and IV.
The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman that if the
unanimous-consent request is adopted without objection, titles II,
III, and IV will be open for amendment at any point. Committee
members will, of course, have priority in recognition.
Mr. Ertel: Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right to object, and I
do object. I think we ought to go by title II, then go to title III
and title IV. I object.
The Chairman: Objection is heard.
Recognition To Offer Substitute--Previous Recognition To Debate
Original Amendment
Sec. 13.20 While recognition during the five-minute rule is within the
discretion of the Chair and is not subject to a point of order, the
Chair will ordinarily recognize a member of a committee reporting a
bill to offer a substitute
before recognizing a noncommittee member, although that committee
member may already have been recognized to debate the original
amendment.
[[Page 9810]]
During consideration of the
Department of Energy Authorization Act (H.R. 3000) in the Committee of
the Whole on Oct. 18,
1979,(2) the following proceedings
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 125 Cong. Rec. 28765, 28767, 28768, 28770, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman Pro Tempore: (3) Are there further
amendments to title IV? If not, the Clerk will designate title V.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title V reads as follows:
TITLE V--NUCLEAR ASSESSMENT, SPENT FUEL DISPOSITION OPERATIONS,
AND DECONTAMINATION AND DE-COMMISSIONING . . .
Mr. [John W.] Wydler [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Wydler: On page 56, line 21 and
22, substitute the following new title: . . .
Mr. [Philip R.] Sharp [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, I rise in
opposition to this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, there are two things we have to recognize: First,
we are moving ahead to deal with the question of away-from-reactor
storage for domestic spent fuel.
After further debate, Mr. Sharp was recognized to offer an
amendment:
Mr. Sharp: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as a substitute
for the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Sharp as a substitute for the
amendment offered by Mr. Wydler: On page 56, line 21 and 22,
substitute the following new title: ``TRANSITIONAL STORAGE OF
SPENT FUEL.''
On page 57, after line 7, insert the following new
subsections: . . .
Mr. Wydler: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order. I believe
the gentleman from Indiana was already recognized on this amendment
and there were other people standing on the amendment.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Indiana has been
recognized to offer a substitute for the gentleman's amendment, and
the Clerk is reporting the substitute amendment.
Mr. Wydler: The gentleman had already been recognized on my
amendment. Is the Chairman aware of that?
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the amendment.
The gentleman is on the committee which considered the pending
title and is entitled to separate recognition to offer an
amendment, and the Clerk will report the substitute.
Chairman Requesting Conference
Sec. 13.21 The Speaker indicated, in response to a parliamentary
inquiry, that only the chairman of the committee having
jurisdiction of the subject matter of a bill would be recognized to
ask unanimous consent to take the bill from the table, disagree to
a
[[Page 9811]]
Senate amendment and ask for a conference.
On the legislative day of Aug. 31, 1960,(4) Speaker Sam
Rayburn, of Texas, answered a parliamentary inquiry as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 106 Cong. Rec. 18920, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 1, 1960 (Calendar
Day).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Halleck: Would it be in order for a unanimous-consent
request to be made to send the bill that has just come from the
Senate to conference?
The Speaker: That would be up to the gentleman from North
Carolina [Mr. Cooley] [chairman of the committee with
jurisdiction].
District of Columbia Business
Sec. 13.22 During the consideration of District of Columbia business in
the Committee of the Whole, in the absence of a special agreement
controlling time for general debate, the Chair alternates in
recognizing between those for and against the pending legislation,
giving preference to members of the Committee on the District of
Columbia.
The above-stated principle is set out in detail in another
section.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. See Sec. 12.11, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Private Calendar
Sec. 13.23 Recognition for debate in opposition to an amendment to a
bill on the Private Calendar goes to a member of the committee
reporting the bill in preference to a Member who is not on that
committee.
On Dec. 14, 1967,(6) during the call of the Private
Calendar, Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, extended
recognition to oppose an amendment to a private bill to Mr. Michael A.
Feighan, of Ohio, a member of the reporting committee, over Mr. Durward
G. Hall, of Missouri, not a member of the committee, and stated ``a
member of the committee is entitled to recognition.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 113 Cong. Rec. 36535-37, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calendar Wednesday
Sec. 13.24 In recognizing for five minutes' debate in opposition to a
motion to dispense with business under the Calendar Wednesday call
of committees, the Speaker extends preference to a member of the
committee having the call.
On Feb. 22, 1950,(7) Mr. Dwight L. Rogers, of Florida,
moved to
[[Page 9812]]
dispense with the call of committees on Calendar Wednesday. When the
five minutes' debate by Mr. Rogers in favor of the motion, provided for
by rule, had expired, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, refused to
recognize Mr. Andrew J. Biemiller, of Wisconsin, who was not a member
of the committee who had the call. He then recognized Thruston Ballard
Morton, of Kentucky, who was a member of the committee next to be
called on the Calendar Wednesday list of committees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 96 Cong. Rec. 2157-59, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 13.25 In recognizing a Member to control time in opposition to a
bill on Calendar Wednesday in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair
recognizes minority members in the order of their seniority on the
committee reporting the bill.
On Apr. 14, 1937,(8) the House resolved itself into the
Committee of the Whole for the consideration of H.R. 1668, to amend the
Interstate Commerce Act, called up by the Committee on Interstate and
Foreign Commerce under the Calendar Wednesday call of committees.
Chairman J. Mark Wilcox, of Florida, answered a parliamentary inquiry
on the order of recognition for debate in opposition to the bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 81 Cong. Rec. 3456, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Pehr G.] Holmes [of Massachusetts]: Am I to understand
that 1 hour will be extended me in opposition to the bill as a
minority member of the committee?
The Chairman: Is the gentleman from Massachusetts opposed to
the bill?
Mr. Holmes: I am, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Is the gentleman from Massachusetts the ranking
minority member of the committee?
Mr. Holmes: I am the ranking minority member opposed to the
bill.
The Chairman: The gentleman is entitled to recognition in
opposition to the bill unless a minority member of the committee
outranking the gentleman desires recognition.
Minority Committee Member Offered Amendment in Nature of Substitute
From Floor
Sec. 13.26 Pursuant to a special rule providing for the consideration
of the text of a bill as an amendment in the nature of a
substitute, to be read
by titles as an original bill immediately after the reading of the
enacting clause of the bill to which offered, the Chair recognized
a minority member of the committee to offer the amendment in the
nature of a substitute from the floor before it could be considered
under the rule.
[[Page 9813]]
On Sept. 19, 1974,(9) Chairman Thomas M. Rees, of
California, recognized James T. Broyhill, of North Carolina, who then
offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 120 Cong. Rec. 31727, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Chairman: When the Committee rose on Tuesday, September 17,
1974, all time for general debate had expired.
Pursuant to the rule, immediately after the reading of the
enacting clause, it shall be in order to consider the text of the
bill H.R. 16327 as an amendment in the nature of a substitute for
the bill, and said substitute shall be read for amendment by title.
The Clerk will read the enacting clause.
The Clerk read as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled. . . .
Mr. Broyhill of North Carolina: Mr. Chairman, under the rule, I
offer the following amendment in the nature of a substitute, which
is to the text of the bill (H.R. 7917).
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr.
Broyhill of North Carolina: That this Act may be cited as the
``Consumer Product Warranties-Federal Trade Commission
Improvements Act''.
TITLE I--CONSUMER PRODUCT WARRANTIES
definition
Parliamentarian's Note: Mr. Broyhill was a minority member of the
committee and had introduced the bill made in order by the rule. The
Chair recognized him when the chairman of the then Committee on
Interstate and Foreign Commerce did not immediately seek recognition.
It should be noted that the Chair could have considered the amendment
to be pending and could have directed that it be read by title as an
original bill without being offered from the floor.
Suspension of Rules
Sec. 13.27 In recognizing a Member to demand a second on a motion to
suspend the rules (under a former rule), the Speaker gave
preference to
a member of the reporting committee who was opposed to the bill;
that Member was then recognized to speak in opposition to the
motion.
On Feb. 20, 1967,(10) Speaker John W. McCormack, of
Massachusetts, ruled as follows on recognition to demand a second on
the motion to suspend the rules:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 113 Cong. Rec. 3829, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: Is a second demanded?
Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a
second.
The Speaker: For what reason does the gentleman from Michigan
[Mr.
[[Page 9814]]
Nedzi], a member of the committee, stand?
Mr. [Lucien N.] Nedzi: Mr. Speaker, I demand a second.
Mr. Yates: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. Yates: The distinguished gentleman from Michigan is my good
friend. Is it in order to inquire as to whether the gentleman from
Michigan is opposed to the bill?
Mr. Nedzi: I will allay the gentleman's fears. He is.
Mr. Yates: I will withdraw.
The Speaker: The Chair had not reached that point yet. The
Chair would have asked that question.
Is the gentleman from Michigan opposed to the bill?
Mr. Nedzi: I am, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: The gentleman qualifies. Without objection, a
second will be considered as ordered.
Parliamentarian's Note: The Member demanding a second on the motion
to suspend the rules was entitled to recognition for debate against the
motion.(11) Prior to the 102d Congress, certain motions to
suspend the rules were required to be seconded, if demanded, by a
majority by tellers, but this requirement was eliminated from Rule
XXVII in the 102d Congress (see H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See 105 Cong. Rec. 17600, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 1, 1959.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 13.28 A member of the committee reporting a bill, who is opposed
to the bill, has prior right to recognition to demand a second on a
motion to suspend the rules.
On Dec. 1, 1941,(12) Mr. J. Harry McGregor, of Ohio, and
Mr. Pehr G. Holmes, of Massachusetts, arose simultaneously to demand a
second on a motion to suspend the rules and pass a bill. Mr. Holmes
responded to the inquiry of Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, by saying
that he was not opposed to the bill. Mr. McGregor was recognized to
demand a second after he stated that he was opposed to the bill and was
a member of the committee which reported it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 87 Cong. Rec. 9276, 9277, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: Prior to the 102d Congress, certain motions
to suspend the rules were required to be seconded, if demanded, by a
majority by tellers, but this requirement was eliminated from Rule
XXVII in the 102d Congress (see H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1991).
Sec. 13.29 The Speaker accords priority of recognition to demand a
second on a motion to suspend the rules to a minority member of the
committee reporting the bill who qualifies as being opposed to the
motion.
[[Page 9815]]
On Sept. 20, 1976,(13) during consideration of H.R.
14319 (the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Act) in the House, the
following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 122 Cong. Rec. 31328, 31333, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
All three Members demanding a second were minority Members,
with Mr. Carter ranking on the committee reporting the bill,
Mr. Broyhill junior on that committee, and Mr. Symms not on the
committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Harley O.] Staggers [of West Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I
move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 14319) to amend
the Public Health Service Act and the Social Security Act to revise
and improve the authorities under those acts for the regulation of
clinical laboratories, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
short title
Section 1. This Act may be cited as the ``Clinical
Laboratory Improvement Act of 1976''. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (14) Is a second demanded?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. John J. McFall (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Steven D.] Symms [of Idaho]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a
second.
Mr. [Tim Lee] Carter [of Kentucky]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a
second.
Mr. [James T.] Broyhill [of North Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, I
demand a second.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is each of the gentlemen who request a
second opposed to the bill?
Mr. Symms: I am opposed to the bill, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Broyhill: I am opposed to the bill, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Carter: Mr. Speaker, so am I, in its present form.
Mr. Symms: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. Symms: Mr. Speaker, did the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr.
Carter) say that he is opposed to the bill?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that the
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Carter) did say he is opposed to the
bill, in its present form.
Mr. Carter: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my demand for a second.
Mr. Broyhill: Mr. Speaker, I demand a second.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is the gentleman from North Carolina
opposed to the bill?
Mr. Broyhill: I am, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Without objection, a second will be
considered as ordered.
There was no objection.
Parliamentarian's Note: Prior to the 102d Congress, certain motions
to suspend the rules were required to be seconded, if demanded, by a
majority by tellers, but this requirement was eliminated from Rule
XXVII in the 102d Congress (see H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1991).
Seniority as Factor
Sec. 13.30 Recognition of Members to offer amendments
[[Page 9816]]
under the five-minute rule in the Committee of the Whole is within
the discretion of the Chair, and he extends preference to members
of the committee which reported the bill according to seniority.
On July 21, 1949,(15) Chairman Eugene J. Keogh, of New
York, answered a parliamentary inquiry on the order of recognition for
amendments under the five-minute rule:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 95 Cong. Rec. 9936, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [James P.] Sutton [of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, I offered
an amendment.
Mr. H. Carl Andersen [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. H. Carl Andersen: Mr. Chairman, is it not the custom during
debate under the 5-minute rule for the Chair in recognizing Members
to alternate from side to side? At least I suggest to the Chair
that that would be the fair procedure. The Chair has recognized
three Democrats in a row.
The Chairman: The Chair will say to the gentleman that the
matter of recognition of members of the committee is within the
discretion of the Chair. The Chair has undertaken to follow as
closely as possible the seniority of those Members.
Mr. [Clifford R.] Hope [of Kansas]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Hope: For the information of the Chair, the gentleman from
Wisconsin, who has been seeking recognition, has been a Member of
the House for 10 years, and the gentleman from Tennessee is a
Member whose service began only this year.
The Chairman: The Chair would refer the gentleman to the
official list of the members of the committee, which the Chair has
before him.
The Clerk will report the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Tennessee.
Sec. 13.31 Recognition under the five-minute rule in the Committee of
the Whole is within the discretion of the Chair, and the Chair is
not required in every instance to recognize members of the
legislative committee reporting the bill in order of their
seniority.
On Oct. 2, 1969,(16) the Committee of the Whole was
considering under the five-minute rule H.R. 14000, military procurement
authorization. Chairman Daniel D. Rostenkowski, of Illinois, recognized
Robert C. Wilson, of California, a minority member of the Committee on
Armed Services which had reported the bill, to offer an amendment. Mr.
Lucien
[[Page 9817]]
N. Nedzi, of Michigan, inquired whether members of the committee were
not supposed to be recognized in the order of their seniority. The
Chairman responded ``That is a matter for the Chair's discretion'' and
proceeded to recognize Mr. Wilson for his amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 115 Cong. Rec. 28101, 28102, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 13.32 The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole gives priority in
recognition, in opposition to an amendment printed in the Record
and offered after debate is limited, to senior members of the
committee reporting the bill regardless of party affiliation.
On June 7, 1977,(17) during consideration of the Federal
Employees' Political Activities Act of 1977 (H.R. 10) in the Committee
of the Whole, Chairman James R. Mann, of South Carolina, responded to a
parliamentary inquiry, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 123 Cong. Rec. 17700, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Edward J.] Derwinski [of Illinois]: The Chairman just
referred to the situation whereby debate was limited, which is
under clause 6, rule XXIII, and under that procedure any Member who
has filed and published an amendment is protected in his right to
call up the amendment and is entitled to 5 minutes to explain the
amendment.
My parliamentary inquiry is: How will the Chair determine the
appropriate Member to speak in opposition to the amendment? In
other words, what will qualify a Member to speak in opposition to
these pending amendments?
The Chairman: The Chair will endeavor to recognize committee
members who are opposed, and if there is more than one committee
member desiring to speak in opposition to the amendment, the Chair
will seek to recognize the most senior of the committee members.
The matter of party affiliation will not be controlling.
Sec. 13.33 While the matter of
recognition to offer amendments in Committee of the Whole under the
five-minute rule is within the discretion of the Chairman, members
of the reporting committee(s) are normally accorded prior
recognition in order of committee seniority.
During consideration of House Resolution 1186 (providing for
consideration of H.R. 39, the Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act) in the House on May 17, 1978,(18) the
following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 124 Cong. Rec. 14139-45, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Christopher J.] Dodd [of Connecticut]: Mr. Speaker, by
direction of the Committee on Rules I call up House Resolution 1186
and ask for its immediate consideration. . . .
[[Page 9818]]
The Clerk read the resolution. . . .
Mr. Dodd: Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1186 provides for the
consideration of H.R. 39, the Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act of 1978. This resolution provides for an open rule
with 3 hours of general debate; 2 hours to be equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, and 1 hour to be equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member
of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. . . .
Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: The Chair will tell us,
will he not, that the rules and customs of the House would
ordinarily indicate that the floor managers of the bill or members
of the appropriate committees would be recognized ahead of other
Members in case there were more than one substitute to be offered?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (19) The Chair will state
that recognition of Members will be under the control of the Chair
at the time that the House is in the Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Charles A. Vanik (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
further parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Bauman: I would like to ask the Chair whether it is not
true, under the precedents of the House, that any member of either
committee has a right to be recognized to offer amendments; of
course, the chairman and ranking minority member first and other
Members after that, may be recognized to offer amendments, so that
no restriction is imposed on any Member's right to offer amendments
under this rule?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that the
gentleman has correctly stated the general principles relating to
recognition.
--Chair May Base Recognition on Seniority or on Preferential Status of
Amendments
Sec. 13.34 The order of recognition to offer amendments is within the
discretion of the Chair, who may either base his initial
recognition on committee seniority or upon the preferential voting
status of the amendments sought to be offered; thus, where both a
pending amendment and a substitute therefor are open to perfecting
amendments, the Chair has the discretion of first recognizing
either the senior committee member, or a junior committee member
whose amendment would be first voted upon, where both amendments
could ultimately be pending at the same time.
The following proceedings occurred during consideration of the
Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1979 in the
[[Page 9819]]
Committee of the Whole on May 15, 1979: (20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 125 Cong. Rec. 11135, 11136, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: (1) For what purpose does the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Seiberling) rise?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Paul Simon (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John F.] Seiberling [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I have an
amendment at the desk.
The Chairman: Is this to the Udall substitute?
Mr. Seiberling: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk
to the Udall-Anderson bill, which is actually a series of technical
amendments which I will ask unanimous consent to offer en bloc. . .
.
The Chairman: Since there is no other amendment pending to the
Udall substitute, the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio may be
offered. . . .
Mr. [John B.] Breaux [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, assuming
there is an amendment to be offered to the so-called Breaux-Dingell
merchant marine version, that would take precedence over an
amendment to the so-called Udall-Anderson interior bill?
The Chairman: The Chair has the option either to recognize the
senior Member first or to first recognize that Member seeking to
offer the amendment which will be preferential and first voted
upon.
Mr. [Thomas J.] Huckaby [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I have
amendments at the desk for the Breaux-Dingell bill.
The Chairman: The Clerk will report the
amendments.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Mr. Seiberling was senior to Mr. Huckaby on the Committee on
Interior and Insular Affairs, but Mr. Huckaby's amendment was
to be voted on first and he represented the majority position
on the committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Don H.] Clausen [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. Chairman, what is the parliamentary situation? Is there an
amendment to be offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Seiberling)
or the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Huckaby)?
The Chairman: The Chair will state that the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Seiberling) sought recognition to amend the Udall substitute,
but the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Huckaby) has an amendment to
the Merchant Marine and Fisheries amendment in the nature of a
substitute, and he will be recognized. The Chair will recognize the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Seiberling) later for the purposes of
offering his amendment. . . .
Mr. Huckaby: Mr. Chairman, I offer amendments to the amendment
in the nature of a substitute.
The Chairman: The Clerk will report the amendments.
Parliamentarian's Note: Mr. Huckaby's amendments to the original
amendment were subsequently agreed to.(3) Mr. Seiberling
then indicated that he had amendments to the substitute, and Mr.
Huckaby that he had further amendments to the original amendment. As
noted above, the Chair would have discretion to
[[Page 9820]]
recognize either Member; but the Chair indicated that in either case,
the question would not be put on amendments to the substitute until all
amendments to the original amendment had been disposed of.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 125 Cong. Rec. 11152, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limitation on Debate Under Five-minute Rule as Affecting Priority of
Recognition
Sec. 13.35 Where the Committee of the Whole has limited to 5 minutes
the remaining time for debate on an amendment, the five-minute rule
is in effect abrogated and the Chair may in his discretion
recognize two Members to equally control the time in support of and
in opposition to the amendment (granting priority of recognition to
control the time in opposition to a member of the committee
handling a bill).
On June 22, 1977,(4) during consideration of H.R. 7797
(the foreign assistance and related agencies appropriation bill for
fiscal 1978) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair made an
announcement regarding debate under the five-minute rule. The
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 123 Cong. Rec. 20291, 20292, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Clarence D.] Long of Maryland: Mr. Chairman, I move that
all debate on this amendment and any amendments thereto close in 5
minutes.
The motion was agreed to.
The Chairman: (5) Let the Chair make this
announcement. There is no way that the Chair can divide 5 minutes
among all who wish to speak. Therefore, under the prerogative of
the Chair, the Chair will recognize one proponent and one opponent
each for 2\1/2\ minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Abraham Kazen, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair at this time recognizes the proponent, the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Wolff). . . .
The Chairman: Is there any member of the committee who wishes
to be recognized in opposition to the amendment?
If not, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Weiss) as an opponent of the amendment.
Sec. 13.36 A limitation on debate abrogates the five-minute rule and
the ordinary criteria for priority of recognition, and the Chair
may extend priority of recognition under a limitation to Members
seeking to offer amendments not printed in the Record, before
members of the reporting committee.
On June 27, 1979,(6) it was demonstrated that, where
time had been limited for debate under the five-minute rule in
Committee of
[[Page 9821]]
the Whole, the Chair could continue to recognize Members under the
five-minute rule and then as the expiration time approached allocate
the remaining time among Members seeking to offer amendments not
printed in the Congressional Record, and Members opposing such
amendments. The proceedings during consideration of H.R. 4389 (the
Departments of Labor, and Health, Education, and Welfare
appropriations) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 125 Cong. Rec. 17018, 17029, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [William H.] Natcher [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that the balance of the bill be considered as
read, open to amendment at any point, and that all debate on the
bill and all amendments thereto close at 8:30 p.m.
The Chairman: (7) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Kentucky?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Don Fuqua (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection. . . .
The Chairman: The Chair would like to make an announcement. We
have less than 45 minutes of the allocated time. The Chair would
like for all those Members who have amendments which are not
printed in the Record--not printed in the Record--to please rise
and remain standing so that the Chair can get the names of the
Members and try to recognize them for the offering of their
amendments.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller)
for approximately 3 minutes.
Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Michel: Mr. Chairman, is it not normal practice to
recognize members of the committee before we recognize other
Members?
The Chairman: Not when a time limitation has been imposed. That
rule does not apply, but the Chair will try to protect all the
Members who do
not have amendments printed in the Record.
Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Conte: If some member of the committee opposes one of these
amendments, may that Member rise and speak against an amendment?
The Chairman: Certainly.
Sec. 13.37 Where the Committee of the Whole has limited debate on a
bill and all amendments thereto, the five-minute rule may be
abrogated at any time the Chair in his discretion deems it
necessary to divide the remaining time; and if such limitation is
to a time certain several hours in the future, the Chair may in his
discretion continue to proceed under the five-minute rule until he
desires to allocate remaining time on possible amendments, and may
then divide that time between proponents and com
[[Page 9822]]
mittee opponents of amendments before they are offered.
During consideration of the Department of Defense authorization
bill (H.R. 3519) in the Committee of the Whole on July 16,
1981,(8) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 127 Cong. Rec. 16005, 16044, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [William L.] Dickinson [of Alabama]: . . . I was wondering
if we could agree that we would limit the debate on this bill and
all amendments thereto until 5 o'clock tonight, so we would then
know whether or not we have to come back tomorrow. I think that
would give the Members ample time and ample opportunity to speak.
That still allows 6\1/2\ hours more time for amendment and debate.
So, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on
this bill and all amendments thereto terminate at 5 p.m. today.
The Chairman: (9) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Alabama?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Paul Simon (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection. . . .
The Chairman: Under the precedents of the House, the Chairman
has the power in this situation to allocate time, a limitation
having been imposed. The Chair will on the Moffett amendment, if
offered, allocate 9 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr.
Moffett) and 9 minutes to the opposition. Following that the Chair
will, if time remains, allocate 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Foley) and if he offers an amendment to any
opposition if there is any, and then what time may be remaining the
Chair will allocate to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Minish)
if he offers an amendment, 1 minute, to be divided equally between
any proponents or opponents.
Mr. Dickinson: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman from Alabama will state his
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. Dickinson: I was just wondering if the Chair could clear up
for us the definition of ``opponents.'' The Chair is going to
recognize the proponent for 9 minutes and the opponent for 9
minutes. Does that mean the committee, or does that mean some
identified person?
The Chairman: That means a senior member of the committee in
opposition.
Sec. 13.38 Where there was pending an amendment in the nature of a
substitute for a bill and the permissible degree of amendments
thereto, the Chair indicated in response to parliamentary inquiries
that a motion to limit debate on the amendment in the nature of a
substitute and all amendments thereto was in order although the
bill itself had not been read, and that all Members would be
allocated equal time under the limitation regardless of com
[[Page 9823]]
mittee membership but that Members seeking to offer amendments
could be first recognized.
On June 10, 1976,(10) the Committee of the Whole having
under consideration a bill relating to the State and Local Fiscal
Assistance Act of 1972 (H.R. 13367), a mo-tion to limit debate was
offered
and the proceedings that followed were as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 122 Cong. Rec. 17380, 17381, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Frank] Horton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I move that all
debate on the Brooks amendment and
all amendments thereto end by 6 p.m. . . .
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: . . . I do not remember
the bill being open at any point to amendment.
The Chairman: (11) The motion of the gentleman from
New York, as the Chair understood it, was that all debate on the
Brooks amendment and all amendments thereto end at 6 p.m.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Bauman: So that the motion is in order?
The Chairman: The motion is in order. It is limited to the
Brooks amendment and amendments thereto. . . .
Mr. [J. J.] Pickle [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary
inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Pickle: Mr. Chairman, under the proposed time limitation,
would the Chair tend to recognize a Member who is not a member of
the committee? For instance, the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Adams) has an important amendment, and if he is not recognized
within the time limitation, would the chairman of the committee let
the gentleman be recognized?
Mr. [Jack] Brooks [of Texas]: I do not have control of the
time. I think the answer, obviously, is that he will be recognized.
The Chairman: The Chair will state that under limitation of
time committee members no longer have priority in seeking
recognition. Time is equally allocated.
So the motion was agreed to.
Sec. 13.39 Where debate under the five-minute rule on a bill and all
amendments thereto has been limited by motion to a time certain
(with approximately 90 minutes remaining) the Chair may in his
discretion continue to recognize Members under the five-minute
rule, according priority to members of the committee reporting the
bill, instead of allocating time between proponents and opponents
or among all Members standing, where it cannot be determined what
amendments will be offered.
On July 29, 1983,(12) during
consideration of the International
[[Page 9824]]
Monetary Fund authorization (H.R. 2957) in the Committee of the Whole,
the Chair responded
to several parliamentary inquiries regarding recognition following
agreement to a motion to limit debate to a time certain:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 129 Cong. Rec. 21649, 21650, 21659, 21660, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Fernand J.] St Germain [of Rhode Island]: Mr. Chairman, I
ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill, H.R. 2957, be
considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at
any point.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from Rhode Island?
There was no objection.
The text of title IV and title V is as follows:
TITLE IV--INTERNATIONAL LENDING SUPERVISION
Sec. 401. This title may be cited as the ``International
Lending Supervision Act of 1983''. . . .
Mr. St Germain: I have a motion, Mr. Chairman. . . .
I now move that all debate on the bill, H.R. 2957, and all
amendments thereto, cease at 12 o'clock noon. . . .
Mr. [Ed] Bethune [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary
inquiry. . . .
Mr. Chairman, the parliamentary inquiry is for the Chair to
please state the process by which we will do our business from now
until the time is cut off. . . .
Mr. [Stephen L.] Neal [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, would
it not be in order at this time to ask that the time be divided
between the proponents and the opponents of this measure, since
there is a limitation on the time?
The Chairman: (13) The Chair believes not, because
the time has been limited on the entire bill. It would be very
difficult to allocate time to any one particular party or two
parties when the Chair has no knowledge of the amendments that will
be offered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Donald J. Pease (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Neal: Mr. Chairman, a further parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Neal: Mr. Chairman, is it not true that members of the
committee should be given preference in terms of recognition?
The Chairman: That is true. At the time the gentleman from
Pennsylvania was recognized, he was the only one seeking
recognition.
Sec. 13.40 Where under a time limitation only five minutes of debate is
available in opposition both to an amendment and to a substitute
therefor printed in the Record, one Member cannot simultaneously be
recognized for 10 minutes in opposition to both amendments, but
must be separately recognized on each amendment, with preference of
recognition being accorded to members of the committee reporting
the bill.
The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the
[[Page 9825]]
Whole on June 27, 1985,(14) during consideration of H.R.
1872 (Department of Defense authorization for fiscal 1986):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 131 Cong. Rec. 17799-802, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment offered by Mr. Markey: Insert the following new
section at the end of title X (page 200, after line 4): . . .
(a) Limitation of Funds Authorized for Fiscal Year 1986.--
None of the funds appropriated pursuant to the authorizations
of appropriations in this or any other Act may be used for the
production of the 155-millimeter artillery-fired, atomic
projec-tile. . . .
Mr. [Vic] Fazio [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment as a substitute for the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Fazio as a substitute for the
amendment offered by Mr. Markey: Insert the following new
section at the end of title X (page 200, after line 4): . . .
Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I move to
strike the requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and the
amendment to the amendment.
Mr. [Robert E.] Badham [of California]: Mr. Chairman, at this
time, I would ask a parliamentary inquiry of the Chair. . . .
My inquiry is that since there were two offerings, an amendment
and an amendment to the amendment in the form of a substitute,
would the opposition now be exercising its prerogative in using 10
minutes in opposition to both?
The Chairman Pro Tempore: (15) That is correct,
except that the gentleman from New York rose in opposition to the
Markey amendment. There would be 5 minutes of debate left in
opposition to the Fazio substitute. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Marty Russo (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Stratton: Mr. Chairman, I rose in opposition to both
amendments, both the Markey amendment and the Fazio amendment.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that the
gentleman can only rise in opposition to one amendment at a time,
and when he rose, the Chair understood him to rise first in
opposition to the Markey amendment. That leaves only 5 minutes in
opposition to the Fazio substitute amendment.
Any Member wishing to rise in opposition to the Fazio
substitute amendment may, and a member of the committee is
recognized before other Members.
Motion To Recommit
Sec. 13.41 In response to a parliamentary inquiry the Speaker stated
that recognition to offer a motion to recommit is the prerogative
of a Member opposed to the bill, that the Speaker will first look
to minority members of the committee reporting the bill in their
order of seniority on the committee, second to other Members of the
minority and finally to majority Members opposed to the bill;
[[Page 9826]]
thus, a minority Member opposed to a bill but not on the committee
reporting it is entitled to recognition to offer a motion to
recommit over a majority Member who is also a member of the
committee.
On July 10, 1975,(16) during consideration of H.R. 8365
(Department of Transportation appropriations) in the House, the Speaker
put the question on passage of the bill and then recognized Mr. William
A. Steiger, of Wisconsin, a minority Member, to offer a motion to
recommit. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 121 Cong. Rec. 22014, 22015, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: (17) The question is on the passage of
the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Steiger of Wisconsin: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to
recommit.
The Speaker: Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. Steiger of Wisconsin: I am, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: The gentleman qualifies. The Clerk will report the
motion to recommit.
Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry. . . .
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is not a member of the Committee on
Appropriations. As I understand the rule, a member of the Committee
on Appropriations must offer a motion to recommit.
The gentleman who offered the motion is not on the Committee on
Appropriations.
The Speaker: A member of the minority has priority over all the
members of the majority, regardless of whether he is on the
committee.
Mr. Yates: Mr. Speaker, may I continue with my statement on the
point of order.
The Speaker: You may.
Mr. Yates: ``Cannon's Precedents'' states, Mr. Speaker, that if
a motion is offered by a person other than a member of the
committee, a member of the committee takes precedence in offering a
motion to recommit.
The Speaker: A motion to recommit is the prerogative of the
minority, and the Chair so rules and so answers the parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. Yates: Mr. Speaker, may I refer the attention of the Chair
to page 311.
I am quoting from page 311 of ``Cannon's Precedents.''
A member of the committee reporting the measure and opposed
to it is entitled to recognition to move to recommit over one
not a member of the committee but otherwise qualified.
And, Mr. Speaker, it cites volume 8, page 2768.
The Speaker: The Chair desires to call the attention of the
gentleman
on the question of the motion to ``Deschler's Procedure'' chapter
23, section 13. It provides that in recognizing Members who move to
recommit, the Speaker gives preference to the minority Member, and
these recent precedents are consistent with the one cited by the
gentleman from Illinois.
What the gentleman is saying is that because he is a member of
the Com
[[Page 9827]]
mittee on Appropriations, he is so entitled. The Chair has not gone
over all the precedents, but the Chair can do it if the gentleman
desires him to do so.
The rule is not only that a member of the minority on the
Committee on Appropriations has preference over a majority member,
but any Member from the minority is recognized by the Speaker over
any Member of the majority, regardless of committee membership.
Mr. Yates: Mr. Speaker, if the Speaker will permit me to
continue----
The Speaker: The only exception is when no Member of the
minority seeks to make a motion to recommit.
Mr. Yates: Mr. Speaker, in that respect may I say that
``Cannon's Precedents'' is clear on that point; that where none of
those speaking, seeking recognition, are members of the committee
and otherwise equally qualified, the Speaker recognizes the Member
from the minority over the majority.
But the point is, Mr. Speaker, that I am a member of the
committee where the gentleman offering the motion to recommit on
the minority side is not a member of the committee.
I suggest, therefore, that under the precedents, I should be
recognized.
The Speaker: The Chair will state that in order that there can
be no mistake the Chair will ask the Clerk to read the following
passage from the rules and manual of the House.
The Clerk read as follows (from section 788):
Recognition to offer the motion to recommit, whether in its
simple form or with instructions, is the prerogative of a
Member who is opposed to the bill (Speaker Martin, Mar. 29,
1954, p. 3692); and the Speaker looks first to minority members
of the committee reporting the bill, in order of their rank on
the committee (Speaker Garner, Jan. 6, 1932, p. 1396; Speaker
Byrns, July 2, 1935, p. 10638), then to other Members on the
minority side (Speaker Rayburn, Aug. 16, 1950, p. 12608). If no
Member of the minority qualifies, a majority Member who is
opposed to the bill may be recognized (Speaker Garner, Apr. 1,
1932, p. 7327).
The Speaker: The Chair states that that definitely settles the
question, and the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin to
offer the motion to recommit.
The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Steiger of Wisconsin moves to recommit the bill H.R.
8365 to the Committee on Appropriations.
Sec. 13.42 In recognizing Members to move to recommit, the Speaker
gives preference first to the ranking minority member of the
committee reporting the bill, and then to the remaining minority
members of that committee in the order of their rank.
On June 18, 1957,(18) the House was considering H.R.
6127, the Civil Rights Act of 1957. In response to a parliamentary
inquiry, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, stated that the order of
recogni
[[Page 9828]]
tion for a motion to recommit would be determined by the order of rank
of minority members of the committee reporting the bill, the Committee
on the Judiciary. When two minority members of the committee arose to
offer the motion, the Speaker recognized the member higher in rank:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 103 Cong. Rec. 9516, 9517, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Richard H.] Poff [of Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
motion to recommit.
The Speaker: Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. Poff: I am, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. [Russell W.] Keeney [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I also
offer a motion to recommit, and I, too, am opposed to the bill.
The Speaker: In this instance the Chair finds that no one has
arisen who is a member of the minority of the Committee on the
Judiciary until it comes down to the name of the gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. Poff]. He ranks the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
Keeney] and is therefore senior. Under the rules and precedents of
the House, the Chair therefore must recognize the gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. Poff].(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See also 110 Cong. Rec. 5147, 88th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 12, 1964;
and 105 Cong. Rec. 11372, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., June 19, 1959.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 13.43 Recognition for a motion to recommit is accorded to the
ranking minority member of the committee reporting a bill, even
though that member is opposed to the measure merely ``in its
present form.''
On Mar. 12, 1964,(20) Mr. Robert J. Corbett, of
Pennsylvania, offered a motion to recommit a pending bill reported from
the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, of which he was a
minority member. Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, inquired
whether he was opposed to the measure, and he stated he was opposed to
the bill ``in its present form.'' Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, also a
minority member of the committee, but lower in rank than Mr. Corbett,
stated that he should be recognized to offer the motion to recommit,
being unqualifiedly opposed to the bill. The Speaker declined to
recognize Mr. Gross and recognized Mr. Corbett for the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 110 Cong. Rec. 5147, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 13.44 A minority member of
a committee reporting a bill
is entitled to recognition to offer a motion to recommit, if
opposed to the bill, over a minority Member not on
the committee, although the Speaker may have failed to notice the
committee member seeking recognition at the time the noncommittee
Member sought to offer a mo
[[Page 9829]]
tion but before it was reported by the Clerk.
During consideration of the Department of Agriculture appropriation
bill for fiscal 1976 (H.R. 8561) in the House on July 14,
1975,(1) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 121 Cong. Rec. 22620, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John H.] Rousselot [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
motion to recommit.
The Speaker: (2) Is the gentleman opposed to the
bill?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Rousselot: Yes, I am, Mr. Speaker.
motion to recommit offered by mr. michel
Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
motion to recommit.
The Speaker: The gentleman from Illinois is the ranking member
of the Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. Rousselot: Mr. Speaker, I believe I was recognized.
The Speaker: The Chair did not see the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. Michel: Mr. Speaker, I was on my feet and I was standing
right here. I had the motion at the desk. I was just standing here
as a matter of courtesy.
The Speaker: The Chair was at fault in that the Chair did not
see the gentleman from Illinois because the gentleman from
California was addressing the Chair and the Chair was looking in
that direction.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Michel).
Mr. Rousselot: Mr. Speaker, I believe I was recognized and the
Clerk was proceeding with the motion to recommit.
The Speaker: The Chair did not
see the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Michel) who was entitled to
recognition being the senior member on the Committee on
Appropriations and entitled to recognition, and the motion to
recommit had not been reported by the Clerk.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Michel).
Sec. 13.45 In granting recognition to offer a motion to recommit, the
Chair first recognizes minority members of the committee reporting
the bill who are opposed in order of their seniority, and then
other minority Members who are opposed; and in one instance, the
Chair recognized a senior member of the committee to offer a motion
to recommit even though another Member had sought recognition to
offer the motion and had been asked by the Chair if he was opposed
to the bill and had responded that he was, the Chair ruling in
response to a point of order that recognition in such an instance
is not conferred until the Chair has directed the Clerk to report
the motion.
[[Page 9830]]
On Apr. 24, 1979,(3) during consideration of the State
Department authorization (H.R. 3303) in the House, the following
exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 125 Cong. Rec. 8360, 8361, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: (4) The question is on the engrossment
and third reading of the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and
was read the third time.
The Speaker: The question is on the passage of the bill.
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
motion at the desk.
The Speaker: The Chair is aware that the gentleman is standing
and the Chair intends to recognize the gentleman. . . .
Is there any member of the committee that desires to make a
motion to recommit on the minority side? . . .
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.
The Speaker: Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the bill.
The Speaker: The Clerk will----
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I was recognized.
The Speaker: The Chair under the precedents of the House, will
recognize the gentleman from Michigan to make a motion if he
qualifies. . . .
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, had not the Speaker said to the
gentleman from Maryland, ``Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?''
And the gentleman from Maryland was thus recognized.
The Speaker: The Chair appreciates that the gentleman is
opposed to the bill; but under the precedents of the House, the
Clerk has not reported the motion. . . .
Mr. Bauman: I make a point of order against recognizing the
gentleman from Michigan or anyone else, because he did not rise in
a timely fashion to make the motion. Once the Chair recognizes a
Member, the precedents will support the fact that he has the right
to offer the motion.
The Speaker: On the point of order, the gentleman's motion has
not been read yet; so the Chair will recognize the gentleman from
Michigan, a senior member of the committee, who is standing. . . .
Mr. [William S.] Broomfield [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, I offer
a motion to recommit.
The Speaker: Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. Broomfield: Yes, I am, Mr. Speaker. . . .
The Speaker: The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Broomfield moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 3363, to
the Committee on Foreign Affairs. . . .
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman makes a point of order
that the gentleman is not in order in making the motion, since
another Member had already been recognized. The Chair has already
conferred that recognition and had inquired whether or not the
gentleman from Maryland was opposed.
The Speaker: In the opinion of the Chair, until the motion has
been read,
[[Page 9831]]
the gentleman has not been recognized for that purpose.
Mr. Bauman: Well, the gentleman did not yield to anyone else to
offer a motion.
The Speaker: The gentleman had not been recognized for that
purpose and consequently--the Chair asked the gentleman if he was
in opposition. The gentleman replied. The gentleman was not then
recognized for that purpose. That is the statement and the opinion
of the Chair. The Chair did not recognize the gentleman by
directing the Clerk to report the motion. The Chair is trying to
follow the precedents of the House.
Now, the Chair has ruled on the gentleman's point of order and
the gentleman from Michigan is entitled to 5 minutes. The Chair so
recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Broomfield).
--By Minority Leader
Sec. 13.46 On one occasion, the Minority Leader asserted a ``preemptory
right'' over other minority Members to offer a motion to recommit
a reprimand resolution to
the Committee on Standards
of Official Conduct with instructions to report back forthwith an
amendment proposing the more severe punishment of censure (although
the ranking minority member of that committee opposed to the
reported resolution would ordinarily have been entitled to
recognition to offer the motion under Rule XVII, clause 1).
On July 20, 1983,(5) Minority Leader Robert H. Michel,
of Illinois, was recognized to offer a motion to recommit House
Resolution 266 (reprimanding Mr. Daniel B. Crane, of Illinois). The
proceedings in the House were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 129 Cong. Rec. 20028, 20029, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Michel: . . . I am going to exercise my preemptory right of
taking the motion to recommit for myself and it will read as
follows. Those of you who want to vote for it can, and those who
will not I am certainly not going to have any quarrel with you
because, frankly, I think the committee recommendations are good
and sound and were based on fundamental good reason. . . .
Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The Speaker: (6) Is the gentleman opposed to the
resolution?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Michel: I am, Mr. Speaker, in its present form.
The Speaker: The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Michel of Illinois moves to recommit House Resolution
266 to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct with
instructions to report the resolution back to the House
forthwith with the following amendment: Strike all after the
resolving
[[Page 9832]]
clause and insert in lieu thereof the following:
(1) That Representative Daniel B. Crane be censured. . .
.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct had recommended that
Mr. Crane be reprimanded for sexual misconduct. Mr. Michel
offered the recommittal motion to give Members the opportunity
to vote on a more stringent penalty (censure) and to prevent
other motions, such as postponement as part of recommittal.
(Expulsion would not have been germane to reprimand.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[The motion to recommit was agreed to.]
Parliamentarian's Note: Mr. Michel's assertion of ``preemptory
right'' as Minority Leader was valid only if no member of the Committee
on Standards of Official Conduct qualified as opposed to the resolution
in its reported form. Apart from members of the committee who are
opposed to the bill or resolution, however, the Minority Leader can
preempt all other minority Members of the House in recognition for
recommittal of a reported bill or resolution.
Opposition to Recommendation To Strike Enacting Clause
Sec. 13.47 In recognizing a Member in opposition to a motion that the
Committee of the Whole rise and report a bill back to the House
with the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken, the
Chair extends preference to a member of the committee handling the
bill.
On Mar. 1, 1950,(8) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan,
offered the preferential motion that the Committee of the Whole rise
and report back the bill under consideration with the recommendation
that the enacting clause
be stricken. Chairman Clark W. Thompson, of Texas, ruled that a member
of the committee reporting the bill had priority of recognition in
debate to oppose the motion:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 96 Cong. Rec. 2597, 2598, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, I object,
and claim time in opposition to the motion.
Mr. [Carl] Hinshaw [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I rise in
opposition to the motion.
Mr. [Oren] Harris [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, a point of
order.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Harris: This is a preferential motion to strike out the
enacting clause, and I believe a committee member is entitled to
recognition.
The Chairman: The gentleman is correct. The Chair recognizes
the gentleman from California [Mr. Hinshaw].
Mr. Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary
inquiry.
[[Page 9833]]
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Case of South Dakota: The gentleman from South Dakota was
recognized, was he not?
The Chairman: The gentleman was recognized by the Chair to make
an objection, but not to speak.
Mr. Hinshaw: Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from South Dakota
desires time, I will be glad to yield to him for a minute or so.
Parliamentarian's Note: Mr. Case had objected to a unanimous-
consent request to withdraw the motion.
Sec. 13.48 When no member of the committee from which a bill is
reported seeks recognition in opposition to a motion to strike the
enacting clause, the Chair may recognize for that purpose a Member
from the party other than that of the Member making the motion.
On Aug. 2, 1955,(9) the Committee of the Whole was
considering under the five-minute rule H.R. 7718, reported from the
Committee on the District of Columbia. Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of
Michigan, a Republican, offered the motion that the Committee rise and
report the bill to the House with the recommendation that the enacting
clause be stricken. When no member of the Committee on the District of
Columbia rose to seek recognition in opposition to the motion, Chairman
Aime J. Forand, of Rhode Island, declined to recognize Mr. H. R. Gross,
of Iowa, also a Republican, and recognized a Member of the opposite
party.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 101 Cong. Rec. 12997, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 13.49 Priority of recognition in opposition to a preferential
motion to recommend that the enacting clause be stricken is
accorded to a member of the committee reporting the bill.
During consideration of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1976 (H.R.
10498) in the Committee of the Whole on Sept. 15, 1976,(10)
the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 122 Cong. Rec. 30469, 30470, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [James C.] Wright [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a
preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Wright 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: (11) The gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Wright) is recognized
[[Page 9834]]
for 5 minutes in support of his preferential motion. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. J. Edward Roush (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Mike] McCormack [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, I rise in
opposition to the motion.
The Chairman: Is the gentleman on the committee?
Mr. McCormack: No, I am not; but I rise in opposition to the
motion.
The Chairman: For what purpose does the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Rogers) seek recognition? . . .
Mr. McCormack: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.
The Chairman: The gentleman from Washington will state his
point of order.
Mr. McCormack: Mr. Chairman, there is a motion on the floor. I
rise in opposition to it.
As I understand, under the rules, one Member is allowed 5
minutes to speak in opposition to a motion like this.
The Chairman: The Chair will state that what the gentleman says
is absolutely true.
However, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr.
Rogers, a member of the committee and manager of the bill] who is
on his feet, if he seeks recognition in opposition to the
preferential motion.
Sec. 13.50 Members of the committee managing the bill have priority of
recognition for debate in opposition to a preferential motion that
the Committee of the Whole rise and report the bill back to the
House with the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken.
The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on
May 5, 1988,(12) during consideration of the Department of
Defense authorization for fiscal 1989 (H.R. 4264):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 134 Cong. Rec. 9955, 100th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman Pro Tempore: (13) Does any Member
desire to rise in opposition to the preferential motion? Members of
the committee have priority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Kenneth J. Gray (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John G.] Rowland of Connecticut: Mr. Chairman, I rise in
opposition to the motion.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Connecticut is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Debate on Committee Amendment
Sec. 13.51 When a bill is being considered under a closed rule
permitting only committee amendments, only two five-minute speeches
are in order on an amendment--one in support and one against the
amendment--and the Chair gives preference in recognition to members
of the committee reporting the bill.
On May 18, 1960,(14) the Committee of the Whole was
consid
[[Page 9835]]
ering H.R. 5, amending the Internal Revenue Code, pursuant to House
Resolution 468, permitting only amendments offered by the reporting
committee, the Committee on Ways and Means. Mr. Cleveland M. Bailey, of
West Virginia, not a member of the committee, stated a parliamentary
inquiry on whether he could gain recognition under the five-minute
rule:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 106 Cong. Rec. 10576, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Bailey: I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I oppose
the legislation in general.
Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: (15) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Bailey: On what ground may I get recognition for the
purpose of opposing the legislation?
The Chairman: The Chair recognized the gentleman from Louisiana
[Mr. Boggs] for 5 minutes in support of the committee amendment, so
the gentleman from Louisiana would have to yield to the
distinguished gentleman from West Virginia.
Mr. Bailey: At the expiration of the 5 minutes allowed the
gentleman from Louisiana, may I be recognized to discuss the
amendment?
The Chairman: If no other member of the committee rises in
opposition to the amendment, the Chair will recognize the
gentleman.
Sec. 13.52 In recognizing members of the committee reporting a bill,
the Chair generally recognizes a member in fa-vor of a committee
amendment prior to recognizing a member thereof who is opposed.
On Jan. 30, 1957,(16) the Committee of the Whole was
considering House Joint Resolution 1311, to authorize the President to
cooperate with nations of the Middle East, under a resolution
permitting only committee amendments. A committee [Foreign Affairs]
amendment was offered, and Mr. Brooks Hays, of Arkansas, a member of
the committee, rose in opposition to the amendment. Pursuant to a point
of order, Chairman Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, extended recognition to
Mr. Frank M. Coffin, of Maine, a member of the committee who authored
and supported the amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 103 Cong. Rec. 1311, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opposition to More Than One Amendment
Sec. 13.53 Where the Committee of the Whole fixes the time for debate
on amendments to a substitute amendment, the Chair in counting
those seeking recognition may in his discretion allot a portion of
[[Page 9836]]
the opposition time to the reporting committee, and may recognize
the same committee member in opposition to each amendment.
On Feb. 8, 1950,(17) the Committee of the Whole fixed
time for
debate on amendments to a committee substitute. Chairman Chet
Holifield, of California, then stated, in response to a parliamentary
inquiry, that the Chair could recognize the same committee member in
opposition to each amendment offered where no other member of the
committee sought such recognition:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 96 Cong. Rec. 1691, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Case of South Dakota: Under what precedent or ruling is the
Chair recognizing a certain member of the committee for 1 minute in
opposition to each amendment being offered? That was not included
in the motion. Had it been included in the motion, it would have
been subject to a point of order.
The Chairman: The Chair is trying to be fair in the conduct of
the committee, and the only gentleman that has arisen on the
opposite side has been the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Murray].
There was no point of order raised at the time that I announced
that I would recognize the committee for 1 minute in rebuttal to
each amendment.
Mr. Case of South Dakota: But the gentleman from South Dakota
got up at the time the Chair proposed to recognize the gentleman
from Tennessee a second time. Obviously, when the committee avails
itself of the opportunity to make a motion to limit debate it, in a
sense, is closing debate, and unless it does seek to limit time and
is successful in so doing, in principle it forfeits that courtesy.
The Members who have proposed amendments here have been waiting all
afternoon to be heard, and if the committee adopted the procedure
of seeking to close debate on 20 minutes' notice, with 10
amendments pending, it would seem as a matter of courtesy that the
committee should restrain itself to one member of the committee who
might have been on his feet, but to recognize one gentleman a
succession of times seems entirely out of keeping with the spirit
of closing debate.
The Chairman: The Chairman, in the list of names, also read the
name of the committee. If the Chair was
so inclined, the Chair could recognize two Members for 5 minutes
each on amendments, on each side, and that would preclude the
others from having any voice in the amendments that are pending, or
in the debate.
Mr. Case of South Dakota: That, of course, is true, the Chair
could do that. But, ordinarily, under the precedents always
followed in the House, when time is closed on amendments, the time
is divided among those who are seeking to offer amendments, and
unless the motion specifically reserves time to the committee, it
has been the precedent to divide the time among
[[Page 9837]]
those who are seeking to offer amendments.
The Chairman: The Chair feels that the committee is entitled to
a rebuttal on any amendment that is offered, and has so announced,
and there was no point of order made at the time. The Chair
sustains its present position.
Debate Provisions of Trade Act
Sec. 13.54 Debate on an implementing revenue bill must
be equally divided and controlled among those favoring and those
opposing the bill under section 151(f)(2) of the Trade Act of 1974,
and unanimous consent is required to divide the time between the
chairman and ranking minority member of the committee if both favor
the
bill; in the absence of such
a unanimous-consent agreement, a Member opposed to the bill is
entitled to control 10 hours of debate in opposition, with priority
of recognition to opposing members of the Committee on Ways and
Means; and the Member recognized to control the time in opposition
may not be compelled to use less than that amount of time unless
the Committee rises and the House limits further debate in the
Committee of the Whole.
During consideration of the Trade Agreement Act of 1979 (H.R. 4537)
in the House on July 10, 1979,(18) the following proceedings
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 125 Cong. Rec. 17812, 17813, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Al] Ullman [of Oregon]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Section
151(f) of Public Law 93-618, the Trade Act of 1974, I move that the
House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 4537) to
approve and implement the trade agreements negotiated under the
Trade Act of 1974, and for other purposes, and pending that motion,
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that general debate on the
bill be equally divided and controlled between the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Conable) and myself. . . .
The Speaker: (19) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Ullman)?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the
right to object. . . .
I take this reservation for the purpose of propounding a
parliamentary inquiry to the Chair.
The rule, section 151, before consideration says:
Debate in the House of Representatives on an implementing
bill or approval resolution shall be limited to not more than
20 hours which shall be divided equally between those favoring
and those opposing the bill or resolution. . . .
My query to the Chair as a part of my reservation is, if the
unanimous-
[[Page 9838]]
consent request of the chairman is granted can the chairman then
move to terminate debate at any time during the course of debate
before the 20 hours have expired?
The Speaker: Reading the statute a motion further to limit the
debate shall not be debatable, and that would be made in the House,
either now or later, and not in the Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Ashbrook: Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to
object, if the gentleman from Ohio were to be recognized as
opposing the bill, does the gentleman have the absolute right to
the 10 hours regardless of the time that would be taken on the
other side?
The Speaker: Unless all general debate were further limited by
the House a member of the Committee on Ways and Means who is
opposed to the bill could seek to control the 10 hours of time. The
gentleman would be entitled to the 10 hours unless a request came
from a member of the Committee on Ways and Means who would be in
opposition. . . .
Mr. Ashbrook: I thank the Speaker.
I ask this for a very specific purpose. Further reserving the
right to object, it is my understanding then that the gentleman
from Oregon could not foreclose debate as long as whoever controls
the opposition time still has part of the 10 hours remaining. Is
that correct, under the statute providing for consideration of this
trade bill? . . .
The Speaker: Not unless the committee rose and the House
limited all debate.
A motion to limit general debate would not be entertained in
the Committee of the Whole and the Chair cannot foresee something
of that nature happening.
CHAPTER 29
Consideration and Debate
B. RIGHT TO RECOGNITION
Sec. 14. -- Of Member in Control
Cross References
Designation of manager and opposition, see Sec. 27, infra.
Interruptions of Member in control, see Sec. 32, infra.
Management by reporting committee, see Sec. 26, infra.
Manager losing or surrendering control, see Sec. 33, infra.
Member in control and amendments, see Ch. 27, supra.
Member in control closing debate, see Sec. Sec. 72 (House debate), 76
(general debate in Committee of the Whole), 78 (five-minute debate
in Committee of the Whole), infra.
Member in control as member of committee in control, see Sec. 13,
supra.
Priority of Member in control on specific motions and questions, see
Sec. Sec. 16 et seq., infra.
Role of manager, see Sec. 24, infra.
Special orders and Members in control, see Sec. 28, infra.
Yielding of time by Member in control, see Sec. Sec. 29-31,
infra. -------------------
Generally
Sec. 14.1 Where more than one Member seeks recognition under the five-
minute rule in the House as in the Com
[[Page 9839]]
mittee of the Whole, the Speaker recognizes the Member in charge of
the bill or resolution if he seeks recognition.
On Sept. 11, 1945,(20) Mr. Robert F. Rich, of
Pennsylvania, and Mr. Adolph J. Sabath, of Illinois, arose at the same
time seeking recognition on a resolution called up by Mr. Sabath and
being considered (by special order) in the House as in the Committee of
the Whole. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, recognized Mr. Sabath, since
he had priority of recognition as the Member in charge, and then
answered parliamentary inquiries on the order of recognition:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 91 Cong. Rec. 8510, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Rich: After the reading of section 4 of the bill which
contained subsections (a), (b), and (c), could not a Member have
risen to strike out the last word and have been recognized?
The Speaker: The gentleman did not state for what purpose he
rose. The gentleman from Illinois who is in charge of the
resolution was on his feet at the same time. The Chair recognized
the gentleman from Illinois, and the gentleman from Illinois made a
preferential motion.
Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Hoffman: Must a Member on the floor addressing the Speaker
state the purpose for which he addresses the Speaker before he may
be recognized?
The Speaker: Two Members rose. The Speaker always has the right
to recognize whichever Member he desires. The Chair recognized the
gentleman from Illinois who was in charge of the resolution. The
gentleman from Illinois made a preferential motion; the Chair put
the motion and it was adopted.
Sec. 14.2 Where the Member handling a bill on the floor and a minority
Member both seek recognition, the Chair gives preference to the
former.
On Nov. 15, 1967,(1) the Committee of the Whole was
considering under the five-minute rule H.R. 2388, economic opportunity
amendments, reported by the Committee on Education and Labor, and under
the management of its Chairman, Carl D. Perkins, of Kentucky. Mr.
Edward J. Gurney, of Florida, sought recognition from the Chair to
offer an amendment, but Chairman John J. Rooney, of New York,
recognized Mr. Perkins to submit
a unanimous-consent request (to close debate at a certain hour). Mr.
Gurney's point of order against recognition of Mr. Perkins was
overruled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 113 Cong. Rec. 32655, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 14.3 The member of the committee in charge of a bill is
[[Page 9840]]
entitled to prior recognition over other Members of the Committee
of the Whole.
On July 8, 1937,(2) Chairman Marvin Jones, of Texas,
answered a parliamentary inquiry on the order of recognition on the
pending bill and indicated that the legislative committee member in
charge of the bill would be entitled to recognition over other Members
of the Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 81 Cong. Rec. 6946, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recognition Under Five-minute Rule
Sec. 14.4 In bestowing recognition under the five-minute rule in the
Committee of the Whole, the Chair gives preference to the chairman
of the legislative committee reporting the bill under
consideration.
On Nov. 15, 1967,(3) the Committee of the Whole was
considering under the five-minute rule a bill reported from the
Committee on Education and Labor, chaired by Carl D. Perkins, of
Kentucky. Mr. Edward J. Gurney, of Florida, sought recognition and
started to offer an amendment. The Chairman then recognized Mr.
Perkins, the chairman of the committee and manager of the bill, to
submit a unanimous-consent request on closing debate, and then
subsequently recognized Mr. Gurney to offer his amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 113 Cong. Rec. 32655, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 14.5 Under the five-minute rule in the Committee of the Whole, the
Member handling a bill has preference in recognition for debate but
the power of recognition remains with the Chair and the Member
cannot ``yield'' himself time for debate.
On Mar. 26, 1965,(4) Mr. Adam C. Powell, of New York,
was the Member in charge of debate on H.R. 2362, the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965, which was being considered for
amendment under the five-minute rule in the Committee of the Whole. Mr.
Powell arose and stated ``I yield myself 5 minutes.'' Chairman Richard
Bolling, of Missouri, stated as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 111 Cong. Rec. 6113, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The gentleman cannot yield himself 5 minutes. The Chair assumes
he moves to strike out the last word.
Mr. Melvin R. Laird, of Wisconsin, objected that Mr. Powell had not
moved to strike out the last word, and then made such motion himself.
However, the
[[Page 9841]]
Chairman recognized Mr. Powell for that motion, since he was the
manager of the bill and chairman of the Committee on Education and
Labor.
Sec. 14.6 In recognizing Members to offer amendments, the Chair gives
preference to the chairman of the committee reporting the bill.
On July 12, 1962,(5) Chairman Wilbur D. Mills, of
Arkansas, stated in response to a parliamentary inquiry by Mr. Michael
A. Feighan, of Ohio, that he would be recognized at the proper time to
offer a substitute to a pending amendment. The Chairman then extended
prior recognition to Mr. Thomas E. Morgan, of Pennsylvania, Chairman of
the Committee on Foreign Affairs, which had reported the pending bill,
to offer an amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 108 Cong. Rec. 13391, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 14.7 Recognition to offer amendments is first extended to the
manager of a bill, and the fact that the Committee of the Whole has
just completed consideration of one amendment offered by the
manager does not preclude his being recognized to offer another.
On Apr. 6, 1967,(6) Mr. Robert W. Kastenmeier, of
Wisconsin, was the Member in charge of H.R. 2512, being considered for
amendment in the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Kastenmeier had offered an
amendment, which was adopted by the Committee. He then immediately
offered another amendment. Mr. Byron G. Rogers, of Colorado, made a
point of order against recognition for that purpose, and Chairman John
H. Dent, of Pennsylvania, overruled the point of order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 113 Cong. Rec. 8617, 8618, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Rogers of Colorado: The gentleman from Wisconsin just
offered an amendment, and certainly I as a member of the committee
ought to have the privilege of offering an amendment.
The Chairman: The gentleman from Wisconsin is manager of the
bill. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
--After Limitation on Debate
Sec. 14.8 The Committee of the Whole having agreed to limit debate
under the five-minute rule on an amendment and all amendments
thereto, the Member in charge of the bill may be recognized to
speak under the limitation although he has already spoken on the
amendment.
[[Page 9842]]
On June 25, 1952,(7) during consideration of amendments
to a bill in the Committee of the Whole, a motion was adopted to close
debate on a pending amendment and all amendments thereto at a certain
time. Chairman Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas, answered a parliamentary
inquiry as to the right to recognition, under the limitation, of the
Member in charge of the bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 98 Cong. Rec. 8028, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman of Michigan: Under this limitation is
the chairman of the committee, who has already spoken once on this
amendment, entitled to be heard again under the rule?
The Chairman: The chairman of the committee could rise in
opposition to a pro forma amendment and be recognized again.
Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: Under the limitation?
The Chairman: Yes; under the limitation.
Parliamentarian's Note: A limitation on debate abrogates the five-
minute rule, and the Chair may allocate the remaining time among those
Members desiring recognition, including Members who have already
spoken. If sufficient time remains under the limitation to allow the
five-minute rule to continue to operate, a Member who has spoken on an
amendment may again be recognized to speak in opposition to an
amendment thereto (including a pro forma amendment).
Manager Designated by Committee
Sec. 14.9 Where the Committee on Rules designates a member to call up a
report from the committee, only that member may be recognized for
that purpose, unless the resolution has been on the calendar for
seven legislative days without action.
On June 6, 1940,(8) Mr. Hamilton Fish, Jr., of New York,
sought recognition to call up for consideration a special resolution
from the Committee on Rules providing for the consideration of a bill.
Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, inquired whether Mr. Fish had
been authorized to call up the resolution and Mr. Fish stated he had
not. He asserted that calling up such a resolution was ``the privilege
of any member of the Rules Committee.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 86 Cong. Rec. 7706, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker, in declining to recognize Mr. Fish for that purpose,
stated:
The Chair cannot recognize the gentleman from New York to call
up the
[[Page 9843]]
resolution unless the Record shows he was authorized to do so by
the Rules Committee. The Chair would be authorized to recognize the
gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Colmer] to call up the rule in the
event the resolution offered by the gentleman from New York, which
was the unfinished business, is not called up.
Mr. Fish: Will the Chair permit me to read this rule?
The Speaker: The Chair would be glad to hear the gentleman.
Mr. Fish: Rule XI reads as follows:
It shall always be in order to call up for consideration a
report from the Committee on Rules (except it shall not be
called up for consideration on the same day it is presented to
the House, unless so determined by a vote of not less than two-
thirds of the Members voting).
I submit, according to that rule and the reading of that rule,
Mr. Speaker, that any member of the Rules Committee can call up the
rule, but it would require the membership of the House to act upon
it by a two-thirds vote in order to obtain consideration.
The Speaker: The precedents are all to the effect that only a
Member authorized by the Rules Committee can call up a rule, unless
the rule has been on the calendar for 7 legislative days without
action.
Mr. Fish: Of course, there is nothing to that effect in the
reading of the rule.
The Speaker: The Chair is relying upon the precedents in such
instances.
--Calendar Wednesday Bill
Sec. 14.10 Where a committee designates a member thereof to call up a
bill on Calendar Wednesday, no other Member may take such action.
On Feb. 24, 1937,(9) Speaker Pro Tempore William J.
Driver, of Arkansas, answered a parliamentary inquiry preceding the
call of committees on Calendar Wednesday:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 81 Cong. Rec. 1562, 1563, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Earl C.] Michener [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Michener: Mr. Speaker, where a bill has been reported
favorably by a committee, and the chairman of the committee is
authorized to call the bill up on Calendar Wednesday, when the
chairman absents himself from the floor, and when other members of
the committee are present, is it proper for one of the other
members to call up the bill?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state to the gentleman
that under the rules only the chairman or the member designated by
the committee is authorized to call up a bill.
Privileged Resolution
Sec. 14.11 Debate on a privileged resolution is under the hour rule and
the Member in charge of the resolution has control of the time.
On Feb. 27, 1963,(10) Mr. Samuel N. Friedel, of
Maryland, called
[[Page 9844]]
up, by direction of the Committee on House Administration, House
Resolution 164, a privileged resolution providing funds for the
Committee on Armed Services. Speaker John W. McCormack, of
Massachusetts, answered a parliamentary inquiry as to control of the
time for debate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 109 Cong. Rec. 3051, 3052, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Mr. Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, the Majority Leader, then made the
following statement on distribution of time to the minority:
Mr. Albert: . . . Of course, the principle is well established
under the rules of the House and has been observed by both parties
from time immemorial, that the Member recognized to call up the
resolution has control of the time under the 1-hour rule. But, I
would like to advise the gentleman, as the gentleman from Maryland
has, I am sure the gentleman from Maryland will yield at least half
of the time to the minority.
On Feb. 25, 1954,(11) Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of
Massachusetts, answered parliamentary inquiries on the control of
debate on a privileged resolution called up by the Member in charge--
the chairman of the Committee on House Administration:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 100 Cong. Rec. 2282, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Karl M.] LeCompte [of Iowa]: Under the rules the Chairman
has control of the time.
The Speaker: The gentleman has 1 hour to yield to whomsoever he
desires.
Mr. LeCompte: And he has control of the matter of offering
amendments.
The Speaker: A committee amendment is now pending. No other
amendment can be offered unless the gentleman yields the floor for
that purpose.
Mr. LeCompte: A motion to recommit, of course, belongs to some
member of the minority opposed to the resolution. Would any motion
except a motion to recommit be in order except by the gentleman in
charge of the bill?
The Speaker: Not unless the gentleman yields for that purpose.
[[Page 9845]]
The gentleman from Iowa is recognized for 1 hour.
Absence or Death of Manager
Sec. 14.12 Where the chairman and ranking minority member, named in a
resolution to control debate on a bill, are absent and have not
designated Members to control the time, the Speaker or Chairman of
the Committee of the Whole recognizes the next ranking majority and
minority members for control of such debate.
On July 23, 1942,(12) the House adopted a resolution
from the Committee on Rules providing for debate on a bill to be
divided
between the chairman and the
ranking minority member of the reporting committee. The chairman and
ranking minority member both being absent, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of
Texas, declared, in response to a parliamentary inquiry, that the Chair
would recognize the next ranking majority member and the next ranking
minority member to control debate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 88 Cong. Rec. 6542-46, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John E.] Rankin of Mississippi: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Rankin: . . . We feel that the time ought to be divided not
between the Members who are for the bill but know nothing about it
any more than the rest of us, but between the members of the
committee who are for the bill and the members of the committee who
are opposed to the bill. I would like to have the Chair's ruling on
that proposition.
The Speaker: The Chair thinks the Chair has a rather wide range
of latitude here. The Chair could hold and some future Speaker
might hold that since the chairman and ranking minority member of
the committee are not here there could be no general debate because
there was nobody here to control it, but the present occupant of
the chair is not going to rule in such a restricted way.
The Chair is going to recognize the next ranking majority
member and the next ranking minority member when the House goes
into the Committee of the Whole.
Sec. 14.13 Where a Member designated in a resolution to call up a bill
dies, the Speaker may recognize another Member in favor of the
bill.
On Oct. 12, 1942,(13) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas,
overruled a point of order against consideration of a resolution
discharged from the Committee on Rules, where the resolution named as
manager a Member no longer living:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 88 Cong. Rec. 8080, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: If no Member wishes to be heard on the point of
order the Chair is ready to rule.
[[Page 9846]]
A matter not exactly on all fours with this, but similar to it,
was ruled on a few weeks ago. On that occasion both the chairman
and the ranking minority member of the committee were absent. A
point of order was made against consideration of the bill because
of that fact.
In ruling on the point of order at that time the Chair made the
following statement:
The Chair thinks the Chair has rather a wide range of
latitude here. The Chair could hold, and some future Speaker
might hold, that since the chairman and the ranking minority
member of the committee are not here there could be no general
debate because there was nobody here to control it; but the
present occupant of the Chair is not going to rule in such a
restricted way.
The Chair is going to recognize the next ranking majority
member and the next ranking minority member when the House goes
into the Committee of the Whole.
We have here even a stronger case than that. The absence of a
living Member may be his or her fault; the absence of a dead signer
of this petition is not his fault.
There is a rule followed by the chancery courts which might
well be followed here. It is that equity never allows a trust to
fail for want of a trustee. Applying that rule to the instant case,
the Chair holds that the consideration of this legislation will not
be permitted to fail for want of a manager. After all, an act of
God ought not, in all good conscience, deprive this House of the
right to consider legislation; especially so, since this House has
by its vote on the motion to discharge expressed its intent. . . .
The Chair overrules the point of order made by the gentleman
from Alabama.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See the similar rulings of Speaker Rayburn, on the same bill, at 88
Cong. Rec. 8066, 8120, 77th Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 12, 1942.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unanimous-consent Consideration of Bill
Sec. 14.14 Where the House has agreed to consider a bill called up by
unanimous consent, the Member calling up the bill is recognized for
one hour, and amendments may not be offered by other Members unless
the Member in charge yields for that purpose.
On Oct. 5, 1962,(15) Mr. Francis E. Walter, of
Pennsylvania, asked for the unanimous-consent consideration of a bill
in the House. Mr. Arch A. Moore, Jr., of West Virginia, a minority
Member, sought recognition to offer an amendment. Since Mr. Walter was
recognized to control time (one hour) on the bill, Speaker John W.
McCormack, of Massachusetts, asked Mr. Walter whether he was willing to
accept the amendment, and Mr. Walter answered in the affirmative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 108 Cong. Rec. 22606-09, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: Ordinarily a Member in charge of a
[[Page 9847]]
bill considered in the House loses the floor if he yields for an
amendment. In this instance, the amendment was non-controversial and
the Speaker put the question on the amendment and on the bill.
--Private Bill
Sec. 14.15 When a private bill is called up by unanimous consent for
consideration in the House, the Member making the request is
recognized for one hour.
On Mar. 12, 1963,(16) Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York,
asked unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of private bill
H.R. 4374, to proclaim Sir Winston Churchill an honorary citizen of the
United States, in the House. Speaker John W. McCormack, of
Massachusetts, answered parliamentary inquiries on the control and time
for debate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 109 Cong. Rec. 3993, 88th Cong. 1st Sess. The Journal indicates
that Mr. Eller asked for consideration in the House, although
the Record does not. H. Jour. 279, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, under what
circumstances will this resolution be considered? Will there be any
time for discussion of the resolution, if unanimous consent is
given?
The Speaker: In response to the parliamentary inquiry of the
gentleman from Iowa, if consent is granted for the present
consideration of the bill, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Celler]
will be recognized for 1 hour and the gentleman from New York may
yield to such Members as he desires to yield to before moving the
previous question.
Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object,
is some time to be allocated to this side of the aisle?
Mr. Celler: I intend to allocate half of the time to the other
side.
Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
Parliamentarian's Note: Normally a Private Calendar bill called up
by unanimous consent is considered under the five-minute rule in the
Committee of the Whole, unless the request specifies consideration ``in
the House'' (discharging the Committee of the Whole).
Recognition for Motion or Request To Limit Debate
Sec. 14.16 During five-minute debate in the Committee of the Whole, the
Member managing the bill is entitled to prior recognition to move
to close debate on a pending amendment over other Members who
desire to debate
the amendment or to offer amendments thereto.
[[Page 9848]]
On Nov. 25, 1970,(17) the Committee of the Whole was
conducting five-minute debate on H.R. 19504, which was being handled by
Mr. John C. Kluczynski, of Illinois. Mr. Kluczynski was recognized by
Chairman Chet Holifield, of California, to move to close all debate on
the pending amendment immediately. The motion was adopted. Mr. Jonathan
B. Bingham, of New York, then attempted to offer another amendment, and
Mr. Andrew Jacobs, Jr., of Indiana, attempted to debate the amendment
on which debate had been closed. The Chairman stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 116 Cong. Rec. 38990, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair has not recognized the gentleman from New York or the
gentleman from Indiana. The Chair had recognized the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Kluczynski). The gentleman from Indiana misunderstood
the Chair had recognized him. The Chair had to recognize the
gentleman from Illinois as chairman of the subcommittee.
Sec. 14.17 While it is customary for the Chair to recognize the manager
of the pending bill to offer motions to
limit debate, any Member
may, pursuant to Rule XXIII clause 6, move to limit debate at the
appropriate time in Committee of the Whole.
The following proceedings occurred in the House on July 31, 1975:
(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 121 Cong. Rec. 26223, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: (19) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hays of Ohio: Would it be in order for a person not a
member of the committee to move to close debate on whatever pending
amendment there might be, and all amendments thereto, to this bill
when we go into the Committee of the Whole?
The Speaker: It is the practice and custom of the House that
the Chair looks to the manager of the bill for motions relating to
the management of the bill.
Mr. Hays of Ohio: If I made the motion--and I will make it more
specific--would it be out of order or in violation of the rules?
The Speaker: A proper motion could be entertained at the proper
time.
Mr. Hays of Ohio: I am prepared to make such a motion and I
will seek the proper time.
Sec. 14.18 Although any Member may move, or request unanimous consent,
to limit debate under the five-minute rule in the Committee of the
Whole, the manager of the bill has the prior right to recognition
for such purpose.
[[Page 9849]]
The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on
June 19, 1984,(20) during consideration of the Immigration
Reform and Control Act (H.R. 1510):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 130 Cong. Rec. 17055, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Daniel E.] Lungren [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment end at 7:15.
The Chairman: (1) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from California?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Theodore S.] Weiss [of New York]: Objection, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Objection is heard.
Mr. Lungren: Mr. Chairman, I move----
Mr. [Romano L.] Mazzoli [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I should
be recognized as the floor manager.
The Chairman: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky
(Mr. Mazzoli).
Mr. Mazzoli: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Mazzoli: Mr. Chairman, I believe under the rule, the
gentleman from Kentucky, the floor manager, is entitled to be heard
and to be recognized on matters limiting debate.
Let me just respectfully suggest to my friend, the gentleman
from California, the House has made it clear we are not going to
protract the debate tonight. . . .
Mr. Lungren: Mr. Chairman, if I might reclaim my time, I
indulged the gentleman from Texas and asked him to withdraw his
motion on the pretext that I would make a motion, as I have the
ability to do under the rule, that debate on this amendment shall
end in a half hour. Since I had the gentleman agree to withdraw it,
I feel bound that I will then continue with this motion, and I so
move.
Mr. Mazzoli: Mr. Chairman, can the gentleman say 45 minutes? I
understand 45 minutes will be enough.
The Chairman: If the gentleman from Kentucky has no motion, the
gentleman from California is entitled to make his motion. Does the
gentleman offer a motion?
Mr. Lungren: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I move that debate on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Wright) be concluded at 7:30.
The Chairman: The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Lungren).
The motion was agreed to.
Sec. 14.19 A Member is not entitled to five minutes of debate on a pro
forma amendment in Committee of the Whole until the Chair has
recognized him for that purpose; and the subcommittee chairman who
is managing the bill is entitled to prior recognition to move to
limit debate over a Member seeking recognition to offer a pro forma
amendment.
During consideration of the foreign assistance and related agen
[[Page 9850]]
cies appropriation bill for fiscal year 1978 (H.R. 7797) in the
Committee of the Whole on June 22, 1977,(2) the following
proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 123 Cong. Rec. 20288, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Jonathan B.] Bingham [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike the requisite number of words.
Mr. [Clarence D.] Long of Maryland: Mr. Chairman, I was on my
feet seeking recognition.
The Chairman: (3) For what purpose does the
gentleman from Maryland rise?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Abraham Kazen, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Long of Maryland: Mr. Chairman, I rise to ask unanimous
consent for a limitation on the debate.
The Chairman: Will the gentleman make his request.
Mr. Long of Maryland: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that all debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto cease
in 10 minutes.
Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I object.
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I object.
The Chairman: Objection is heard.
Mr. Long of Maryland: Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on
this amendment and all amendments thereto cease in 10 minutes.
Mr. Ashbrook: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. Ashbrook: Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that the
Chairman recognized the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bingham) and
he was halfway down the aisle.
The Chairman: The Chair saw both gentlemen at the same time,
and he did recognize the gentleman from Maryland because the Chair
had to, by custom and rule, I believe, recognize the chairman of
the subcommittee. . . .
The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Long).
The motion was agreed to.
Recognition for Motion That Committee Rise
Sec. 14.20 The motion that the Committee of the Whole rise is always
within the discretion of the Member handling the bill before the
Committee.
On June 16, 1948,(4) Mr. George W. Andrews, of Alabama,
was managing the consideration in the Committee of the Whole of a bill
being read for amendment under the five-minute rule, and moved that the
Committee rise, several Members desiring recognition be-ing absent. Mr.
George A. Smath-ers, of Florida, interjected that he would like to be
heard on the motion. Chairman Francis H. Case, of South Dakota, ruled:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 94 Cong. Rec. 8521, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is not a debatable motion. It is always within the
discretion of the
[[Page 9851]]
gentleman handling the bill to move that the Committee rise.
Parliamentarian's Note: Any Member may be recognized under the
five-minute rule to offer the preferential motion that the Committee
rise. Under general debate, only a Member controlling time for general
debate may make the motion.
--Minority Member in Control Where Chairman Opposed to Concurrent
Resolution
Sec. 14.21 On one occasion, the ranking minority member of a
subcommittee who had introduced and controlled general debate in
favor of a concurrent resolution being considered in Committee of
the Whole, moved that the Committee rise and report the resolution
to the House favorably, where the chairman who had reported the
resolution had offered the motion for its consideration but had
controlled time in opposition.
The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on
May 24, 1983,(5) during consideration of House Concurrent
Resolution 113 (approving MX missile funds):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 129 Cong. Rec. 13594, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: (6) All time has expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Norman Y. Mineta (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk will report the concurrent resolution.
The Clerk read the concurrent resolution, as follows:
H. Con. Res. 113
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That the House of Representatives and the Senate
of the United States approve the obligation and expenditure of
funds appropriated in Public Law 97-377 for MX missile pro-
curement. . . .
Mr. [Jack] Edwards of Alabama [ranking minority member of the
Subcommittee on Defense of the Committee on Appropriations]: Mr.
Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise and report the
concurrent resolution back to the House with the recommendation
that the concurrent resolution be agreed to.
The motion was agreed to.
Parliamentarian's Note: Although Mr. Joseph P. Addabbo, of New
York, chairman of the Subcommittee on Defense, arguably had the
responsibility under Rule XI, clause 2(l)(1)(a) to take all necessary
steps to bring the matter to a vote, he did not want to move that the
Committee of the Whole rise and report the concurrent resolution
favorably, since he opposed that motion.
[[Page 9852]]
Recognition in Opposition to Motion Recommending That Enacting Clause
Be Stricken
Sec. 14.22 The Chair normally recognizes the manager of a bill for five
minutes if he rises in opposition to a preferential motion that the
enacting clause be stricken, and no preference in recognition is
granted to the minority.
An illustration of the proposition described above occurred on Apr.
23, 1975,(7) in the Committee of the Whole during
consideration of the Vietnam Humanitarian Assistance Act (H.R. 6096):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 121 Cong. Rec. 11505, 11506, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Thomas P.] O'Neill [Jr., of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman,
I offer a preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. O'Neill 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: (8) The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. O'Neill) in support of his preferential
motion. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Otis G. Pike (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I rise
in opposition to the preferential motion offered by the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. O'Neill).
Mr. [Pierre S.] du Pont [IV, of Delaware]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. du Pont: Mr. Chairman, my parliamentary inquiry is this:
Does the grant of time by the Chairman to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Morgan) preclude anyone on the minority side from
rising in opposition
to the preferential motion and being heard?
The Chairman: The Chair will say that that is correct.
Mr. du Pont: Under the rules, is not time designated to the
minority side?
The Chairman: The Chair will state that is not a prerogative of
the minority on a preferential motion of this sort.
Sec. 14.23 The chairman of a committee managing a bill is entitled to
recognition for debate in opposition to a motion that the Committee
rise and report the bill to the House with the recommendation that
the enacting clause be stricken, over the minority manager of the
bill.
The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on
Apr. 28, 1983,(9) during consideration of House Joint
Resolution 13 (nuclear weapons freeze):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 129 Cong. Rec. 10425, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: (10) When the Committee of the Whole
rose on Thursday,
[[Page 9853]]
April 21, 1983, pending was the committee amendment in the nature
of a substitute which is considered as an original resolution for
the purpose of amendment. All time for debate on the text of the
resolution had expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are there further amendments?
preferential motion offered by mr. au coin
Mr. [Les] AuCoin [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a
preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. AuCoin moves that the committee do now rise and report
the resolution back to the House with the recommendation that
the resolving clause be stricken out.
The Chairman: The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. AuCoin) is
recognized for 5 minutes in support of his preferential motion. . .
.
Mr. [William S.] Broomfield [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I rise
in opposition to the preferential motion.
Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin] [Chairman of Committee
on Foreign Affairs]: Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
preferential motion and ask for a vote.
The Chairman: The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Zablocki) is
recognized for 5 minutes in opposition to the preferential motion.
Where Committee Discharged From Consideration of Privileged Resolution
Sec. 14.24 If a motion to discharge a committee from the further
consideration of a privileged resolution is agreed to, the
resolution is debatable under the hour rule, and the proponent of
the resolution is entitled to prior recognition.
The principle described above was illustrated on Sept. 29,
1975,(11) during proceedings in the House relating to House
Resolution 718 (a resolution of inquiry, directing the Secretary of the
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to furnish documents
relating to public school systems to the House):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 121 Cong. Rec. 30748, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [James M.] Collins of Texas: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
privileged motion to discharge the Committee on Education and Labor
from consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 718).
The Speaker: (12) The Clerk will report the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read the motion as follows:
Mr. Collins of Texas moves to discharge the Committee on
Education and Labor from consideration of House Resolution 718.
The Speaker: The Clerk will report the resolution.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 718
Resolved, That the Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare, to the extent not incompatible with the
[[Page 9854]]
public interest, is directed to furnish to the House of
Representatives, not later than sixty days following the
adoption of this resolution, any documents containing a list of
the public school systems in the United States which, during
the period beginning on August 1, 1975, and ending on June 30,
1976, will be receiving Federal funds and will be engaging in
the busing of schoolchildren to achieve racial balance, and any
documents respecting the rules and regulations of the
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare with respect to
the use of any Federal funds administered by the Department for
the busing of schoolchildren to achieve racial balance.
The Speaker: The question is on the privileged motion to
discharge.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. Collins of Texas: Mr. Speaker, basically, what I am
concerned with here is full documentation from the Secretary of
HEW.
I filed this in the Congressional Record and have met the
necessary requirements for a resolution of inquiry. . . .
The other body at this time is discussing the appropriation
bill on HEW and has raised the subject over and over again
regarding transportation of students to achieve racial balance and
how that is affecting the budget. Therefore, it is absolutely
essential to us, in our deliberations here in this House, that we
have a concise, clear, complete, and factual statement from the
Secretary of HEW as defined in my House Resolution 718.
Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
Moving the Previous Question
Sec. 14.25 A Member calling up a privileged resolution in the House may
move the previous question at any time, except to take another
Member from his feet, notwithstanding his prior allocation of
debate time to another Member.
On Mar. 9, 1977,(13) it was demonstrated that the Member
recognized to control debate in the House may, by moving the previous
question, terminate utilization of debate time he has previously
yielded:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 123 Cong. Rec. 6816, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: (14) The gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Bolling) is recognized for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 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
[[Page 9855]]
rules. That is provided in the resolution. . . .
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.
CHAPTER 29
Consideration and Debate
B. RIGHT TO RECOGNITION
Sec. 15. -- Of Opposition After Rejection of Essential Motion
Right of recognition to offer a motion to recommit pending final
passage, which is the prerogative of the minority if opposed, should be
distinguished from the right of recognition for a motion to refer under
Rule XXIII clause 7 pending a vote in the House on a motion to strike
out the enacting clause. In the latter case, a Member seeking
recognition need not be opposed to the bill, since the motion to refer
in this case is a measure designed to avert final adverse disposition
of the bill. As stated by Speaker Frederick H. Gillett, of
Massachusetts, on May 19, 1924,(15) ``apparently the
provision for a motion to refer was inserted so that the friends of the
original bill might avert its permanent death by referring it again to
the committee, where it could again be considered in the light of the
action of the House.'' By the same reasoning, Speaker Gillett pointed
out, rejection of the motion to refer should not give the right of
recognition to sponsors of the bill, but to one supporting the motion
to strike the enacting clause.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2629.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The right to recognition upon rejection of the previous question is
not necessarily a prerogative of the minority.
Cross References
Distribution and alternation of time between proponent and opposition,
see Sec. 25, infra.
Effect of special orders on control of opposing time, see Sec. 28,
infra.
Losing or surrendering control to opposition, see Sec. Sec. 33, 34,
infra.
Practice of House committees as to time for opposition, see Sec. 26,
infra.
Rights of opposition on specific questions and motions, see
Sec. Sec. 16 et seq., infra.
Time for opposition in debate, see Sec. Sec. 67 et seq., infra
(duration of debate in the House) and Sec. Sec. 74 et seq., infra
(duration of debate in the Committee of the Whole).
Yielding time by or to opposition, see Sec. Sec. 29-31, infra.
[[Page 9856]]
-------------------Generally
Sec. 15.1 When an essential motion made by the Member in charge of a
bill is decided
adversely, the right to prior recognition passes to the Member
leading the opposition to the motion.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. For the rule and its application, see House Rules and Manual
Sec. 755 (1995). For an exception to the rule, as related to
intervening adjournment, see Sec. 15.22, infra.
Voting down the previous question on a conference report
merely extends the time for debate and does not afford the
opportunity to amend the report. See 84 Cong. Rec. 8459, 76th
Cong. 1st Sess., June 30, 1939; and 84 Cong. Rec. 2085, 2086,
76th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 1, 1939. Generally, see Ch. 33,
infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motion To Postpone Consideration to Day Certain Not ``Essential''
Motion
Sec. 15.2 A motion to postpone consideration to a day certain (of a
vetoed bill) is not an essential motion whose defeat requires
recognition to pass to a Member opposed.
On June 2, 1930,(17) the House was considering the
passage of a vetoed bill. A motion to postpone consideration of the
bill had been made by the chairman of the committee managing the bill
and had been rejected. Mr. John N. Garner, of Texas, raised a
parliamentary inquiry whether that motion was an essential motion whose
defeat required recognition to pass to the minority. Speaker Nicholas
Longworth, of Ohio, discussed the principle raised and ruled that
the motion to postpone consideration was not an essential motion within
the meaning of the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 72 Cong. Rec. 9913, 9914, 71st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Garner: Mr. Speaker, the only issue involved was the
question of whether the consideration of the President's veto
should be postponed until Thursday. Does the Chair agree with the
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Cannon] that a motion for the previous
question being defeated, transfers the right of recognition?
The Speaker: It does; but that is not the question.
Mr. Garner: Then may I follow that up with this statement? That
was the motion of the gentleman from South Carolina. If he is
recognized now, he will move the previous question on the matter of
consideration.
The Speaker: The Chair does not know what the gentleman from
South Carolina would do.
Mr. Garner: He did not have the opportunity to do that, but the
Chair recognized the gentleman from Minnesota. He moved to postpone
until next Thursday, and moved the previous question. The previous
question was ordered. The House overwhelmingly declined to let the
matter go over until Thursday, indicating that it
[[Page 9857]]
wants to vote on the matter immediately. And now the Chair proposes
to continue the recognition of the gentleman from Minnesota?
The Speaker: Precisely. The House has indicated its desire to
vote immediately, but the gentleman from Minnesota is the chairman
of the Committee on Pensions, and it seems to the Chair that he is
entitled as chairman of the committee to discuss the matter on the
merits. We have had no vote that has gone to the merits of the bill
at all.
Mr. Garner: I understand that, but that is not the question
involved in recognizing the gentleman from Minnesota. The question
is, under the practice and rules of the House, Does this vote
automatically transfer to the opposition the right of recognition?
The Speaker: The Chair does not think so in this case.
Mr. Garner attempted to appeal the Speaker's ruling on recognition
but the Speaker ruled that an appeal did not lie to a decision on
recognition.
Motion To Table Resolution of Inquiry
Sec. 15.3 Where a motion to lay a resolution on the table is made by
the Member in charge of the resolution, and that motion is
defeated, the right to prior recognition passes to the Member
leading the opposition to the motion.
On Feb. 20, 1952,(18) Mr. James P. Richards, of South
Carolina, called up, by direction of the Committee on Foreign Affairs,
a resolution of inquiry (H. Res. 514) directed to the Secretary of
State. Mr. Richards had sent to the Clerk's desk an adverse report
of the committee, recommending that the resolution not pass. Mr.
Richards immediately moved the privileged and nondebatable motion to
lay the resolution on the table. The motion was defeated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 98 Cong. Rec. 1205-07, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. John M. Vorys, of Ohio, the Member leading the opposition to
the motion, was then recognized by Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, who
explained the parliamentary situation:
The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Vorys] is in charge of the time,
the gentleman being with the majority in this instance, and on that
side of the issue which received the most votes.
Mr. Vorys controlled debate on the resolution, which was agreed to
by the House.
Parliamentarian's Note: If the manager's motion to table is
defeated and no other Member seeks recognition, the manager may retain
control over the remaining time for debate.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See 125 Cong. Rec. 15027, 15029, 15030, 96th Cong. 1st Sess., June
15, 1979, discussed in Sec. 34.2, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 9858]]
Sec. 15.4 The Member calling up for consideration a privileged
resolution of inquiry reported adversely from committee is
recognized for one hour and may move to lay the resolution on the
table at any time; and where the Member calling up the resolution
uses part of his hour of debate and then offers a motion to table
the resolution which is defeated, the Chair will normally recognize
another Member for an hour of debate but may recognize the Member
who called up the resolution to control the remainder of his hour
of debate, if no other Member seeks recognition.
On June 15, 1979,(20) during consideration of House
Resolution 291 (a resolution of inquiry directing the President to
provide Members of the House with certain information) the following
proceedings occurred in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 125 Cong. Rec. 15027, 15029, 15030, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, I call up the
resolution (H. Res. 291), a resolution of inquiry directing the
President to provide Members of the House with information on the
energy situation, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 291
Resolved, That the President, to the extent possible, is
directed to furnish to the House of Representatives, not later
than fifteen days following the adoption of this resolution,
full and complete information on the following:
(1) the existence and percentage
of shortages of crude oil and refined petroleum products within
the United States and administrative regions; . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (1) The gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Dingell) is recognized for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. John Brademas (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsequently in the proceedings, Mr. Dingell made a motion to table
the resolution:
Mr. Dingell: Mr. Speaker, at this time I move to table the
resolution of inquiry now before the House.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the motion to table
offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell). . . .
Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, on that
I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas
4, nays 338, not voting 92, as follows: . . .
So the motion to table was rejected. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).
Mr. Dingell: Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time
remains?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state to the gentleman
that he has 48 minutes remaining.
[[Page 9859]]
Mr. Dingell: Mr. Speaker, I will, then, at this time yield 24
minutes to my distinguished friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Devine), for purposes of debate only.
Motion To Dispose of Senate Amendment
Sec. 15.5 Where a motion is made by the Member in charge of a bill to
recede and concur in a Senate amendment with an amendment and the
motion is defeated, recognition for a motion to further insist on
disagreement passes to a Member opposed.
On June 26, 1942,(2) Mr. Malcolm C. Tarver, of Georgia,
the Member in charge of a general appropriations bill reported from
conference with amendments in disagreement, moved that the House recede
and concur with an amendment to one of the Senate amendments in
disagreement. The motion was rejected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 88 Cong. Rec. 5642, 5643, 77th Cong. 2d Sess. Generally, see Ch.
33, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, a Member opposed to the motion,
then arose to make the motion to further insist on its disagreement to
the Senate amendment; at the same time, Mr. Tarver arose to make the
same motion. After the question of recognition was discussed, Speaker
Sam Rayburn, of Texas, recognized Mr. Cannon to make the motion:
Mr. Tarver: Mr. Speaker, I desire to submit a parliamentary
inquiry. It was my purpose to offer a motion as I have done in
connection with the same subject matter on previous occasions. I
had risen for the purpose of offering a motion to further insist
upon the disagreement of the House to Senate amendments Nos. 90 and
91. I wish to inquire whether or not I am privileged, as chairman
of the House conferees, to offer that motion?
Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, my motion is to further
insist.
Mr. Tarver: Mr. Speaker, I was on my feet before the gentleman
from Missouri rushed over between me and the microphone and offered
his motion.
Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, it is a long-established
rule of procedure that when a vital motion made by the Member in
charge of a bill is defeated, the right to prior recognition passes
to the opposition. That is the position in which the gentleman
finds himself. He has made a major motion. The motion has been
defeated. Therefore the right of recognition passes to the
opposition, and I ask to be recognized to move to further insist.
Mr. Tarver: Mr. Speaker, may I be heard with regard to that
statement?
The Speaker: The Chair will hear the gentleman.
Mr. Tarver: The question has never been raised so far as I have
known in the course of my experience of some 16 years upon an
appropriation bill conference report, but if as the gentleman
[[Page 9860]]
states the right of making the motion passes to the opposition, it
should pass to my Republican colleague the gentleman from Kansas
[Mr. Lambertson] with whom the gentleman from Missouri has been
associated in the defeat of the motion offered by the chairman of
the subcommittee. I have desired to offer the motion myself in the
absence of the exercise of that privilege by the gentleman from
Kansas.
Mr. [William P.] Lambertson: Mr. Speaker, I ask for
recognition.
The Speaker: The gentleman from Georgia has the floor.
Mr. Tarver: I have completed all I desire to say except that I
desire to offer the motion if it is permissible; otherwise, I
insist that the right should pass to the opposition and to the
gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Lambertson].
The Speaker: The Chair is of the opinion that the gentleman
from Missouri has been properly recognized to offer a motion. The
gentleman will state his motion.
Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House
further insist on its disagreement to the Senate amendments.
The motion was agreed to.
Sec. 15.6 Where a vital motion made by the Member in charge of a bill
is defeated, the right to prior recognition passes to a Member
opposed; thus, where a motion made by the Member in charge of a
bill to recede and concur in a Senate amendment with an amendment
had been defeated, recognition for a motion to recede and concur
with another amendment passed to a Member opposed to the defeated
motion.
During consideration of H.J. Res. 1131, a further continuing
appropriation for fiscal year 1975, in the House on Oct. 7,
1974,(3) the proceedings described above were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 120 Cong. Rec. 34151, 34157-59, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: (4) The Clerk will report the first
amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Senate amendment No. 3: On page 2, line 9, strike out: ``to
the Government of Turkey until the President certifies to the
Congress that substantial progress toward agreement has been
made regarding military forces in Cyprus'' and insert ``or for
the transportation of any military equipment or supplies to any
country which uses such defense articles or services in
violation of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 or the Foreign
Military Sales Act, or any agreement entered into under such
Acts.''
Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Mahon moves that the House recede from its disagreement
to the amendment of the Senate numbered 3 and concur therein
with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the matter stricken
out and inserted by said amendment, insert: ``or for the trans
[[Page 9861]]
portation of any military equipment or supplies to the
Government of Turkey unless and until the President determines
and certifies to the Congress that the Government of Turkey is
in compliance with the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, the
Foreign Military Sales Act, or any agreement entered into under
such Acts by making good faith efforts to reach a negotiated
settlement with respect to Cyprus.''
The Speaker: The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Mahon) will be
recognized for 30 minutes and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Cederberg) will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Mahon).
Mr. Mahon: Mr. Speaker, I should just like to say a word and
then I will yield to my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Rosenthal). . . .
The Speaker: The question pending is on the motion of the
gentleman from Texas. Those in favor of it will vote ``yea.''
Mr. [Benjamin S.] Rosenthal [of New York]: Is this vote on the
previous question?
The Speaker: The vote is on the motion.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas
69, nays 291, not voting 74. . . .
So the motion was rejected. . . .
Mr. Rosenthal: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Rosenthal moves that the House recede from its
disagreement to Senate amendment numbered 3 and concur therein
with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the matter proposed to
be inserted by Senate amendment numbered 3, insert the
following: ``or for the transportation of any military
equipment or supplies to Turkey until and unless the President
certifies to the Congress that the Government of Turkey is in
compliance with the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, the Foreign
Military Sales Act, and any agreement entered into under such
Acts, and that substantial progress toward agreement has been
made regarding military force in Cyprus.''
The Speaker: The gentleman from New York is recognized for 1
hour.
Mr. Rosenthal: Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Delaware (Mr. du Pont), pending which
I yield myself 5 minutes. . . .
Mr. Rosenthal: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the
motion.
The Speaker: Without objection, the previous question is
ordered.
There was no objection.
The Speaker: The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rosenthal).
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes
appeared to have it. . . .
So the motion was agreed to.
Parliamentarian's Note: Pursuant to Rule XXVIII, clause 2(b), time
for debate on a motion to dispose of a Senate amendment reported from
conference in disagreement is equally divided between majority and
minority parties. When the Mahon motion
was defeated and Mr. Rosenthal
was recognized for one hour, he yielded one-half of his time to a
[[Page 9862]]
minority party Member pursuant to that rule.
Sec. 15.7 Where a motion to dispose of an amendment reported from
conference in disagreement, offered by the manager of the
conference report, is rejected, the Speaker recognizes a Member
leading the opposition to offer another motion to dispose of the
amendment.
During consideration of the conference report on H.R. 7554 (Housing
and Urban Development and independent agencies appropriations for
fiscal year 1978) in the House on July 19, 1977,(5) the
following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 123 Cong. Rec. 23668, 23669, 23678, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (6) The Clerk will report
the next amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Norman Y. Mineta (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Senate amendment No. 24: Page 17, line 11, strike out
``$2,943,600,- 000'' and insert ``$3,013,000,000''.
Mr. [Edward P.] Boland [of Massachusetts] [manager of the
conference report]: 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 24 and
concur therein with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the
sum proposed by said amendment insert ``$2,995,300,000''.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Boland) is recognized for 30 minutes and the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Coughlin) is recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Boland).
Mr. Boland: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume. . . .
Mr. [Don] Fuqua [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition
to amendment No. 24. . . .
[After debate, the motion was rejected.]
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Fuqua)
is recognized for 60 minutes. . . .
Mr. Fuqua: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the
motion.
The previous question was ordered.
The motion was agreed to.
Sec. 15.8 While a motion offered by the manager of a conference report
to dispose of an amendment reported from conference in disagreement
is debatable for one hour, equally divided between the majority and
minority parties (under Rule XXVIII clause 2(b)), rejection of that
motion causes recognition to pass to a Member opposed thereto to
offer another motion to dispose of the amendment, and that Member
controls the entire hour of debate on his motion.
[[Page 9863]]
During consideration of the foreign assistance appropriation bill
(H.R. 7797) in the House on Oct. 18, 1977,(7) a motion was
offered and the proceedings that followed were as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 123 Cong. Rec. 34108, 34109, 34111, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Clarence D.] Long of Maryland: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Long of Maryland moves that the House recede from its
disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 47 and
concur therein.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (8) Without objection, the
motion offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Long) will be
agreed to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, reserving
the right to object, if objection is heard to agreeing to the
Senate amendment, then 1 hour would be allotted to the manager of
the bill (Mr. Long of Maryland), half of which time would be
yielded to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young). Is that correct?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: There would be 30 minutes allotted to
each party, the Chair would advise the gentleman.
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I object.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Objection is heard.
The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Long) is recognized for 30
minutes.
[The motion was rejected.]
Mr. [C. W.] Young of Florida: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Young of Florida moves that the House insist on its
disagreement to the amendment of the Senate No. 47.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Young) for 1 hour.
Sec. 15.9 The House having rejected a motion offered by the manager of
a conference report in disagreement to recede and concur with an
amendment in the Senate amendment reported from conference in
disagreement, a Member who has opposed that motion may be
recognized to offer a motion to recede and concur with a different
amendment, and the hour of debate on said motion is pursuant to
clause 2(b), Rule XXVIII, divided
between the majority and minority parties.
On May 29, 1980,(9) the following proceedings occurred
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 126 Cong. Rec. 12678, 12680, 12709, 12710, 12712, 96th Cong. 2d
Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert N.] Giaimo [of Connecticut]: Mr. Speaker, I call up
the conference report on the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res.
307) setting forth the congressional budget for the U.S. Government
for the fiscal years
[[Page 9864]]
1981, 1982, and 1983 and revising the congressional budget for the
U.S. Government for the fiscal year 1980, and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
The Speaker: (10) The Clerk will read the conference
report. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to the rule, the Senate amendment is considered as
having been read.
The Senate amendment reads as follows:
Strike out all after the resolving clause, and insert:
That the Congress hereby determines and declares, pursuant to
section 301(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, that: .
. .
Mr. Giaimo: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Giaimo moves that the House recede from its
disagreement to the Senate amendment and to concur therein with
an amendment, as follows: . . .
Mr. Giaimo: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the
motion.
The previous question was ordered.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the motion offered
by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Giaimo).
[The motion was rejected.]
Mr. [Leon E.] Panetta [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Panetta moves that the House recede from its
disagreement to the Senate amendment to House Concurrent
Resolution 307 and to concur therein with two amendments, as
follows:
In the engrossed Senate amendment to House Concurrent
Resolution 307, strike out section 1 and sections 14-20 and
insert in lieu thereof the following: . . .
The Speaker: The gentleman from California (Mr. Panetta) will
be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Latta) will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr.
Panetta).
Where Manager Had Not Offered the Rejected Motion
Sec. 15.10 A preferential motion to concur in a Senate amendment
reported from conference in disagreement having been rejected, and
a motion to disagree to the Senate amendment being then in order,
the manager of
the conference report maintained the prior right to recognition
where he had not been the one to offer the motion to concur.
On Nov. 3, 1977,(11) the proceedings relating to
consideration of H.R. 7555 (the Departments of Labor and Health,
Education, and Welfare appropriations for fiscal
[[Page 9865]]
1978) in the House were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 123 Cong. Rec. 36959, 36966, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (12) The Chair recognizes
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Flood).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. K. Gunn McKay (Utah).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Daniel J.] Flood [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to the resolution just agreed to, I call up the conference report
on the amendment of the Senate to the amendment of the House to the
amendment of the Senate numbered 82 to the bill (H.R. 7555) making
appropriations for the Departments of Labor and Health, Education,
and Welfare, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 1978, and for other purposes. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the amendment in
disagreement.
The Clerk read as follows:
Senate amendment No. 28: Sec. 209. None of the funds
contained in this Act shall be used to perform abortions except
where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus
were carried to term. . . .
Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Mahon moves that the House concur in the amendment of
the Senate to the amendment of the House to the amendment of
the Senate numbered 82.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Mahon)
will be recognized for 30 minutes,
and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Michel) will be recognized for
30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Mahon). . .
.
So the preferential motion was rejected. . . .
Mr. Flood: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Flood moves that the House disagree to the amendment of
the Senate to the amendment of the House to the amendment of
the Senate numbered 82.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Flood) is recognized for 30 minutes.
Parliamentarian's Note: Had Mr. Flood offered the motion to concur,
recognition would have passed to the opponents upon rejection of that
motion.
Previous Question Rejected
Sec. 15.11 Where the previous question was voted down
on a resolution before the House, recognition passed to the
opponents of the resolution, and the Speaker declared that a
minority Member was entitled to recognition, if opposed.
On July 20, 1939,(13) Mr. Howard W. Smith, of Virginia,
managing on behalf of the Committee on Rules a resolution to authorize
an investigation, moved the previous question on the resolution.
[[Page 9866]]
Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, then answered parliamentary
inquiries on the order of recognition to be followed should the
previous question be rejected:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 84 Cong. Rec. 9591, 9592, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: If the previous question
is voted down, will that open up the resolution to amendment?
The Speaker: Undoubtedly.
Mr. Smith of Virginia: A further parliamentary inquiry, Mr.
Speaker.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Smith of Virginia: If I understand the situation correctly,
if the previous question is voted down, the control of the measure
would pass to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Keller]; and the
resolution would not be open to amendment generally, but only to
such amendments as the gentleman from Illinois might yield for. Is
my understanding correct, Mr. Speaker?
The Speaker: If the previous question is voted down it would
not necessarily pass to the gentleman from Illinois; it would pass
to the opponents of the resolution. Of course a representative of
the minority would have the first right of recognition.
Parliamentarian's Note: A majority Member could be recognized,
after defeat of the previous question, to offer a preferential motion,
such as to table, postpone or recommit (the prohibition against
dilatory motions on a privileged resolution from the Committee on Rules
no longer applying).
Sec. 15.12 A minority Member, who had led the opposition, was
recognized after the House had refused to order the previous
question on a resolution offered by the majority and providing for
the seating of a Member-elect.
On Mar. 1, 1967,(14) Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, a
Member of the majority, moved the previous question on House Resolution
278, which he had offered, and which provided for the seating of
challenged Member-elect Adam C. Powell, of New York. The previous
question was rejected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 113 Cong. Rec. 5019, 5020, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, then recognized Thomas
B. Curtis, of Missouri, a Member of the minority, to offer a substitute
amendment excluding Member-elect Powell from membership in the House.
Sec. 15.13 The motion for the previous question on a resolution being
voted down, recognition for control of debate on the resolution
passes to a Member opposed.
On Mar. 13, 1939,(15) Mr. Howard W. Smith, of Virginia,
called
[[Page 9867]]
up at the direction of the Committee on the District of Columbia House
Resolution 113, authorizing an investigation of the milk industry in
the District of Columbia. Mr. Smith moved the previous question on the
resolution. After the motion was rejected, Speaker William B. Bankhead,
of Alabama, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 84 Cong. Rec. 2663, 76th Cong. 1st Sess. Parliamentarian's Note:
Pending a vote on ordering the previous question, the Chair may
decline to indicate whom he might recognize or what form of
amendment might be in order if the previous question were
rejected. 115 Cong. Rec. 29219, 29220, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.,
Oct. 8, 1969.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the rules of procedure, the recognition passes to the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Mapes] if he desires to claim it.
The Speaker declared, in response to parliamentary inquiries, that
Mr. Carl E. Mapes, who had been leading the opposition to the
resolution, would control one hour of debate and would lose the floor
if he yielded to another Member to offer an amendment.
Qualification of Member as Opposed
Sec. 15.14 After determining that a Member was qualified as opposed to
the pending resolution, the Speaker recognized him to offer a
motion to table the resolution after the previous question had been
rejected.
On Oct. 19, 1966,(16) the House rejected the previous
question moved by Mr. Claude D. Pepper, of Florida, the Member in
control of a resolution from the Committee on Rules (establishing a
Select Committee on Standards and Conduct). Speaker John W. McCormack,
of Massachusetts, then recognized Mr. Joe D. Waggonner, Jr., of
Louisiana, to offer a motion to lay the resolution on the table, after
determining whether Mr. Waggonner was entitled to recognition as being
opposed to the resolution:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 112 Cong. Rec. 27725, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Waggonner: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Speaker: Is the gentleman from Louisiana opposed to the
resolution?
Mr. Waggonner: I am, in its present form, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: Has the gentleman participated actively in the
debate in opposition?
Mr. Waggonner: I did, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: The Chair recognizes the gentleman.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Waggonner moves to lay House Resolution 1013 on the
table.
Parliamentarian's Note: Normally, the Speaker determines opposition
from his observations of
[[Page 9868]]
debate and not by requiring a Member to ``qualify''.
Resolution Called Up Prior to Adoption of Rules
Sec. 15.15 Recognition to offer an amendment to a resolution called up
prior to the adoption of rules passes to a Member leading the
opposition to the resolution if the previous question is rejected.
On Jan. 10, 1967,(17) at the convening of the 90th
Congress and before the adoption of standing rules, Mr. Morris K.
Udall, of Arizona, called up a resolution (H. Res. 1) authorizing
Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, to administer the oath of
office to challenged Member-elect Adam C. Powell, of New York, and
referring the question of his final right to a seat to a select
committee. Pending debate on the resolution, Speaker McCormack answered
parliamentary inquiries on the procedure of consideration and
recognition for the resolution:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 113 Cong. Rec. 14, 15, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Joe D.] Waggonner [of Louisiana]: Mr. Speaker, if the
previous question is voted down would, then, under the rules of the
House, amendments or substitutes be in order to the resolution
offered by the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Udall]?
The Speaker: The Chair will state to the gentleman from
Louisiana [Mr. Waggonner] that any germane amendment [would] be in
order. . . .
Mr. Waggonner: Mr. Speaker, one further parliamentary inquiry.
. . .
Mr. Speaker, under the rules of the House would the option or
priority or a subsequent amendment or a substitute motion lie with
the minority?
The Speaker: The Chair will pass upon that question based upon
the rules of the House. That would be a question that would present
itself to the Chair at that particular time.
. . . However, the usual procedure of the Chair has been to the
effect that the Member who led the fight against the resolution
will be recognized.
Sec. 15.16 The motion for the previous question on a resolution having
been rejected before the adoption of rules, the Speaker recognized
the Minority Leader to offer an amendment to the resolution.
On Jan. 10, 1967,(18) at the convening of the 90th
Congress and before the adoption of the rules, Mr. Morris K. Udall, of
Arizona, moved the previous question on House Resolution 1, which he
had called up and which related to the right of Member-elect Adam C.
Powell, of New York, to be sworn. The previous question was rejected.
Speaker John W. McCor
[[Page 9869]]
mack, of Massachusetts, then recognized Gerald R. Ford, of Michigan,
the Minority Leader, to offer an amendment in the nature of a
substitute to the resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 113 Cong. Rec. 24-26, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rejection of Previous Question on Privileged Resolution
Sec. 15.17 In response to parliamentary inquiries the Speaker advised
that if the previous question on a privileged resolution reported
by the Committee on Rules were voted down: (1) the resolution would
be open to further consideration, amendment, and debate; (2) the
resolution would be subject to a motion to table; and (3) the
Chair, under the hour rule, would recognize the Member who appeared
to be leading the opposition.
On Oct. 19, 1966,(19) Mr. Claude D. Pepper, of Florida,
called up by direction of the Committee on Rules House Resolution 1013,
establishing a Select Committee on Standards and Conduct. Mr. Pepper
was recognized for one hour and offered a committee amendment to the
resolution, which amendment was agreed to. Speaker John W. McCormack,
of Massachusetts, then answered a series of parliamentary inquiries on
the order of recognition should Mr. Pepper move the previous question
and should the motion be defeated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 112 Cong. Rec. 27725, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, if the previous
question is refused, is it true that then amendments may be offered
and further debate may be had on the resolution?
The Speaker: If the previous question is defeated, then the
resolution is open to further consideration and action and debate.
Mr. [Joe D.] Waggonner [Jr., of Louisiana]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. Waggonner: Mr. Speaker, un-der the rules of the House, is
it not equally so that a motion to table would then be in order?
The Speaker: At that particular point, that would be a
preferential motion. . . .
Mr. [James C.] Fulton of Pennsylvania: Mr. Speaker, if the
previous question is refused and the resolution is then open for
amendment, under what parliamentary procedure will the debate
continue? Or what would be the time limit?
The Speaker: The Chair would recognize whoever appeared to be
the leading Member in opposition to the resolution.
Mr. Fulton of Pennsylvania: What would be the time for debate?
The Speaker: Under those circumstances the Member recognized in
opposition would have 1 hour at his
[[Page 9870]]
disposal, or such portion of it as he might desire to exercise.
Sec. 15.18 Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution report-ed from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to
the Member leading the fight against the previous question, who may
offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time for
debate thereon.
The proceedings of May 29, 1980, relating to House Resolution 682,
providing for consideration of H.R. 7428 (public debt limit extension)
are discussed in Sec. 34.6, infra.
Sec. 15.19 Where the House rejects the previous question, the Member
who led the opposition thereto is entitled to one hour of debate
and
is entitled to close debate where he has yielded half of his time
to another Member.
The following proceedings occurred in the House on June 25,
1981,(20) during consideration of House Resolution 169
(providing for consideration of H.R. 3982, Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1981):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 127 Cong. Rec. 14065, 14078, 14079, 14081, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Richard] Bolling [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, by direction
of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 169 and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution as follows:
H. Res. 169
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to move, any rule of the House to the
contrary notwithstanding, that the House resolve itself into
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for
the consideration of the bill (H.R. 3982) to provide for
reconciliation pursuant to section 301 of the first concurrent
resolution on the budget for the fiscal year 1982. . . .
The Speaker: (1) The gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Bolling) is recognized for 1 hour. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After debate, Mr. Bolling moved the previous question on the
resolution.
The Speaker: The question is on ordering the previous question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. [Delbert L.] Latta [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand
the yeas and nays.
[The previous question was rejected.]
Mr. Latta: Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr.
Latta: Strike all after the resolving clause and insert in lieu
thereof the following: . . .
[[Page 9871]]
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (2) The gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Latta) is recognized for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Latta: Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield to
my good friend, the Speaker of the House. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Let the Chair inquire of the gentleman
from Ohio, did he . . . yield 30 minutes of the hour to the
Speaker?
Mr. Latta: Right. . . .
Mr. [Thomas P.] O'Neill [Jr., of Massachusetts]: I reserve my
right until such time as the gentleman wants to move the previous
question.
Mr. Latta: We have the right under the rules of procedure to
close debate.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct.
Mr. Latta: We have the right to close debate on this issue.
Mr. O'Neill: I have no requests for time on this side.
Previous Question and Motion To Lay Resolution on Table Rejected
Sec. 15.20 The previous question and a motion to lay a resolution on
the table having been rejected, the Chair, under the hour rule,
recognized a Member in opposition to the resolution.
On Oct. 19, 1966,(3) Mr. Claude D. Pepper, of Florida,
called up by direction of the Committee on Rules House Resolution 1013,
establishing a Select Committee on Standards and Conduct. Mr. Pepper
moved the previous question and the motion was rejected. Mr. Joe D.
Waggonner, Jr., of Louisiana who assured Speaker John W. McCormack, of
Massachusetts, of his opposition to the resolution, was recognized to
move to lay the resolution on the table. The motion was rejected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 112 Cong. Rec. 27713-26, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker then recognized, for one hour of debate, Mr. Wayne L.
Hays, of Ohio, who opposed the resolution.
Motion in House May Be Amended if Member in Control Yields or Previous
Question Rejected
Sec. 15.21 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,(4) 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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 129 Cong. Rec. 29963, 29964, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [George M.] O'Brien [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
motion.
[[Page 9872]]
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: (5) The gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. O'Brien) is recognized for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Robert A. Roe (N.J.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. O'Brien: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
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.]
--Effect of Adjournment Following Intervention of Other Business After
Rejection of Previous Question
Sec. 15.22 The rule that recognition passes to the opposition after
rejection of the previous question was once held subject to the
following exception: where other business intervenes and occupies
[[Page 9873]]
the remainder of the day immediately after defeat of the previous
question, the bill on which the previous question was rejected must
be subsequently called up as unfinished business by a Member
directed by his committee to call up that special class of business
on a day when that business is in order, since the Speaker does not
lay such special bills before the House as unfinished business.
Once that Member has called up the bill, however, the Speaker would
recognize a Member opposed if he immediately seeks to offer an
amendment.
On Feb. 8, 1932,(6) Mr. Vincent L. Palmisano, of
Maryland, Chairman of the Committee on the District of Columbia, called
up as unfinished business S. 1306, to provide for the incorporation of
the District of Columbia Commission on the George Washington
Bicentennial.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 75 Cong. Rec. 3548-50, 72d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Fiorello H. LaGuardia, of New York, raised an inquiry as to the
parliamentary situation. He stated that the bill had previously been
before the House (on the preceding District of Columbia Monday) and
that the previous question had been rejected, requiring recognition to
offer amendments or motions to pass to the opposition. [On the
preceding District of Columbia Monday, the Chair had recognized another
Member, immediately after rejection of the previous question on S.
1306, to call up a general appropriation bill, which was considered
until adjournment on that day.]
Mr. LaGuardia and Mr. William H. Stafford, of Wisconsin, both
asserted that the parliamentary situation remained the same as when the
previous question was rejected, requiring the Chair to grant
recognition to the opposition on the bill.
Speaker Pro Tempore Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, ruled that the
chairman of the reporting committee was entitled to recognition since
the bill could come before the House only by being called up as
unfinished business.
The proceedings were as follows:
Mr. Palmisano: Mr. Speaker, I call up the bill (S. 1306) to
provide for the incorporation of the District of Columbia
Commission, George Washington Bicentennial.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Maryland calls up a
Senate bill, which the Clerk will report.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
Mr. LaGuardia: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
[[Page 9874]]
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. LaGuardia: The bill which the gentleman calls up was before
the House two weeks ago.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: This is unfinished business. We have
had a second reading of the bill at the former meeting when the
bill was considered on last District day.
Mr. LaGuardia: But the previous question was voted down.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The previous question was then voted
down. It is before the House now for further consideration, just
where we left off before.
Mr. LaGuardia: I ask recognition in opposition.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Maryland [Mr.
Palmisano], who is the ranking majority member of the committee, is
entitled to recognition first to offer committee amendments, and
then the gentleman from New York will be recognized.
Mr. Stafford: Mr. Speaker, I assume that when this bill is now
brought up we are brought back to the same legislative situation we
were in when it was last considered.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: That is the situation.
Mr. Stafford: The previous question was then voted down. At
that moment any person who wished to propose an amendment would
have had the privilege of being recognized. I claim that any person
who wishes to offer an amendment has prior recognition to the
gentleman from Maryland.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: But the previous question having been
voted down, it did not take off the floor the gentleman from
Maryland, who stands in the position of chairman of the committee,
so the parliamentarian informs the Chair.
Mr. Stafford: The very fact that the previous question was
voted down granted the right to the opposition to offer an
amendment and have control of the time.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: This is another date on this
legislation, and while it is in the same situation the Chair will
recognize the gentleman from Maryland first, as acting chairman of
his committee, and after that will recognize some Member who is
opposed to the bill.
Mr. [LaFayette L.] Patterson [of Alabama]: Mr. Speaker, a
further parliamentary inquiry. Do we understand that the gentleman
from Maryland will be recognized for one hour and then the
opponents of the bill be recognized for one hour?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Maryland, as acting
chairman of the committee, is recognized first to offer committee
amendments, and if some Member does not move the previous
question----
Mr. Stafford: Oh, Mr. Speaker, I take issue with the ruling of
the Chair, because the House has affirmatively decided that the
opposition is entitled to recognition, the previous question having
been voted down. In the consideration of this bill we are placed in
the same situation as we were when it was last considered.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state the parliamentary
situation. On a previous District day when this bill was up for
consideration, the previous question was moved
[[Page 9875]]
and the House voted down that motion. Then the opposition clearly
was entitled to recognition. This is another legislative day; and
that being true, it is the duty of the Chair to recognize the one
standing as chairman of the committee, who is the gentleman from
Maryland, to offer committee amendments. Then the Chair will
recognize someone in opposition to the bill. The Chair is advised
by the parliamentarian that such is the correct procedure.
Mr. LaGuardia: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. LaGuardia: I can not follow the statement of the Chair that
the bill is coming before the House de novo. The Chair properly
stated that the bill now is the unfinished business. A bill can not
change its status because it is the unfinished business and carried
over to another day. The previous question having been voted down,
the bill is now open to the House for amendment, and on that I have
asked for recognition by the Chair to offer an amendment.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will rule that the one
acting for the committee in calling up the bill has a right to
first offer committee amendments. If the proceedings had continued
on the day the previous question was voted down, then any Member
opposing the bill gaining recognition could have offered an
amendment; but this being another legislative day, it is the duty
of the Chair to recognize the acting chairman of the committee in
calling up the bill to offer committee amendments, and the Chair
has done that. Regardless of his own opinion, the Chair is guided
by the parliamentarian. When a parliamentary situation arises
whereby the Chair can recognize some one opposed to the bill, the
Chair will do that.
Parliamentarian's Note: Bills which are in order on certain days
under the rules of the House do not automatically come before the
House, but must be called up by an authorized committee member.
Therefore, in this instance, the Chair recognized the Chairman of the
Committee on the District of Columbia to bring the bill before the
House. Once recognized for that purpose, the chairman of the committee
could offer committee amendments not printed in the bill, but if an
opposition Member immediately sought to offer an amendment, the Chair
indicated that he would first be recognized if he immediately had
stated his intention.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. See also Ch. 21, Sec. 3, supra, for discussion of unfinished
business.
[[Page 9876]]
CHAPTER 29
Consideration and Debate
C. RECOGNITION ON PARTICULAR QUESTIONS
Sec. 16. As to Bills
Generally, members of a committee reporting a bill are entitled to
prior recognition thereon in the House or in the Committee of the
Whole,(8) debate usually being controlled by the chairman
and ranking minority members.(9)
Factors affecting recognition or control of debate also include special
rules,(10) the chairman's opposition to a
measure,(11) and consideration under a discharge
procedure.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. See Sec. 16.1, infra.
9. For further discussion of control of debate time, see Sec. Sec. 24
et seq., infra.
10. See Sec. Sec. 16.2, 16.3, infra.
11. See Sec. 16.16, infra.
12. See Sec. Sec. 16.13-16.15, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This section includes discussion of principles of recognition
affecting consideration of Calendar Wednesday,(13) Private
Calendar,(14) and District of Columbia (15)
bills.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See Sec. Sec. 16.17-16.21, infra.
14. See Sec. Sec. 16.11, 16.25-16.30, infra.
15. See Sec. Sec. 16.22-16.24, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross References
Amendments to bills, see Sec. 19, infra and Ch. 27, supra.
Bill-passage procedure, see Ch. 24, supra.
Consideration of bills in Committee of the Whole, see Ch. 19, supra.
Control and distribution of time for debate on bills, see Sec. Sec. 24
et seq., infra.
Discharging bills from committee consideration, see Ch. 18, supra.
Effect of special orders on debate on bills, see Sec. 28, infra.
Factors bearing on consideration; special orders and unanimous-consent
agreements, see Sec. 2, supra.
Losing or surrendering control on bills, see Sec. Sec. 33, 34, infra.
Management of bills by reporting committee, see Sec. 26, infra.
Points of order, waiver of, see Ch. 31, infra.
Prior rights of Member in control of bill, see Sec. 14, supra.
Prior rights to recognition of committee in control of bill, see
Sec. 13, supra.
Special orders, varying order of business, see Ch. 21,
supra. -------------------
Priority of Members of Reporting Committee
Sec. 16.1 Under a practice of long standing, members of a committee
reporting a bill are
ordinarily entitled to prior
recognition thereon in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.
On Jan. 12, 1933,(16) in the Committee of the Whole,
Chairman Lindsay C. Warren, of North Carolina, recognized Mr. William
[[Page 9877]]
J. Granfield, of Massachusetts, to offer an amendment to the pending
bill. Mr. Bertrand H. Snell, of New York, made the point of order that
recognition should have been granted to a member of the committee
reporting the bill who was on his feet. The following discussion and
ruling by the Chair ensued:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 76 Cong. Rec. 1679, 72d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Snell: Mr. Chairman, there is no written rule in the book,
but it has been the unbroken precedent, as far as I know anything
about the practice in this House, that a member of a committee
demanding recognition in debate is recognized in preference to
anyone not a member of the committee. I would like to call the
attention of the Chair to section 750 of the Manual--
In debate members of the committee, except the Committee of
the Whole, are entitled to priority of recognition in debate. .
. .
I respectfully submit to the Chair, as the gentleman from Maine
[Mr. Snow] is a member of that committee, he is entitled to
recognition before the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Granfield]. I trust the present Chair will so hold, as it is
certainly in interest of orderly procedure in the consideration of
legislation.
Mr. [William H.] Stafford [of Wisconsin]: If the Chair will
indulge me for just a moment, the precedent referred to by the
gentleman from New York has been recognized from time immemorial.
It has always been the practice first to recognize members of the
committee. It is bottomed upon the idea of advancing the
consideration of legislation in an orderly way. It is presumed that
members of the committee, who have given consideration to the bill
under consideration, have given more thorough consideration to the
bill than Members outside the committee; and to advance the orderly
working of the House is the real reason why in the long-established
practice of the House the Speaker and Chairman have recognized
members of the committee in priority over other Members--to the end
that orderly procedure would be advanced thereby.
The Chairman: The Chair understands the precedents of the
House. The Chair has uniformly given preference to members of the
committee on each occasion when he has presided. The Chair agreed
to recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Granfield]. The
gentleman was on his feet and asking for recognition before any
member of the committee. However, the Chair will follow the
precedents and recognize the gentleman from Maine [Mr. Snow] to
offer an amendment, which the Clerk will report.
On Feb. 10, 1941,(17) Chairman Clarence Cannon, of
Missouri, responded to a parliamentary inquiry on the nature of the
practice of extending priority for recognition to members of the
committee reporting a bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 87 Cong. Rec. 875, 876, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Lyle H.] Boren [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a
parliamentary inquiry. I want it thoroughly understood that I
recognize fully the custom of members of the committee being
[[Page 9878]]
recognized ahead of any other Member on the floor, not a member of
the committee. I am quite willing to withdraw my amendment for that
purpose, but as I understood it the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr.
Cooper] rose to make the point of order that my recognition at that
time was not in order. I understood the Chair sustained the point
of order and recognized the gentleman from New York [Mr. Crowther].
I should like to be enlightened as to under what rule of the House
that point of order is sustained after the Chair had recognized me
for the purpose of offering an amendment.
The Chairman: The gentleman from New York [Mr. Crowther] is a
member of the committee reporting the bill and, therefore, entitled
to prior recognition.
Mr. [Jack] Nichols [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary
inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Nichols: Is there a rule of the House that gives the
members of the committee the right to recognition ahead of other
Members of the House? Is that a rule of the House?
The Chairman: It is a procedure of long standing.
Mr. Nichols: It is not a rule of the House.
The Chairman: In the absence of other considerations, members
of the committee in charge of the bill are entitled to prior
recognition. The rule is essential to expedition in legislation and
its importance is too obvious to require
justification.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. For more detailed discussion of the priority of committee members
in debate, see Sec. 13, supra.
See, generally, House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 753-757
(1995). For the opening and closing of debate by the Member
reporting a measure from committee, see Rule XIV clause 3,
House Rules and Manual Sec. 759 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: Although the Chair extends priority of
recognition to members of the reporting committee, no point of order
lies against the manner in which the Chair exercises the power of
recognition.
Consideration Under Special Rule--Bill Must Be Called Up by Member
Designated by Committee
Sec. 16.2 The adoption of a resolution making in order the
consideration of a bill does not necessarily make such bill the
unfinished business the next day and such bill can only be called
up by a Member designated by the committee to do so.
On July 19, 1939,(19) after the House had adopted a
resolution from the Committee on Rules making in order the
consideration of a bill, Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama,
answered a parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 84 Cong. Rec. 9541, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Claude V.] Parsons [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
[[Page 9879]]
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Parsons: Mr. Speaker, the House having adopted the rule, is
not this bill the unfinished business of the House on tomorrow?
The Speaker: Not necessarily. The rule adopted by the House
makes the bill in order for consideration, but it is not
necessarily the unfinished business. It can only come up, after the
adoption of the rule, by being called up by the gentleman in charge
of the bill.
--Special Rule Allowing Speaker To Recognize Any Member of Committee
Sec. 16.3 Where a resolution provides that general debate on a bill be
``equally divided and controlled by the majority and minority
members'' of a committee, instead of specifying, as is usual
practice, that control of debate be by the chairman and ranking
minority member of the committee, the Speaker may recognize any
member of the committee to call up the bill and control the time.
On Sept. 26, 1966,(1) the House adopted House Resolution
923, making in order the consideration of H.R. 1511, the economic
opportunity amendments for 1966. The resolution provided that eight
hours of general debate would be ``equally divided and controlled by
the majority and minority members of the Committee on Education and
Labor,'' without specifying, as such resolutions usually do, that
debate be controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 112 Cong. Rec. 23762, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following the adoption of the resolution, Speaker John W.
McCormack, of Massachusetts, recognized Adam C. Powell, of New York,
Chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor, to move that the
House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole for the
consideration of the bill.
In the Committee of the Whole, Chairman Jack B. Brooks, of Texas,
made the following decision on recognition for control of general
debate:
Under the rule, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Powell] will
be recognized for four hours to control the time for the majority,
and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Ayres] will be recognized to
control the time for the minority.
Parliamentarian's Note: Mr. Ayres was the ranking minority member
of the committee and supported the views of Mr. Powell, the chairman,
that the resolution was an affront to the authority of committee
chairmen. Mr. Powell had indicated, prior to the offering of the
resolution on the floor of
[[Page 9880]]
the House, that if he were recognized to move that the House resolve
into the Committee of the Whole, and recognized to control debate, he
would not oppose the resolution.
--Absence of Chairman and Ranking Minority Member
Sec. 16.4 In the absence of the chairman and ranking minority member,
named in a resolution to control debate on a bill, the Speaker or
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole recognizes the next ranking
majority and minority members for control of such debate (where the
chairman and ranking minority member have not designated other
Members to control the time).
On July 23, 1942,(2) the House adopted a resolution from
the Committee on Rules providing for debate on a bill to be divided
between the chairman and the ranking minority member of the reporting
committee--the Committee on Election of the President, Vice President,
and Representatives in Congress. The chairman and ranking minority
member both being absent, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, declared in
response to a parliamentary inquiry, that the Chair would recognize the
next ranking majority member and the next ranking minority member to
control debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 88 Cong. Rec. 6542-46, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Death of Designated Manager
Sec. 16.5 Where a Member designated in a resolution (discharged from
the Committee on Rules) to call up a bill had died, the Speaker
recognized another Member in favor of the bill to call it up.
On Oct. 13, 1942,(3) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas,
rejected a point of order that he had improperly recognized a Member to
call up a bill, the resolution providing for consideration having named
as manager a Member no longer
living (the resolution had been brought up pursuant to a successful
motion to discharge). The Speaker reiterated his ruling of the previous
day that the resolution could properly be considered and that another
Member in favor of the bill could be recognized to manage the
bill.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 88 Cong. Rec. 8120, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
4. See the similar rulings of Speaker Rayburn, on the same bill, at 88
Cong. Rec. 8066, 8080, 77th Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 12, 1942.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 9881]]
--Special Rule Waiving Points of Order Against Legislation on
Appropriation Bill
Sec. 16.6 On one occasion, the Chairman ruled that while members of the
Committee on Appropriations are ordinarily entitled to recognition
in debate on a general appropriation bill, where a rule is adopted
waiving points of order against legislative provisions in the bill,
recognition would be divided between members of the committee and
other Members interested in the bill.
On Mar. 5 and 6, 1941,(5) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 3737, a general appropriations bill, pursuant to House
Resolution 126, waiving all points of order against the bill. Chairman
John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, made the following statement on the
matter of recognition under the five-minute rule:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 87 Cong. Rec. 1846, 1921, 1922, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Pace] has been seeking
recognition. The Chair realizes that this is an appropriation bill,
and that ordinarily members of that committee would be entitled to
preference, but under the rule adopted yesterday we make this part
of it a legislative bill by making certain legislation in order.
The Chair is going to divide the time between the members of the
Appropriations Committee and the other Members of the House who are
vitally interested in this proposition. . . .
. . . It is perfectly fair for a committee to have charge of
general debate and probably debate under the 5-minute rule to a
large extent, but the Chair does not think it is fair--especially
under conditions such as we have here, where a rule has been
adopted making legislation that ordinarily comes from the Committee
on Agriculture and from other committees of the House in order on
the bill--the Chair does think it fair to the rest of the
membership of the House to recognize members of the Committee on
Appropriations under the 5-minute rule to the exclusion of the
other Members of the House.
Parliamentarian's Note: Chairman Rankin indicated that his ruling
was not to be taken as a precedent, differing as it did from customary
practice extending priority of recognition to members of the committee
reporting a bill.
Unanimous-consent Request for Consideration
Sec. 16.7 In extending recognition for unanimous-consent requests for
the consideration of bills, the Speaker may take into account the
stage of consideration, whether the bill is of an emergency na
[[Page 9882]]
ture, and whether the bill is public or private.
On July 1, 1932,(6) Speaker John N. Garner, of Texas,
made the following statement regarding recognition for the unanimous-
consent consideration of bills:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 75 Cong. Rec. 14511, 72d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order that gentlemen may understand the situation, let the
Chair state how it is the Chair recognizes certain gentlemen. The
Chair must decline to recognize a great many gentlemen who have
meritorious matters, because the Chair must have some yardstick
that can be applied to every Member of the House. The gentleman
from Minnesota [Mr. Pittenger] had a bill that had passed the House
unanimously, had gone to the Senate, and had an amendment placed on
it there, adding one name. The Chair thinks in a case of that kind,
where unanimous consent has to be given, it is well enough for the
Chair to recognize the Member for that purpose; but the Chair will
not recognize gentlemen to take up as an original proposition
private claims or other matters unless they are of an emergency
nature and apply to the general public rather than to one
individual.
Sec. 16.8 The Speaker declines to recognize for a unanimous-consent
request for the consideration of a measure until the Member making
such request has consulted the leadership.
On July 11, 1946,(7) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas,
refused to recognize Mrs. Clare Boothe Luce, of Connecticut--who sought
to ask for the unanimous-consent consideration of a rent-control
measure (H.J. Res. 372)--because she had not consulted with or notified
the Speaker of the request. Following remarks by Mr. John Phillips, of
California, that consideration of the measure was being refused on a
``technicality,'' the Speaker made the following comments:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 92 Cong. Rec. 8726, 8728, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
. . . [T]he present occupant of the chair knows that when
Members intend to ask unanimous consent to bring up a bill they
have always properly consulted with both the majority and minority
leaders of the House and with the Speaker. That has been the
unfailing custom. The Chair is exercising that right and intends to
continue to exercise it as long as he occupies the present position
because the Chair wants the House to proceed in an orderly fashion.
Mrs. Luce: Mr. Speaker, may I now ask unanimous consent to
bring up the bill tomorrow?
The Speaker: The Chair will meet that question when the time
comes.
The Chair would certainly like the courtesy of being consulted
in advance.
Sec. 16.9 In recognizing a Member to ask unanimous consent for the
consideration of a vitally important measure, the
[[Page 9883]]
Speaker declared that if any amendments were to be offered he would
ask the Member to withdraw the request and move to suspend the
rules and pass the bill.
On July 5, 1943,(8) just prior to an adjournment of two
months, Mr. John D. Dingell, of Michigan, asked unanimous consent for
the immediate consideration of S. 35, to authorize the use of certain
metals for war purposes. Mr. Frederick C. Smith, of Ohio, raised a
parliamentary inquiry as to whether the bill would be subject to
amendment. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, indicated that time was of
the essence and declared:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 89 Cong. Rec. 7213, 7214, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The gentleman is correct, it would be subject to amendment, but
the Chair is going to be very frank with the gentleman. If there
are going to be amendments offered to this bill the Chair will
request the gentleman from Michigan to withdraw his request, and
then the Chair will recognize the gentleman from Michigan to move
to suspend the rules and pass the bill. The Chair thinks it vitally
important.
--Member Had Been Recognized for Different Purpose
Sec. 16.10 The Minority Leader having been recognized to proceed for
one minute and in that time having asked unanimous consent for the
consideration of a bill, the Speaker held that the gentleman was
not recognized for that purpose.
On Jan. 26, 1944,(9) Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of
Massachusetts, the Minority Leader, asked unanimous consent to proceed
for one minute. When Mr. Martin attempted to ask for the consideration
of a bill, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, held he had not been
recognized for that purpose:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 90 Cong. Rec. 746, 747, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Martin of Massachusetts: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent to proceed for 1 minute.
The Speaker: The Chair will not recognize any other Member at
this time for that purpose but will recognize the gentleman from
Massachusetts.
Mr. Martin of Massachusetts: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the
generosity of the Chair.
I take this minute, Mr. Speaker, because I want to make a
unanimous-consent request and I think it should be explained.
I agree with the President that there is immediate need for
action on the soldiers' vote bill. A good many of us have been
hoping we could have action for the last month. To show our
sincerity in having action not next week but right now, I ask
unanimous con
[[Page 9884]]
sent that the House immediately take up the bill which is on the
Union Calendar known as S. 1285, the soldiers' voting bill.
The Speaker: The gentleman from Massachusetts was not
recognized for that purpose.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky.
Private Bill Called Up by Unanimous Consent
Sec. 16.11 When a private bill is called up by unanimous consent in the
House, the Member making the request is recognized for one hour.
On Mar. 12, 1963,(10) Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York,
asked for the unanimous-consent consideration in the House of a private
bill, H.R. 4374, conferring honorary citizenship on Sir Winston
Churchill. In response to a parliamentary inquiry, Speaker John W.
McCormack, of Massachusetts, stated that if consent were granted for
the consideration of the bill, Mr. Celler would be recognized for one
hour with the right to yield to other Members and to move the previous
question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 109 Cong. Rec. 3993, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: Normally a Private Calendar bill called up
by unanimous consent is considered under the five-minute rule, since
private bills when reported are referred to the Calendar of the
Committee of the Whole House.
Recognition Where House Has Agreed To Consider Bill by Unanimous
Consent
Sec. 16.12 Where the House has agreed to consider in the House a bill
called up by unanimous consent, the Member calling up the bill is
recognized for one hour, and amendments may not be offered by other
Members unless he yields for that purpose.
On Oct. 5, 1962,(11) Mr. Francis E. Walter, of
Pennsylvania, called up S. 3361, relating to entry of alien skilled
specialists and asked unanimous consent for its ``immediate
consideration in the House.'' When there was no objection to the
request, Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, recognized Mr.
Walter for one hour. Mr. Arch A. Moore, Jr., of West Virginia,
attempted to offer an amendment, and the Speaker inquired of Mr. Walter
whether
he would accept the amendment since he was in control. Mr. Walter
accepted the amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 108 Cong. Rec. 22606-09, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: The procedure is otherwise if unani
[[Page 9885]]
mous consent is requested only for the ``immediate consideration'' of a
bill which belongs on the Union Calendar. In that case the bill is
considered in the House as in Committee of the Whole, and Members may
be recognized to offer amendments under the five-minute rule unless the
previous question is ordered.
Discharged Bill
Sec. 16.13 Where a motion to discharge a committee from a resolution
providing for consideration of an unreported bill has been agreed
to, the proponents of that motion are entitled to prior recognition
for the purpose of managing the bill.
On June 14, 1932,(12) Speaker Pro Tempore Henry T.
Rainey, of Illinois, answered a parliamentary inquiry on the order of
recognition on a bill discharged from committee:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 75 Cong. Rec. 12911, 72d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Charles R.] Crisp [of Georgia]: The House yesterday
discharged the Committee on Rules from the consideration of a
resolution making it a special order to consider the adjusted-
service compensation bill. The House then adopted the resolution
which makes it today in order as a special order to consider that
bill. The House having voted in favor of the proponents of the
legislation and the Ways and Means Committee having made an adverse
report on it, the effect of the vote of the House is to turn down
the Ways and Means Committee and place control of that legislation
in the hands of its friends. Under these circumstances and under
the parliamentary rules and procedure of the House, are not the
friends of the legislation entitled to have charge of the bill when
we go into Committee of the Whole to consider it and to have the
management of the measure on the floor?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The proponents and the friends of the
bill will, of course, have charge of it from now on.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Consideration of bills on which a motion to discharge has prevailed
is governed by Rule XXVII clause 3, House Rules and Manual
Sec. 908 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: The discharge ``rule'' read as follows:
House Resolution 220
Resolved, That upon the day succeeding the adoption of this
resolution a special order be, and is hereby, created by the House
of Representatives for the consideration of H.R. 7726,
notwithstanding the adverse report on said bill. That on said day
the Speaker shall recognize the Representative from the first
district of Texas, Wright Patman, to call up H.R. 7726, a bill to
provide for the immediate payment to veterans of the face value of
their adjusted-service certificates, as a special order of
business, and to move that the House resolve itself into the Com
[[Page 9886]]
mittee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the
consideration of the said H.R. 7726. After general debate, which
shall be confined to the bill and shall continue not to exceed four
hours, to be equally divided and controlled by the Member of the
House requesting a rule for the considering of the said H.R. 7726
and a Member of the House who is opposed to the said H.R. 7726, to
be designated by the Speaker, the bill shall be read for amendment
under the 5-minute rule. At the conclusion of the reading of the
bill for amendment the committee shall rise and report the bill to
the House with such amendments as may have been adopted, and the
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and
the amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion
except one motion to recommit. The special order shall be a
continuing order until the bill is finally disposed of.
Sec. 16.14 So as not to interfere with the right of a Member to move to
go into the Committee of the Whole for consideration of a bill
before the House as a result of a motion to discharge, the Speaker
announced he would entertain unanimous-consent requests only for
extensions of remarks.
On Apr. 26, 1948,(14) the House agreed to a motion to
discharge a committee from the further consideration of a bill. The
motion had been offered by Mr. L. Mendel Rivers, of South Carolina.
Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, then made the
following announcement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 94 Cong. Rec. 4841, 4842, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Without interfering with the rights of the gentleman from South
Carolina to move to go into the Committee of the Whole, the Chair
will entertain consent requests for extensions of remarks only.
Sec. 16.15 In recognizing a Member to control time for debate in
opposition to a bill taken away from a committee through the
operation of the discharge rule, the Speaker recognizes the
chairman of the committee having jurisdiction of the subject matter
if he be opposed (where the rule provides for general debate in
opposition to be controlled by ``the Member of the House who is
opposed'' to the bill).
On Aug. 14, 1950, the House agreed to a motion to discharge the
Committee on Rules from the further consideration of a resolution
making in order the consideration of a bill within the jurisdiction of
the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service. The resolution, which
was then adopted, provided that the bill be considered on the following
day, and provided
[[Page 9887]]
that general debate be ``equally divided and controlled by the Member
of the House requesting the rule for the consideration of said H.R.
8195 and the Member of the House who is opposed to the said H.R. 8195,
to be designated by
the Speaker.'' On Aug. 15, 1950, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled
as follows on recognition to control time for debate in opposition to
the bill:
Pursuant to the provisions of House Resolution 667, the Chair
designates the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Murray], chairman of
the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, to control time for
debate in opposition to the bill H.R. 8195.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 96 Cong. Rec. 12543, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee Chairman Opposed Reported Bill
Sec. 16.16 On one occasion, the chairman of a committee, acting at the
President's request, introduced a bill, presided over the hearings
in committee, reported the bill, applied to the Committee on Rules
for a special order, and moved that the House resolve itself into
the Committee of the Whole; when recognized to control one-half of
the debate in the Committee, he then announced his opposition to
the measure and turned over management of the bill to the ranking
majority member of the committee.
On June 14, 1967,(16) Harley O. Staggers, of West
Virginia, Chairman of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,
moved that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole for
the consideration of House Joint Resolution 559, providing for the
settlement of a railroad labor dispute. The House had adopted House
Resolution 511 making in order the consideration of the bill and
providing that general debate be controlled by the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 113 Cong. Rec. 15822, 15823, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Committee of the Whole, Chairman Wilbur D. Mills, of
Arkansas, recognized Mr. Staggers to control one-half the time on the
bill. Mr. Staggers made the following statement:
Mr. Chairman, I am here today in a most unusual position. I was
requested by the President to introduce the bill we have before us
today, and because of my responsibilities as chairman of the
committee, I introduced the bill. If the House was to be given an
opportunity to work its will on this legisla
[[Page 9888]]
tion, it was necessary that hearings begin promptly and continue as
expeditiously as possible, and I think the record will bear me out,
that the hearings before our committee have been prompt, they have
not been delayed in any respect.
In fact we interrupted consideration of a very important piece
of health legislation in order to take up this bill. We have heard
every witness who wanted to be heard on the legislation. I did this
because I felt it to be my responsibility to the House as chairman
of the committee.
Following the conclusion of our hearings I promptly scheduled
executive sessions for consideration of the bill and we met as
promptly as possible both morning and afternoon and the committee
reported the bill to the House.
Yesterday I went before the Rules Committee as chairman of the
committee to present the facts to the Rules Committee and attempt
to obtain a rule so that the bill would be considered by the House.
I have done these things because I felt it is my responsibility to
do so as chairman of the committee.
Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, I was opposed to this bill when I
introduced it, and having heard all the witnesses and all the
testimony, I am still opposed to it. For that reason I have asked
the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Friedel] to handle the bill in
Committee of the Whole, so that I would
be free to express my opposition to it. . . .
Mr. Chairman, this concludes the presentation I desire to make
on the bill. At this time I request the gentleman from Maryland
[Mr. Friedel], the ranking majority member on the Interstate and
Foreign Commerce Committee, to take charge of managing the bill on
the floor.
Parliamentarian's Note: The chairman of each committee in the House
has the responsibility of reporting or causing to be reported any
measure approved by his committee, and of taking or causing to be taken
steps to have the matter considered and voted upon in the House,
regardless of his personal opposition to the measure.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. See Rule XI clause 2(l)(1)(A), House Rules and Manual Sec. 713a
(1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calendar Wednesday Bills
Sec. 16.17 On Calendar Wednesday, debate on bills considered in the
Committee of
the Whole is limited to two hours, one hour controlled by the
Member in charge of the bill and one hour by the ranking minority
member of the committee who is opposed to the bill.
On Apr. 14, 1937,(18) Chairman J. Mark Wilcox, of
Florida, stated in response to a parliamentary inquiry that debate on a
bill (called up under the Calendar Wednesday procedure) in the
Committee
[[Page 9889]]
of the Whole would be limited to two hours, one hour to be controlled
by the chairman of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,
and one hour to be controlled by the ranking minority committee member
opposed to the bill.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 81 Cong. Rec. 3456, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
19. Rule XXIV clause 7, House Rules and Manual Sec. 897 (1995), governs
the consideration of bills called up
by committees under the Calendar Wednesday procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 16.18 In recognizing a Member to control time in opposition to a
bill on Calendar Wednesday in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair
recognizes minority members, if opposed, in the order of their
seniority on the committee reporting a bill.
On Apr. 14, 1937,(20) the House resolved itself into the
Committee of the Whole for the consideration of a bill called up under
the Calendar Wednesday procedure by the Committee on Interstate and
Foreign Commerce. Chairman J. Mark Wilcox, of Florida, answered a
parliamentary inquiry as to the order of recognition on the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 81 Cong. Rec. 3456, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Pehr G.] Holmes [of Massachusetts]: Am I to understand
that 1 hour will be extended me in opposition to the bill as a
minority member of the committee?
The Chairman: Is the gentleman from Massachusetts opposed to
the bill?
Mr. Holmes: I am, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Is the gentleman from Massachusetts the ranking
minority member of the committee?
Mr. Holmes: I am the ranking minority member opposed to the
bill.
The Chairman: The gentleman is entitled to recognition in
opposition to the bill unless a minority member of the committee
outranking the gentleman desires recognition.
Mr. [Carl E.] Mapes [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman
from Massachusetts [Mr. Holmes] is the only minority member of the
committee who is opposed to the bill.
The Chairman: Then the gentleman from Massachusetts will be
recognized in opposition to the bill.
Sec. 16.19 A Member calling up a bill on Calendar Wednesday must be
authorized and directed to do so by the committee having
jurisdiction over the bill.
On Feb. 24, 1937,(1) Speaker Pro Tempore William J.
Driver, of Arkansas, responded to a parliamentary inquiry during the
Calendar Wednesday call of committees:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 81 Cong. Rec. 1562, 1563, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Earl C.] Michener [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, where a bill
has been reported favorably by a committee, and the chairman of the
committee is authorized to call the bill up
[[Page 9890]]
on Calendar Wednesday, when the chairman absents himself from the
floor, and when other members of the committee are present, is it
proper for one of the other members to call up the bill?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state to the gentleman
that under the rules only the chairman or the member designated by
the committee is authorized to call up a bill.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. See also 92 Cong. Rec. 8590, 79th Cong. 2d Sess., July 10, 1946;
and 87 Cong. Rec. 5047, 77th Cong. 1st Sess., June 11, 1941.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 16.20 Members of a committee having jurisdiction
of a bill on the Union Calendar called up on Calendar Wednesday are
entitled to prior recognition to oppose it, but if no member of the
committee rises to oppose the bill, any Member may be recognized
for the hour in opposition.
On May 14, 1930,(3) Chairman Scott Leavitt, of Montana,
ruled that since no member of a committee calling up a bill on Calendar
Wednesday sought recognition to oppose the bill, any Member of the
House could be recognized to control one hour's debate in opposition to
the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 72 Cong. Rec. 8938, 8939, 71st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Duty of Chair To Report Bill
Sec. 16.21 A provision of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946,
later adopted as a House rule, requiring the chairman of each
committee to report or cause to be reported promptly any measure
approved by his committee or to take or cause to
be taken necessary steps to bring a matter to a vote, was cited by
the Speaker in overruling a point of order that a committee member
did not have authority to call up a bill on Calendar Wednesday.
On Feb. 22, 1950,(4) John Lesinski, of Michigan,
Chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor, called up a bill
under the Calendar Wednesday procedure. Mr. Tom Pickett, of Texas, made
the point of order that Mr. Lesinski was not entitled to recognition
for that purpose, not having been expressly authorized by the committee
to call up the bill under that procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 96 Cong. Rec. 2161, 2162, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Tex-as, overruled the point of order,
saying:
The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Lesinski] has already stated
that the committee did give him this authority. The present
occupant of the chair has read the minutes of the committee and
thinks the gentleman from Michigan is correct.
[[Page 9891]]
Also the latest rule on this matter is section 133, paragraph
(c), of the Legislative Reorganization Act, and there is very good
reason for this rule because in times past the chairmen of
committees have been known to carry bills around in their pockets
for quite a while and not present them.
The rule is as follows:
It shall be the duty of the chairman of each such committee
to report or cause to be reported promptly to the Senate or
House of Representatives, as the case may be, any measure
approved by his committee and to take or cause to be taken
necessary steps to bring the matter to a vote.
The Chair overrules the point of order.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. The statute cited was later adopted as part of the standing rules;
see Rule XI clause 2(l)(1)(A), House Rules and Manual Sec. 713a
(1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
District of Columbia Bills
Sec. 16.22 During general debate on District of Columbia business in
the Committee of the Whole, in the absence of
a unanimous-consent agreement in the House allocating control of
general debate, the Chair alternates in recognizing between those
for and those against the pending legislation, giving preference to
members of the Committee on the District of Columbia.
On Apr. 11, 1932,(6) Chairman Thomas L. Blanton, of
Texas, answered a parliamentary inquiry on recognition in the Committee
of the Whole during general debate on a District of Columbia
bill.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. For the proceedings dealing with this principle, see Sec. 12.11,
supra.
7. For District of Columbia business, see Rule XXIV clause 8, House
Rules and Manual Sec. 899 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Privileged Resolution and Other Business Was Considered Before
District Business
Sec. 16.23 On a District of Columbia Monday, the Speaker recognized a
member of the Committee on Rules to call up a privileged resolution
relating to the order of
business, and later recognized the chairman of another committee to
call up
the business made in order thereby, prior to recognizing the
chairman of the Committee on the District of Columbia to call up
District business.
On Sept. 24, 1962,(8) which was District of Columbia
Monday, the Committee on the District of Columbia did not assert its
right to call up District business. Speaker
[[Page 9892]]
John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, recognized Mr. William M. Colmer,
of Mississippi, of the Committee on Rules to call up House Resolution
804 (privileged resolution making in order the consideration of S.J.
Res. 224, authorizing the President to call up armed forces
reservists). Following the adoption of the House resolution, the
Speaker recognized Carl Vinson, of Georgia, Chairman of the Committee
on Armed Services, to call up and control
debate on the measure made
in order thereby. Thereafter, the Speaker announced it was District of
Columbia day and then recognized John L. McMillan, of South Carolina,
Chairman of the Committee on the District of Columbia, to call up
District business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 108 Cong. Rec. 20489, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Motion To Suspend Rules Is of Equal Privilege
Sec. 16.24 Where a Member seeks recognition to call up District of
Columbia business, privileged on District of Columbia Monday, and
another Member seeks recognition to suspend the rules and agree to
a bill made privileged by unanimous consent, it is within the
discretion of the Speaker as to which of the two Members he shall
recognize.
On Aug. 27, 1962,(9) which was District of Columbia
Monday, Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, moved to suspend the rules and
pass Senate Joint Resolution 29, proposing an amendment to the United
States Constitution (to prohibit the use of a poll tax as a
qualification for voting). Thomas G. Abernethy, of Mississippi, a
member of the Committee on the District of Columbia, made a point of
order against the motion on the ground that under the rules of the
House District of Columbia business was privileged and mandatory on
District of Columbia day. Mr. Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, asked to be
heard on the point of order and stated that suspension motions had been
transferred to the present day by a unanimous-consent agreement several
days prior. Mr. Abernethy debated the point of order, as did Mr. Howard
W. Smith, of Virginia, asserting that Rule XXIV clause 8 required the
Speaker to recognize for District of Columbia business. Speaker John W.
McCormack, of Massachusetts, ruled as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 108 Cong. Rec. 17654, 17655, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several days ago on August 14 unanimous consent was obtained to
transfer the consideration of business under suspension of the
rules on Monday last until today. That does not prohibit the
[[Page 9893]]
consideration of a privileged motion and a motion to suspend the
rules today is a privileged motion. The matter is within the
discretion of the Chair as to the matter of recognition.
The Chair overrules the point of order.
Private Calendar Bills
Sec. 16.25 Under clause 6 of Rule XXIV, the call of the Private
Calendar on the third Tuesday of a month is entirely within the
discretion of the Speaker.
On Oct. 16, 1990,(10) the Chair responded to a
parliamentary inquiry regarding the Private Calendar:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 136 Cong. Rec. 29646, 101st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [F. James] Sensenbrenner [Jr., of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to clause 6 of rule XXIV, today is the day for the call of
the Private Calendar. Is the Private Calendar not going to be
called today?
The Speaker Pro Tempore:(11) The Chair will notify
the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner] that the Chair has
complete discretion on the third Tuesday whether to call the
Private Calendar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. John P. Murtha (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 16.26 The rules do not permit pro forma amendments to bills on the
Private Calendar.
On Feb. 16, 1954,(12) during consideration of the
Private Calendar, Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, moved to strike
out the last word and asked unanimous consent to revise and extend his
remarks. There was no objection to the request and Mr. Hoffman was
recognized. Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, then made
a statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 100 Cong. Rec. 1826, 1827, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair wishes to make a statement in order to clarify the
rules of procedure during the calling of the Private Calendar.
Inadvertently, the Chair recognized the gentleman from Michigan to
strike out the last word. Under the rules of the House, of course,
that may be done on bills on the Consent Calendar, but not on the
Private Calendar.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See also 113 Cong. Rec. 36535-37, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 14,
1967; and 81 Cong. Rec. 7295, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., July 20,
1937.
The consideration of bills on the Private Calendar is
governed by Rule XXIV clause 6, House Rules and Manual Sec. 893
(1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Recognition To Request Extension of Time Declined
Sec. 16.27 During amendment of omnibus private bills the Chair refuses
to recognize Members for the purpose of requesting an extension of
time under the five-minute rule.
On July 20, 1937,(14) the House was considering under
the five-
[[Page 9894]]
minute rule omnibus bills on the Private Calendar. Mr. Alfred F.
Beiter, of New York, who had the floor, asked unanimous consent to
proceed for one additional minute when his five minutes expired.
Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, ruled:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 81 Cong. Rec. 7293-95, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the rule governing the consideration of these bills, 5
minutes on each side is the limit for debate.
The Speaker then ruled that Mr. Beiter could not be recognized to
offer a pro forma amendment to the pending bill.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. For the basis of the Speaker's ruling, see Rule XXIV clause 6, and
comments thereto, House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 893-895
(1995).
See also 113 Cong. Rec. 36535-37, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.,
Dec. 14, 1967; 80 Cong. Rec. 5900, 74th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr.
22, 1936; and 80 Cong. Rec. 3890, 74th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 17,
1936.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Unanimous-consent Request To Address House
Sec. 16.28 During consideration of bills on the Private Calendar, the
Chair refuses to recognize Members for unanimous-consent requests
to address the House on such bills.
On May 7, 1935,(16) the Clerk called a bill on the
Private Calendar and Mr. Charles V. Truax, of Ohio, asked unanimous
consent to ``proceed for five minutes.'' Speaker Pro Tempore John J.
O'Connor, of New York, refused to recognize Mr. Truax for that purpose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 79 Cong. Rec. 7100, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Recognition in Opposition to Amendment
Sec. 16.29 Recognition in opposition to an amendment to a bill on the
Private Calendar goes first to a member of the committee reporting
the bill.
On Dec. 14, 1967,(17) the House was considering a
private bill under the five-minute rule. Mr. Durward G. Hall, of
Missouri, rose to be heard in opposition to an amendment, but Speaker
John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, extended recognition for that
purpose to Mr. Michael A. Feighan, of Ohio, a member of the committee
reporting the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 113 Cong. Rec. 36535-37, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Unanimous-consent Requests To Take Up Similar Senate Bills
Sec. 16.30 Where an omnibus private bill is passed containing House
bills similar to Senate bills on the Speaker's table, the Speaker
recognizes Mem
[[Page 9895]]
bers for unanimous-consent requests to take up such Senate bills
for consideration.
On Aug. 21, 1935,(18) Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of
Tennessee, made the following statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 79 Cong. Rec. 13993, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Permit the Chair to make a statement. In the omnibus bills
which were passed on yesterday there were included several bills
which had previously passed the Senate and were on the Speaker's
table. The Chair feels that those Members who are interested in
those particular bills should have an opportunity to ask unanimous
consent for the immediate consideration of the Senate bills, so
that they can be taken out of the omnibus bills when they are
reported to the Senate. The Chair will therefore first recognize
Members who have such bills. . . .
The Speaker then recognized Mr. William A. Pittenger, of Minnesota,
to ask unanimous consent for the consideration of one of the Senate
bills.
CHAPTER 29
Consideration and Debate
C. RECOGNITION ON PARTICULAR QUESTIONS
Sec. 17. As to Conference Reports and Other House-Senate Matters
The chairman of the committee with jurisdiction of the subject
matter of a bill is ordinarily recognized for requests for a
conference, motions and resolutions relating to disposition of Senate
amendments, or calling up conference reports.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See Sec. Sec. 17.29 et seq., infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One hour of debate, equally divided between the majority and
minority parties, is permitted
on a conference report; and the Speaker recognizes the Member calling
up the report to control 30 minutes and a Member from the other party,
preferably the senior conferee from that party, to control 30
minutes.(20) Under customary practice, the Members
controlling the time for debate on a conference report are among those
who served as House managers in the conference.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See Sec. 17.9, infra.
1. For division of debate on a conference report, see Rule XXVIII
clause 2(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 912a (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule XXVIII, clause 1(b)(2) provides that the time
allotted for debate on any motion to instruct House conferees shall be
equally divided between the majority and minority parties, except that
if the proponent of the motion and the Member from the other party are
both supporters of the motion, one third of such debate time shall be
allotted to a Member who is opposed to said motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. House Rules and Manual Sec. 909a (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, the time allotted for debate in the consideration of a
[[Page 9896]]
conference report is equally divided between the majority party and the
minority party, except that if the floor manager for the majority and
the floor manager for the minority are both supporters of the
conference report, one third of such debate time shall be allotted to a
Member who is opposed to said conference report.(3) A
similar provision applies specifically to consideration of amendments
in disagreement.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Rule XXVIII, cl. 2(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 912a (1995).
4. Rule XXVIII, cl. 2(b)(1), House Rules and Manual Sec. 912b (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The offering of a preferential motion does not deprive the Member
making the original motion to dispose of a Senate amendment of control
of the floor for debate, and the Chair will recognize the Member
controlling the floor when the preferential motion is
offered.(5) For example, where the manager of a conference
report has offered a motion to insist on disagreement to a Senate
amendment, a motion to recede and concur therein is preferential and is
voted on first, but the manager retains control of the majority time on
the amendment.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. See, for example, Sec. 17.44, infra.
6. See Sec. 17.48, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the other hand, where the House rejects a motion by the manager
of a bill to dispose of a Senate amendment remaining in disagreement,
recognition to offer another motion is accorded to a Member who led the
opposition to the rejected motion.(7) Accordingly, where a
motion by the Member in charge of a conference report to recede and
concur in a Senate amendment with an amendment is defeated, recognition
for a motion to further insist on disagreement passes to a Member
opposed.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. See Sec. 17.54, infra.
8. See Sec. 17.57, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to concur in a Senate amendment to a House amendment to a
Senate amendment to a House measure, the stage of disagreement having
been reached, is preferential to a motion to disagree and request a
conference and is debatable under the provisions of Rule XXVIII, clause
2.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. See the proceedings of Nov. 6, 1985, discussed in Sec. 24.46,
infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The prior right to recognition to move to recommit a conference
report ordinarily belongs to a member of the conference committee,
although on one occasion, the Chair recognized the ranking minority
member of one of the two committees which had originally reported the
bill, even though the member was not a conferee on the
bill.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See Sec. 17.62, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 9897]]
Cross References
Conferences and disposition of conference reports, see Ch. 33, infra.
Disposition of amendments between the Houses, see Ch. 32, infra.
Distribution and alternation of time on conference reports, see
Sec. 25, infra.
Duration of time for debate on conference reports and amendments
between the Houses, see Sec. 68, infra.
Yielding time on conference reports, see Sec. 29,
infra. -------------------
Motion To Send Bill to Conference
Sec. 17.1 The motion to send a bill to conference pursuant to Rule XX
clause 1 is privileged at any time the House is in possession of
the papers if the appropriate committee has authorized the motion
and the Speaker in his discretion recognizes for that purpose.
On Mar. 20, 1975,(11) the following proceedings
pertaining to consideration of the foreign assistance appropriations
(H.R. 4592) occurred in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 121 Cong. Rec. 7646, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Otto E.] Passman [of Louisiana]: Mr. Speaker, in
accordance with rule XX of the House rules and by direction of the
Committee on Appropriations, I move to take from the Speaker's
table the bill (H.R. 4592) making appropriations for foreign
assistance and related programs for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1975, and for other purposes, with Senate amendments thereto,
disagree to the Senate amendments and agree to the conference asked
by the Senate.
The Speaker: (12) The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Passman).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I object.
The Speaker: The Chair will state that no objection is in
order.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, does this report not have to lay over
for a period of time prior to the request being made for conferees?
The Speaker: Not for the appointment of conferees.
Mr. Bauman: Then, Mr. Speaker, it is in order today?
The Speaker: The motion to send the bill to conference is in
order today.
Further Debate by Unanimous Consent After Previous Question on Motion
To Instruct Conferees
Sec. 17.2 By unanimous consent, further debate may be permitted on a
motion to instruct conferees on which the previous question has
been ordered.
[[Page 9898]]
During consideration of a motion to instruct House conferees on the
conference with the Senate on H.R. 3919 (crude oil windfall profits
tax) on Feb. 20, 1980,(13) the following proceedings
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 126 Cong. Rec. 3322, 3337, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Norman E.] D'Amours [of New Hampshire]: Mr. Speaker, I
offer a motion.
The Speaker: The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. D'Amours moves that, pursuant to the provisions of
clause 1(b) of Rule XXVIII, the managers on the part of the
House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 3919 be
instructed to agree to the provisions contained in parts 1, 2
and 4 of title II of the Senate amendment to the text of the
bill.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (14) The gentleman from New
Hampshire (Mr. D'Amours) is recognized for 1 hour. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Benjamin S. Rosenthal (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the
motion to instruct.
There was no objection.
Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry. . . . [T]here may have been some confusion
on the last vote, given what appeared on the screens in Members'
offices. . . .
This question . . . we will vote on now is a vote on the motion
to instruct the conferees?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question that will occur now is on
the motion to instruct the conferees.
(By unanimous consent Mr. Gibbons was allowed to speak out of
order.)
Mr. [Sam M.] Gibbons [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, I cannot
believe the last vote. It is absolutely astounding.
What my colleagues voted for was to instruct the conferees to
throw away $26 billion on some tax credits of doubtful value. . . .
But, please, do not instruct us. We are about to complete this
conference. We are about to get things wound up and get it out here
where we can either accept it or reject it.
Special Rule Providing for Debate on Conference Reports Considered En
Bloc
Sec. 17.3 Pursuant to a special rule providing for four hours of debate
on five conference reports considered en bloc in the House, equally
divided between the majority and minority, with one hour to be
confined to debate on one of the five reports (natural gas policy),
the Speaker recognized the chairman and ranking minority member of
the Ad Hoc Committee on Energy for one-half hour each for the first
hour, to be confined to debate on the natural gas conference
report, and then recognized them for one and one-half
[[Page 9899]]
hour each on the remaining reports.
On Oct. 14, 1978,(15) the following proceedings occurred
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 124 Cong. Rec. 38349, 38350, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Thomas L.] Ashley [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
House Resolution 1434, I call up the conference reports on the
bills [H.R. 4018, Public Utility Rates; H.R. 5037, Energy
Conservation; H.R. 5146, Coal Conversion; H.R. 5289, Natural Gas
Policy; and H.R. 5263, Energy Tax]. . . .
The Clerk read the titles of the bills.
The Speaker Pro Tempore:(16) Pursuant to House
Resolution 1434, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ashley) will be
recognized for 2 hours and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Anderson) will be recognized for 2 hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair will recognize the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ashley)
and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Anderson) for 30 minutes to
debate the conference report on H.R. 5289. . . .
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: May I . . . inquire of
the Chair whether the first hour of debate is to be directed to the
natural gas conference report and not to the other four conference
reports?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct.
Mr. Bauman: Only to the natural gas conference report?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct.
Mr. Bauman: Would it be out of order to discuss the other parts
during that time?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would like to advise the
gentleman that the Chair would have to rule as points along that
line are brought to the attention of the Chair.
Mr. Bauman: I thank the Speaker.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would like to advise the
gentleman that the resolution provides the first hour of which
shall be confined solely to the conference report on the bill H.R.
5289.
The House Has, by Use of a Special Order, Deemed a Conference Report,
Not Yet Before the House, To Be Adopted
Sec. 17.4 A special order providing for consideration of a bill
included an additional provision specifying a contingent order of
the House--the adoption of a conference report pending in the
Senate, if the Senate notified the House before a date certain that
it had agreed thereto.
On Mar. 28, 1996,(17) the House adopted H. Res. 391, a
special rule providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3136) to
provide for consideration of the Senior Citizens' Right to Work Act of
1996. The rule also provided a ``contingent order'' relating to title
II which contained the text of the
[[Page 9900]]
``Line Item Veto'' bill previously passed by the House. The text of
title II was the same as that agreed upon by House and Senate managers
in the conference on the previously-passed Line Item Veto bill, S. 4.
If the House were to be informed by a message from the Senate that the
conference report on S. 4 had been approved by the Senate, then that
conference report would be ``deemed adopted'' by the House, and the
Clerk, in enrolling the bill H.R. 3136, would strike the then
superfluous title II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 142 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 104th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This rather complicated special order was drafted to make it
possible for the House to adjourn for its Easter break, scheduled for
Mar. 29-Apr. 15. Otherwise, there would have been an effort to remain
in session until the Senate completed action on the conference report.
The Senate actually informed the House of the adoption of the
conference agreement later on the same day (Mar. 28), and so the
contingencies in H. Res. 391 were executed that same day. Title II of
H.R. 3136, containing the line item veto provisions identical to those
in S. 4, was stricken in the engrossment of the bill. The conference
agreement on S. 4 was deemed adopted by the House. S. 4 was enrolled
and sent to the President. It because Public Law 104-130.
providing for consideration of h.r. 3136, contract with america
advancement act of 1996
Mr. [Gerald B. H.] Solomon [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, by
direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 391
and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 391
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order without intervention of any point of order
(except those arising under section 425(a) of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974) to consider in the House the bill (H.R.
3136) to provide for the enactment of the Senior Citizens'
Right to Work Act of 1996, the Line Item Veto Act, and the
Small Business Growth and Fairness Act of 1996, and to provide
for a permanent increase in the public debt limit. The
amendments specified in the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution shall be considered as adopted.
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto to final
passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of
debate on the bill, as amended, equally divided and controlled
by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Ways and Means; (2) a further amendment, if offered by the
chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, which shall be in
order without intervention of any point of order (except those
arising under section 425(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974) or demand for division of the question, shall be
considered as read, and
[[Page 9901]]
shall be separately debatable for 10 minutes equally divided
and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (3) one
motion to recommit, which may include instructions only if
offered by the Minority Leader or his designee.
Sec. 2. If, before March 30, 1996, the House has received a
message informing it that the Senate has adopted the conference
report to accompany the bill (S. 4) to grant the power to the
President to reduce budget authority, and for other purposes,
then--
(a) in the engrossment of H.R. 3136 the Clerk shall strike
title II (unless it has been amended) and redesignate the
subsequent titles accordingly; and
(b) the House shall be considered to have adopted that
conference report.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (18) The gentleman from New
York [Mr. Solomon] is recognized for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Richard Hastings (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California
[Mr. Beilenson], pending which I yield myself such time as I may
consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded
is for the purpose of debate only.
(Mr. Solomon asked and was given permission to include
extraneous material.)
amendment offered by mr. solomon
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Solomon:
Page 2, line 9, strike ``one hour'' and all that follows
through ``Means'' on line 12, and insert in lieu thereof the
following:
``80 minutes of debate on the bill, as amended, with 60
minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means and
20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Government Reform
and Oversight or their designees''.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the
amendment be agreed to.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from New York?
There was no objection. . . .
Mr. Solomon: . . . Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for
consideration in the House of H.R. 3136, as modified by the
amendments designated in the Committee on Rules report on this
resolution. The rule provides for the adoption of two amendments.
The first amendment is to title III of the bill relating to
regulatory reform, and the second amendment is to title I of this
bill relating to the Social Security earnings test limit. Both
amendments address specific concerns of the administration and have
been included in the bill in the spirit of bipartisan cooperation.
It is hoped that the final product will meet the concerns of all
parties involved. . . .
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the rule provides that if before March
30, 1996, the House has received a Senate message stating that the
Senate has adopted the conference report on S. 4, which is the
Line-Item Veto Act, then following House passage and engrossment of
H.R. 3136, the Clerk shall be
[[Page 9902]]
instructed to strike title II unless amended from this bill. This
title contains the exact text of the conference report of Senate
bill 4.
Furthermore, upon the actions of the House, it will be deemed
to have adopted the conference report on S. 4, which is the line-
item veto conference report. This final procedure has been included
in the rule as part of our continuing efforts to expedite the
consideration of this terribly, terribly important piece of
legislation.
The rule also sets up a highly unusual procedure, which the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] described a few minutes ago,
for disposing of the Line Item Veto Act. The rule provides that if
the other body approves the conference report on this bill before
Saturday and the House passes H.R. 3136, the conference report
shall be sent to the President as a free-standing bill.
Because the Senate approved the conference report last night,
that part of this bill will in fact be separated upon passage of
this legislation. We believe it is unnecessary and unwise to
construct final action on the Line Item Veto Act in this convoluted
manner. There is no good reason why this matter should not be
considered in the same way other conference reports are normally
considered; that is, as free-standing legislation and without
reference to action by the other body. For that matter, there is no
good reason why any of the extraneous legislation included in this
increase in the debt limit must be included.
Later the same day:
message from the senate . . .
The message also announced that the Senate agrees to the report
of the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses on the amendments of the House to the bill (S. 4) ``An act
to grant the power to the President to reduce budget authority.''
(For text of conference report deemed adopted pursuant to
Resolution 391, see proceedings of the House of March 21, 1996, at
page H2640.)
senate enrolled bill signed
The Speaker announced his signature to enrolled bills of the
Senate of the following titles:
S. 4. An act to give the President line item veto authority
with respect to appropriations, new direct spending, and
limited tax benefits.
title ii--line item veto
Sec. 201. Short Title.
This title may be cited as the ``Line Item Veto Act''.
High Privilege of Conference Report
Sec. 17.5 The rules provide that conference reports shall always be in
order, except when the Journal is being read, while the roll is
being called, or the House is dividing on any
proposition;(19) and the Chair may recognize a Member to
call up a conference report before pro
[[Page 9903]]
ceeding to other business mandated by the rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Rule XXVIII, cl. 1(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 909 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under a former rule,(20) the call of the Consent
Calendar was mandatory on the first and third Mondays of the month
immediately after the approval of the Journal. (The Consent Calendar
was replaced in the 104th Congress by the Corrections
Calendar.)(1) The proceedings of May 4, 1970,(2)
which was Consent Calendar Monday, are illustrative of the high
privilege of conference reports. On that day, Speaker John W.
McCormack, of Massachusetts, first recognized Mr. Carl D. Perkins, of
Kentucky, to call up a conference report before directing the Clerk to
call the Consent Calendar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See Rule XIII, cl. 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 746 (1993).
1. See Rule XIII, cl. 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 745a (1995).
2. 116 Cong. Rec. 13991-95, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman of Committee Opposed to Bill
Sec. 17.6 The Speaker recognized the ranking majority member of a
committee, and not the chairman thereof, also a conferee, to call
up a conference report.
On July 17, 1967,(3) Speaker John W. McCormack, of
Massachusetts, recognized Samuel N. Friedel, of Maryland, ranking
majority member of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, to
call up a conference report on Senate Joint Resolution 81, providing
for a railway labor dispute settlement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 113 Cong. Rec. 19032, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: Harley O. Staggers, of West Virginia,
Chairman of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce and a
conferee on the bill, was not recognized to call up the report because
he was opposed to the bill.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. See Mr. Staggers' statement at 113 Cong. Rec. 15822, 15823, 90th
Cong. 1st Sess., June 14, 1967, cited at Sec. 16.16, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manager Called Up Conference Report Although He Was Opposed
Sec. 17.7 The senior manager on the part of the House at a conference
called up for consideration and managed the debate on the
conference report, although he had not signed the report and was
opposed to it.
On Dec. 6, 1967,(5) William R. Poage, of Texas, Chairman
of the Committee on Agriculture and senior manager for the House in
[[Page 9904]]
conference on H.R. 12144, the Federal Meat Inspection Act of 1967,
called up the conference report on that bill and managed the debate
thereon. Mr. Poage delivered the following remarks when calling up the
report:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 113 Cong. Rec. 35144-55, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Poage: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, today I find myself in the same position which I
occupied when we sent this bill to conference. I have no desire to
interfere with or delay consideration of the bill. I full well
recognize the very proper desire
of every Member of this House to secure and maintain the very best
possible meat inspection program for the United States. I join in
that desire. The conference report which our committee brings you
is intended to achieve that result. I hope it will.
This report is signed by all of the conferees on the part of
the Senate and all but two of the conferees on the part of the
House. I am one of those two.
Conference Report Within Jurisdiction of Two Committees
Sec. 17.8 A conference report on a bill with two titles was called up
by the chairman of one committee, who controlled one-half hour on
one title
of the bill, and who then yielded to the chairman of another
committee to control one-half hour on the other title and to move
the previous question.
On May 13, 1970,(6) Mr. Harley O. Staggers, of West
Virginia, called up a conference report on H.R. 14465, the Airport and
Airway Development and Revenue Acts of 1970. The managers on the part
of the House had been appointed from two House committees, since title
I of the bill dealt with airport authorizations, within the
jurisdiction of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, and
title II dealt with raising revenue for airport construction, within
the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 116 Cong. Rec. 15291-97, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce had reported the
bill in the House, and Mr. Staggers, Chairman of that committee,
therefore called up the conference report for consideration. He
controlled one-half hour of debate on title I, which was within the
jurisdiction of his committee. He then yielded to Wilbur D. Mills, of
Arkansas, Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, to control one-
half hour of debate on title II of the bill. Mr. Mills moved the
previous question on the report.
Parliamentarian's Note: The hour of debate on a conference report
is now equally divided be
[[Page 9905]]
tween the majority and minority parties. See Sec. 17.9, infra.
Debate on Conference Report--How Divided
Sec. 17.9 One hour of debate, equally divided between the majority and
minority parties, is permitted on a conference report; and the
Speaker recognizes the Member calling up the report to control 30
minutes and a Member from the other party (preferably the senior
conferee from that party) to control 30 minutes.
On Jan. 19, 1972,(7) Wayne L. Hays, of Ohio, Chairman of
the Committee on House Administration, called up the conference
report on S. 382, the Federal
Election Campaign Act of 1972. Speaker Carl Albert recognized Mr. Hays
to control 30 minutes of debate on the report and Mr. William L.
Springer, of Illinois (ranking minority member of the Committee on
Interstate and Foreign Commerce and a conferee) to handle the other 30
minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 118 Cong. Rec. 319, 320, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conferees had been appointed from both the Committees on House
Administration and Interstate and Foreign Commerce, since the bill was
the work product of both committees.
Parliamentarian's Note: Rule XXVIII, clause 2(a) was amended in the
92d Congress, 1st Session (H. Res. 5) to require a division of the hour
for debate on a conference report. Prior to that time, debate on a
conference report was under the hour rule, with the Member recognized
to call up the report in control of the time.(8) The rule
now also provides that if the floor managers for the majority and
minority both support the conference report, one-third of the debate
time shall be allotted to a Member opposed.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. See, for example, 115 Cong. Rec. 40451, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Dec.
20, 1969; 108 Cong. Rec. 4247-51, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 15,
1962.
9. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 912a (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Debate on Motion To Reject Nongermane Portion of Conference Report
Sec. 17.10 Pursuant to Rule XXVIII clause 4, 40 minutes for debate on a
motion to
reject a nongermane portion
of a conference report is equally divided between the proponent and
an opponent of the motion to reject, and recognition is not based
upon party affiliation; and
[[Page 9906]]
the House conferee who has been recognized for 20 minutes in
opposition to a motion to reject a nongermane portion of a
conference report is entitled to close debate on the motion to
reject.
H.R. 5247, a bill reported from the Committee on Public Works and
Transportation, consisted of one title relating to grants to state and
local governments for local public works construction projects. A new
title added by the Senate and contained in a conference report provided
grants to state and local governments to assist them in providing
public services. On Jan. 29, 1976,(10) a point of order was
made in the House, pursuant to Rule XXVIII clause 4, against the title
added by the Senate. The title was held to be not germane, because it
proposed a revenue-sharing program within the jurisdiction of the
Committee on Government Operations, and because the approach taken in
the Senate version was not closely related to the methods used to
combat unemployment as delineated in the House bill.(11)
After the Speaker had ruled on the point of order, a motion was made:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 122 Cong. Rec. 1582, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
11. For further discussion of the ruling on the issue of germaneness,
see Ch. 28, Sec. 4.99, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Jack] Brooks [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Brooks moves that the House reject title II of H.R.
5247, as reported by the committee of conference.
The Speaker:(12) The gentleman from Alabama (Mr.
Jones) will be recognized for 20 minutes, and the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Brooks) will be recognized for 20 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Brooks: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. [Frank] Horton [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary
inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. Horton: Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary inquiry is this: Do
we have 20 minutes on the minority side?
The Speaker: The Chair will state that the division of time is
between those in favor and those opposed to the motion to reject
title II. The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Jones) has 20 minutes and
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brooks) has 20 minutes.
Mr. [James C.] Wright [Jr., of Texas, on behalf of Mr. Jones]:
Mr. Speaker, I have one other speaker, the majority leader. I do
not know what the courtesy is, or the appropriate protocol, in a
matter of this kind.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will rule that the gentleman
from Texas [Mr. Wright] may close debate.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. For another instance in which the Speaker acknowledged that the
House conferee who has been recognized for 20 minutes in
opposition to a motion to reject a nongermane portion of a
conference report is entitled to close debate on the motion to
reject, see Ch. 28, Sec. 26.23, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 9907]]
Parliamentarian's Note: Where the House agrees to a motion to
reject a nongermane portion of
a conference report pursuant to Rule XXVIII clause 4, the pending
question, in the form of a motion offered by the manager of the
conference report, is to recede
from disagreement to the Senate amendment and concur with an amendment
consisting of the remaining portions of the conference report not
rejected on the separate vote, and one hour of debate, equally divided
between the majority and minority parties, is permitted on that pending
question.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See Sec. 68.24, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Debate on Conference Report After Section Containing Nongermane Senate
Matter Agreed to
Sec. 17.11 Pursuant to a special rule and to clause 1 of Rule XX, in
effect in the 92d Congress, the House agreed to a section of a
conference report (containing nongermane Senate matter) following
40 minutes of debate; the House then considered the entire
conference report, the Member calling up the report and a Member of
the minority party each being recognized for 30 minutes under Rule
XXVIII clause 2.
On Nov. 10, 1971,(15) pursuant to a special rule, a
separate vote was demanded on a section of a conference report, and the
House agreed to the section after 40 minutes of debate divided between
the manager of the report and the Member demanding the separate
vote.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 117 Cong. Rec. 40489, 40490, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
16. See Sec. 17.34, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The House then considered the entire conference report, and the
Speaker stated that one hour of debate would be had, the Member calling
up the report, F. Edward Hebert, of Louisiana, to be recognized for 30
minutes, and a Member of the minority party, Leslie C. Arends, of
Illinois, to be recognized for 30 minutes.
Debate Controlled by Conferees Appointed From Two Committees
Sec. 17.12 One hour of debate, equally divided between the majority and
minority parties, is permitted on a conference report; and where
conferees have been appointed from two committees of the House, the
Speaker
[[Page 9908]]
recognizes one of the minority committee members (not necessarily a
member of the same committee as the Member controlling the majority
time) to control 30 minutes of debate.
On Jan. 19, 1972,(17) Wayne L. Hays, of Ohio, Chairman
of the Committee on House Administration, called up a conference report
on S. 382, the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1972. Conferees on the
part of the House had been appointed from two House committees with
jurisdiction over the bill, the Committee on House Administration and
the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 118 Cong. Rec. 319, 320, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, recognized Mr. Hays for 30
minutes of debate to control time for the majority. He recognized
William L. Springer, of Illinois, ranking minority member of the
Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, to control 30 minutes of
debate for the minority.
Parliamentarian's Note: Mr. Springer controlled the minority time
although he had resigned as a conferee on the bill, even though Samuel
L. Devine, of Ohio, ranking minority member of the Committee on House
Administration and a conferee on the bill, was on the floor and
participated in debate. Under customary practice, however, the Members
controlling the time for debate on a conference report are among those
who served as House managers in the conference.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. For division of debate on a conference report, see Rule XXVIII
clause 2(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 912a (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule XXVIII, clause 2(a) now provides that if the floor manager for
the majority and minority both support the conference report, one-third
of the debate time shall be allotted to a Member
opposed.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 912a (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Permitting Additional Debate on Conference Report; Special Order
Sec. 17.13 While debate on a conference report is limited to one hour
(20) to be equally divided between majority and minority
parties,(1) the House
[[Page 9909]]
may, by unanimous consent, either extend that time or permit debate
by ``special order'' on the conference report prior to actual
consideration thereof; thus, on
one occasion, by unanimous
consent, two Members, the chairman and ranking minority member of
the House conferees, were permitted ``special orders'' of one hour
each to debate a conference report following adoption of a
resolution making in order the consideration of the report but
prior to actual consideration of the report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See Rule XIV clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 758 (1995).
1. See Rule XXVIII clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 912a (1995).
The rule also provides that if the majority and minority floor
managers both support the conference report, one-third of the
debate time shall be allotted to a Member opposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Mar. 26, 1975,(2) the following proceedings occurred
in the House during consideration of a resolution waiving points of
order against consideration of a conference report not yet filed or
printed. The manager of the rule, Mr. Matsunaga, during debate on the
rule, yielded to the chairman of the House conferees (Mr. Ullman) to
file the conference report. After filing, Mr. Ullman then requested a
special order to explain the report while awaiting copies to reach the
floor; the ranking minority member of the House conferees also received
permission for a special order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 121 Cong. Rec. 8899, 8900, 8916, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Spark M.] Matsunaga [of Hawaii]: Mr. Speaker, I yield 1
minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Ullman).
conference report on h.r. 2166, tax reduction act of 1975
Mr. [Al] Ullman [of Oregon] submitted the following conference
report and statement on the bill (H.R. 2166) to amend the Internal
Revenue Code of 1954 . . . to increase the investment credit and
the surtax exemption, and for other purposes:
Conference Report (H. Rept. 94-120)
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R.
2166) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 . . . having
met, after full and free conference, have agreed to recommend
and do recommend to their respective Houses as follows:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the
amendment of the Senate and agree to the same with an amendment
as follows: In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by
the Senate amendment insert the following:
Section 1. Short Title; Table of Contents.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Tax
Reduction Act of 1975''. . . .
Mr. Ullman: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that upon the
adoption of the rule I be granted a 60-minute special order.
[[Page 9910]]
The Speaker: (3) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from
Oregon?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Reserving the right to
object, Mr. Speaker, we have in the rules of the House an adequate
rule for the consideration of conference reports . . . . I have no
way of knowing, nor does any Member in this Chamber know, who will
control the time during a special order, except the gentleman from
Oregon, whether questions, once raised, will be answered, or
whether or not debate will deteriorate into partisan debate.
The Speaker: The gentleman is very effectively but improperly
stating the rules. The minority has 30 minutes and the majority has
30 minutes on the conference report.
Mr. Bauman: I am talking about the lack of protection contained
in the request for the 1-hour special order that was just made by
the gentleman from Oregon.
The Speaker: Any Member of the House may make a request for a
special order.
Mr. Bauman: I withdraw my reservation of objection.
Mr. [Herman T.] Schneebeli [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker,
further reserving the right to object, I also ask for a 60-minute
special order following that of the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
Ullman).
The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
Conference Report on Budget Resolution--Debate Is Under Hour Rule on
Amendments in Disagreement
Sec. 17.14 While under section 305(a)(4) [now section 305 (a)(6)] of
the Congressional Budget Act (4) there can be
up to five hours of debate
on a conference report on
a concurrent resolution on
the budget equally divided
between the majority and
minority parties, where the conferees have reported in total
disagreement, debate on the motion to dispose of the amendment in
disagreement is not covered by the statute and is therefore un-der
the general ``hour'' rule in the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. House Rules and Manual Sec. 1007 (1995) at p. 893.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During consideration of the first concurrent resolution on the
budget for fiscal year 1978 (S. Con. Res. 19) in the House on May 17,
1977,(5) the following exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 123 Cong. Rec. 15126, 15127, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert N.] Giaimo [of Connecticut]: Mr. Speaker, I call up
the conference report on the Senate concurrent resolution (S. Con.
Res. 19) setting forth the congressional budget for the U.S.
Government for the fiscal
[[Page 9911]]
year 1978 (and revising the congressional budget for fiscal year
1977), and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (6) The Clerk will read the
conference report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read the conference report. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the Senate
amendment to the House amendment.
The Clerk read the Senate amendment to the House amendment as
follows:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the House
engrossed amendment, insert: . . .
Mr. Giaimo: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Giaimo moves to concur in the Senate amendment to the
House amendment.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Connecticut (Mr. Giaimo) for 1 hour.
Parliamentarian's Note: Since the Senate amendment to the House
amendment had not been reported from conference in disagreement, but
had been subsequently added by the Senate after consideration of the
conference report in that body, the requirement for equal division of
time on a motion to dispose of a Senate amendment reported from
conference in disagreement was not applicable.
On May 13, 1976,(7) the conferees' report on Senate
Concurrent Resolution 109, the first concurrent resolution on the
budget for fiscal 1977, was called up in the House. The conferees
reported in total disagreement on a House amendment in the nature of a
substitute for the resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 122 Cong. Rec. 13756, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Senate had amended the House amendment to incorporate the
provisions informally agreed upon in conference but outside the scope
of the differences with respect to three functional categories. In
accordance with the procedure applicable when conferees report that
they are unable to agree, the report was called up in the House but not
acted upon. The Speaker then directed the Clerk to report the pending
Senate amendment to the House amendment for disposition by motion.
Mr. [Brock] Adams [of Washington]: Mr. Speaker, I call up the
conference report on the Senate concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res.
109) setting forth the congressional budget for the U.S. Government
for the fiscal year 1977--and revising the congressional budget for
the transition quarter beginning July 1, 1976--and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The conference report stated in part:(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. See 122 Cong. Rec. 13026, 94th Cong. 2d Sess., May 7, 1976, for
text of conference report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The managers on the part of the House and the Senate at the con
[[Page 9912]]
ference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment
of the House to the concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 109)
setting forth the congressional budget for the United States
Government for the fiscal year 1977 (and revising the congressional
budget for the transition quarter beginning July 1, 1976), report
that the conferees have been unable to agree. This is a technical
disagreement, necessitated by the fact that in three instances the
substitute language agreed to by the conferees includes figures
which (for purely technical reasons) would fall outside the
permissible range between the corresponding House and Senate
provisions.
It is the intention of the conferees that the managers on the
part of the Senate will offer a motion in the Senate to recede and
concur in the House amendment to the Senate-passed resolution with
an amendment (in the nature of a substitute) consisting of the
language agreed to in conference, and that upon the adoption of
such amendment in the Senate the managers on the part of the House
will offer a motion in the House to concur therein.
The Speaker:(9) The Chair lays before the House the
Senate amendment to the House amendment, which the Clerk will read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read the Senate amendment to the House amendment as
follows:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the
amendment of the House insert:
That the Congress hereby determines and declares, pursuant to
section 301(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, that
for the fiscal year beginning on October 1, 1976--
Mr. Adams: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Adams moves that the House concur in the Senate
amendment to the House amendment.
The Speaker: The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Adams) is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. Adams: Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman
from Ohio for purposes of debate only, pending which I yield myself
such time as I may consume.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Parliamentarian's Note: Since the Senate amendment to the House
amendment had not been reported from conference in
disagreement, but had been subsequently added by the Senate
after consideration of the conference report in that body, the
requirement for equal division of time on a motion to dispose
of a Senate amendment ``reported from conference'' [see Rule
XXVIII, clause 2(b)] in disagreement was not applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 17, 1978,(11) the conferees' report on Senate
Concurrent Resolution 80, the first concurrent resolution on the budget
for fiscal 1979, was called up
in the House. The conferees reported in total disagreement, and
[[Page 9913]]
the conference report stated in part: (12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 124 Cong. Rec. 14116, 14117, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
12. See 124 Cong. Rec. 13615, 95th Cong. 2d Sess., May 15, 1978.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses on the amendment of the House to the concurrent resolution
(S. Con. Res. 80) setting forth the congressional budget for the
United States Government for the fiscal year 1979, having met,
after full and free conference have been unable to agree on a
conference report because the conference decisions have reduced
certain budget figures, including the deficit and the public debt,
below the provisions enacted by either House. As set forth in the
accompanying Joint Explanatory Statement, the conferees do propose
a congressional budget, containing the lower figures, incorporated
in a further amendment for the consideration of the two Houses.
In accordance with the procedure applicable when conferees report
that they are unable to agree, the report was called up in the House
but not acted upon. The Senate having added an amendment to the House
amendment after its consideration of the conference report, the Speaker
then directed the Clerk to report the pending Senate amendment to the
House amendment for disposition by motion.
The Clerk read the Senate amendment to the House amendment, as
follows:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the House
engrossed amendment, insert:
That the Congress hereby determines and declares, pursuant to
section 301(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, that
for the fiscal year beginning on October 1, 1978--
(1) the recommended level of Federal revenues is
$447,900,000,000 and the amount by which the aggregate level of
Federal revenues
should be decreased is $24,700,000,-000. . . .
Mr. [Robert N.] Giaimo [of Connecticut] (during the reading):
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate amendment to
the House amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (13) Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Connecticut?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, reserving
the right to object, could the gentleman tell us in what
parliamentary form this budget comes before us? Are we dealing with
a conference report or a motion to agree to the Senate amendment
with an amendment?
Mr. Giaimo: We are in technical disagreement on the conference
report, because of the questions of scope, both as to the
aggregates and as to the functional categories.
We have before us an amendment to the House amendment to the
original Senate resolution. The amendment to the House amendment is
the substitute amendment which was agreed upon in conference by the
conferees.
It is our intention to move to concur in the Senate amendment
to the House amendment.
[[Page 9914]]
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object,
it is my recollection that when the Budget Act was originally
passed, the law contemplated bringing before the House a conference
report, parts of which could be attacked through the ordinary
parliamentary rules of the House, so that individual changes made
in the conference report could be dealt with. It appears to me the
parliamentary avenue the gentleman has chosen to bring this before
us precludes the rights of Members of the House and forces us to
swallow the whole thing in one gulp without adequate deliberation
and a chance to work our will.
Mr. [Barber B.] Conable [Jr., of New York]: Mr. Speaker, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. Bauman: I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. Conable: Mr. Speaker, does this result in us not having the
statutory period of time to debate the conference report?
Mr. Bauman: The full 5 hours the Budget Act allows.
Mr. Giaimo: Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, not 5
hours, we have 1 hour, as I understand the parliamentary situation.
Mr. Conable: Why is it brought up in this way, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Giaimo: As I understand the rules, this is the only way it
can be brought up and it has been done in this way in the past.
Mr. Conable: Why do we have the 5-hour rule statutorily, if it
has been brought up under a 1-hour rule in the past?
Mr. Giaimo: The 5-hour rule provides where the conference
report is not in technical disagreement, because of questions of
scope.
Mr. Conable: Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further,
is it in technical disagreement, because so many of the items in
dispute between the House and the Senate were settled outside the
parameters set by the two bodies?
Mr. Giaimo: Either above or below the parameters.
Mr. Conable: Then when we make such a settlement, we always
avoid the statutory requirement of 5 hours of debate; is that the
conclusion?
Mr. Giaimo: The gentleman can draw whatever inference he
wishes.
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object,
I think it is still worth making the point. . . . Now we come back
and are offered a parliamentary motion that circumvents the rules
of the House and does not allow us to attack individual categories
of spending or actions of the conferees. This appears to confirm
the charges and again calls into question the entire budget
process.
Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
Parliamentarian's Note: Rule XXVIII clause 2(b), requiring division
of time for debate on an amendment reported from conference in
disagreement, does not apply to a motion to dispose of a Senate
amendment added after consideration of a conference report in
disagreement in that body.
Recognition To Move Adoption of Part of Conference Report Denied
Sec. 17.15 A Member cannot be recognized to move the adop
[[Page 9915]]
tion of a conference report only with respect to certain amendments
included therein.
On Aug. 22, 1940,(14) Mr. Andrew J. May, of Kentucky,
called up a conference report on a Senate joint resolution. Mr. Walter
G. Andrews, of New York, moved the adoption of the report ``insofar as
amendments numbered 1 to 14 are concerned.'' Speaker William B.
Bankhead, of Alabama, ruled that Mr. Andrews could not be recognized
for that motion, since conference reports must be acted upon as a
whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 86 Cong. Rec. 10763, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recognition for Motion To
Recede and Concur With Amendment After Rejection of Nongermane
Matter
Sec. 17.16 Pursuant to Rule XXVIII clause 4, where the House adopts a
motion to reject a portion of a conference report containing a
modification of a nongermane Senate amendment, the conference
report is considered as rejected and the manager is recognized to
offer a motion (considered to be the pending question) to recede
and concur in the Senate amendment with an amendment consisting of
the remainder of the conference report.
The proceedings of Dec. 2, 1982, relating to rejection of matter
found to be nongermane in the conference report on H.R. 2330 (the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission authorization), are discussed in more
detail in Ch. 28, Sec. Sec. 26.34 and 26.35, supra. The following
exchange (15) occurred after adoption of the motion to
reject a portion of the conference report:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 128 Cong. Rec. 28552, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker Pro Tempore [William H. Natcher, of Kentucky]:
Pursuant to clause 4, rule XXVIII, a motion to reject section 23 of
the conference report having been adopted, the conference report is
considered as rejected and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Udall)
is recognized to offer an amendment consisting of the remainder of
the conference report.
Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
clause 4, rule XXVIII, and the action of the House, I move that the
House recede from its disagreement and concur in the Senate
amendment with an amendment which I send to the desk.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Udall moves that the House recede and concur in the
Senate amendment with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the
matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate, insert the
following.
[[Page 9916]]
Time for Debate Divided Three Ways
Sec. 17.17 In certain instances, under Rule XXVIII, where Members of
the majority and minority who would otherwise divide the time for
debate do not oppose a proposition, one who does oppose such
proposition may be recognized to control one-third of the time.
Provisions of Rule XXVIII apply to debate on motions to instruct
conferees, conference reports, and Senate amendments in disagreement.
Application of these provisions is discussed in Sec. Sec. 17.18-17.20,
and in Sec. 26, infra.
Sec. 17.18 Pursuant to clause 2(b) of Rule XXVIII, debate on a motion
to dispose of an amendment reported from conference in disagreement
is equally divided between the majority and minority parties,
unless the minority Member favors the motion, in which event one-
third of the time is allocated to a Member opposed.
The following exchange occurred in the House on Aug. 1,
1985,(16) during consideration of the conference report on
Senate Concurrent Resolution 32 (the First Concurrent Resolution on the
Budget for fiscal year 1986):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 131 Cong. Rec. 22638, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker:(17) Under the rules, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Gray) will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta) will be recognized for 30 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Barney] Frank [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. Frank: Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta)
opposed to the bill?
Mr. [Delbert L.] Latta [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I am not opposed
to the bill.
Mr. Frank: Mr. Speaker, I believe then that under rule XXVIII,
a Member in opposition to the bill is entitled to 20 minutes.
The Speaker: The gentleman is correct. Under the rule, the
gentleman is entitled to one-third of the time.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gray) will be recognized
for 20 minutes, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta) will be
recognized for 20 minutes, and the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Frank) will be recognized for 20 minutes.
Sec. 17.19 Pursuant to clause 2(a) of Rule XXVIII, where the floor
managers for the majority and minority parties on a conference
report are both
[[Page 9917]]
supporters thereof, a Member opposed may be recognized for one-
third of the debate time and it is within the discretion of the
Chair as to which Member is recognized in opposition; such
recognition does not depend upon party affiliation, and the time in
opposition may be divided by unanimous consent or yielded by the
Member recognized.
The following proceedings occurred in the House on Dec. 11,
1985,(18) during consideration of the conference report on
House Joint Resolution 372 (the public debt limit increase):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 131 Cong. Rec. 36069, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Dan] Rostenkowski [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
the order of the House of Tuesday, December 10, 1985, I call up the
conference report on the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 372),
increasing the statutory limit on the public debt.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (19) Pursuant to the order
of the House of Tuesday, December 10, 1985, the conference report
is considered as having been read. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Lawrence J. Smith (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rostenkowski) will be
recognized for 30 minutes and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr.
Duncan) will be recognized for 30 minutes.
Mr. [David R.] Obey [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. Obey: Mr. Speaker, did I hear the Speaker say that the time
would be divided between the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Rostenkowski) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan)?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman heard correctly.
Mr. Obey: Mr. Speaker, [is the gentleman] from Tennessee
opposed to the legislation?
Mr. [John J.] Duncan [of Tennessee] Mr. Speaker, I am not
opposed to the legislation.
Mr. Obey: Mr. Speaker, that being the case, I ask under rule
XXVIII, since the rules provide that those in opposition be
entitled to 20 minutes, I would ask that I be assigned that 20-
minute time block.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair advises that the gentleman
is correct, and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rostenkowski) will
be recognized for 20 minutes, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr.
Duncan) will be recognized for 20 minutes, and the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) will be recognized for 20 minutes.
Mr. Duncan: I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his inquiry.
Mr. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, did I understand there is to be
additional time assigned to those who oppose the conference report?
If I understand correctly, we have some people on our side.
[[Page 9918]]
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey) is opposed, and he will control the 20 minutes time.
Mr. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Crane is also opposed. We would
expect equal time, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Crane is on the committee, and
he would expect equal time.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would advise that the
gentleman from Wisconsin is also on the conference committee.
Mr. Duncan: No, Mr. Speaker, he is not on the Committee on Ways
and Means. Mr. Crane is.
We would expect, and I am for the proposal, and he is in
opposition.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Under the rule, 60 minutes is
allotted: 20 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois, 20 minutes to
the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), and 20 minutes to one
Member opposed, in this case the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey).
Mr. [Philip M.] Crane [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Crane: Mr. Speaker, I am on the committee; I rose,
registered my objection, and I do not know whether that was heard
in the din of the crowd here tonight, but I would at least ask the
Speaker to permit a division of that time. I am opposed to the
bill.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will advise that the
gentleman from Wisconsin was on his feet and was recognized, in the
Chair's discretion and was granted the 20 minutes of the 60.
Mr. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, under the rules of the House, I think
that the gentleman would be entitled to half of that; otherwise, I
think everyone wants to be fair; that I would ask unanimous consent
that he be granted that.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would advise that the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) can yield whatever time that he
may desire.
Mr. Duncan: Would Mr. Obey yield half of that to our side?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Tennessee poses a
question to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
The gentleman from Wisconsin has the 20 minutes; the gentleman
from Tennessee wishes to know if he would grant half of that to the
minority.
Mr. Obey: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the rule requires that
those who are opposed grant the time to the opposition party. I
will certainly make certain that people are recognized, but I would
appreciate it if they could come to me and let me know that they
want to speak.
Mr. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Crane
have the same amount of time that the majority has and that he may
control that time.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from Tennessee?
Mr. Obey: I object, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Objection is heard.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Rostenkowski).
Sec. 17.20 Pursuant to clause 2(a) of Rule XXVIII, it is within
[[Page 9919]]
the discretion of the Speaker as to which Member is recognized to
control 20 minutes of debate in opposition to a conference report
(where the minority manager is not opposed), and such recognition
does not depend on party affiliation.
On Dec. 16, 1985,(20) after the conference report on
House Joint Resolution 456 (making further continuing appropriations
for fiscal 1986) was called up in the House, the Speaker Pro Tempore
allocated time for debate in support and in opposition, as indicated
below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 131 Cong. Rec. 36716, 36717, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to the order of the House of today, I call up the conference report
on the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 456) making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 1986, and for other purposes,
and ask for its immediate consideration. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (1) This conference report
is being considered pursuant to the unanimous consent request
granted earlier today, which the Clerk will read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Dale E. Kildee (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Whitten asked unanimous consent that it shall be in
order, any rule of the House to the contrary notwithstanding,
at any time on Monday, December 16, or any day thereafter, to
consider the conference report and amendments in disagreement
and motions to dispose of said amendments on House Joint
Resolution 456 subject to the availability of said conference
report and motions to dispose of amendments in disagreement for
at least 1 hour, that all points of order be waived against the
conference report and amendments in disagreement and motions to
dispose of said amendments, and that said conference report and
amendments in disagreement be considered as having been read
when called up for consideration. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr.
Whitten) will be recognized for 30 minutes and the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Conte) will be recognized for 30 minutes.
Mr. [Barney] Frank [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I ask for
20 minutes recognition in opposition because the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Conte) is for the bill. . . .
Mr. Speaker, since the gentleman from Massachusetts is for the
bill, under the rule I ask for the 20 minutes to be allotted to a
Member in opposition, when both the chairman and the ranking
minority Member are in support of the bill.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman has that right.
The time will be divided in this fashion: The gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Whitten) will be recognized for 20 minutes; the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Conte) will be recognized for 20
minutes; and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) will be
recognized for 20 minutes.
Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
[[Page 9920]]
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, the minority has just been effectively
frozen out of controlling any of the time, when I was seeking
recognition to take the 20 minutes. The Chair has denied, then, the
minority the opportunity to control our portion of the time.
Can the Chair explain why Members on this side were not
recognized? I, too, am opposed to the bill and should have been
entitled to the 20 minutes.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that recognition
of one Member who is opposed is in the Speaker's discretion, and
the Speaker tries always to be fair.
The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) may yield time as
he wishes. . . .
The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Conte), the minority
side, will
be recognized for 20 minutes; the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), who is opposed, will be
recognized for 20 minutes; and the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr.
Whitten) will be recognized for 20 minutes.
The procedure under which we are proceeding was agreed upon
earlier today, and the Chair will be guided by the will of the
House, which was stated earlier today.
Division of Time Under Former Practice
Sec. 17.21 Under the former practice, the offeror of a motion to
instruct conferees controlled one hour of debate and could yield
half of that time to an opponent.
During consideration of House Joint Resolution 372 (public debt
limit increase) in the House on Oct. 11, 1985,(2) a motion
was made by Robert H. Michel, of Illinois, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 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: (3) The gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Michel) is recognized for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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----
[[Page 9921]]
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.
Parliamentarian's Note: Rule XXVIII, clause 1(b) (4) now
provides that the time allotted for debate on any motion to instruct
House conferees shall be equally divided between the majority and
minority parties, except that if the proponent of the motion and the
Member from the other party are both supporters of the motion, one
third of such debate time shall be allotted to a Member who is opposed
to said motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. House Rules and Manual Sec. 909a (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 17.22 Under the former practice, a motion to instruct conferees
was debatable for one hour within the control of the proponent of
the motion, and another Member could not obtain recognition from
the Chair to speak in opposition, unless yielded time by the
proponent (or unless the previous question was rejected).
Parliamentarian's Note: Under a rule adopted in the 101st Congress,
time for debate on a motion to instruct conferees is divided. (H. Res.
5, Jan. 3, 1989).
During consideration of H.R. 12930 (the Treasury, Postal Service,
general government appropriation bill) in the House on Sept. 7,
1978,(5) the following exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 124 Cong. Rec. 28362, 28363, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Tom] Steed [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 12930)
making appropriations for the Treasury Department, the United
States Postal Service, the Executive Office of the President, and
certain Independent Agencies, for the fiscal year ending September
30, 1979, and for other purposes, with Senate amendments therefor,
disagree to the Senate amendments, and agree to the conference
asked by the Senate.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Speaker: (6) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Oklahoma?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection
Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Brown of Ohio moves that the managers on the part of
the House, at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses on the bill, H.R. 12930, the ``Treasury, Postal
Service, and General Government Appropriations, 1979,'' be
instructed
[[Page 9922]]
to agree to the amendment of the Senate numbered 7.
The Speaker: Under the rules, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Brown) is recognized for one hour.
For what purpose does the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Vanik) rise?
Mr. [Charles A.] Vanik [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I desire to be
heard in opposition to the motion.
The Speaker: The Chair will state that the time is under the
control of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).
The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) is recognized for one hour.
. . .
Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Vanik), for the purpose of debate only.
Senate Amendments--Actively Seeking Recognition
Sec. 17.23 A Member desiring to offer a motion in the House to dispose
of a Senate amendment must actively seek recognition from the Chair
before another motion to dispose of the amendment has been adopted,
and the fact that he may have been standing at that time is not
sufficient to confer recognition.
During consideration of House Joint Resolution 357 (further
continuing appropriations) in the House on Nov. 22, 1981,(7)
the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 127 Cong. Rec. 28751, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: (8) The Clerk will report the next
amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Senate amendment No. 37 . . . .
Mr. [Vic] Fazio [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Fazio moves that the House insist on its disagreement
to the amendment of the Senate numbered 37.
The Speaker: The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio). All those in favor say
``aye,'' opposed ``no.''
The ayes have it. The motion is agreed to.
The Clerk will report the next amendment in disagreement.
Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
motion at the desk. I have a motion. I was standing, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: To what amendment does the gentleman have a
motion?
Mr. Conte: Senate amendment No. 37.
The Speaker: The Chair will state that the House has already
disposed of that amendment.
Mr. Conte: I was standing here seeking recognition, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, what was the decision?
The Speaker: The gentleman may have been standing, but he was
not seeking recognition, in the opinion of the Chair.
Mr. Conte: What was the outcome of that, Mr. Speaker?
The Speaker: Senate amendment No. 37 was disagreed to.
[[Page 9923]]
Mr. Conte: And I was standing with a motion, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: The Chair recognized that there were three or four
others standing, and the gentleman was in a conversation with one
of his colleagues, and was not asking for recognition.
--Full Committee Chairmen
Sec. 17.24 Where the Member calling up a conference report in
disagreement does not seek recognition to offer a motion to dispose
of the matter in disagreement, the majority Member recognized to
offer a motion controls one-half the time thereon, and the minority
the other half, pursuant to Rule XXVIII clause 2;
thus, in the present instance, where the chairman of the
subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations calling up a
conference report in disagreement on a Senate amendment to a House
amendment to a Senate amendment to a House bill did not seek
recognition to offer a motion, the Chair recognized the chairman of
the Committee on Appropriations to offer the preferential motion to
concur in the Senate amendment and divided the time between the
majority and minority.
On Nov. 3, 1977,(9) the proceedings relating to the
consideration of H.R. 7555 (the Departments of Labor and Health,
Education, and Welfare appropriations) in the House were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 123 Cong. Rec. 36959, 36966, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (10) The Chair recognizes
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Flood).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. K. Gunn McKay (Utah).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Daniel J.] Flood [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to the resolution just agreed to, I call up the conference report
on the amendment of the Senate to the amendment of the House to the
amendment of the Senate numbered 82 to the bill (H.R. 7555) making
appropriations for the Departments of Labor and Health, Education,
and Welfare, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 1978, and for other purposes. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the amendment in
disagreement.
The Clerk read as follows:
Senate amendment No. 28: Sec. 209. None of the funds
contained in this Act shall be used to perform abortions except
where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus
were carried to term . . . .
Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas] [Chairman of the Committee on
Appropriations]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Mahon moves that the House concur in the amendment of
the Sen
[[Page 9924]]
ate to the amendment of the House to the amendment of the
Senate numbered 82.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Mahon)
will be recognized for 30 minutes,
and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Michel) will be recognized for
30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Mahon).
--Manager of Conference Report Recognized
Sec. 17.25 Where a conference report in disagreement, which has been
available for three days as required by clause 2 of Rule XXVIII, is
called up, the conference report and the Senate amendment in
disagreement are considered as having been read, and the Chair
recognizes the manager of the conference report to offer a motion
to dispose of the Senate amendment; the motion is debatable for one
hour, equally divided
between the majority and minority parties.
On May 29, 1980,(11) during consideration of the
conference report on a House concurrent resolution, the following
proceedings took place in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 126 Cong. Rec. 12678, 12680, 12684, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert N.] Giaimo [of Connecticut]: Mr. Speaker, I call up
the conference report on the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res.
307) setting forth the congressional budget for the U.S. Government
for the fiscal years 1981, 1982, and 1983 and revising the
congressional budget for the U.S. Government for the fiscal year
1980, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
The Speaker: (12) The Clerk will read the conference
report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read the conference report. . . .
The Speaker: Pursuant to the rule, the Senate amendment is
considered as having been read.
The Senate amendment reads as follows:
Strike out all after the resolving clause, and insert:
``That the Congress hereby determines and declares, pursuant to
section 301(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, that: .
. .
Mr. Giaimo: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Giaimo moves that the House recede from its
disagreement to the Senate amendment and to concur therein with
an amendment, as follows: . . .
The Speaker: The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Giaimo) will
be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Latta) will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr.
Giaimo).
Mr. Giaimo: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for 2 hours of
debate on my motion.
[[Page 9925]]
The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Connecticut?
Mr. [Bill] Frenzel [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, I object.
The Speaker: Objection is heard.
--Manager of Conference Report May Defer to Another To Offer Motion To
Dispose of Amendment
Sec. 17.26 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,(13) during consideration of the
conference report on House Joint Resolution 492 (urgent supplemental
appropriations for the Department of Agriculture) in the House, the
following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 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: (14) The question is on the
motion offered by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Whitten).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 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 purpose . . .
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 min
[[Page 9926]]
utes 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.
--When Preferential Motion To Dispose of Senate Amendment May Be
Offered
Sec. 17.27 Where a Member offering a motion to dispose of a Senate
amendment in disagreement controls one-half hour of debate, a
preferential motion to dispose of the Senate amendment may not be
offered while he has the floor unless yielded for that purpose, but
may be offered pending recognition of a Member from the other
political party to control one-half the time on the initial motion;
moreover, the previous question may not be moved by the Member
first recognized so as to prevent the Member from the other party
from controlling half the debate and from offering a proper
preferential motion to dispose of the Senate amendment.
On July 2, 1980,(15) during consideration of the
supplemental appropriations and rescission bill for fiscal year 1980
(H.R. 7542) in the House, the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 126 Cong. Rec. 18357, 18359-61, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (16) The question is on the
motion offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Long), to concur
with the Senate amendment numbered 95.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Paul Simon (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The motion was rejected.
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Bauman moves to recede and concur in the amendment of
the Senate (No. 95) with an amendment as follows: . . .
Mr. [Clarence D.] Long of Maryland: Mr. Speaker, I have a
preferential motion.
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I have been recognized, I believe. . .
.
Mr. Long of Maryland: Mr. Speaker, I was on my feet for a
preferential motion.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: On this motion the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Bauman) has the time. . . .
Mr. [Thomas P.] O'Neill [Jr., of Massachusetts]: . . . I offer
a preferential motion that is at the desk. . . .
Mr. Bauman: Well, I did not yield for that purpose, Mr.
Speaker. I control the time, do I not?
[[Page 9927]]
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Bauman) has 30 minutes, the majority side has 30 minutes. . . .
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the
motion.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: For what purpose does the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. O'Neill) seek recognition?
Mr. O'Neill: Mr. Speaker, I offer a preferential motion.
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. I moved the previous
question on the pending motion.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The motion for the previous question
does not rule out a preferential motion, if moved while time is
remaining to the opposite party. The previous question is not yet
in order.
Recognition for Unanimous-consent Request To Dispose of Senate
Amendment
Sec. 17.28 In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Chair announced
guidelines for recognition for unanimous-consent requests to
dispose of Senate amendments to House-passed bills on the Speaker's
table, indicating that the Chair will entertain a unanimous-consent
request for the disposition of a Senate amendment to a House-passed
bill on the Speaker's table, only if made by the chairman of the
committee with jurisdiction, or by another member of the committee
where the Chair has been advised by the chairman of the committee
that such member has been authorized formally or informally by the
committee to make the request.
The following exchange occurred in the House on Apr. 26, 1984:
(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 130 Cong. Rec. 10193, 10194, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Daniel E.] Lungren [of California]: . . . Mr. Speaker,
since we have moved with such dispatch on the question dealing with
the labor unions' concern, I would like to direct to the Chair a
parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (18) The gentleman will
state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Thomas S. Foley (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Lungren: Mr. Speaker, it deals with a piece of legislation
that has come out of the same committee and is a variation of H.R.
3635, the Child Protection Act of 1983, which we passed 400 to 1 on
November 11, 1983.
There was an agreement worked out between the Members of the
House and the Senate for a compromise. That went to the Senate.
They passed our version, with an amendment in the nature of a
substitute and it is my information that H.R. 3635 was sent to the
Speaker's desk from the Senate on April 2 or 3 of this year.
My parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker, is: Is H.R. 3635
presently at the Speaker's desk?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct.
[[Page 9928]]
Mr. Lungren: Mr. Speaker, does that mean that the Senate
amendment, H.R. 3635, has not yet been referred to a committee?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct.
Mr. Lungren: And can the Chair inform me at this time and
inform the House as to what procedure might be available to us at
this time to allow for immediate consideration of that Senate
amendment?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would advise the gentleman
that the Chair would only recognize for a request by the chairman
or another member if authorized by the committee.
Mr. Lungren: Authorization of the committee, that means
authorization of the Democratic leadership?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Authorization of the committee.
Mr. Lungren: Does the Chair mean that it takes an official vote
of the committee or an agreement by the chairman of the committee
itself?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Speaker would look to the chairman
of the committee.
Sec. 17.29 The Speaker, in response to a parliamentary inquiry,
indicated that only the chairman of the committee having
jurisdiction of the subject matter of a bill would be recognized to
ask unanimous consent to take it from the Speaker's table, disagree
to a Senate amendment, and ask for a conference.
On Sept. 1, 1960,(19) Mr. Charles A. Halleck, of
Indiana, raised a parliamentary inquiry on the disposition of a House
bill with a Senate amendment which had been returned to the House and
was on the Speaker's table. Mr. Halleck inquired whether it would be in
order to submit
a unanimous-consent request to take the bill from the table, disagree
to the Senate amendment, and send the bill to conference. Speaker Sam
Rayburn, of Texas, responded that such a request could only be made by
Chairman Harold D. Cooley, of North Carolina, of the committee with
jurisdiction over the bill, the Committee on Agriculture.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 106 Cong. Rec. 18920, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Unanimous-consent Request To Call House Bill With Senate Amendments
From Speaker's Table
Sec. 17.30 House bills with Senate amendments may be called from the
Speaker's table
by unanimous consent for disposition of the Senate amendments or
for a request to go to conference, and the Speaker recognizes the
Member in charge of the bill for that purpose.
[[Page 9929]]
On July 11, 1932,(20) Speaker John N. Garner, of Texas,
made the following statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 75 Cong. Rec. 15034, 72d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair asks the attention of the House for a moment. Where a
House bill has been passed, has gone to the Senate, and the Senate
has amended it, the Chair thinks it is the duty of the Chair to
recognize the Member in charge of the bill to ask unanimous consent
for its present consideration either to go to conference or concur
in the Senate amendment. If any of the gentlemen have bills under
such circumstances, the Chair will recognize them for the purpose
of asking unanimous consent for the consideration of the Senate
amendment at this time.(21)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. The disposition of House bills with Senate amendments on the
Speaker's table is governed by Rule XXIV clause 2, House Rules
and Manual Sec. 882 (1995) and Rule XX clause 1, House Rules
and Manual Sec. 827 (1995). Generally, see Chs. 32, 33, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: A privileged motion to disagree with
Senate amendments or insist on House amendments, and request or agree
to a conference, is in order (at the Speaker's discretion) if
authorized by the reporting committee, under clause 1 of Rule XX, and
may be offered by the chairman of the committee or another member
designated by the committee. Otherwise, Senate amendments requiring
consideration in Committee of the Whole are not subject to disposition
by privileged motion under clause 1, Rule XX before the stage of
disagreement has been reached.
Sec. 17.31 The Speaker declined to recognize a Member for
a unanimous-consent request to take a bill from the Speaker's table
and concur in the Senate amendments, where such a request was made
without the authorization of the chairman of the committee with
jurisdiction and where Members had been informed there would be no
further legislative business for the day.
On July 31, 1969,(1) Speaker John W. McCormack, of
Massachusetts, refused to recognize Mr. Hale Boggs, of Louisiana, for a
unanimous-consent request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 115 Cong. Rec. 21691, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Boggs: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from
the Speaker's desk the bill (H.R. 9951), to provide for the
collection of the Federal unemployment tax in quarterly
installments . . . and for other purposes, with Senate amendments
thereto, and concur in the Senate amendments.
The Speaker: The Chair will state that at this time the Chair
does not recognize the gentleman from Louisiana for that purpose.
[[Page 9930]]
The chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means is at present
appearing before the Committee on Rules seeking a rule and Members
have been told that there would be no further business tonight.
--Committee Chairman Moves To Suspend Rules
Sec. 17.32 The Speaker recognizes the chairman of the committee with
jurisdiction of a bill to move to suspend the rules and agree to a
resolution taking the bill with Senate amendments from the
Speaker's table, disagreeing to Senate amendments, and requesting a
conference.
On Oct. 1, 1962,(2) Speaker John W. McCormack, of
Massachusetts, recognized Thomas J. Murray, of Tennessee, Chairman of
the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, to suspend the rules
and agree to House Resolution 818:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 108 Cong. Rec. 21528, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution
the bill H.R. 7927, with the Senate amendment thereto, be, and the
same hereby is, taken from the Speaker's table, to the end that the
Senate amendment be, and the same hereby is, disagreed to and a
conference is requested with the Senate upon the disagreeing votes
of the two Houses thereon.
Parliamentarian's Note: H.R. 7927, the Postal Rate and Postal Pay
Act of 1962, was within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Post
Office and Civil Service.
Sec. 17.33 The Speaker recognizes the chairman of the committee with
jurisdiction over the subject matter of a bill to move to suspend
the rules and agree to a resolution taking the bill with Senate
amendments from the Speaker's table and agreeing to the Senate
amendments.
On Aug. 27, 1962,(3) Speaker John W. McCormack, of
Massachusetts, recognized Oren Harris, of Arkansas, Chairman of the
Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, to move to suspend the
rules and agree to House Resolution 269:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 108 Cong. Rec. 17671, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution
the bill H.R. 11040, with the Senate amendments thereto, be, and
the same is hereby taken from the Speaker's table, to the end that
the Senate amendment be, and the same is hereby, agreed to.
Parliamentarian's Note: H.R. 11040, the Communications Satellite
Act of 1962, was within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Interstate
and Foreign Commerce.
[[Page 9931]]
Debate on Nongermane Senate Amendments
Sec. 17.34 Where a Member opposed to a section of a conference report
demanded a separate vote on that section pursuant to a special
order permitting such procedure and pursuant to Rule XX, clause 1,
that Member and the Member calling up the conference report were
each recognized for 20 minutes of debate as required by Rule XX
clause 1.
On Nov. 10, 1971,(4) Mr. F.
Edward Hebert, of Louisiana,
called up a conference report on
H.R. 8687, military procurement authorization. Speaker Carl Albert, of
Oklahoma, stated that the special order under which the report was
being considered, House Resolution 696, provided that a separate vote
could be demanded on certain sections of the conference report
(containing nongermane portions of the Senate amendment). Mr. Donald M.
Fraser, of Minnesota, demanded a separate vote on section 503 of the
report pursuant to the special order and pursuant to Rule XX clause 1
of the House rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 117 Cong. Rec. 40483, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker then stated the order of recognition pending the
separate vote:
Under clause 1 of Rule XX, 40 minutes of debate are permitted
before a separate vote is taken on a nongermane Senate amendment,
one-half of such time in favor of, and one-half in opposition to
the amendment.
Pursuant to that rule, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr.
Hebert] will be recognized for 20 minutes, and the gentleman from
Minnesota [Mr. Fraser] will be recognized for 20 minutes.
Debate on Motion To Dispose of Amendment in Disagreement
Sec. 17.35 Debate on a motion to dispose of an amendment reported from
conference in disagreement is equally divided between the majority
and minority parties under Rule XXVIII clause 2(b),(5)
and where the manager of the conference report making the motion
does not immediately seek recognition for debate, the Chair
nevertheless allocates 30 minutes to him and may recognize
a minority Member at that time for 30 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. The rule now makes provision for a three-way division of debate
where the majority and minority floor managers support the
motion. See Sec. 17.17, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The House having under consideration the bill H.R. 7797 (relating
to foreign assistance appropriations for fiscal year 1978) on
[[Page 9932]]
Oct. 18, 1977,(6) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 123 Cong. Rec. 34112, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Clarence D.] Long of Maryland: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Long of Maryland moves that the House recede from its
disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 74 and
concur therein with an amendment, as follows: Restore the
matter stricken by said amendment, amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 503C. Of the funds appropriated or made available
pursuant to this Act, not more than $18,100,000 shall be used
for military assistance, not more than $1,850,000 shall be used
for foreign military credit sales, and not more than $700,000
shall be used for international military education and training
to the Government of the Philippines.''. . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (7) . . . Does the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Long) seek recognition?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Long of Maryland: Mr. Speaker, I do not, at this time.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Does the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Young) desire to be recognized.
Mr. [C. W.] Young of Florida: Mr. Speaker, I do.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Long)
and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) will be recognized for
30 minutes each.
Sec. 17.36 Where conferees report in disagreement, their report is read
but not acted on when called up; the Speaker directs the Clerk to
report the (Senate) amendment in disagreement and recognizes the
manager of the report for a motion to dispose of said amendment;
and said motion is debatable for one hour, equally divided between
the majority and minority pursuant to clause 2(b) of Rule XXVIII.
On Sept. 15, 1977,(8) the procedure for consideration of
a conference report in total disagreement was demonstrated as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 123 Cong. Rec. 29424, 29425, 95th Cong. 1st Sess. Rule XXVIII, cl.
2(b) now provides for a three-way division of debate where the
majority and minority floor managers support the motion. See
Sec. 17.17, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert N.] Giaimo [of Connecticut]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to the order of the House of September 15, 1977, I call up the
conference report on the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 341)
revising the congressional budget for the U.S. Government for the
fiscal year 1978, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Speaker: (9) The Clerk will read the conference
report. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk will report the Senate amendment [in disagreement]. .
. .
Mr. Giaimo: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
[[Page 9933]]
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Giaimo moves to recede from disagreement to the Senate
amendment and to concur therein with an amendment as follows:
In lieu of the matter proposed by the Senate, insert the
following: . . .
The Speaker: The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Giaimo) and
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta) will be recognized for 30
minutes each.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr.
Giaimo).
During consideration of the first concurrent resolution on the
budget for fiscal year 1980 (H. Con. Res. 107) in the House on May 23,
1979,(10) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 125 Cong. Rec. 12469, 12471, 12472, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert N.] Giaimo [of Connecticut]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to the order of the House of May 22, 1979, I call up the conference
report on the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 107) setting
forth the Congressional Budget for the U.S. Government for the
fiscal year 1980 and revising the Congressional Budget for the U.S.
Government for the fiscal year 1979. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (11) The Clerk will read
the Senate amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. John Brademas (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read the Senate amendment, as follows:
Strike out all after the resolving clause and insert:
That the Congress hereby determines and declares [that]
(a) In order to achieve a balanced budget in fiscal year
1981, the following budgetary levels are appropriate for the
fiscal years beginning on October 1, 1979, October 1, 1980, and
October 1, 1981-- . . .
Mr. Giaimo: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Giaimo moves that the House recede from its
disagreement to the Senate amendment and to concur therein with
an amendment, as follows: . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr.
Giaimo) will be recognized for 30 minutes [and] the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Latta) will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr.
Giaimo).
Former Practice as to Debate on Amendments in Disagreement
Sec. 17.37 Prior to the amendment to Rule XXVIII, clause 2(b) in the
92d Congress (providing that debate on an amendment in disagreement
be divided between the majority and minority parties), debate on an
amendment reported from conference in disagreement was under the
hour rule and the Member calling up the conference report was in
control of the debate thereon.
[[Page 9934]]
On Aug. 1, 1962,(12) Mr. John E. Fogarty, of Rhode
Island, called up a conference report together with certain Senate
amendments in disagreement. During consideration of the amendments,
Speaker Pro Tempore Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, answered a parliamentary
inquiry put to him by Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 108 Cong. Rec. 15294, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Gross: Is the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Fogarty]
going to explain any of these amendments?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: That is within the discretion of the
gentleman.
Mr. Gross: A further parliamentary inquiry. Does not the
gentleman have an hour on each of these amendments?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman has if he desires to use
it.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See also 108 Cong. Rec. 23432-43, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 12,
1962.
For consideration of amendments in disagreement, see Rule
XXVIII, cl. 2(b)(1), House Rules and Manual Sec. 912(b) (1995),
and Chs. 32, 33, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: House Resolution 1153, which was adopted on
Oct. 13, 1972, 92d Cong. 2d Sess., to become effective at the end of
the 92d Congress, amended Rule XXVIII by requiring that
debate on amendments reported from conference in disagreement be
equally divided and controlled by the majority and minority parties.
Thus the hour of debate on a motion offered to dispose of an amendment
in disagreement is equally controlled by the Member calling up the
report and a Member of the minority, typically the senior conferee of
that party. Language in Rule XXVIII, clause 2(b)(1) now provides
further that if the managers for the majority and minority both support
a motion to dispose of an amendment one-third of the debate time shall
be allotted to a Member opposed to the motion.
Recognition for Motions To Dispose of Amendments in Disagreement
Sec. 17.38 As each amendment in disagreement is reported, the Chair
recognizes the Member handling the conference report to offer a
motion relating to that amendment; and even though another Member
offers a preferential motion relating to that amendment, the Member
handling the report remains in control of the debate under the hour
rule (subject to the division of time required by clause 2(b) of
Rule XXVIII).
On Oct. 24, 1967,(14) Mr. Joseph L. Evins, of Tennessee,
was han
[[Page 9935]]
dling a conference report being considered by the House on H.R. 9960,
an appropriation for fiscal year 1968. As each amendment
in disagreement was reported, Speaker John W. McCormack, of
Massachusetts, recognized Mr. Evins to make a motion in regard to that
amendment. On amendments 58 and 59 (considered en bloc by unanimous
consent), Mr. Evins moved that the House insist on its disagreement.
Mr. Robert N. Giaimo, of Connecticut, then made the preferential motion
that the House recede and concur in those amendments. The Speaker
recognized Mr. Evins as the Member in control of the report to control
one hour of debate on both motions, and the preferential motion was
rejected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 113 Cong. Rec. 29837, 29838, 29842, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 17.39 Where a Senate amendment reported from conference in
disagreement remains in disagreement following subsequent action by
the House and Senate, a further motion to dispose of the Senate
amendment in the House is privileged and subject to one hour of
debate, equally divided, under Rule XXVIII, clause 2(b), between
majority and minority parties (subject to the division of time
required by Rule XXVIII, clause 2(b) when the majority and minority
floor managers support the motion).
On Feb. 22, 1978,(15) during consideration of H.R. 9375
(supplemental appropriations for 1978) in the House, the following
proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 124 Cong. Rec. 4061, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I move to take
from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 9375) making supplemental
appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1978, and
for other purposes, with the remaining amendment in disagreement
thereto, and that the House recede from its disagreement to Senate
amendment numbered 43 and concur therein.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Clerk read the Senate amendment, as follows:
Senate amendment No. 43: Page 14, after line 4, insert:
Appropriations provided under this heading in the
Department of Defense Appropriation Act, 1977, are rescinded in
the amount of $462,-000,000.
The Speaker: (16) The gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Mahon) is recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Cederberg) is recognized for 30 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proponent of Motion To Recede and Concur Did Not Seek Recognition
Sec. 17.40 Where the proponent of a motion to recede and con
[[Page 9936]]
cur in a Senate amendment failed to seek recognition to debate the
motion, the Chair recognized the Member handling the conference
report (who did not then have a motion pending).
On May 14, 1963,(17) the House was considering a
conference report and Senate amendments in disagreement, called up and
managed by Mr. Albert Thomas, of Texas. Mr. Robert R. Barry, of New
York, offered a preferential motion that the House recede and concur in
a certain amendment in disagreement (after a motion to recede and
concur with an amendment offered by Mr. Thomas was ruled out on a point
of order). A division of the question was demanded and Speaker John W.
McCormack, of Massachusetts, stated that the question was on receding
from disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 109 Cong. Rec. 8506, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Thomas then raised a parliamentary inquiry:
Mr. Speaker, is it in order for the chairman of the House
conferees to make a short statement at this time on it?
The Speaker answered that the motion was debatable, and since Mr.
Barry did not seek recognition, the Speaker recognized Mr. Thomas on
the motion. In answer to a parliamentary inquiry by Mr. Barry, the
proponent of the motion, the Speaker stated that Mr. Thomas had control
of time on the motion since he had been recognized.
Parliamentarian's Note: Where the manager of a conference report
with amendments in disagreement has offered a proper motion on an
amendment in disagreement, he controls the time even where a
preferential motion is offered (see Sec. 17.38, supra).
Motion To Dispose of Amendment Was Preferential in Form Only--Chair
Recognized for Subsequent Preferential Motion
Sec. 17.41 Where a motion, already offered and under debate, to dispose
of a Senate amendment appeared to be in form a preferential motion,
but was in fact a motion merely re-inserting House text stricken by
the Senate amendment (and therefore in effect a motion to insist
on disagreement), the Chair could consider the substance of the
motion and was not prohibited from recognizing for a subsequent
proper preferential motion and putting the question first thereon,
a point of order against the
[[Page 9937]]
initial motion having been reserved.
The following proceedings occurred in the House on July 2,
1980,(18) during consideration of H.R. 7542 (supplemental
appropriations and rescission bill for fiscal year 1980):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 126 Cong. Rec. 18357, 18359, 18360, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Bauman moves to recede and concur in the amendment of
the Senate (No. 95) with an amendment as follows: In lieu of
the matter stricken and inserted by said amendment insert the
following:
CHAPTER VI
FOREIGN OPERATIONS
Funds Appropriated to the President
international disaster assistance
For an additional amount to carry out the provisions of
Section 491 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended,
$43,000,000 to remain available until expended. . . .
Mr. [Allen E.] Ertel [of Pennsylvania] (during the reading):
Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (19) The gentleman from
Pennsylvania reserves a point of order. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Paul Simon (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Clarence D.] Long of Maryland: Mr. Speaker, I have a
preferential motion. . . .
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I have the floor and I do not yield. .
. .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: On this motion the gentleman from
Maryland [Mr. Bauman] has the time. . . .
Mr. Bauman: My parliamentary inquiry is that the Chair stated a
moment ago that the time on a preferential motion to concur with an
amendment is divided between the majority and the minority. Is it
not controlled by the maker of the motion? . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The practice of the House is clearly
on a motion of this type after an initial motion has been rejected
on an amendment reported from conference in disagreement that the
time is divided between the majority and the minority parties.
Mr. Bauman: The second question I have is, has not the
gentleman from Maryland made a preferential motion which is now
pending?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Maryland [Mr.
Bauman] made a motion which was in form a preferential motion. Upon
examination by the Chair, it is in fact a motion to insist upon the
original House position rather than a motion to amend the Senate
amendment. . . .
Mr. Bauman: Well, is not the gentleman from Maryland's motion a
preferential motion under the rule?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: In form it is but upon examination it
is in fact a motion to insist upon the House position.
Mr. Bauman: Well, does not the Chair have to be subjected to a
point of order at an appropriate time in order to make that ruling?
Does the Chair on
[[Page 9938]]
its own inquire behind the form of motion? . . .
Well, but the Chair made a statement a few moments ago,
unsolicited by anyone that my motion was not a preferential motion.
This gentleman would like to ask upon what authority the Chair is
able to rule a preferential motion offered in proper form is
nonpreferential when no one has raised the issue.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair has not ruled out the motion
of the gentleman from Maryland. It is still pending. The
parliamentary inquiry was whether it was a preferential motion. . .
.
Mr. [Thomas P.] O'Neill [Jr., of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I
offer a preferential motion. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: . . . The Clerk will read the
preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows: Mr. O'Neill moves that the House
concur in the amendment of Senate numbered 95 with an amendment
as follows:
In lieu of the matter deleted and inserted by said
amendment, insert the following: . . .
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order that this
motion is not a preferential motion. It is, in fact, an amendment
to the pending motion of the gentleman from Maryland, which sought
to concur in the Senate amendment with an amendment. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is trying to be fair to all
Members, but the fact remains that the motion to concur with an
amendment takes precedence over a motion to insist on the House
petition, and the point is not well taken.
Mr. Bauman: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
The gentleman from Maryland has offered a motion to concur in
the amendment of the Senate with an amendment, and now another
motion to concur in the amendment of the Senate with an amendment
is being offered. That additional motion is not in order at this
point.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Maryland has
offered an amendment which in form was a motion to concur with an
amendment. In fact, it is a motion to insist on the original House
language.
Proponent of Preferential Motion Does Not Control Debate
Sec. 17.42 Where amendments have been reported from conference in
disagreement, the motion to recede and concur with an amendment has
preference over a motion to insist on disagreement, but the
proponent of the preferential motion does not thereby gain control
of the time for debate.
On May 14, 1975,(20) during consideration of the
conference report on H.R. 4881 (21) in the House, the
following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 121 Cong. Rec. 14385, 14386, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
21. The emergency employment appropriations for fiscal year 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: (22) The Clerk will report the next
amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 9939]]
The Clerk read as follows:
Senate amendment No. 61: Page 41, line 9, insert:
``Federal Railroad Administration
``rail transportation improvement and employment
``For payment of financial assistance to assist railroads
by providing funds for repairing, rehabilitating, and improving
railroad roadbeds and facilities, $700,000,000. . . .''
Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Mahon moves that the House insist on its disagreement
to the amendment of the Senate numbered 61.
preferential motion offered by mr. conte
Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I offer
a preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Conte moves that the House recede from its disagreement
to Senate amendment number 61 and concur therein with an
amendment, as follows: In lieu of the matter proposed to be
inserted by the Senate, insert the following:
``CHAPTER VIII
``Department of Transportation
``federal railroad administration
``For payment of financial assistance to assist railroads
by providing funds for repairing, rehabilitating, and improving
railroad roadbeds and facilities, $200,000,000. . . .''
Mr. [E. G.] Shuster [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Shuster: Mr. Speaker, how is the time divided?
The Speaker: The time is divided equally between the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Mahon), who has 30 minutes, and the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Michel) who has 30 minutes or such small fraction
thereof as he may decide to use.
Sec. 17.43 The stage of disagreement having been reached on a Senate
amendment to a House amendment to a Senate amendment to a House
bill, the motion to concur in the Senate amendment takes precedence
over a motion to disagree and request a conference, but the Member
offering the preferential motion does not thereby obtain control of
the time which is controlled by the manager of the bill and is
equally divided between the majority and minority.
On Oct. 13, 1977,(1) the House had under consideration
H.R. 7555 (Departments of Labor and Health, Education, and Welfare
appropriation bill for fiscal 1978) when the following proceedings
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 123 Cong. Rec. 33688, 33689, 33693, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Daniel J.] Flood [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I move to
take
[[Page 9940]]
from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 7555) making appropriations
for the Departments of Labor, and Health, Education, and Welfare,
and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1978,
and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment to the House
amendment to Senate amendment numbered 82, disagree to the
amendment of the Senate, and request a conference with the Senate
on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Speaker: (2) The Clerk will report the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
motion offered by mr. flood
Mr. Flood moves to take from the Speaker's table the bill
H.R. 7555, making appropriations for the Departments of Labor,
and Health, Education, and Welfare, and related agencies for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 1978, and for other
purposes, with a Senate amendment to the House amendment to
Senate amendment numbered 82, disagree to the amendment of the
Senate, and request a conference with the Senate on the
disagreeing votes of the two Houses.
Mr. [Newton I.] Steers [Jr., of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I offer
a preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Steers of Maryland moves that the House concur in the
Senate Amendment to the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment
No. 82.
The Speaker: The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Flood) is in
control of the time, and the gentleman is recognized for 30
minutes.
Mr. [John J.] Rhodes [of Arizona]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, since the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Steers) made the motion which is being considered by the House,
does the gentleman from Maryland not have control of the time?
The Speaker: In response to the parliamentary inquiry, the
preferential motion made by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Steers) does not take the time from the gentleman from
Pennsylvania, the chairman of the committee, who previously had the
time under his original motion. The motion was in order. The vote
will come first on the preferential motion.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Flood).
Sec. 17.44 The offering of a preferential motion cannot deprive the
Member making an original motion (to dispose of a Senate amendment)
of control of the floor for debate, and the Chair will recognize
the Member controlling the floor when a preferential motion is
offered.
During consideration of the foreign assistance appropriation bill
(H.R. 7797) in the House on Oct. 18, 1977,(3) the following
motions were offered:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 123 Cong. Rec. 34112, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 9941]]
Mr. [Clarence D.] Long of Maryland: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Long of Maryland moves that the House recede from its
disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 74 and
concur therein with an amendment, as follows: Restore the
matter stricken by said amendment, amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 503C. Of the funds appropriated or made available
pursuant to this Act, not more than $18,100,000 shall be used
for military assistance, not more than $1,850,000 shall be used
for foreign military credit sales, and not more than $700,000
shall be used for international military education and training
to the Government of the Philippines.''. . .
Mr. [C. W.] Young of Florida: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Young of Florida moves that the House recede from its
disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 74 and
concur therein.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (4) The Chair recognizes
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Long).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: Although during the above proceedings Mr.
Young moved the previous question on his preferential motion,
ordinarily the maker of a preferential motion should not be permitted
to move the previous question thereon, since he does not gain the floor
for any purpose other than to offer the motion. The manager of the bill
should be the one recognized to move the previous question on the
motion.
Although, as in the above instance, the minority Member controlling
half the time on a motion on an amendment in disagreement may make a
preferential motion during his time for debate, the more usual practice
is that the preferential motion be made either before or after the hour
of debate on the initial motion.
Sec. 17.45 A motion to concur in a Senate amendment (the stage of
disagreement having been reached) takes precedence over a motion to
disagree, but the proponent of the preferential motion does not
gain control of the time for debate, which remains in the control
of the Member calling up the bill and offering the initial motion.
On Oct. 14, 1978,(5) the following proceedings occurred
in the House during consideration of H.R. 12929 (Departments of Labor
and Health, Education, and Welfare appropriations):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 124 Cong. Rec. 38230, 38231, 38236, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Daniel J.] Flood [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I again
move to take from the Speaker's desk the bill (H.R. 12929) making
appropriations for
[[Page 9942]]
the Departments of Labor and Health, Education, and Welfare, and
related agencies, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1979,
and for other purposes, with Senate amendment No. 103 thereto and
disagree to the Senate amendment.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Clerk read Senate amendment No. 103 as follows:
Page 40, strike out lines 1 to 4, inclusive, and insert:
Sec. 210. None of the funds in this Act shall be used to
perform abortions except . . . where medically necessary . . .
.
Mr. Flood: Mr. Speaker, I have moved to disagree to the Senate
amendment.
The Speaker: (6) That motion is now pending.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Mahon moves that the House concur in the amendment of
the Senate.
The Speaker: The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Flood) is
recognized for 1 hour. . . .
Mr. Flood: Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time.
Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the preferential
motion.
The previous question was ordered.
Parliamentarian's Note: The Member calling up a bill which has been
reported from conference and which remains in the stage of disagreement
controls one hour of debate on a motion to dispose of an amendment
adopted by the Senate after consideration of the conference report in
both Houses (and not reported from conference in disagreement), and the
division of time between the majority and minority under clause 2(b) of
Rule XXVIII does not apply.
Sec. 17.46 Although the motion to concur in a Senate amendment takes
precedence over the motion to disagree where the stage of
disagreement has been reached, the Member offering the preferential
motion does not thereby gain control of the time for debate, which
remains in the control of the manager of the bill under the hour
rule.
On Nov. 29, 1977,(7) the following proceedings occurred
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 123 Cong. Rec. 38033, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Daniel J.] Flood [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I move to
take from the Speaker's desk the bill (H.R. 7555) making
appropriations for the Departments of Labor, and Health, Education,
and Welfare, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 1978, and for other purposes, with the amendment of
the Senate to the amendment of the House to the amendment of the
Senate No. 82, and disagree thereto.
[[Page 9943]]
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Clerk read the Senate amendment to the House amendment to
the Senate amendment No. 82, as follows:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the
amendment of the House to the amendment of the Senate numbered
82, insert the following:
Sec. 209. None of the funds contained in this Act shall be
used to perform abortions: . . .
Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Mahon moves that the House concur in the amendment of
the Senate to the amendment of the House to the amendment of
the Senate numbered 82. . . .
The Speaker: (8) The gentleman from Pennsylvania is
recognized for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: Under the former practice, debate on a
motion to dispose of a Senate amendment which had not been reported
from conference in disagreement but which was otherwise before the
House, the stage of disagreement having been reached, was under the
control of the manager of the bill under the hour rule and was not
divided between the majority and minority parties. The custom has since
developed of equally dividing between majority and minority parties the
time on all motions to
dispose of amendments emerging from conference in disagreement, whether
reported in disagreement, or before the House upon rejection of a
conference report by a vote or on a point of order.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. See Sec. 17.52, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 17.47 During consideration of Senate amendments reported from
conference in disagreement, a preferential motion to recede and
concur in
a Senate amendment takes precedence over a motion offered by the
manager of the report to insist on disagreement to the Senate
amendment; but the offeror of the preferential motion does not
thereby gain control over the time for debate, which continues for
one hour equally divided and controlled by the majority and the
minority manager of the conference report.
On Aug. 1, 1979,(10) the following proceedings took
place in the House during consideration of Senate amendments reported
from conference on H.R. 4388 (energy and water development
appropriations):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 125 Cong. Rec. 21994, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (11) The Clerk will
designate the next amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 9944]]
The Clerk read as follows:
Senate amendment No. 30: Page 31, line 8, strike out ``:
Provided, That notwithstanding the provisions of 16 U.S.C.,
chapter 35 or any other law, the Corporation is authorized and
directed to complete construction of, operate and maintain the
Tellico Dam . . . .
Mr. [Tom] Bevill [of Alabama]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Bevill moves that the House insist on its disagreement
to the amendment of the Senate numbered 30.
preferential motion offered by mr. breaux
Mr. [John B.] Breaux [of Louisiana]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Breaux moves that the House recede and concur in the
amendment of the Senate numbered 30.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Does the gentleman from Alabama wish
to debate this amendment?
Mr. Bevill: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I believe I am allotted 1 hour;
is that correct?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The rule would provide 30 minutes on
the side. The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bevill) is recognized for
30 minutes.
Sec. 17.48 The manager of a conference report with Senate amendments
reported from conference in disagreement having offered a motion to
insist on disagreement to a Senate amendment, a motion to recede
and concur therein is preferential and is voted on first, but the
manager retains control of the thirty minutes of majority time on
the amendment.
During consideration of House Joint Resolution 637 (further
continuing appropriations for fiscal year 1981) on Dec. 13,
1980,(12) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 126 Cong. Rec. 34087, 96th 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 insist on its disagreement
to the amendment of the Senate numbered 40.
preferential motion offered by mr. duncan of oregon
Mr. [Robert] Duncan of Oregon: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Duncan of Oregon moves that the House recede and concur
with the amendment of the Senate numbered 40.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (13) Does the gentleman
from Mississippi (Mr. Whitten) desire recognition?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Whitten: Not at this time, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if
the
[[Page 9945]]
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Duncan) would explain precisely what his
amendment does?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr.
Whitten) has the time. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Whitten) for 30 minutes.
Mr. Whitten: I yield to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Duncan).
--When Proponent of Preferential Motion May Control Time
Sec. 17.49 While the manager of
a conference report controls the majority time on all motions with
respect to an amendment in disagreement where he has offered an
initial motion and sought recognition to control time for debate,
he does not necessarily control the majority time on a motion to
concur with an amendment offered after the House has voted to
recede (a motion to recede and concur having been divided), if (1)
the manager's original motion was to insist, which has been
preempted by adoption of the motion to recede, and (2) the manager
did not seek recognition to control debate time on the motion to
recede and concur when it was offered, but allowed the Chair to
immediately put the question on receding; in such case, the
proponent of the preferential motion to concur with an amendment
may be recognized to control one-half the time and a Member of the
other party one-half the time under the hour rule as
required by Rule XXVIII, clause 2(b).
The following proceedings occurred in the House on Oct. 1,
1982,(14) during consideration of House Joint Resolution 599
(continuing appropriations for fiscal year 1983):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 128 Cong. Rec. 27295-97, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (15) The Clerk will
designate the next amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Norman Y. Mineta (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The amendment reads as follows:
Senate amendment No. 83: Page 19, after line 2, insert:
Sec. 151. (a) Section 4109 of title 5, United States Code
is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new
subsection:
``(c) Notwithstanding subsection (a)(1) of this section,
the Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, may pay an
individual training to be an air traffic controller . . . at
the applicable rate of basic pay for the hours of training
officially ordered or approved in excess of forty hours in an
administrative workweek.''. . . .
Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
motion.
[[Page 9946]]
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Whitten moves that the House insist on its disagreement
to the amendment of the Senate numbered 83.
Mr. [Lawrence] Coughlin [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I offer
a preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Coughlin moves that the House recede from its
disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 83 and
concur therein.
Mr. [William D.] Ford of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, I demand a
division of the question.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question will be divided.
The Chair will state that the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr.
Whitten) has the time. Does the gentleman wish to use his time for
debate now?
Mr. Whitten: Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Coughlin).
The Speaker Pro Tempore: If the gentleman from Mississippi does
not seek to control debate time, the Chair will put the question on
receding.
The question is, will the House recede from its disagreement to
Senate amendment No. 83?
The House receded from its disagreement to Senate amendment No.
83.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: For what purpose does the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Ford) seek recognition?
Mr. Ford of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, I offer a preferential
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Ford moves that the House concur in Senate amendment
numbered 83 with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the matter
proposed to be inserted by the Senate amendment, insert the
following: . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Since the House has receded, the
gentleman from Mississippi's original motion has been preempted and
he did not seek to control time therefore the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Ford) will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Coughlin) will be recognized for
30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ford).
Recognition After Rejection of Conference Report
Sec. 17.50 Where a conference report was rejected and the manager of
the report did not seek further recognition, the Speaker recognized
a minority member of the committee with legislative jurisdiction to
move to concur in the Senate amendment with an amendment.
On Dec. 10, 1969,(16) Mr. Wright Patman, of Texas, the
manager of a conference report on an export control bill, moved the
previous question. When the House rejected the report, and when Mr.
Patman did not seek further recognition, Speaker John W. McCormack, of
Massachusetts, recognized Gary E. Brown, of Michigan,
[[Page 9947]]
a minority member of the Committee on Banking and Currency which had
reported the bill. Mr. Brown was recognized to offer a motion to concur
in the Senate amendment with an amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 115 Cong. Rec. 38102-06, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 17.51 Where a conference report on a House bill with a Senate
amendment is rejected, the Chair directs the Clerk to report the
Senate amendment; and if the manager of the report does not seek
recognition to offer a motion to dispose of the Senate amendment
the Chair recognizes the Member who had led the opposition to the
conference report to offer a motion to dispose of the amendment.
On Sept. 16, 1977,(17) during proceedings relating to
the consideration of the conference report on H.R. 5262 (international
financial institutions), the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 123 Cong. Rec. 29597, 29599, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
So the conference report was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. [Tom] Harkin [of Iowa]: Madam Speaker, I offer a
preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Harkin moves that the House recede from its
disagreement to the amendment of the Senate to the text of the
bill (H.R. 5262) to provide
for increased participation by the United States in the
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the
International Development Association, the International
Finance Corporation, the Asian Development Bank and the Asian
Development Funds, and for other purposes, and agree to the
same with an amendment as follows:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate
amendment insert the following: . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (18) The gentleman from
Iowa (Mr. Harkin) will be recognized for 30 minutes in support of
his motion, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stanton) will be
recognized for 30 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Barbara Jordan (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Harkin).
Sec. 17.52 Following rejection of a conference report on a point of
order, debate on a motion to dispose of the Senate amendment
remaining in disagreement is evenly divided between the majority
and minority parties under the rationale contained in clause 2(b)
of Rule XXVIII requiring such division of time on motions to
dispose of amendments reported from conference in disagreement.
On Sept. 30, 1976,(19) Mr. Jack Brooks, of Texas, made
the fol
[[Page 9948]]
lowing motion with respect to a Senate amendment to H.R. 13367,
extending the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972, the
Speaker having ruled out the conference report on a point of order and
directed the Clerk to report the Senate amendments remaining in
disagreement for disposition by motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 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. [Frank] Horton [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary
inquiry.
The Speaker: (20) The gentleman will state his
parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Horton: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask what the
allocation of time is on this particular motion.
The Speaker: The Chair will state that the rule provides, of
course, for 30 minutes on a side under consideration of a
conference report but the practice has been followed, if the Chair
recalls correctly, of allotting 30 minutes to a side on a motion
when a conference report is ruled out on a point of order.
Under that procedure, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brooks)
will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair would inquire who will be handling the matter on the
minority side?
Mr. Horton: Mr. Speaker, I will be handling time on this side.
The Speaker: And the gentleman from New York (Mr. Horton) will
be recognized for 30 minutes for debate only.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brooks) for
30 minutes.
Rejection of Motion To Dispose of Amendment in Disagreement
Sec. 17.53 Where a motion to dispose of an amendment reported from
conference in disagreement, offered by the manager of the
conference report, is rejected, the Speaker recognizes a Member
leading the opposition to offer another motion to dispose of the
amendment; debate on the motion offered by the manager of the
conference report is equally divided between the majority and
minority parties (pursuant to Rule XXVIII, clause
[[Page 9949]]
2(b)); under a former practice, after rejection of such motion,
recognition to offer another motion having passed to the
opposition, debate on the opposition motion was under the hour rule
and within the control of the Member recognized to make such
motion.
Parliamentarian's Note: The custom has developed of equally
dividing between majority and minority parties the time on all motions
to dispose of amendments emerging from conference in disagreement,
whether reported in disagreement or, for example, before the House upon
rejection of a conference report by a vote or on a point of
order,(21) or upon rejection of an initial motion to dispose
of the amendment.(22)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. See Sec. 17.52, supra.
22. See the proceedings of July 2, 1980, at Sec. Sec. 17.27 and 17.41,
supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During consideration of the conference report on H.R. 7554 (Housing
and Urban Development and independent agencies appropriations for
fiscal year 1978) in the House on July 19, 1977,(1) the
following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 123 Cong. Rec. 23668, 23669, 23678, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (2) The Clerk will report
the next amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Norman Y. Mineta (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Senate amendment No. 24: Page 17, line 11, strike out
``$2,943,600,- 000'' and insert ``$3,013,000,000''.
Mr. [Edward P.] Boland [of Massachusetts] [manager of the
conference report]: 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 24 and
concur therein with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the
sum proposed by said amendment insert ``$2,995,300,000''.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Boland) is recognized for 30 minutes and the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Coughlin) is recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Boland).
Mr. Boland: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume. . . .
Mr. [Don] Fuqua [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition
to amendment No. 24. . . .
[After debate, the motion was rejected.]
Mr. Fuqua: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Fuqua moves that the House recede from its disagreement
to the amendment of the Senate numbered 24 and concur therein.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Fuqua)
is recognized for 60 minutes. . . .
Mr. Fuqua: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the
motion.
[[Page 9950]]
The previous question was ordered.
The motion was agreed to.
Sec. 17.54 Where the House rejects a motion by the manager of a bill to
dispose of a Senate amendment remaining in disagreement,
recognition to offer another motion is accorded to a Member who led
the opposition to the rejected motion.
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, the
Speaker having ruled out the conference report on a point of order and
directed the Clerk to report the Senate amendments remaining in
disagreement for disposition by motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. [Frank] Horton [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I would like to
ask what the allocation of time is on this particular motion.
The Speaker: (4) The Chair will state that the rule
provides, of course, for 30 minutes on a side under consideration
of a conference report but the practice has been followed, if the
Chair recalls correctly, of allotting 30 minutes to a side on a
motion when a conference report is ruled out on a point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under that procedure, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brooks)
will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair would inquire who will be handling the matter on the
minority side?
Mr. Horton: Mr. Speaker, I will be handling time on this side.
The Speaker: And the gentleman from New York (Mr. Horton) will
be recognized for 30 minutes for debate only.
The motion was rejected.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 122 Cong. Rec. 34092, 94th Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 30, 1976.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Horton: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Horton moves that the House recede and concur in the
Senate amendment to H.R. 13367, with an
[[Page 9951]]
amendment as follows: In lieu of the matter proposed to be
inserted by the Senate amendment insert the following: . . .
After Rejection of Previous Question on Motion To Concur, Opponents of
Motion Recognized
Sec. 17.55 The opponents of a motion to concur in a Senate amendment
with an amendment are entitled to seek recognition on the amendment
after the House rejects the ordering of the previous question on
that motion.
On May 14, 1963,(6) the House was considering amendments
reported from conference in disagreement on H.R. 5517, making
supplemental appropriations for fiscal 1963. The amendments were being
managed by Mr. Albert Thomas, of Texas, who had called up the
conference report. Mr. Thomas moved the previous question (without
debate) on his motion to concur in a Senate amendment with an
amendment. The previous question was rejected. Mr. George Meader, of
Michigan, who was in opposition to the motion to concur, then sought
recognition. He was recognized by Speaker John W. McCormack, of
Massachusetts, to control debate on the motion. The motion to concur
with an amendment was rejected, a previously pending motion to concur
was rejected, and Mr. Meader was then recognized to move that the House
insist on its disagreement to the Senate amendment, which was adopted
by the House.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 109 Cong. Rec. 8508-11, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
7. See Sec. 17.57, infra, for the principle that after defeat of the
motion to recede and concur, an essential motion, the right to
recognition passes to
the opposition to the motion. However, the manager of the
conference
report retains control over the consideration of the remainder
of the amendments in disagreement (see Sec. 17.38, supra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rejection of Motion To Recede and Concur--Effect on Recognition
Sec. 17.56 Where a vital motion made by the Member in charge of a bill
is defeated, the right to prior recognition passes to a Member
opposed; thus, where a motion made by the Member in charge of a
bill to recede and concur in a Senate amendment with an amendment
had been defeated, recognition for a motion to recede and concur
with another amendment passed to a Member opposed to the defeated
motion.
[[Page 9952]]
During consideration of H.J. Res. 1131, a further continuing
appropriation for fiscal year 1975, in the House on Oct. 7,
1974,(8) the proceedings described above were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 120 Cong. Rec. 34151, 34157-59, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: (9) The Clerk will report the first
amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Senate amendment No. 3: On page 2, line 9, strike out: ``to
the Government of Turkey until the President certifies to the
Congress that substantial progress toward agreement has been
made regarding military forces in Cyprus'' and insert ``or for
the transportation of any military equipment or supplies to any
country which uses such defense articles or services in
violation of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 or the Foreign
Military Sales Act, or any agreement entered into under such
Acts.''
Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Mahon moves that the House recede from its disagreement
to the amendment of the Senate numbered 3 and concur therein
with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the matter stricken
out and inserted by said amendment, insert: ``or for the
transportation of any military equipment or supplies to the
Government of Turkey unless and until the President determines
and certifies to the Congress that the Government of Turkey is
in compliance with the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, the
Foreign Military Sales Act, or any agreement entered into under
such Acts by making good faith efforts to reach a negotiated
settlement with respect to Cyprus.''
The Speaker: The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Mahon) will be
recognized for 30 minutes and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Cederberg) will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Mahon).
Mr. Mahon: Mr. Speaker, I should just like to say a word and
then I will yield to my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Rosenthal). . . .
The Speaker: The question pending is on the motion of the
gentleman from Texas. Those in favor of it will vote ``yea.''
Mr. [Benjamin S.] Rosenthal [of New York]: Is this vote on the
previous question?
The Speaker: The vote is on the motion.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas
69, nays 291, not voting 74 . . . .
So the motion was rejected. . . .
Mr. Rosenthal: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Rosenthal moves that the House recede from its
disagreement to Senate amendment numbered 3 and concur therein
with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the matter proposed to
be inserted by Senate amendment numbered 3, insert the
following: ``or for the transportation of any military
equipment or supplies to Turkey until and unless the President
certifies to the Congress that the Government of Turkey is in
compliance with the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, the Foreign
Military Sales Act, and any agreement
[[Page 9953]]
entered into under such Acts, and that substantial progress
toward agreement has been made regarding military force in
Cyprus.''
The Speaker: The gentleman from New York is recognized for 1
hour.
Mr. Rosenthal: Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Delaware (Mr. du Pont), pending which
I yield myself 5 minutes. . . .
Mr. Rosenthal: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the
motion.
The Speaker: Without objection, the previous question is
ordered.
There was no objection.
The Speaker: The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rosenthal).
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes
appeared to have it. . . .
So the motion was agreed to.
Parliamentarian's Note: Pursuant to Rule XXVIII, clause 2(b), time
for debate on a motion to dispose of a Senate amendment reported from
conference in disagreement is equally divided between majority and
minority parties. (But see Sec. 17.18, supra, for division of time
where majority and minority are in agreement on the motion. Provision
for a three-way division of the hour was added to the rules in 1985.)
When the Mahon motion was defeated and Mr. Rosenthal was recognized for
one hour, he yielded one-half of his time to a minority party Member
pursuant to that rule.
Sec. 17.57 Where a motion is made by the Member in charge of a
conference report to recede and concur in a Senate amendment with
an amendment and the motion is defeated, recognition for
a motion to further insist
on disagreement passes to a Member opposed.
On June 26, 1942,(10) Mr. Malcolm C. Tarver, of Georgia,
the Member in charge of a bill reported from conference in
disagreement, moved that the House recede and concur with an amendment.
The motion was rejected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 88 Cong. Rec. 5642, 5643, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, opposed to the amendment, then
arose to make the motion to further insist on disagreement to the
Senate amendment, at the same time that Mr. Tarver arose to make the
same motion. After the question of recognition was discussed, Speaker
Sam Rayburn, of Texas, recognized Mr. Cannon to make the motion:
Mr. Tarver: Mr. Speaker, I desire to submit a parliamentary
inquiry. It was my purpose to offer a motion as I have done in
connection with the same subject matter on previous occasions. I
had risen for the purpose of offering a motion to further insist
upon the disagreement of the House to Senate
[[Page 9954]]
amendments Nos. 90 and 91. I wish to inquire whether or not I am
privileged, as chairman of the House conferees, to offer that
motion?
Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, my motion is to further
insist.
Mr. Tarver: Mr. Speaker, I was on my feet before the gentleman
from Missouri rushed over between me and the microphone and offered
his motion.
Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, it is a long-established
rule of procedure that when a vital motion made by the Member in
charge of a bill is defeated, the right to prior recognition passes
to the opposition. That is the position in which the gentleman
finds himself. He has made a major motion. The motion has been
defeated. Therefore the right of recognition passes to the
opposition, and I ask to be recognized to move to further insist.
Mr. Tarver: Mr. Speaker, may I be heard with regard to that
statement?
The Speaker: The Chair will hear the gentleman.
Mr. Tarver: The question has never been raised so far as I have
known in the course of my experience of some 16 years upon an
appropriation bill conference report, but if as the gentleman
states the right of making the motion passes to the opposition, it
should pass to my Republican colleague the gentleman from Kansas
[Mr. Lambertson] with whom the gentleman from Missouri has been
associated in the defeat of the motion offered by the chairman of
the subcommittee. I have desired to offer the motion myself in the
absence of the exercise of that privilege by the gentleman from
Kansas.
Mr. [William P.] Lambertson [of Kansas]: Mr. Speaker, I ask for
recognition.
The Speaker: The gentleman from Georgia has the floor.
Mr. Tarver: I have completed all I desire to say except that I
desire to offer the motion if it is permissible; otherwise, I
insist that the right should pass to the opposition and
to the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Lambertson].
The Speaker: The Chair is of the opinion that the gentleman
from Missouri has been properly recognized to offer a motion. The
gentleman will state his motion.
Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House
further insist on its disagreement to the Senate amendments.
The motion was agreed to.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Id. at pp. 5642, 5643. For the requirement that recognition pass to
the opposition after the rejection of an essential motion made
by the Member in charge of a proposition, see Sec. 15, supra.
The opposition is recognized only to offer a motion related
to the pending amendment in disagreement; control then passes
back to the manager of the conference report (see Sec. 17.38,
supra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 17.58 Where a conference report was agreed to and a motion to
recede and concur in a Senate amendment was rejected, the manager
of the conference report did not seek further recognition and the
Speaker Pro Tempore recognized a minority Member who offered a
motion to
[[Page 9955]]
further insist on disagreement.
On Dec. 3, 1969,(12) Mr. Joseph W. Evins, of Tennessee,
manager of a conference report and amendments in disagreement, moved
the previous question and the report was agreed to. Mr. Evins then
offered a motion that the House
recede and concur in a Senate amendment. The motion was rejected, and
Mr. Evins did not seek further recognition on the amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 115 Cong. Rec. 36759, 36760, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaker Pro Tempore Charles M. Price, of Illinois, then recognized
Glenn R. Davis, of Wisconsin, a minority Member, to offer a motion to
further insist on disagreement.
Sec. 17.59 Upon rejection of a motion offered by the manager of a
conference report in
disagreement to recede and concur in the Senate amendment in
disagreement with an amendment, the manager may be recognized to
offer a motion that the House insist on its disagreement to the
amendment with a request for a further conference.
On May 23, 1979,(13) the following proceedings occurred
in the House during consideration of the first concurrent resolution on
the budget for fiscal year 1980:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 125 Cong. Rec. 12469, 12471, 12489, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert N.] Giaimo [of Connecticut]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to the order of the House of May 22, 1979, I call up the conference
report on the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 107) setting
forth the Congressional Budget for the U.S. Government for the
fiscal year 1980 and revising the Congressional Budget for the U.S.
Government for the fiscal year 1979. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (14) The Clerk will read
the Senate amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. John Brademas (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read the Senate amendment, as follows:
Strike out all after the resolving clause and insert:
That the Congress hereby determines and declares [that]
(a) In order to achieve a balanced budget in fiscal year
1981, the following budgetary levels are appropriate for the
fiscal years beginning on October 1, 1979, October 1, 1980, and
October 1, 1981-- . . .
Mr. Giaimo: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Giaimo moves that the House recede from its
disagreement to the Senate amendment and to concur therein with
an amendment, as follows: . . .
[The motion was rejected.]
Mr. Giaimo: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Giaimo moves that the House insist upon its
disagreement to the
[[Page 9956]]
Senate amendment and request a further conference with the
Senate thereon.
The motion was agreed to.
Defeat of Motion To Reject Nongermane Portion of Motion To Recede and
Concur--Effect on Recognition
Sec. 17.60 Upon defeat of a motion to reject a nongermane portion of a
motion to recede and concur in a Senate amendment with a further
amendment, the Member who had moved to recede and concur with an
amendment and a minority Member are each recognized for 30 minutes
of debate on that motion.
On July 31, 1974,(15) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma,
recognized Wilbur Mills, of Arkansas, to call up the conference report
on H.R. 8217 (exemption from tariff duty of equipment on United States
vessels) in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 120 Cong. Rec. 26082, 26083, 26088, 26089, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Mills: Mr. Speaker, I call up the conference report on the
bill (H.R. 8217) to exempt from duty certain equipment and repairs
for vessels operated by or for any agency of the United States, and
ask unanimous consent that the statement of the managers be read in
lieu of the report. . . .
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the statement. . . .
Mr. Mills: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Mills moves that the House recede from its disagreement
to the Senate amendment to the text of the bill, H.R. 8217, and
concur therein with an amendment, as follows:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate
amendment to the text of the bill (page 2, after line 6),
insert the following:
Sec. 3. The last sentence of section 203(e)(2) of the
Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970
(as added by section 20 of Public Law 93-233 and amended by
section 2 of Public Law 93-256 and by section 2 of Public Law
93-329) is amended by striking out ``August 1, 1974'' and
inserting in lieu thereof ``April 30, 1975''. . . .
Mr. [J. J.] Pickle [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of
order on section 3 of this bill because it does not conform to the
House germaneness rule, rule 28, clause 5(b)(1). . . .
Section 3 deals with the unemployment compensation program as
it relates to extended benefits. This has nothing to do with the
``repair of vessels.'' . . .
Mr. Mills: Mr. Speaker, I must admit that the point of order is
well taken. I cannot resist the point of order.
The Speaker: The point of order is sustained.
Mr. Pickle: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Pickle moves that the House reject section 3 of the
proposed amendment to the Senate amend
[[Page 9957]]
ment to the text of the bill H.R. 8217.
The Speaker: The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Pickle) will be
recognized for 20 minutes, and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr.
Mills) will be recognized for 20 minutes. . . .
The Speaker: The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Pickle).
The question was taken, and the Speaker announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote
on the ground that a quorum is not present. . . .
The Speaker: . . . [T]he Chair does recognize the gentleman
from Iowa who objects to the vote on the ground that a quorum is
not present and makes the point of order that a quorum is not
present, and evidently a quorum is not present. . . .
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas
63, nays 336, not voting 35, as follows: . . .
So the motion was rejected. . . .
The Speaker: The Chair desires to state that under the rule the
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Mills) will be recognized for 30
minutes and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Schneebeli) will
be recognized for 30 minutes.
Motion To Recede and Concur Divided--Effect of Rejection of Motion To
Recede
Sec. 17.61 Where a motion to recede and concur with an amendment to an
amendment reported in disagreement from conference has been
divided, and the motion to recede is rejected, the conferee
managing the bill is entitled to recognition to offer a motion to
insist on disagreement.
The following proceedings occurred in the House on Sept. 24, 1975:
(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 121 Cong. Rec. 30081, 30082, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: (17) . . . The question is on the
motion to recede.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. [M. G.] Snyder [of Kentucky]: 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 vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas
197, nays 203, not voting 33, as follows: . . .
So the motion to recede was rejected. . . .
Mr. [John M.] Slack [of West Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Slack moves that the House insist on its disagreement
to Senate amendment No. 8.
The Speaker: Does the gentleman from West Virginia desire time
on the motion?
Mr. Slack: Mr. Speaker, I desire no time.
[[Page 9958]]
Mr. Snyder: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield just for 30
seconds?
Mr. Slack: I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. Snyder: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to say I had the same
motion.
The motion was agreed to.
Motion To Recommit Conference Report
Sec. 17.62 On one occasion, the Speaker Pro Tempore recognized the
ranking minority member of one of the two committees which had
originally reported a bill in the House, who was not a conferee on
the bill, to move
to recommit a conference
report, rather than the second highest ranking minority member of
the other committee which had reported the bill, who was a conferee
(although the highest ranking minority member of a select committee
normally has the right to recognition to move to recommit a bill
reported from a select committee).
The following proceedings occurred in the House on June 27,
1980,(18) during consideration of the conference report on
S. 1308 (Energy Mobilization Board):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 126 Cong. Rec. 17371, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, I move the
previous question on the conference report.
The previous question was ordered.
motion to recommit
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (19) For what reason does
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Devine) rise?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. John P. Murtha (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Samuel L.] Devine [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion
to recommit.
Mr. [Manuel] Lujan [Jr., of New Mexico]: Mr. Speaker, I am a
member of the conference committee, and I am opposed to the bill.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Devine).
Mr. Devine: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit, and I am
opposed to the bill.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman qualifies.
Mr. Lujan: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Lujan: Mr. Speaker, does not a member of the conference
committee have preference in recognition to the ranking minority
member on the standing committee working on the bill?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown)
was on his feet at the time of the recommital motion. Does the
gentleman from Ohio, the second ranking minor
[[Page 9959]]
ity member of the conference committee, have a motion?
Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: I am unqualified for the
motion to recommit. I was standing, however, to make sure that the
motion to recommit was protected for the minority, and when the
Chair recognized the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Devine), the ranking
minority member of the Commerce Committee, I took my seat. . . .
Mr. Lujan: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear an answer to my
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: As the gentleman knows, the Chair's
control over recognition is not subject to challenge and the Chair
recognized the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Devine).
The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Devine) is recognized for a
motion.
Mr. Devine: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is the gentleman opposed to the
conference report?
Mr. Devine: I am opposed to the bill, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman qualifies.
The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Devine moves to recommit the conference report to
accompany the Senate bill, S. 1308, to the committee of
conference.
Parliamentarian's Note: Ordinarily, the prior right to recognition
to move to recommit should belong to a member of a conference committee
(the committee reporting the bill).(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See 132 Cong. Rec. 26294, 99th Cong. 2d Sess., where Mr. William R.
Archer, Jr., of Texas, a conferee and member of the Ways and
Means Committee, was recognized for a motion to recommit the
conference report on the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (H.R. 3838).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAPTER 29
Consideration and Debate
C. RECOGNITION ON PARTICULAR QUESTIONS
Sec. 18. As to Simple or
Concurrent Resolutions; Special Rules
Simple resolutions (headed ``H. Res.'') are used to express a fact,
or to declare the principles, opinions, or purposes of the House.
Rules, including ``special rules'' providing for consideration of
bills, are adopted by simple resolution. Special committees are
authorized and expenditures made from the contingent fund in this
manner. Resolutions of inquiry or disapproval, including resolutions
under congressional disapproval procedures prescribed by statute, are
generally made by simple resolution; and such resolutions are used to
express the sense of the House on various matters.
Concurrent resolutions (headed, e.g., ``H. Con. Res.'') are used as
a means by which the two Houses may concurrently express certain facts,
opinions or purposes. A concurrent resolution is not binding on either
House until agreed to by both, and is not sent to the President for
approval.
Rule XXII clause 2(b)(1) now provides:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. House Rules and Manual Sec. 852 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 9960]]
No bill or resolution, and no amendment to any bill or
resolution, establishing or expressing any commemoration may be
introduced or considered in the House.
For purposes of this paragraph, the term ``commemoration''
means any remembrance, celebration, or recognition for any purpose
through the designation of a specified period of time.
Debate on a privileged resolution is under the hour rule, and the
Member recognized to call it up has control of the time.(2)
Thus, a Member offering a resolution presenting a question of the
privilege of the House is recognized to control one hour of debate on
the resolution.(3) Moreover, 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
from the floor unless the Member in charge yields for that
purpose.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. See Sec. 18.1, infra.
3. See Sec. 18.12, infra.
4. See Sec. 18.10, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only a member of the Committee on Rules designated to call up a
special rule from the committee may be recognized for that purpose,
unless the rule has been on the calendar for seven legislative days
without action.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. See Sec. 18.13, infra. For the privilege and precedence of reports
from the Committee on Rules related to the order of business
and consideration, see Rule XI, clauses 4(a) and 4(b) and
comments thereto, House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 726-729d
(1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the previous question on a privileged resolution reported by the
Committee on Rules is voted down, the resolution is subject to further
consideration, debate, and a motion to table, and the Member leading
the opposition to the resolution is recognized under the hour
rule.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. See Sec. 18.6, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When a resolution from the Committee on Rules is called up the same
day it is reported, recognition for debate is not in order until the
House agrees by a two-thirds vote to consider the
resolution.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. See Sec. 18.20, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross References
Consideration and adoption of resolutions in general, see Ch. 24,
supra.
Distribution and alternation of time on certain resolutions, see
Sec. 25, infra.
Effect of special rules on control and distribution of debate, see
Sec. 28, infra.
Losing or surrendering control of resolutions, see Sec. Sec. 33, 34,
infra.
Management by reporting committee on resolutions, see Sec. 26, infra.
Prior recognition of members of reporting committee on resolutions, see
Sec. 13, supra.
Resolutions considered under hour rule, see Sec. 68, infra.
Special rules from the Committee on Rules, see Ch. 21, supra.
[[Page 9961]]
Special rules from Committee on Rules as effecting consideration, see
Sec. 2, supra. -------------------
Calling Up Privileged Resolution
Sec. 18.1 Debate on a privileged resolution is under the hour rule and
the Member recognized to call it up has control of the time.
On Feb. 27, 1963,(8) Mr. Samuel N. Friedel, of Maryland,
called up by direction of the Committee on House Administration House
Resolution 164, a privileged resolution providing funds for the
Committee on Armed Services. Speaker John W. McCormack, of
Massachusetts, then answered a parliamentary inquiry as to control of
the time for debate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 109 Cong. Rec. 3051, 3052, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
On Feb. 25, 1954,(9) Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of
Massachusetts, answered parliamentary inquiries on the control of
debate on a privileged resolution (authorizing the payment of certain
committee expenses) called up by Karl M. LeCompte, of Iowa, Chairman of
the Committee on House Administration:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 100 Cong. Rec. 2282, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. LeCompte: Under the rules the Chairman has control of the
time.
The Speaker: The gentleman has 1 hour to yield to whomsoever he
desires.
Mr. LeCompte: And he has control of the matter of offering
amendments.
The Speaker: A committee amendment is now pending. No other
amendment can be offered unless the gentleman yields the floor for
that purpose.
Mr. LeCompte: A motion to recommit, of course, belongs to some
member of the minority opposed to the resolution. Would any motion
except a motion to recommit be in order except by the gentleman in
charge of the bill?
[[Page 9962]]
The Speaker: Not unless the gentleman yields for that purpose.
The gentleman from Iowa is recognized for 1 hour.
Offering Privileged Resolution Prior to Adoption of the Rules
Sec. 18.2 Prior to the adoption of the rules, a Member offering a
privileged resolution on the seating of a Member-elect is
recognized for one hour of debate.
On Jan. 10, 1967, prior to the adoption of the rules, Mr. Morris K.
Udall, of Arizona, offered as privileged House Resolution 1,
authorizing Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, to administer
the oath of office to challenged Member-elect Adam C. Powell, of New
York, and referring the question of his final right to a seat to a
select committee. Speaker McCormack ruled that Mr. Udall was entitled
to recognition for one hour.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 113 Cong. Rec. 14, 15, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
As to the privilege and disposition of resolutions before
the adoption of rules, see Ch. 1, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous Question Rejected on Resolution Providing for Seating of
Member-elect
Sec. 18.3 Recognition to offer an amendment to a resolution called up
prior to the adoption of rules and relating to the seat of a
Member-elect passes to a Member leading the opposition to the
resolution if the previous question thereon is rejected.
On Jan. 10, 1967,(11) at the convening of the 90th
Congress and before the adoption of standing rules, Mr. Morris K.
Udall, of Arizona, called up a resolution (H. Res. 1), authorizing
Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, to administer the oath of
office to challenged Member-elect Adam C. Powell, of New York, and
referring the question of his final right to a seat to a select
committee. Pending debate on the resolution, Speaker McCormack answered
parliamentary inquiries on the procedure for consideration of and
recognition on the resolution:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 113 Cong. Rec. 14, 15, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Joe D.] Waggonner [Jr., of Louisiana]: Mr. Speaker, if the
previous question is voted down would, then, under the rules of the
House, amendments or substitutes be in order to the resolution
offered by the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Udall]?
The Speaker: The Chair will state to the gentleman from
Louisiana [Mr. Waggonner] that any germane amendment may be in
order to that particular amendment. . . .
Mr. Waggonner: Mr. Speaker, un-der the rules of the House would
the
[[Page 9963]]
option or priority or a subsequent amendment or a substitute motion
lie with the minority?
The Speaker: The Chair will pass upon that question based upon
the rules of the House. That would be a question that would present
itself to the Chair at that particular time. . . . However, the
usual procedure of the Chair has been to the effect that the Member
who led the fight against the resolution will be recognized.
Mr. Udall moved the previous question on the resolution, and the
motion was rejected.
Speaker McCormack then recognized Gerald R. Ford, of Michigan, the
Minority Leader, to offer an amendment to the
resolution.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Id. at pp. 24-26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 18.4 A minority Member, who had led the opposition, was recognized
after the House had refused to order the previous question on a
resolution offered by the majority and providing for the seating of
a Member-elect.
On Mar. 1, 1967,(13) Emanuel Celler, of New York, a
Member of the majority, moved the previous question on House Resolution
278, which he had offered, and which provided for the seating of
challenged Member-elect Adam C. Powell, of New York. The previous
question was rejected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 113 Cong. Rec. 5019, 5020, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, then recognized Thomas
B. Curtis, of Missouri, a Member of the minority, to offer an amendment
in the nature of a substitute excluding Member-elect Powell from
membership in the House.
Rejection of Previous Question on Resolution From Committee on Rules
Sec. 18.5 If the previous question is voted down on a Committee on
Rules resolution authorizing an investigation, recognition passes
to the opponents of the resolution, and the Chair first recognizes
a Member of the minority party, if opposed.
On July 20, 1939,(14) Mr. Howard W. Smith, of Virginia,
managing a resolution from the Committee on Rules to authorize an
investigation, moved the previous question on the resolution. Speaker
William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, answered parliamentary inquiries on
the order of recognition to be followed should the previous question be
rejected:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 84 Cong. Rec. 9591, 9592, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: If the previous question
is voted down, will that open up the resolution to amendment?
The Speaker: Undoubtedly.
[[Page 9964]]
Mr. Smith of Virginia: A further parliamentary inquiry, Mr.
Speaker.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Smith of Virginia: If I understand the situation correctly,
if the previous question is voted down, the control of the measure
would pass to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Keller]; and the
resolution would not be open to amendment generally, but only to
such amendments as the gentleman from Illinois might yield for. Is
my understanding correct, Mr. Speaker?
The Speaker: If the previous question is voted down, it would
not necessarily pass to the gentleman from Illinois; it would pass
to the opponents of the resolution. Of course, a representative of
the minority would have the first right of recognition.
On Mar. 13, 1939,(15) Mr. Smith called up at the
direction of the Committee on the District of Columbia House Resolution
113, authorizing an investigation of the milk industry in the District
of Columbia. Mr. Smith moved the previous question on the resolution,
and the motion was rejected:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Id. at p. 2663.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaker Bankhead then stated:
Under the rules of procedure, the recognition passes to the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Mapes] if he desires to claim it.
The Speaker added, in response to parliamentary inquiries, that Mr.
Carl E. Mapes, who was leading the opposition to the resolution, would
control one hour of debate and would lose the floor if he yielded to
another Member to offer an amendment.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Pending a vote on ordering the previous question, the Chair may
decline to indicate whom he might recognize or what form of
amendment might be in order if the previous question were
rejected. See 115 Cong. Rec. 29219, 29220, 91st Cong. 1st
Sess., Oct. 8, 1969.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Member Opposed to Resolution Offers Motion To Table
Sec. 18.6 In response to parliamentary inquiries the Speaker advised
that if the previous question on a privileged resolution reported
by the Committee on Rules were voted down, the resolution would be
subject to further consideration, debate, and a motion to table,
and that he would recognize under the hour rule the Member who
appeared to be leading the opposition.
On Oct. 19, 1966,(17) Mr. Claude D. Pepper, of Florida,
called up, by direction of the Committee on Rules, House Resolution
1013, establishing a Select Committee on Standards and Conduct. Mr.
Pepper was recognized for one hour
[[Page 9965]]
and offered a committee amendment to the resolution, which amendment
was agreed to. Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, then
answered a series of parliamentary inquiries on the order of
recognition should Mr. Pepper move the previous question and should the
motion be defeated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 112 Cong. Rec. 27725, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, if the previous
question is refused, is it true that then amendments may be offered
and further debate may be had on the resolution?
The Speaker: If the previous question is defeated, then the
resolution is open to further consideration and action and debate.
. . .
Mr. [Joe D.] Waggonner [of Louisiana]: Mr. Speaker, under the
rules of the House, is it not equally so that a motion to table
would then be in order?
The Speaker: At that particular point, that would be a
preferential motion. . . .
Mr. [James G.] Fulton of Pennsylvania: Mr. Speaker, if the
previous question is refused and the resolution is then open for
amendment, under what parliamentary procedure will the debate
continue? Or what would be the time limit?
The Speaker: The Chair would recognize whoever appeared to be
the leading Member in opposition to the resolution.
Mr. Fulton of Pennsylvania: What would be the time for debate?
The Speaker: Under those circumstances the Member recognized in
opposition would have 1 hour at his disposal, or such portion of it
as he might desire to exercise.
Subsequently, after the previous question had been rejected, the
Speaker recognized a Member who qualified as being opposed to the
resolution, to offer a motion to table the resolution. The Speaker's
determination as to whether the Member qualified, and the subsequent
recognition, were as follows:
Mr. Waggonner: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Speaker: Is the gentleman from Louisiana opposed to the
resolution?
Mr. Waggonner: I am, in its present form, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: Has the gentleman participated actively in the
debate in opposition?
Mr. Waggonner: I did, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: The Chair recognizes the gentleman.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Waggonner moves to lay House Resolution 1013 on the
table.
Recognition After Defeat of Motion by Member in Charge To Table
Resolution of Inquiry
Sec. 18.7 Where the motion to lay a resolution of inquiry on the table
is made by the Member in charge of the resolution, and that motion
is defeated, the right to prior recognition passes to the Member
lead
[[Page 9966]]
ing the opposition to the motion.
On Feb. 20, 1952,(18) Mr. James P. Richards, of South
Carolina, called up by direction of the Committee on Foreign Affairs,
House Resolution 514, a privileged resolution of inquiry directed to
the Secretary of State. Mr. Richards sent to the Clerk's desk the
adverse report of the committee, recommending that the resolution not
pass. Mr. Richards immediately moved to lay the resolution on the
table. The motion was defeated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 98 Cong. Rec. 1205-07, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
John M. Vorys, of Ohio, the Member leading the opposition to the
motion, was then recognized by Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Tex-as, who
explained the parliamentary situation:
The gentleman from Ohio is in charge of the time, the gentleman
being with the majority in this instance, and on that side of the
issue which received the most votes.
Mr. Vorys controlled debate on the resolution, which was agreed to
by the House.
Parliamentarian's Note: Resolutions of inquiry addressed to heads
of executive departments are privileged. If the committee to which the
resolution is referred makes an adverse decision on the resolution, the
resolution is usually reported and the committee manager moves to lay
the resolution on the table.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Resolutions of inquiry generally, see Ch. 24, supra, and Rule XXII
clause 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. 855 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolution Disapproving Reorganization Plan
--Member Opposed Moved That House Proceed to Consideration
Sec. 18.8 After a committee had reported to the House a resolution
disapproving a reorganization plan (under the Reorganization Act of
1949), a Member could be recognized to move that the House proceed
to the consideration thereof although he was not in favor of the
resolution.
On July 19, 1961,(20) Mr. Dante B. Fascell, of Florida,
moved that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole for
the consideration of House Resolution 328, disapproving Reorganization
Plan No. 5, which resolution was reported from the Committee on
Government Operations. Mr. Fascell made a unanimous-consent request
that debate be limited to five hours, to be equally divided
[[Page 9967]]
and controlled by himself and by Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan. Mr.
Hoffman objected to the latter request and Mr. Fascell moved simply
that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 107 Cong. Rec. 12905, 12906, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, raised a parliamentary inquiry as to
whether Mr. Fascell had to qualify to make the motion by stating he was
in favor of the resolution. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled that
he did not have to so qualify since under the statute, any Member could
call up a disapproval resolution reported from committee. In the
Committee of the Whole, the Chairman stated that Mr. Fascell would be
recognized for up to five hours, and Mr. Hoffman, the gentleman opposed
to the resolution, would be recognized for five hours.
Parliamentarian's Note: The Reorganization Act of 1949 (Public Law
81-109, 63 Stat. 203) provided that in the consideration of a
resolution relating to a reorganization plan, there be not to exceed 10
hours of debate, to be equally divided between those favoring and those
opposing the resolution (5 USC Sec. 912). However, the statute as it
related to the procedures of the House and Senate was enacted with
recognition of the constitutional right of either House to change its
rules at any time (5 USC Sec. 908).
There are a variety of statutes providing for the privileged
consideration of simple, concurrent, and joint resolutions to approve
or disapprove certain proposals of the executive branch. Each such
statute should be consulted to determine the procedure for
consideration and recognition.
Debate on Motion To Discharge Committee From Consideration
Sec. 18.9 Debate on a motion to discharge a committee from further
consideration of a resolution (under the Reorganization Act of
1949) disapproving a reorganization plan was limited to one hour
and was equally divided between the Member making the motion and a
Member opposed thereto; and the Chair recognized the Member making
the motion to open and close debate.
On Aug. 3, 1961,(1) Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, moved to
discharge the Committee on Government Operations from the further
consideration of House Resolution 335, disapproving Reorganization
[[Page 9968]]
Plan No. 6, transmitted by the President to Congress. Speaker Sam
Rayburn, of Texas, inquired whether Mr. Gross was in favor
of the resolution and when Mr. Gross assured the Speaker he was, the
Speaker recognized Mr. Gross to open debate and to control 30 minutes
on the motion. The Speaker recognized a Member in opposition for 30
minutes and then recognized Mr. Gross to close debate.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 107 Cong. Rec. 14548, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
2. See also 107 Cong. Rec. 13084, 13095, 13096, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.,
July 20, 1961.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: The time for debate and the division of
time between those favoring and those opposing the resolution, on a
motion to discharge a committee from the further consideration of a
resolution disapproving a reorganization plan, was specifically
provided in the Reorganization Act of 1949.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Public Law 81-109, 63 Stat. 203. The Act has subsequently been
amended. See the current text of 5 USC Sec. 911, et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amending Privileged Resolution From Committee on Rules
Sec. 18.10 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,(4) the following proceedings occurred
in the House relative to calling up a resolution from the Committee on
Rules:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 122 Cong. Rec. 4625, 4626, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: (5) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, this resolution is to be considered in
the House 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
[[Page 9969]]
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.
Rule IX--Questions of Privilege
Sec. 18.11 When a Member asserts that he rises to a question of the
privileges of the House, the Speaker may hear the question and may
then refuse recognition if the resolution is not admissible as a
question of privilege under Rule IX.
On June 27, 1974,(6) it was demonstrated that a Member
may not, by raising a question of the privileges of the House under
Rule
IX, attach privilege to a question
not otherwise in order under the rules of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 120 Cong. Rec. 21596-98, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John B.] Anderson of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
resolution (H. Res. 1203) involving a question of privileges of the
House, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution as follows:
H. Res. 1203
Whereas on January 31, 1973, the House of Representatives
voted to establish a ten-member, bipartisan Select Committee on
Committees charged with conducting a ``thorough and complete
study of rules X and XI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives; and
Whereas the select committee was further ``authorized and
directed to report to the House . . .
Whereas on March 21, 1974, the select committee reported
House Resolution 988 in conformance with its mandate; and
Whereas the chairman of the select committee has failed to
seek a rule making House Resolution 988 in order for
consideration by the House; and
Whereas, clause 27(d)(1) of House Rule XI states, ``It
shall be the duty of the chairman of each committee
to report or cause to be reported promptly to the House any
measure approved by his committee and to take or cause to be
taken necessary steps to bring the matter to a vote;'' . . .
Resolved, That the chairman of the select committee be
directed to forthwith seek a rule making in order for
consideration by the House, House Resolution 988; and be it
further
Resolved, That the House Committee on Rules be directed to
give immediate consideration to such request. . . .
Mr. [Thomas P.] O'Neill [Jr., of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I
make the point of order that the resolution offered by the
gentleman from Illinois does not raise the question of privilege. .
. .
[[Page 9970]]
Mr. Anderson of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, I desire to be heard on
the point of order. My question of privilege arises under rule IX
which provides that, and I quote:
Questions of privilege shall be, first, those affecting the
rights of the House collectively, its safety, dignity and the
integrity of its proceed-ings. . . .
Mr. Speaker, I rest my question of privilege on that clause
which declares those questions privileged which relate to the
integrity of the proceedings of the House. It is my contention that
there has been a deliberate attempt to delay House consideration of
House Resolution 988, the so-called Bolling-Martin Committee Reform
Amendments of 1974, and that this intentional delay not only
interferes with and flouts the integrity of the proceedings of this
body, but is in clear violation of clause 27(d)(1) of rule XI of
the Rules of the House.
Under that rule, and I quote:
It shall be the duty of the chairman of each committee to
report or cause to be reported promptly to the House any
measure approved by his committee and to take or cause to be
taken necessary steps to bring the matter to a vote. . . .
The Speaker: (7) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Anderson) has submitted a
resolution which he asserts involves a question of the privileges
of the House under rule IX. Following the preamble of the
resolution, the resolution provides that:
Resolved, That the chairman of
the Select Committee be directed to forthwith seek a rule
making in order for consideration by the House, House
Resolution 988, and be it further
Resolved, That the House Committee on Rules be directed to
give immediate consideration to such request.
As indicated in ``Hinds' Precedents,'' volume III, section
2678, Speakers are authorized to make a preliminary determination
as to those questions presented which may involve privileges. As
reaffirmed by Speaker McCormack on October 8, 1968 (Record p. 30214
to 30216) when a Member asserts that he rises to a question of the
privileges of the House, the Speaker may hear the question and
then, if the matter is not one admissible as a question of
privilege of the House he can refuse recognition.
The Chair has listened to the arguments concerning the
privileged status of this resolution and has examined the
precedents of the House in this regard. It will be noted that the
gentleman from Illinois has relied heavily on section 2609, volume
III of ``Hinds' Precedents,'' in which it was held by Speaker Reed
that a report having been ordered to be made by a select committee
but not being made within a reasonable time, a resolution directing
the report to be made raised a question of the privileges of the
House.
That case is distinguishable from the present instance in that
in this instance the chairman has made the report and the
resolution is pending on the calendar of the House and it does not
become privileged until the House has adopted a resolution reported
from the Committee on Rules providing for the consideration of
House Resolution
[[Page 9971]]
988. The Chair does not feel that a question of privilege of the
House under rule IX should be used as a mechanism for giving
privilege to a motion which would not otherwise be in order under
the Rules of the House, in this case, namely, a motion to direct
the Committee on Rules to take a certain action.
The Chair now would refer to Hinds' Precedents, volume III,
section 2610, wherein Speaker Crisp ruled that a charge that a
committee had been inactive in regard to a subject committed to it
did not constitute a question of privilege of the House. . . .
The rules did not provide at the time of Speaker Reed's ruling,
as is now the case in clause 27(d)(2) of Rule XI, for a mandatory
filing of the reports within 7 calendar days after the measure has
been ordered reported upon signed request by a committee majority.
In the instant case, however, the Select Committee on
Committees has filed its report and the Chair is not aware that the
chairman of the Select Committee on Committees has in any sense
violated the rule cited by the gentleman from Illinois. For these
reasons, the Chair holds that the gentleman's resolution does not
present a question of the privileges of the House under [rule] IX
and the resolution may not be considered.
Sec. 18.12 Under the former rule, a Member offering a resolution
presenting a question of the privilege of the House is recognized
to control one hour of debate on the resolution.
On Feb. 19, 1976,(8) Mr. Samuel S. Stratton, of New
York, offered a privileged resolution as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 122 Cong. Rec. 3914, 94th Cong. 2d Sess. Rule IX was amended in the
103d Congress to divide debate time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Stratton: I rise to a question involving the privileges of
the House, and I offer a privileged resolution.
The Clerk read the resolution as follows:
H. Res. 1042
Resolution requiring that the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct inquire into the circumstances leading to the
public publication of a report containing classified material
prepared by the House Select Committee on Intelligence
Whereas the February 16, 1976, issue of the Village Voice,
a New York City newspaper, contains the partial text of a
report or a preliminary report prepared by the Select Committee
on Intelligence of the House, pursuant to H. Res. 591, which
relates to the foreign activities of the intelligence agencies
of the United States and which contains sensitive classified
information . . . Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct be and it is hereby authorized and directed to inquire
into the circumstances surrounding the publication of the text
and of any part of the report
of the Select Committee on Intelligence, and to report back to
the House in a timely fashion its findings and recommendations
thereon.
The Speaker: (9) The gentleman from New York (Mr.
Stratton) is recognized for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 9972]]
Calling Up Special Rule
Sec. 18.13 Only a member of the Committee on Rules designated to call
up a report from the committee may be recognized for that purpose,
unless the rule has been on the calendar for seven legislative days
without action.
On June 6, 1940,(10) Mr. Hamilton Fish, Jr., of New
York, sought recognition to call up for consideration a special
resolution from the Committee on Rules providing for the consideration
of a measure. Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, inquired whether
Mr. Fish had been authorized to call up the resolution and Mr. Fish
stated he had not. He asserted that calling up such a resolution was
``the privilege of any member of the Rules Committee.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 86 Cong. Rec. 7706, 76th Cong. 3d Sess. See Rule XI, cl. 4(c),
House Rules and Manual Sec. 730 (1995), as to calling up
special rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker declined to recognize Mr. Fish for that purpose,
saying:
The Chair cannot recognize the gentleman from New York to call
up the resolution unless the Record shows he was authorized to do
so by the Rules Committee. . . .
The precedents are all to the effect that only a Member
authorized by the Rules Committee can call up a rule, unless the
rule has been on the calendar for 7 legislative days without
action.
Sec. 18.14 If a resolution providing a special order of business is not
called up for
consideration by the Member reporting the resolution within seven
legislative days, any member of the Committee on Rules may call it
up for consideration [Rule XI, cl. 4(c)]; and since the motion to
call up such a resolution is privileged, the Speaker would be
obliged to recognize for this purpose unless a matter of equal or
higher privilege was also pending, in which case the order of
consideration would be determined by the Speaker's recognition.
On Sept. 22, 1966,(11) Speaker John W. McCormack, of
Massachusetts, answered a parliamentary inquiry on recognition of
members of the Committee on Rules to call up a special rule reported
from that committee but not yet called up at the direction of the
committee:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 112 Cong. Rec. 23691, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [William M.] Colmer [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
[[Page 9973]]
Under the rules of the House, as I understand them, this rule,
House Resolution 1007, to bring up the so-called House Un-American
Activities Committee bill, is a privileged matter, and if it is not
programed, then the gentleman handling the rule or any member of
the Rules Committee, may call it up as a privileged matter. Is my
understanding correct about that?
The Speaker: The gentleman's understanding is correct. Of
course, the question of recognition is with the Chair, where there
are two similar preferential matters, but the gentleman's
understanding is correct that after 7 legislative days a member of
the Rules Committee could call it up.
If it were a question of recognition, if the same preferential
status existed at the same time, recognition rests with the
Chair.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See Rule XI clause 4(c), House Rules and Manual Sec. 730 (1995),
for the procedure where a special rule has been on the calendar
for seven legislative days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 18.15 If a resolution providing a special order of business is
reported from the Committee on Rules and is not called up by the
Member making the report within seven legislative days thereafter,
any member of the Rules Committee may call the resolution up, and
the Speaker shall recognize the Member seeking recognition for that
purpose as a matter of highest privilege.
On Sept. 25, 1980,(13) the following proceedings
occurred in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 126 Cong. Rec. 27417-24, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Trent] Lott [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a
question of privilege, and pursuant to clause 4(c) of House rule
XI, I call up House Resolution 675 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to move, section 402(a) of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344) to the contrary
notwithstanding, that the House resolve itself into the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the
consideration of the bill (H.R. 6674) to amend the National
Visitor Center Facilities Act of 1968 to authorize additional
funds, and for other purposes, and the first reading of the
bill shall be dispensed with. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (14) Under the rule, this
resolution is a highly privileged one.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Thomas S. Foley (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Lott) is recognized for 1
hour. . . .
Mr. Lott: Mr. Speaker, I yield the usual 30 minutes to a
majority member of the Committee on Rules, should the majority
choose to use its time, but I reserve to myself the balance of the
time not used by the majority.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I have invoked this rarely used House rule, clause
4(c) of
[[Page 9974]]
rule XI, because I think there comes a time when we must invoke the
House rules in order to call to the attention of the House and the
American people the fact that we are ignoring, even violating, a
far more important law and House rule which should be binding
on this Congress. I am referring, of course, to the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974 . . . .
Mr. Speaker, let me conclude by just asking my colleagues to
vote no on the previous question. It is a vote against violating
the Budget Act. . . .
Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the resolution.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on ordering the
previous question.
Special Rule Withdrawn From Consideration
Sec. 18.16 Where a special rule providing for the consideration of a
measure was pending when a recess was declared to await the receipt
of an engrossed bill (when the rules allowed any Member to demand
the reading in full of an engrossed bill), the manager of the
special rule withdrew it from consideration since no action had
been taken thereon.
On Apr. 8, 1964,(15) the House was considering House
Resolution 665, offered by Mr. Richard Bolling, of Missouri, from the
Committee on Rules, providing for taking a bill from the Speaker's
table and agreeing to Senate amendments thereto. Before a vote was had
on the resolution, Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts,
declared a recess pending the receipt of the engrossed copy of another
bill, H.R. 10222, the Food Stamp Act of 1964. When the House
reconvened, the Speaker announced that the unfinished business was the
reading of the latter bill. Mr. Oliver P. Bolton, of Ohio, raised a
parliamentary inquiry as to the status of the resolution pending at the
recess. The Speaker, without responding to the inquiry, recognized Mr.
Bolling, the manager of the resolution, who then withdrew the
resolution from consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 110 Cong. Rec. 7302-04, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Who Withdrew Resolution Recognized Again
Sec. 18.17 A Member calling up a privileged resolution from the
Committee on Rules is recognized for a full hour notwithstanding
the fact that he has previously called up the resolution and
temporarily withdrawn it after debate.
On Apr. 8, 1964,(16) Mr. Richard Bolling, of Missouri,
called up at
[[Page 9975]]
the direction of the Committee on Rules House Resolution 665, making in
order the consideration of a wheat-cotton measure. While the resolution
was pending, Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, declared a
recess to await the receipt of the engrossed copy of a bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 110 Cong. Rec. 7303-08, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following the recess, Mr. Bolling withdrew House Resolution 665 in
order that the engrossed copy of the bill could be taken up as
unfinished business. In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the
Speaker stated that when the Committee on Rules resolution was again
brought up, the Member calling it up would be recognized for a full
period of debate despite the fact he had previously brought it up,
debated and withdrew it:
Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, in view of
the withdrawal of the resolution by the gentleman from Missouri
[Mr. Bolling] do I understand that we start all over again on the
consideration of the rule for the wheat-cotton bill?
The Speaker: When the gentleman calls it up, the understanding
of the gentleman is correct.
Mr. Halleck: We will start all over again with 30 minutes on a
side?
The Speaker: That is correct.
Majority Leader by Unanimous Consent Called Up Special Rule
Sec. 18.18 The Majority Leader, by unanimous consent, called up on
behalf of the Committee on Rules a resolution providing for the
consideration of a bill.
On June 3, 1948,(17) Charles A. Halleck, of Indiana, the
Majority Leader, called up by unanimous consent, and on behalf of the
Committee on Rules, House Resolution 621, providing for the
consideration of a bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 94 Cong. Rec. 7108, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minority Member of Committee on Rules Called Up Special Rule
Sec. 18.19 A minority member of the Committee on Rules called up and
obtained consideration of a resolution reported by that committee
providing a special order of business.
On July 14, 1949,(18) James W. Wadsworth, Jr., of New
York, a minority member of the Committee on Rules, called up House
Resolution 278, making in order the consideration of a bill. Mr.
Wadsworth delivered the remarks below in explanation of his action,
which was contrary to usual practice:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 95 Cong. Rec. 9511, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Wadsworth: Mr. Speaker, un-der rather unusual circumstances
and
[[Page 9976]]
in violation of some of the traditions of the House, as a minority
Member I venture to call up House Resolution 278, and ask for its
immediate consideration. . . .
Mr. Speaker, in further explanation of this unusual
performance, of a member of the minority of the Committee on Rules
calling up a rule, may I say I can see no member of the majority
party of the Committee on Rules here present to take charge of the
rule. I have, however, consulted with the gentleman from Tennessee
who, I am informed on infallible authority, is the Democratic whip,
and I have his consent to behave in this atrocious manner.
I understand under the rules 1 hour of debate is in order. On
this side of the aisle no requests for time have been made to speak
on the rule. I now inquire if there are any requests for time on
the majority side?
Mr. [J. Percy] Priest [of Tennessee]: Mr. Speaker . . . if
there is no request for time on the rule, if the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Wadsworth] will move the previous question, since he has
called the rule up, I believe that would be in order and we could
proceed with the consideration of the bill.
Mr. Wadsworth: Mr. Speaker, it is with great cheerfulness that
I move the previous question on the rule.
Special Rule Called Up on Same Day Reported
Sec. 18.20 When a resolution from the Committee on Rules is called up
the same day it is reported, recognition for debate is not in order
until the House agrees by a two-thirds vote to consider the
resolution.
On May 26, 1964,(19) Mr. Richard Bolling, of Missouri,
reported at the direction of the Committee on Rules House Resolution
726, making in order the consideration of an appropriation bill, and
asked for its consideration. In answer to parliamentary inquiries by
Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts,
advised that a two-thirds vote was required to consider the resolution
on the same day reported, and that no debate was in order until the
House decided whether to consider the resolution.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 110 Cong. Rec. 11951, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
20. For consideration of Committee on Rules reports on the same day
reported, see Rule XI clause 4(b), House Rules and Manual
Sec. 729(a) (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee Amendments Were Agreed to Before Member Reporting Special
Rule Recognized for Debate
Sec. 18.21 Where a privileged resolution is reported by the Committee
on Rules, with committee amendments, the amendments are reported
(and in some cases acted
[[Page 9977]]
upon) before the Member reporting the resolution is recognized for
debate thereon.
On Aug. 19, 1964,(1) the Committee on Rules reported
House Resolution 845, providing for the consideration of H.R. 11926,
limiting the jurisdiction of federal courts in apportionment cases,
although that bill had not been reported by the committee to which it
had been referred. Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts,
directed the Clerk, after the reading of the resolution, to read the
committee amendments. The amendments were then agreed to and the
Speaker recognized Mr. Howard W. Smith, of Virginia, the manager of the
resolution, for one hour of debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 110 Cong. Rec. 20213, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: Generally the Chair puts the question on
minor perfecting committee amendments to a special rule before
recognizing the Member calling it up for debate. But where the
amendments are more substantive (as in the case of a
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute), the manager
may be recognized to debate the amendment(s) and the resolution under
the hour rule.
Special Rule (and Bill Made in Order) Called Up on District Monday
Sec. 18.22 On a District of Columbia Monday, the Speaker recognized a
member of the Committee on Rules to call up a privileged resolution
relating to the order of business, and later recognized the
chairman of another committee to call up the business made in order
thereby, prior to recognizing the chairman of the Committee on the
District of Columbia to call up District business.
On Sept. 24, 1962,(2) which was District of Columbia
Monday, the Committee on the District of Columbia did not assert its
right to call up District business. Speaker John W. McCormack, of
Massachusetts, recognized Mr. William M. Colmer, of Mississippi, of the
Committee on Rules to call up House Resolution 804 (a privileged
resolution making in order the consideration of S.J. Res. 224,
authorizing the President to call up armed forces reservists).
Following the adoption of the resolution, the Speaker recognized Carl
Vinson, of Georgia, Chairman of
[[Page 9978]]
the Committee on Armed Services, to control debate on and call up the
bill made in order by the resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 108 Cong. Rec. 20489, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following the adoption of the bill, the Speaker announced it was
District of Columbia day and then recognized John L. McMillan, of South
Carolina, Chairman of the Committee on the District of Columbia, to
call up District business.
Immediate Vote on Resolution After Motion To Discharge Agreed To
Sec. 18.23 Prior to the 102d Congress, where the Committee on Rules was
discharged from further consideration of a resolution providing a
special order of business, the vote then came immediately on the
adoption of the resolution, and recognition to debate the
resolution was not in order.
On June 11, 1945,(3) the House agreed to a motion to
discharge the Committee on Rules from the further consideration of
House Resolution 7, making in order the consideration of a bill.
Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, advised Mr. John E. Rankin, of
Mississippi, that the vote would then be taken immediately on the
resolution itself, without debate.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 91 Cong. Rec. 5896, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
4. See Rule XXVII clause 3, House Rules and Manual Sec. 908 (1995) for
the current procedure when a special rule is discharged from
the Committee on Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chair Declined Recognition for Unanimous-consent Request To Revoke
Special Rule
Sec. 18.24 The Speaker Pro Tempore declined to recognize a Member to
ask unanimous consent for the revocation of a special rule,
previously agreed to, permitting the consideration of conference
reports on the same day reported.
On Sept. 25, 1961,(5) Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, made the
following request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 107 Cong. Rec. 21183, 21184, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Speaker, I have a unanimous-consent request to make
concerning the procedure of the House. I ask unanimous consent that
the action by which clause 2 of Rule XXVIII was suspended a week
ago last Saturday be revoked, and that clause 2, Rule XXVIII of the
Rules of the House of Representatives be restored.
Speaker Pro Tempore John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, declined
to recognize Mr. Gross for that request.
[[Page 9979]]
Parliamentarian's Note: Rule XXVIII clause 2 provides a three-day
layover of conference reports before they are considered. The special
rule sought to be revoked by Mr. Gross provided for consideration of
conference reports on the same day reported.
Concurrent Resolution
Sec. 18.25 While the House customarily does not consider legislation
after the Speaker has begun to recognize
Members for ``special-order speeches,'' there is no House rule
prohibiting consideration of legislative business at any time the
House is in session; thus, on one occasion, the Speaker recognized
a Member between ``special-order speeches'' to request
consideration of a House concurrent resolution by unanimous
consent.
On Mar. 9, 1976,(6) the proceedings in the House after a
special-order speech had concluded, were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 122 Cong. Rec. 5897-99, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: (7) Without objection, the remaining
special orders will be postponed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Reserving the right to
object, Mr. Speaker, will this have the effect of permitting other
legislation to be brought up?
The Speaker: Yes.
Mr. Bauman: Under the rules, after special orders begin,
legislation cannot be brought up.
The Speaker: There is not a rule to that effect.
Mr. Bauman: Reserving the right to object to the request for
suspending the special orders, Mr. Speaker, is that not correct?
The Speaker: No. Normally we do not consider business after the
beginning of special orders, but there is no rule of the House
which prohibits such consideration. . . .
Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent for the immediate consideration of the concurrent
resolution (H. Con. Res. 577). . . .
The Speaker: The Clerk will report the concurrent resolution.
The Clerk read the concurrent resolution as follows:
H. Con. Res. 577
Whereas, in recognition of the Bicentennial celebrations of
the United States of America, the House of Lords and the House
of Commons of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland have unanimously adopted motions
respectfully praying that Her Majesty, the Queen, direct that
an original copy of the Magna Carta be placed on loan to the
people of the United States for a period of one year . . . Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved, by the Senate (the House of Representatives
concurring), That (a) a delegation of Members of Congress shall
be appointed to proceed at the invitation of the two Houses of
[[Page 9980]]
Parliament, to the United Kingdom, there to attend the
presentation of the Magna Carta, under suitable auspices, to
the people of the United States . . . .
Parliamentarian's Note: The Speaker took the floor on this
occasion to express his strong
support for the consideration
by unanimous consent of a concurrent resolution authorizing appointment
of a delegation to accept the British Parliament's loan of the Magna
Carta (a resolution similar to one previously rejected by the House
without extended debate).
CHAPTER 29
Consideration and Debate
C. RECOGNITION ON PARTICULAR QUESTIONS
Sec. 19. For Offering and Debating Amendments
Recognition to offer an amendment in the House is governed by Rule
XIV, clause 2 and the precedents developed thereunder. In Committee of
the Whole, Rule XXIII, clause 5 is the governing authority.
Cross References
Amendments and their consideration in general, see Ch. 27, supra.
Amendment or other provision establishing ``commemoration'' as
prohibited, see Sec. 18, supra.
Amendments and management by reporting committee, see Sec. 26, infra.
Chair's protection of rights of Members seeking to offer amendments
under limitation on five-minute debate in Committee of the Whole,
see Sec. 22, infra.
Losing control by yielding for amendment, see Sec. 33, infra.
Points of order against amendments after offered but before debate
begins, see Sec. 20, infra, and Sec. 9, supra (late points of
order).
Priority of manager of bill in debate, see Sec. 14, supra.
Recognition for amendments under the five-minute rule, see
Sec. Sec. 21, 22, infra.
Rights of opposition to offer amendment after rejection of essential
motion, see Sec. 15, supra.
Special orders limiting amendments which may be offered, see Ch. 21,
supra.
Yielding for amendments, see Sec. 30,
infra. -------------------
Must Be Recognized To Offer Amendment
Sec. 19.1 A Member wishing to offer an amendment must first be
recognized by the Chair for that purpose.
On Sept. 21, 1967,(8) Mr. George H. Mahon, of Texas,
asked unanimous consent that it be in order on a certain day, or
thereafter,
to consider a joint resolution mak-ing continuing appropriations. Mr.
Frank T. Bow, of Ohio, under a reservation of objection, inquired
whether such a resolution would be subject to germane amend
[[Page 9981]]
ment. Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, answered that
amendments would be in order. Mr. H. R. Gross, of Idaho, then raised a
parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 113 Cong. Rec. 26370, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object,
I would
assume the Speaker could add to
that the statement [that amendments would be in order]: ``If the
gentleman is recognized for the purpose of offering an amendment.''
Mr. Speaker, as a parliamentary inquiry is that not correct?
The Speaker: Will the gentleman restate his parliamentary
inquiry?
Mr. Gross: The parliamentary inquiry is this: That the
gentleman could offer an amendment if the Speaker recognized the
gentleman for that purpose?
The Speaker: The Chair will state that the question answers
itself. The answer would be yes, subject to the right of
recognition, it is a question within the discretion of the
Speaker.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. See also Sec. 21.4, infra (a Member desiring to offer an amendment
under the five-minute rule must seek recognition from the
Chair, and may not be yielded the floor for that purpose by
another Member).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seeking Recognition
Sec. 19.2 In order to obtain recognition to offer an amendment, a
Member must not only be standing but must also actively seek
recognition by addressing the Chair at the appropriate time.
The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on
Oct. 26, 1983,(10) during consideration of the Department of
Defense appropriations for fiscal year 1984 (H.R. 4185):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 129 Cong. Rec. 29430, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman:(11) The Clerk will read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows: . . .
For construction, procurement, production, modification,
and modernization of aircraft, equipment including ordnance . .
. and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances,
and machine tools in public and private plants . . .
$9,994,245,000. . . .
The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Nichols)
seek recognition?
Mr. [William] Nichols [of Alabama]: Yes; I do, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment relating to page 20, line 9,
of the bill.
The Clerk proceeded to read the page and line numbers of the
amendment.
Mr. [Joseph P.] Addabbo [of New York] (during the reading): Mr.
Chairman, I raise a point of order against the amendment. We have
already passed that section.
Mr. Nichols: Mr. Chairman, I was on my feet at the time.
The Chairman: The Chair recognizes the gentleman was on his
feet
[[Page 9982]]
but did not know that he was seeking recognition.
Mr. Nichols: Mr. Chairman, I was at the microphone. I was
standing. I was prepared to offer my amendment had the Chairman
recognized me.
The Chairman: The Chair will have to make the observation that
the gentleman from Alabama was not seeking active recognition. The
Chair recognized the gentleman was on his feet but did not notice
that he was seeking recognition by any vocal expression. . . .
Mr. Nichols: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I be
permitted to offer my amendment at this point.
[Objection was heard.]
Sec. 19.3 The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole advised Members
that they must be on their feet seeking recognition at the proper
time in order to protect their rights under the rules to make
points of order or to offer amendments.
On Apr. 14, 1970,(12) Chairman Chet Holifield, of
California, made the following statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 116 Cong. Rec. 11649, 11650, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
. . . The Chair wishes to say that the Chair is most desirous
of occupying this chair with dignity and with fairness to all
concerned. There were other amendments that the Chair had been told
would be offered, and the gentlemen who came and told the Chair
were not on their feet seeking recognition, nor did they address
the Chair at the time, and therefore the Chair was in the position
of allowing the Clerk to continue to read.
If the Members do not protect their own rights and use the
rules of the House to their advantage, the Chair is not here to
protect them when they do not insist on their own rights at the
proper time.
The Chair says this with no degree of reprimand, but the Chair
is the servant of the House, and the Chair will try to be fair.
Sec. 19.4 A Member who is not standing and addressing the Chair at the
time a paragraph in an appropriation bill is read is precluded from
offering an amendment to that paragraph after subsequent paragraphs
have been read.
On Apr. 14, 1970,(13) the Committee of the Whole was
reading for amendment H.R. 16916, the Office of Education
appropriations for fiscal 1971. Mr. Marvin L. Esch, of Michigan,
offered an amendment to a paragraph on page 3, after the Clerk had read
past page 4, line 17. Mr. Daniel J. Flood, of Pennsylvania, made a
point of order against the amendment on the ground it was offered too
late. He stated that Mr. Esch had not been on his feet at the
[[Page 9983]]
proper time and did not address the Chair. Mr. Esch responded that he
had been on his feet addressing the Chair at the proper time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 116 Cong. Rec. 11648, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman Chet Holifield, of California, suggested that Mr. Esch ask
unanimous consent that his amendment, although untimely, be considered,
but Mr. Flood objected to the request. The Chairman sustained the point
of order:
The Chair is constrained to uphold the point of order of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania. The Chair wants to be fair, but the
gentlemen in the Chamber that wish to offer their amendments must
be on their feet.
Sec. 19.5 A point of order against an amendment, on the grounds that
the section to which it is offered has been passed and is therefore
not subject to amendment, will not lie where a Member was on his
feet seeking recognition to offer the amendment at the appropriate
time.
On Apr. 3, 1957,(14) Mr. Harold D. Cooley, of North
Carolina, offered an amendment to a section of the bill pending in the
Committee of the Whole. Mr. John Taber, of New York, made a point of
order against the amendment on the ground that it was offered too late,
the Clerk having read past the section to which the amendment
pertained. Mr. Cooley stated as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 103 Cong. Rec. 5034-36, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It was not passed. My amendment was at the Clerk's desk, but
the Clerk was reading so rapidly that he passed that section
inadvertently.
Chairman Aime J. Forand, of Rhode Island, overruled the point of
order:
The Chair is ready to rule on that point. The gentleman from
North Carolina was on his feet while the Clerk was reading. The
Clerk continued to read before the gentleman had a chance to offer
his amendment.
The gentleman was entitled to recognition.
Member Must Offer Amendment From Floor in Addition to Placing With
Clerk
Sec. 19.6 Members must be in
the Chamber and offer their amendments from the floor at the proper
point to the bill as it is read, and it is not sufficient to merely
place such amendments at the Clerk's desk.
For example, on Apr. 1, 1947,(15) Mr. Sam Hobbs, of
Alabama, offered an amendment to an appro
[[Page 9984]]
priation bill. Mr. John Taber, of New York, made the point of order
that the amendment came too late, the Clerk having read beyond the
portion of the bill sought to be amended. Chairman George A. Dondero,
of Michigan, sustained the point of order. Mr. Francis E. Walter, of
Pennsylvania, then inquired as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 93 Cong. Rec. 2987, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Chairman, as I understand it this amendment was on the
Clerk's desk and the fact it was not reported was due to the
Clerk's failing to see the amendment. The parliamentary inquiry is:
Does it come too late when the amendment was on the desk?
The Chairman responded:
The gentleman from Alabama was not present to protect his
rights and the Clerk continued to read beyond the point where the
amendment should properly have been offered.
Likewise, on June 13, 1947, Chairman Thomas A. Jenkins, of Ohio,
responded as follows to a parliamentary inquiry:
Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, when the
amendment offered by the gentleman from California was voted on, I
had on the Clerk's desk an amendment to strike out the last three
or four lines of that paragraph. Was that amendment out of order?
The Chairman: No. In answer to the inquiry of the gentleman,
the Chair will state that the Chair has no information as to
amendments on the Clerk's desk or what they contain. That
information is brought to the attention of the House and the Chair
when a Member sends up the amendment, rises and addresses the Chair
stating that he offers an amendment. The gentleman from Michigan
did not do that, or at least the Chair did not hear
him.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Id. at p. 6984. For similar rulings, see 110 Cong. Rec. 2290, 2291,
88th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 6, 1964; 95 Cong. Rec. 12258, 12269,
81st Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 25, 1949; 95 Cong. Rec. 5505, 5506,
81st Cong. 1st Sess., May 3, 1949; and 95 Cong. Rec. 2307, 81st
Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 11, 1949.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chair's Authority To Structure Orderly Amendment Process; Discretion in
Order of Recognition
Sec. 19.7 While the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may, through
the power of recognition, encourage the orderly offering of
amendments to a pending amendment in the nature of a substitute
which has been read in its entirety, a unanimous-consent request,
not contemplated by the special order governing the procedure, to
read the substitute for amendment by sections is not in order.
On Mar. 25, 1975,(17) it was demonstrated that, where
the
[[Page 9985]]
House has by special rule provided for reading by sections in Committee
of the Whole of a committee amendment in the nature of a substitute as
an original bill, any amendment offered thereto must be read in its
entirety,
and the Committee may not by
unanimous consent order that an amendment in the nature of
a substitute for the committee amendment be in turn read by sections
for amendment. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 121 Cong. Rec. 8490, 8491, 94th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration
was H.R. 4222, to amend the National School Lunch Act and Child
Nutrition Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [James G.] O'Hara [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr.
O'Hara: In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the
Committee to the text of the bill, H.R. 4222, insert the
following:
That this Act may be cited as ``The National School Lunch
Act and Child Nutrition Act of 1966 Amendments of 1975''.
school breakfast program
Sec. 2: Section 4(a) of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 is
amended by inserting immediately after ``and June 30, 1975,''
the following: ``and subsequent fiscal years''.
Mr. O'Hara (during the reading): Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with and
that it be printed in the Record.
The Chairman:(18) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Michigan?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Otis G. Pike (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, reserving
the right to object. For all intents and purposes it now appears
that the original committee substitute, made in order by the rule,
is to be junked and instead we are being asked to consider this new
substitute which the gentleman from Michigan has just now offered.
The original rule on this bill provided that the committee
substitute be read for purposes of amendment, as is usual. If the
gentleman now obtains unanimous consent to consider his substitute
as read and open to amendment, all sorts of confusion can result.
No one will have any control over what amendments will be presented
and in which order and debate may be cut off.
Mr. O'Hara: Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Bauman: I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. O'Hara: Mr. Chairman, while it is being read in the Record
it will not be open to amendment section by section. It would be
open to amendment when the entire amendment is read.
Mr. Bauman: That is precisely what we object to. . . .
Mr. [Albert H.] Quie [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, this is
significant to what the gentleman is talking about. If the
substitute is read, it is my understanding of the rules of the
House that we cannot stop at the end of each section for
amendments, but the entire substitute has to be read before it
would be open for amendments.
[[Page 9986]]
May I inquire of the Chairman, is that right?
The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I
wonder if the gentleman from Michigan would make a unanimous-
consent request that his amendment be read section by section. This
would accomplish the purpose we are after.
The Chairman: The Chair will state that the Chair would not
entertain a request of that nature. The amendment must be read in
its entirety under the rules of the House, if the gentleman from
Maryland insists upon his objection. The Chair would encourage that
amendments be made to each section once it has been read, but it
cannot be open for amendment prior to the reading.
Sec. 19.8 The order of recognition to offer amendments is within the
discretion of the Chair, who may either base his initial
recognition on committee seniority or upon the preferential voting
status of the amendments sought to be offered; thus, where both a
pending amendment and a substitute therefor are open to perfecting
amendments, the Chair has the discretion of first recognizing
either the senior committee member, or a junior committee member
whose amendment would be first voted upon, where both amendments
could ultimately be pending at the same time.
The following proceedings occurred during consideration of the
Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1979 in the
Committee of the Whole on May 15, 1979: (19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 125 Cong. Rec. 11135, 11136, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: (20) For what purpose does the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Seiberling) rise?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Paul Simon (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John F.] Seiberling [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I have an
amendment at the desk.
The Chairman: Is this to the Udall substitute?
Mr. Seiberling: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk
to the Udall-Anderson bill, which is actually a series of technical
amendments which I will ask unanimous consent to offer en bloc. . .
.
The Chairman: Since there is no other amendment pending to the
Udall substitute, the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio may be
offered. . . .
Mr. [John B.] Breaux [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, assuming
there is an amendment to be offered to the so-called Breaux-Dingell
merchant marine version, that would take precedence over an
amendment to the so-called Udall-Anderson interior bill?
The Chairman: The Chair has the option either to recognize the
senior Member first or to first recognize that Member seeking to
offer the amendment which will be preferential and first voted
upon.
[[Page 9987]]
Mr. [Thomas J.] Huckaby [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I have
amendments at the desk for the Breaux-Dingell bill.
The Chairman: The Clerk will report the
amendments.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Mr. Seiberling was senior to Mr. Huckaby on the Committee on
Interior and Insular Affairs, but Mr. Huckaby's amendment was
to be voted on first and he represented the majority position
on the committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Don H.] Clausen [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. Chairman, what is the parliamentary situation? Is there an
amendment to be offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Seiberling)
or the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Huckaby)?
The Chairman: The Chair will state that the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Seiberling) sought recognition to amend the Udall substitute,
but the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Huckaby) has an amendment to
the Merchant Marine and Fisheries amendment in the nature of a
substitute, and he will be recognized. The Chair will recognize the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Seiberling) later for the purposes of
offering his amendment. . . .
Mr. Huckaby: Mr. Chairman, I offer amendments to the amendment
in the nature of a substitute.
The Chairman: The Clerk will report the amendments.
Parliamentarian's Note: Mr. Huckaby's amendments to the original
amendment were subsequently agreed to.(2) Mr. Seiberling
then indicated that he had amendments to the substitute, and Mr.
Huckaby that he had further amendments to the original amendment. As
noted above, the Chair would have discretion to recognize either
Member; but the Chair indicated that in either case, the question would
not be put on amendments to the substitute until all amendments to the
original amendment had been disposed of.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 125 Cong. Rec. 11152, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 19.9 Although perfecting amendments take priority over substitute
amendments in the matter of voting, it is within the discretion of
the Chair as to who he will recognize for submitting either kind of
amendment.
On Dec. 15, 1937,(3) Chairman John W. McCormack, of
Massachusetts, answered a parliamentary inquiry on recognition for
offering amendments in the Committee of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 82 Cong. Rec. 1590, 75th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Gerald J.] Boileau [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, reserving
the right to object, and I do so to propound a parliamentary
inquiry as to the order in which amendments are to be offered. The
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New Jersey is now
pending. Would not perfecting amendments have priority of
consideration over a substitute amendment?
[[Page 9988]]
The Chairman: The Chair has no knowledge of what amendments may
be offered; but ordinarily a perfecting amendment has precedence
over a motion to substitute insofar as voting is concerned. If the
unanimous-consent request is granted, it is the understanding of
the Chair that amendments will be offered section by section.
Mr. Boileau: Nevertheless, it is the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from New Jersey that would be before the House.
The Chairman: That is before the Committee now.
Mr. Boileau: Would not perfecting amendments have priority over
an amendment to substitute?
The Chairman: So far as voting is concerned, yes.
Mr. Boileau: I appreciate that fact, but may I propound a
further parliamentary inquiry, whether or not a Member rising in
his place and seeking recognition would not have a prior right to
recognition for the purpose of offering a perfecting amendment to
the amendment now pending?
The Chairman: It does not necessarily follow that such Member
would have a prior right. Recognition is in the discretion of the
Chair.
Mr. Boileau: I recognize it does not necessarily follow, but I
am trying to have the matter clarified. Therefore I ask the Chair
whether or not a Member who qualifies as offering a perfecting
amendment does not have prior right of recognition in offering such
amendment?
The Chairman: The Chair has tried to be as helpful as he could,
but the Chair does not feel he should estop himself of his own
discretion in the matter of recognitions.
Mr. Boileau: Does the Chair then rule that is within the
discretion of the Chair rather than a right of the Member?
The Chairman: In answer to the gentleman's inquiry, the Chair
is of the opinion it is within the province of the Chair whom the
Chair will recognize, having in mind the general rules of the
House.
Preference in Recognition to Committee Members
Sec. 19.10 The order of recognition to offer amendments
is in the discretion of the Chair, and preference is given to
members of the committee reporting the bill who are on their feet
seeking recognition.
On June 29, 1939,(4) Chairman Jere Cooper, of Tennessee,
ruled that although a Member had been recognized to offer an amendment,
the Chairman would in his discretion have first recognized a member of
the committee reporting the bill if he had been on his feet seeking
recognition:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 84 Cong. Rec. 8311, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
Priority of recognition generally, of members of reporting
committee, see Sec. 13, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Harold] Knutson [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I have an
[[Page 9989]]
amendment at the Clerk's desk which I would like to offer at this
time.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Knutson: Strike out all of section
1 and insert the following----
Mr. [Hamilton] Fish [Jr., of New York] (interrupting the
reading of the amendment): Mr. Chairman, would it be in order for
the committee members to be recognized first to offer amendments?
Mr. Knutson: I have already been recognized.
The Chairman: If there is any member of the committee seeking
recognition, he is entitled to recognition.
Mr. Fish: Mr. Chairman, I would like to be recognized.
Mr. Knutson: I already have the floor, and have been
recognized.
Mr. H. Carl Andersen [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, the
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Knutson] has already been recognized.
The Chairman: Recognition is in the discretion of the Chair,
and the Chair will recognize members of the committee first. Does
the acting chairman of the committee seek recognition?
Mr. [Sol] Bloom [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I would like to
ask whether the committee amendments to section 1 have been agreed
to?
The Chairman: The only one the Chair knows about is the one
appearing in the print of the bill, and that has been agreed to.
Mr. Bloom: In line 16, there is a committee amendment.
Mr. Knutson: Mr. Chairman, I was recognized by the Chair.
The Chairman: The Chair feels that inasmuch as members of the
committee were not on their feet and the gentleman from Minnesota
had been recognized, the gentleman is entitled to recognition.
The Clerk will continue the reporting of the amendment offered
by the gentleman from Minnesota.
Sec. 19.11 The order of recognition to offer amendments is within the
discretion of the Chair, but in practice he generally recognizes
members of the committee handling the bill in the order of their
seniority.
On July 23, 1970,(5) Chairman Chet Holifield, of
California, recognized Mr. George H. Mahon, of Texas, to offer an
amendment to an appropriation bill reported by the Committee on
Appropriations. Mr. Charles R. Jonas, of North Carolina, objected that
he had already been recognized to offer an amendment. Chairman
Holifield advised Mr. Jonas that he intended to recognize members of
the Committee on Appropriations in the order of their seniority and
that Mr. Mahon was a more senior member of the committee than Mr.
Jonas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 116 Cong. Rec. 25635, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 19.12 When a paragraph of a bill is open to amendment
at any point, the Chair may
[[Page 9990]]
recognize Members to offer amendments in a sequence in accordance
with their committee rank.
On July 23, 1970,(6) Chairman Chet Holifield, of
California, recognized Mr. George H. Mahon, of Texas, a member of the
Committee on Appropriations which had reported the pending bill, to
offer an amendment to the pending paragraph. The Chairman then answered
a series of parliamentary inquiries on the prior rights of ranking
members of the reporting committee to recognition to offer amendments:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 116 Cong. Rec. 25635, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Charles R.] Jonas [of North Carolina]: May I respectfully
remind the Chair that I was recognized, and that the Chair allowed
a point of order to intervene only, and I had been recognized. The
Chair ruled that since a point of order had been made, the Chair
would dispose of the point of order first.
The Chairman: The Chair respectfully states that the point of
order did intervene following the gentleman's recognition. The
Chair intends to recognize members of the committee in the order of
their seniority. The Chair, therefore, recognized the gentleman
from Texas. The Chair will later recognize the gentleman from North
Carolina.
Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Michel: Did the Clerk read through the section concluding
with line 3, page 39?
The Chairman: It is the understanding of the Chair that he did.
Mr. Jonas: Mr. Chairman, a further parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Jonas: I respectfully ask the Chair to rule that my
amendment does precede the amendment that will be offered by the
gentleman from Texas. My amendment goes to line 5, page 38, and my
information is that the amendment to be offered by the gentleman
from Texas comes at a later point in the paragraph.
The Chairman: A whole paragraph is open to amendment at the
same time. Therefore, the line does not determine the order of the
amendment.
Chair's Discretion To Recognize Minority or Majority Member
Sec. 19.13 In recognizing members of the committee reporting a bill to
offer amendments in the Committee of the Whole, the Chairman has
discretion whether to first recognize a minority or majority
member.
On June 4, 1948,(7) while the Committee of the Whole was
con
[[Page 9991]]
sidering H.R. 6801, the foreign aid appropriation bill, for amendment,
Chairman W. Sterling Cole, of New York, recognized Mr. Everett M.
Dirksen, of Illinois (a majority member), to offer an amendment. Mr.
Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, objected that the minority was entitled
to recognition to move to amend the bill. The Chairman responded:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 94 Cong. Rec. 7189, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the rules of the House, any member of the committee may
offer an amendment, and it is in the discretion of the Chair as to
which member shall be recognized.
Manager of Bill Offering More Than One Amendment
Sec. 19.14 Recognition to offer amendments is first extended to the
manager of a bill, and the fact that the Committee of the Whole has
just completed consideration of one amendment offered by the
manager does not preclude his being recognized to offer another.
On Apr. 6, 1967,(8) Robert W. Kastenmeier, of Wisconsin,
was the Member in charge of H.R. 2512, being considered for amendment
in the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Kastenmeier had offered an
amendment, which was adopted by the Committee. He then immediately
offered another amendment. Mr. Byron G. Rogers, of Colorado, made a
point of or-der against recognition for that
purpose, and Chairman John H. Dent, of Pennsylvania, overruled the
point of order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 113 Cong. Rec. 8617, 8618, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Rogers of Colorado: The gentleman from Wisconsin just
offered an amendment, and certainly I as a member of the committee
ought to have the privilege of offering an amendment.
The Chairman: The gentleman from Wisconsin is manager of the
bill. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Wisconsin.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. For the prior rights of the manager of the bill being considered,
see Sec. 14, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As to Right of Proponent To Further Amend
Sec. 19.15 A Member may offer
an amendment to his own amendment by unanimous consent only; but in
the event of objection to a unanimous-consent request to modify a
pending amendment, any Member other than the proponent of the
amendment may offer a proper amendment in writing thereto.
On Apr. 9, 1979, during consideration of H.R. 3324, the Inter
[[Page 9992]]
national Development Cooperation Act of 1979, an amendment was offered
as follows,(10) with subsequent efforts to modify it:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 125 Cong. Rec. 7755, 7756, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
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 to address the problems
caused by the economic dislocation resulting from the conflict
in that region;
`` `(2) education and job training assistance;
`` `(3) a southern Africa fair and open election program to
address the problem resulting from the conflict and internal
strife in that region.
`` `Such funds may be used to provide humanitarian
assistance to African refugees and persons displaced by war and
internal strife in southern Africa, to improve transportation
links interrupted or jeopardized by regional political
conflicts and to provide support to countries in that region.
`` `(b) In furtherance of the purposes of this section and
the foreign policy objectives of the United States the
President may appoint a team of impartial observers to observe
elections in southern Africa and report to Congress:
`` `(1) as to whether all of the people of southern Africa
and all organized political groups were given a fair
opportunity to participate fully in the election without regard
to ethnic identity or political affiliation; and
`` `(2) on the extent of public participation in the
election, including the extent to which disruptions in the
election process due to guerrilla activities may have affected
public participation in the election and the extent to which
eligible voters expressed opposition by voluntarily refraining
from voting in the election.
`` `(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.' ''
Mr. Paul Findley, of Illinois, inquired as to the effect of certain
language: (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Id. at p. 7760.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Findley: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the author of the amendment could
shed a little light on the effect of the language.
For example, section (c) at the bottom of the amendment has
been brought into question, and several speakers have indicated
that this mandates the provision of $20 million to the Government
of Rhodesia under certain circumstances. . . . [T]he lan
[[Page 9993]]
guage I have in my hand contains the word, ``may,'' and it is
written in. The word, ``shall,'' is stricken in two different
places in that last paragraph.
I wonder if that is the form in which the amendment now pending
before this body appears? Does it say, ``may'' or ``shall''?
Mr. Bauman: I believe, as it is before the committee at the
Clerk's desk, it says that $20 million shall be made available, but
I would be amenable to a change, if that comforts the gentleman.
Mr. Findley: Is the gentleman asking unanimous consent to
modify the amendment?
Mr. Bauman: No; I will leave that to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Findley).
Mr. Findley: Then, Mr. Chairman, may I also ask this:
Concerning the effect of the language on the first page of the
amendment which would seem to set aside $68 million exclusively for
the countries of southern Africa, could the gentleman shed any
light on this question? To what extent would this amendment alter
the provision of aid which is contemplated by the original bill?
Mr. Bauman: The language in section (a) is not, for the most
part, the language of the gentleman from Maryland but, rather, the
language of the bill. But last year, when this southern Africa fund
was created, it specifically earmarked the funds only for southern
African countries. Without any notice in the report of this bill,
that ``only'' was taken out, and the language before us, on page 23
of the bill, is--
. . . shall be available for the countries of southern
Africa and for a southern Africa regional, refugee support . .
.
Mr. Findley: Is it the gentleman's intention that the amendment
now pending not tie the hands of the President in any single
respect?
Mr. Bauman: Only that it would provide him the opportunity, and
indeed the responsibility, if he refused, of using these observers
in the instance of any elections that occur, so that the Congress
and the public of the United States could judge whether or not
these elections were free and open and fair. . . .
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: (12) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Illinois?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Elliott Levitas (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Stephen J.] Solarz [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I object.
The Chairman: Objection is heard.
The gentleman will have to submit an amendment in writing if
the Chair is to consider it.
An amendment was offered by Mr. Solarz: (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 125 Cong. Rec. 7763, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Solarz: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Solarz to the amendment offered by
Mr. Bauman: On page 2 of the amendment, strike out subsections
(b) and (c).
[[Page 9994]]
The Solarz amendment was agreed to, whereupon Mr. Bauman sought to
offer an amendment: (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Id. at p. 7764.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Maryland ask unanimous
consent to offer an amendment to his pending amendment?
Mr. Bauman: Am I not in order, Mr. Chairman, to offer an
amendment to an amendment once it has been offered?
The Chairman: The Chair will state that that requires unanimous
consent.
Mr. Bauman: Then, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California
(Mr. Rousselot) will offer the amendment.
amendment offered by mr. rousselot to the amendment offered by mr.
bauman, as amended
Mr. [John H.] Rousselot [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment to the amendment, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Rousselot to the amendment offered
by Mr. Bauman, as amended: Immediately after the last sentence
of subsection (a) of section 533 of the amendment offered by
Mr. Bauman, as amended, add the following:
(b) In furtherance of the purposes of this section and the
foreign policy objectives of the United States the President
may appoint a team of impartial observers to observe elections
in southern Africa and report to Congress;
(1) as to whether all of the people of any such southern
African nation and all organized political groups were given a
fair opportunity to participate fully in the election without
regard to ethnic identity or political affiliation; and
(2) on the extent of public participation in the election,
including the extent to which disruptions in the election
process due to guerrilla activities may have affected public
participation in the election and the extent to which eligible
voters expressed opposition by voluntarily refraining from
voting in the election.
(c) of the amounts authorized to be appropriated to carry
out the purposes of this section, $20,000,000 may 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.
(In response to a point of order that the Rousselot amendment was
identical to language just stricken, the Chair ruled that the amendment
was proper because the change in language from ``shall'' to ``may'' was
a substantive change.)
Priority of Members of Committee To Make Points of Order Against
Amendments
Sec. 19.16 Members of the committee reporting a bill have priority of
recognition to make points of order against proposed amendments to
the bill.
[[Page 9995]]
On Mar. 30, 1949,(15) Mr. Henry M. Jackson, of
Washington, and Mr. Carl T. Curtis, of Nebraska, simultaneously arose
in the Committee of the Whole to make a point of order against a
pending amendment on the ground that it constituted legislation on an
appropriation bill. Chairman Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, recognized Mr.
Jackson in preference over Mr. Curtis since Mr. Jackson was a member of
the committee which had reported the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 95 Cong. Rec. 3520, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chair Determines Whether There Are Points of Order to Remainder of Bill
Before Recognizing for Amendments
Sec. 19.17 Where the remainder of a general appropriation bill is, by
unanimous consent, considered as read and open for amendment at any
point, the Chair first ascertains whether there are any points of
order to the remainder
of the bill before recognizing Members to offer amendments.
For example, on July 30, 1962,(16) the procedure below
was followed in the consideration of a bill and amendments thereto.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 108 Cong. Rec. 14998, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the remainder of the bill
be considered as read and open for amendment at any point.
Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: And also open to points of order
at any point, I take it?
Mr. Thomas: Yes. . . .
The Chairman: (17) Is there objection to the
gentleman from Texas?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
The Chairman: Are there any points of order to be made to the
remainder of the bill?
Mr. Gross: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the
language on page 27, beginning in line 24 and running through line
12 on page 28, as being legislation on an appropriation bill.
Point of Order Must Be Decided Before Recognition To Offer Amendment
Sec. 19.18 Unless reserved, a pending point of order against an
amendment (on the grounds it constitutes
an appropriation on a legislative bill) must be decided prior to
recognition of another Member to offer
an amendment to the challenged language.
On May 18, 1966,(18) Mr. Charles R. Jonas, of North Caro
[[Page 9996]]
lina, made a point of order against certain language in a committee
amendment offered by the Committee on Banking and Currency to H.R.
14544, the Participation Sales Act of 1966. Wright Patman, of Texas,
chairman of the committee, stated that he had a substitute amendment to
the committee amendment which would correct the objectionable language.
Chairman Eugene J. Keogh, of New York, advised Mr. Jonas and Mr. Patman
that the point of order, unless reserved, must be disposed of before
Mr. Patman could be recognized to offer the amendment correcting the
challenged language. Mr. Jonas reserved his point of order and the
substitute amendment was offered and agreed to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 112 Cong. Rec. 10894-96, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee Amendments Before Floor Amendments
Sec. 19.19 Where a bill is considered as read and open
for amendment at any point, committee amendments are considered
before the Chair extends recognition for amendments from the floor.
On July 18, 1968,(19) Mr. Thomas E. Morgan, of
Pennsylvania, asked unanimous consent that a bill being considered in
the Committee of the Whole be considered as read and open to amendment
at any point. There was no objection. Before Chairman Charles M. Price,
of Illinois, extended recognition to Members to offer amendments from
the floor, committee amendments were read and considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 114 Cong. Rec. 22094, 22095, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: Committee amendments to that portion of a
bill or resolution which has been read are normally considered before
recognition is granted to offer other amendments, unless the committee
amendment is given lesser priority, as in the case of a motion to
strike out the pending section, which is held in abeyance until
perfecting floor amendments are disposed of.
Minority Committee Member Usually Has Preference Over Nonmember
Sec. 19.20 Although minority members of the committee reporting a bill
under consideration usually have preference of recognition over
nonmembers, the power of recognition remains in the discretion of
the Chair.
On July 19, 1967,(20) in the Committee of the Whole,
Chair
[[Page 9997]]
man Joseph L. Evins, of Tennessee, recognized Mr. Edmond Edmondson, of
Oklahoma, for a parliamentary inquiry and then recognized him to offer
an amendment to the pending bill. Mr. William C. Cramer, of Florida,
made the point of order that William M. McCulloch, of Ohio, the ranking
minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary, which had reported
the bill, had been on his feet seeking recognition to offer an
amendment at the time and that members of the committee reporting the
bill had the prior right to be recognized. Chairman Evins did in fact
subsequently recognize Mr. McCulloch, but overruled the point of order,
and stated that in fairness he was attempting to recognize Members on
both sides of the question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 113 Cong. Rec. 19416, 19417, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instance Where Chair Recognized Nonmember of Committee
Sec. 19.21 Members of the committee reporting a bill usually have
preference of recognition to offer amendments but the Chair has
recognized another based on his failure to see a committee member
seeking recognition.
On Aug. 10, 1949,(1) Chairman Harold D. Cooley, of North
Carolina, answered parliamentary inquiries on the subject of
recognition in the Committee of the Whole to offer amendments:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 95 Cong. Rec. 11196, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Walter E.] Brehm [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I have been
standing on my feet seeking recognition ever since the Speaker
requested the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Cooley] to occupy
the chair. Moreover, I am a member of the committee. I think my
amendment should have preference.
The Chairman: The Chair had recognized the gentleman from North
Carolina even before recognizing the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. Brehm: I feel that the Chair was in error in so doing,
because I am a member of the committee and the gentleman from North
Carolina is not, and I was on my feet prior to the time the
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Redden] asked for recognition.
The Chairman: The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized
to offer his amendment.
Mr. [Joseph W.] Martin [Jr.], of Massachusetts: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Martin of Massachusetts: Does the Chair rule that a member
of the committee does not have preference in recognition when two
Members, one not a member of the committee, are seeking recognition
at the same time?
The Chairman: The Chair did not see the gentleman from Ohio on
his feet at the same time. The Chair had recognized the gentleman
from North Carolina, then the Chair recognized
[[Page 9998]]
the gentleman from Michigan to submit a consent request. The
gentleman from Ohio will be recognized in due time.
The Clerk will report the amendment offered by the gentleman
from North Carolina.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. For the Chair's power of recognition generally, see Sec. 9, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee Amendments to Special Rule; Nonsubstantive Amendment Acted on
Before Debate
Sec. 19.22 Where a privileged resolution providing for the
consideration of a measure is reported by the Committee on Rules,
with committee amendments to the resolution, the amendments may be
reported and acted upon before the Member managing the measure is
recognized for debate thereon.
On Aug. 19, 1964,(3) the Committee on Rules reported
House Resolution 845, providing for the consideration of H.R. 11926,
limiting the jurisdiction of federal courts in apportionment cases,
which bill had not been reported by the committee to which referred.
Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, directed the Clerk, after
the reading of the resolution, to read the committee amendments
thereto. The amendments were then agreed to and the Speaker recognized
Mr. Howard W. Smith, of Virginia, the manager of the resolution, for
one hour of debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 110 Cong. Rec. 20213, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: If the committee amendments to a resolution
are substantive in nature, they may be reported and remain pending
during the hour of debate in the House.
Anticipating Recognition
Sec. 19.23 The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may advise a
Member that he will recognize that Member, at a subsequent point in
the proceedings, to offer a substitute for an amendment.
On July 12, 1962,(4) Chairman Wilbur D. Mills, of
Arkansas, stated, in response to a parliamentary inquiry, that he would
recognize a Member at the proper time to offer an amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 108 Cong. Rec. 13391, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Michael A.] Feighan [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I have a
substitute amendment. Is it proper for me to offer the amendment at
this time?
The Chairman: The Chair will recognize the gentleman at the
proper time.
Sec. 19.24 The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole does
[[Page 9999]]
not anticipate the order in which amendments may be offered nor
does he declare in advance the order of
recognition, but where he knows a Member desires recognition to
offer an amendment, he may indicate that he will protect the
Member's rights.
On Sept. 8, 1966,(5) Chairman Edward P. Boland, of
Massachusetts, answered a parliamentary inquiry as to the order of
recognition for offering amendments un-der the five-minute rule:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 112 Cong. Rec. 22020, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert G.] Stephens [Jr., of Georgia]: It is my
understanding that the procedures will be for the Minish amendment
to be considered and after the Minish amendment is disposed of then
I will offer a substitute and it is my understanding I will be
recognized immediately after the amendment for the purpose of
submitting that substitute. Is that the correct parliamentary
situation?
The Chairman: Recognition, of course, is within the discretion
of the Chair, but the Chair will protect the gentleman's
rights.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. When debate is limited under the five-minute rule in the Committee
of the Whole, the Chairman often protects the rights of Members
who seek recognition; see Sec. 22, infra.
The Chair may also protect the rights of Members not in the
Chamber when the limitation is agreed to (see Sec. 22.4,
infra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member May Not Yield for Amendment
Sec. 19.25 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,(7) during consideration of
H.R. 8603, the Postal Reorganization Act Amendments of 1975:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 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: (8) The Chair will state that the
gentleman from Maine cannot yield for the purpose of the
[[Page 10000]]
gentleman from Delaware offering an amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 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.
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:
. . .
Sec. 19.26 A Member recognized under the five-minute rule may not yield
to another Member to offer an amendment, as it is within the power
of the Chair to recognize each Member to offer amendments.
On Apr. 19, 1973,(9) the Committee of the Whole was
considering a bill for amendment under the five-minute rule. Chairman
Morris K. Udall, of Arizona, refused to allow a Member with the floor
to yield to another to offer an amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 119 Cong. Rec. 13240, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Don H. Clausen [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I have an
amendment at the desk. However, at this time I want to yield to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Bingham) who has another appointment,
so that he may offer his amendment at this time.
The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman from
California (Mr. Don H. Clausen) he cannot yield for that purpose.
If the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bingham) were here, the Chair
would recognize him.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See also 119 Cong. Rec. 41716, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 14, 1973;
119 Cong. Rec. 41171, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 12, 1973.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chair Declined Recognition for Amendment Where Member Obtained Floor
for Debate
Sec. 19.27 The Chair declined to recognize a Member to offer a
substantive amendment where the Member had obtained the floor to
debate a motion to strike out the last word.
On July 28, 1965,(11) the Committee of the Whole was
considering for amendment under the five-minute rule H.R. 77, reported
by the Committee on Education and Labor. Mr. William H. Ayres, of Ohio,
ranking minority member
[[Page 10001]]
of the committee, moved to strike out the last word and was recognized
by Chairman Leo W. O'Brien, of New York, for five minutes. During that
time, Mr. Ayres offered an amendment, but the Chairman declined to
further recognize Mr. Ayres for that purpose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 111 Cong. Rec. 18631, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: Several majority members of the Committee
on Education and Labor were seeking recognition to offer amendments.
Member May Not Offer Amendment in Time Yielded for Debate
Sec. 19.28 A Member may not
be recognized to offer an amendment during time yielded for debate
only.
On Feb. 2, 1955,(12) Mr. Ray J. Madden, of Indiana,
called up at the direction of the Committee on Rules House Resolution
63, authorizing the Committee on Veterans' Affairs to investigate
certain aspects of the Veterans' Administration. Mr. Madden yielded
three minutes' time for debate to Mrs. Edith Nourse Rogers, of
Massachusetts. Mrs. Rogers indicated she wished to offer an amendment
to prohibit the Committee on Veterans' Affairs from investigating any
matter under investigation by another committee of the House. Mr.
Madden stated that he did not yield for the purpose of having such an
amendment offered. Speaker Pro Tempore Robert C. Byrd, of West
Virginia, ruled that Mrs. Rogers did not have the right to offer an
amendment in time yielded her for debate only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 101 Cong. Rec. 1076-79, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment Offered While Motion To Strike Pending
Sec. 19.29 While a motion to strike a pending portion of a bill will be
held in abeyance until perfecting amendments to that portion are
disposed of, a Member who has been recognized to debate his motion
to strike may not be
deprived of the floor by
another Member who seeks
to offer a perfecting amendment, but the perfecting amendment may
be offered and voted on before the question is put on the motion to
strike.
During consideration of H.R. 10024 (depository institutions
amendments of 1975) in the Committee of the Whole on Oct. 31,
1975,(13) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 121 Cong. Rec. 34564, 34565, 34566, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 10002]]
Mr. [John H.] Rousselot [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Rousselot: Beginning on page 10,
line 18, strike all that follows through page 188, line 10.
Mr. [Fernand J.] St Germain [of Rhode Island]: Mr. Chairman, I
have a parliamentary inquiry. . . .
I believe that under the rules of the House since this
amendment involves a motion to strike the title, that perfecting
amendments that are at the desk take precedence over such a motion
to strike a title. Is that not correct?
The Chairman: (14) That is true, if any are offered.
. . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Spark M. Matsunaga (Ha.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John J.] Moakley [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I might
state that I was standing when the Chairman recognized the
gentleman from California (Mr. Rousselot), and I have a perfecting
amendment at the desk.
The Chairman: The Chair will state that the amendment offered
by the gentleman from California, Mr. Rousselot, is pending now,
and that the gentleman from California has been recognized. The
gentleman may offer his perfecting amendment after the gentleman
from California has completed his five minutes in support of his
amendment to strike.
May Not Offer Amendment When Recognized for Parliamentary Inquiry
Sec. 19.30 A Member recognized to propound a parliamentary inquiry may
not, having secured the floor for that limited purpose, then offer
an amendment.
On Mar. 12, 1964,(15) Chairman Chet Holifield, of
California, ruled that where a Member was recognized for a
parliamentary inquiry, recognition was limited to that purpose and that
the Member so recognized could not then offer an amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 110 Cong. Rec. 5140, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [August E.] Johansen [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Johansen: I direct this inquiry to the Chair as to whether
it will be in order if I secure recognition to offer an amendment
to the amendment in the nature of a substitute for the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Ohio.
The Chairman: Of course, the gentleman, if he is recognized,
may offer an amendment.
Mr. [James H.] Morrison [of Louisiana]: A parliamentary
inquiry, Mr. Chairman. The gentleman secured recognition first and
asked the parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman has not been recognized, except for
a parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. Morrison: The gentleman has a substitute amendment.
The Chairman: The gentleman made the parliamentary inquiry as
to
[[Page 10003]]
whether he could offer an amendment, and the Chair responded that
the gentleman could offer an amendment if he was recognized.
Amendments Made in Order by Special Rule
Sec. 19.31 Where a special rule adopted by the House makes in order a
designated amendment to a bill in Committee of the Whole but gives
no special priority or precedence to such an amendment, the Chair
is not required to extend prior recognition to offer that amendment
but may rely on other principles of recognition such as alternation
between majority and minority parties and priority of perfecting
amendments over motions to strike.
On June 21, 1979,(16) during consideration of H.R. 111,
the Panama Canal Act of 1979, the Chair, after recognizing the manager
of the bill to offer a pro forma amendment under the five-minute rule,
recognized the ranking minority member to offer
a perfecting amendment, prior
to recognizing another majority member seeking recognition on behalf of
another committee with jurisdiction over a portion of the bill to move
to strike that portion, where the motion to strike was made in order
but given no preferential status in the special rule governing
consideration of the bill. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 125 Cong. Rec. 15999, 16000, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John M.] Murphy of New York: Mr. Chairman, I move to
strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise at this time with so many Members in the
well and on the floor to ask as many Members as possible to try to
stay on the floor throughout the next hour and 50 minutes. . . .
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Bauman: Page 187, strike out line
19 and all that follows through line 20 on page 189 and insert
in lieu thereof the following:
Chapter 2--IMMIGRATION
Sec. 1611. Special Immigrants.--(a) Section 101(a)(27) of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(27)),
relating to the definition of special immigrants, is amended--
Ms. [Elizabeth] Holtzman [of New York] (during the reading):
Mr. Chairman, I want to raise a point of order. . . .
Mr. Chairman, at the time that the last amendment was voted on,
I was on my feet seeking to offer an amendment on behalf of the
Committee on the Judiciary with respect to striking in its entirety
section 1611 of the bill.
[[Page 10004]]
The right to offer that amendment is granted under the rule, in
fact on page 3 of House Resolution 274. I want to ask the Chair
whether I am entitled to be recognized or was entitled to be
recognized to make first a motion, which was a motion to strike the
entire section before amendments were made to the text of the bill.
The Chairman: (17) Unless an amendment having
priority of consideration under the rule is offered, it is the
Chair's practice to alternate recognition of members of the several
committees that are listed in the rule, taking amendments from the
majority and minority side in general turn, while giving priority
of recognition to those committees that are mentioned in the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Thomas S. Foley (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Holtzman) is a member of
such a committee, but following the adoption of the last amendment
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Murphy), the chairman of the
Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, sought recognition to
strike the last word. Accordingly, the Chair then recognized the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman) to offer a floor amendment,
which is a perfecting amendment to section 1611 of the bill.
The rule mentions that it shall be in order to consider an
amendment as recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary, to
strike out section 1611, if offered, but the rule does not give any
special priority to the Committee on the Judiciary to offer such
amendments, over perfecting amendments to that section.
Ms. Holtzman: Mr. Chairman, may I be heard further? The
gentleman said that he was going to recognize members of the
committees that had a right to offer amendments under the rule
alternately. I would suggest to the Chair that no member of the
Committee on the Judiciary has been recognized thus far in the
debate with respect to offering such an amendment and, therefore,
the Chair's principle, as I understood he stated it, was not being
observed in connection with recognition.
The Chairman: The Chair would observe that the Chair is
attempting to be fair in recognizing Members alternately when they
are members of committees with priority and that the rule permits
but does not give the Committee on the Judiciary special priority
of recognition over other floor amendments, which under the
precedents would take priority over a motion to strike.
Second, the Chair would like to advise the gentlewoman from New
York that recognition is discretionary with the Chair and is not
subject to a point of order. Does the gentlewoman have any further
comment to make on the point of order?
The Chair overrules the point of order and recognizes the
gentleman in the well.
Parliamentarian's Note: The amendment offered by Mr. Bauman struck
out section 1611 of the bill and inserted a new section, whereas the
amendment made in order under the rule on behalf of the Committee on
the Judiciary was an amendment to strike that section; thus adoption of
the Bauman amendment precluded the offering of the Judici
[[Page 10005]]
ary Committee amendment. It would have made little difference if Ms.
Holtzman was recognized first, since the Bauman amendment could have
been offered as a perfecting amendment while the Holtzman motion to
strike was pending and if the Bauman amendment was adopted the motion
to strike would have necessarily fallen and would not have been voted
on.
If the Holtzman amendment, and the amendments to be offered on
behalf of the Committees on Foreign Affairs and Post Office and Civil
Service, had been committee amendments formally recommended in reports
on H.R. 111, they would have been automatically considered by the
Committee of the Whole, but only the Committee on Merchant Marine and
Fisheries had formally reported H.R. 111.
Recognition for Amendments Under Special Rules--Committee Amendments
and Other Amendments Under Modified Closed Rule
Sec. 19.32 Where a bill consisting of several titles was considered as
read and open to amendment at any point under a special ``modified
closed rule'' permitting germane amendments only to certain
portions of titles
but permitting committee amendments to any portion of the bill, the
Chair first recognized a Member to offer committee amendments to
title I and then recognized other Members to offer amendments to
that title.
On Aug. 7, 1974,(18) during consideration of the Federal
Election Campaign Act of 1974 (H.R. 16090) in the Committee of the
Whole, Chairman Richard Bolling, of Missouri, made the following
statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 120 Cong. Rec. 27258, 27259, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: No amendments, including any amendment in the
nature of a substitute for the bill, are in order to the bill
except the following:
In title 1: Germane amendments to subsection 101(a) proposing
solely to change the money amounts contained in said subsection,
providing they have been printed in the Congressional Record at
least 1 calendar day before being offered; and the text of the
amendment to be offered on page 13, following line 4, inserted in
the Congressional Record of August 5, 1974, by Mr. Butler.
In title 2: Germane amendments to the provisions contained on
page 33, line 17, through page 35, line 11, providing they have
been printed in the Record at least 1 calendar day before being
offered; and the amendment printed on page E5246 in the Record of
August 2, 1974.
[[Page 10006]]
In title 4: Germane amendments which have been printed in the
Record at least 1 calendar day before they are offered, except that
sections 401, 402, 407, 409 and 410 shall not be subject to
amendment; and the text of the amendment printed on page H7597 in
the Congressional Record of August 2, 1974.
Amendments are in order to any portion of the bill if offered
by direction of the Committee on House Administration, but said
amendments shall not be subject to amendment.
Are there any Committee on House Administration amendments to
title I?
Mr. [Frank] Thompson [Jr.] of New Jersey: Mr. Chairman, I offer
three committee amendments to title I of the bill and I ask
unanimous consent that they be considered en bloc.
The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New Jersey?
There was no objection.
The Chairman: The Clerk will report the committee amendments.
The Clerk read as follows:
Committee amendments: . . .
The Chairman: The question is on the amendments offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Thompson).
The committee amendments were agreed to.
The Chairman: Are there further committee amendments to title
I?
Mr. [Pierre S.] du Pont [IV, of Delaware]: Mr. Chairman, I
offer an amendment to title I.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. du Pont: Page 2, line 16, strike
``$5,000'' and insert in lieu thereof ``$2,500''.
Mr. du Pont: Mr. Chairman, as required by the rule adopted by
the House today, my amendment was published at pages E5306 and
E5307 of yesterday's Record.
Recognition To Offer Amendments Printed in Record
Sec. 19.33 Where a special rule restricts the offering of amendments to
those printed in the Record but does not specify the Members who
must offer them, the right to propose amendments properly inserted
in the Record inures to all Members; thus, under a special rule
permitting only germane amendments printed in the Record for at
least two calendar days to be offered to a designated title
of a bill, and prohibiting amendments thereto, a Member was
permitted to offer a pro forma amendment to that title (``to strike
the requisite number of words'') where that amendment had been
inserted in the Record by another Member, and at a time when no
substantive amendment was pending.
The proceedings described above occurred on Mar. 26,
1974,(19) in the Committee of the Whole dur
[[Page 10007]]
ing consideration of H.R. 69, a bill to amend and extend the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 120 Cong. Rec. 8229, 8233, 8243, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: (20) When the Committee rose on
Tuesday, March 12, 1974, all time for general debate on the bill
had expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Melvin Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the rule, no amendment shall be in order to title I of
the substitute committee amendment printed in the reported bill
except germane amendments which have been printed in the
Congressional Record at least 2 calendar days prior to their being
offered during the consideration of said substitute for amendment,
and amendment offered by direction of the Committee on Education
and Labor, and neither of said classes of amendments shall be
subject to amendment.
Pursuant to the rule, the Clerk will now read by titles the
substitute committee amendment printed in the reported bill as an
original bill for the purpose of amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this
Act may be cited as the ``Elementary and Secondary Education
Amendments of 1974''.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE I--AMENDMENTS OF TI-TLE I OF THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY
EDUCATION ACT OF 1965 . . .
Mr. [Carl D.] Perkins [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I move to
strike the requisite number of words.
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I make a
point of order. Under the rule the motion is not in order unless he
has printed the motion in the Record.
The Chairman: The Chair overrules the point of order. The
amendment offered by the gentleman from Kentucky was printed in the
Record.
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, I submit to the Committee that the
motion I heard was to strike out the requisite number of words. If
the gentleman from Kentucky has not had that motion printed in the
Record, he is not entitled to 5 minutes under the rule.
The Chairman: That amendment was printed in the Record.
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, how many times does he get to use it?
The Chairman: As many times as it is printed in the Record.
Mr. Bauman: I thank the Chairman.
Parliamentarian's Note: Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, had inserted five
pro forma amendments in the Record, and Mr. Perkins offered one of the
five. Pursuant to 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2874, the Chair stated
that, without objection, the pro forma amendment would be withdrawn at
the conclusion of Mr. Perkin's five-minute speech, in order to avoid
putting the question on the pro forma amendment and to permit re-
offering of that amendment at a future time to title I.
[[Page 10008]]
Amendment in Nature of Substitute Was Offered From Floor, Not Under
Special Rule
Sec. 19.34 Pursuant to a special rule providing for the consideration
of the text of a bill as an amendment in the nature of a
substitute, to be read
by titles as an original bill immediately after the reading of the
enacting clause of the bill to which offered, the Chair recognized
a Member to offer the amendment in the nature of a substitute from
the floor before it could be considered under the rule.
On Sept. 19, 1974,(1) Chairman Thomas M. Rees, of
California, recognized James T. Broyhill, of North Carolina, who then
offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 120 Cong. Rec. 31727, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Chairman: When the Committee rose on Tuesday, September 17,
1974, all time for general debate had expired.
Pursuant to the rule, immediately after the reading of the
enacting clause, it shall be in order to consider the text of the
bill H.R. 16327 as an amendment in the nature of a substitute for
the bill, and said substitute shall be read for amendment by title.
The Clerk will read the enacting clause.
The Clerk read as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled. . . .
Mr. Broyhill of North Carolina: Mr. Chairman, under the rule, I
offer the following amendment in the nature of a substitute, which
is to the text of the bill (H.R. 7917).
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr.
Broyhill of North Carolina: That this Act may be cited as the
``Consumer Product Warranties-Federal Trade Commission
Improvements Act''.
TITLE I--CONSUMER PRODUCT WARRANTIES
definition
Parliamentarian's Note: Mr. Broyhill was a minority member of the
committee and had introduced the bill made in order by the rule. The
Chair recognized him when the chairman of the then Committee on
Interstate and Foreign Commerce did not immediately seek recognition.
It should be noted that the Chair could have considered the amendment
to be pending and could have directed that it be read by title as an
original bill without being offered from the floor.
[[Page 10009]]
Right To Offer Amendment After Expiration of Debate Time
Sec. 19.35 Where a special rule governing consideration of
a bill in Committee of the Whole limits debate on each amendment or
on each amendment thereto to a specific amount of time, equally
divided and controlled, the expiration of time on an amendment does
not preclude the offering of an amendment thereto, debatable under
such time limitation.
On May 4, 1983,(2) the Committee of the Whole had under
consideration House Joint Resolution 13, calling for a freeze and
reduction in nuclear weapons. House Joint Resolution 13 was being
considered pursuant to a special rule agreed to on Mar.
16,(3) and a special rule providing for additional
procedures for consideration, agreed to on May 4.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 129 Cong. Rec. 11086, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
3. H. Res. 138, 129 Cong. Rec. 5666, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
4. H. Res. 179, 129 Cong. Rec. 11037, 98th Cong. 1st Sess. (including
the division of time as described above).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Stephen J.] Solarz [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment to the amendment. . . .
The Chairman: (5) The Clerk will report the
amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Solarz to the amendment offered by
Mr. Hunter: In the section proposed to be added to the
resolution by the Hunter amendment, strike out all that follows
``prevent'' through ``crews'' and insert in lieu thereof
``safety-
related improvements in strategic bombers''.
Mr. [Robert E.] Badham [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I have a
point of order.
Mr. Chairman, it occurs to me that all time for the proponents
and all time for the opponents of the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), has been used up.
Is it not true, under the rule, that we must now vote on that
amendment?
The Chairman: No. The Chair will advise the gentleman from
California (Mr. Badham), that it is true that all time relative to
the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr.
Hunter), for and against, has expired, but under the rule another
amendment can be offered, and is being offered, and 15 minutes are
allocated to the proponent of the amendment and 15 minutes are
allocated to an opponent of the amendment.
--Amendments Not Printed in Record May Be Offered, Not Debated
Sec. 19.36 After the expiration of debate under the five-minute
[[Page 10010]]
rule on a bill and amendments thereto, amendments not printed in
the Record may still be offered but are not subject to debate.
During consideration of the Departments of Labor and Health,
Education, and Welfare appropriation bill (H.R. 4389) in the Committee
of the Whole on June 27, 1979,(6) the following proceedings
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 125 Cong. Rec. 17036, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendments offered by Mr. Early: Page 15, line 5, strike out
``$961,158,-000'' and insert in lieu thereof ``$970,-158,000''. . .
.
Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: (7) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Don Fuqua (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Michel: Mr. Chairman, what happened to those Members who
were on their feet with amendments that were not printed in the
Record when the Chair acknowledged those Members? Were they all
shut out from being recognized?
The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman that any
Member can still offer an amendment.
Mr. Michel: But they cannot speak on the amendments; is that
correct?
The Chairman: That is correct, with the exception of a
unanimous-consent request.
Motion To Suspend Rules ``With Amendments''
Sec. 19.37 While it is not in order to offer an amendment to a bill
being considered under a motion to suspend the rules, the Speaker
may recognize a Member for a motion to suspend the rules and pass a
bill with amendments.
On June 16, 1952,(8) Mr. Robert L. Doughton, of North
Carolina, offered a motion to suspend the rules and to pass a bill with
amendments. Mr. Carl T. Curtis, of Nebraska, made a point of order
against the motion, on the ground that under the precedents a motion to
amend could not be invoked pursuant to a motion to suspend the rules.
Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 98 Cong. Rec. 7287, 7288, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
. . . There can be no amendment offered to the motion to
suspend the rules and pass a bill, but it is entirely in order for
the Speaker to recognize a Member to move to suspend the rules and
pass a bill with amendments and recognition for that is entirely
within the discretion of the Chair. The Chair can recognize a
Member to move to suspend the rules on the proper day and pass a
bill with an amendment that has been authorized by a committee, or
if the Chair so desires he
[[Page 10011]]
can recognize a Member to move to suspend the rules and pass a bill
with his own amendment.
Appropriation Bills: Limitation Amendments
Sec. 19.38 When a general appropriation bill has been read, or
considered as read, for amendment in its entirety, the Chair (after
entertaining points of order) first entertains amendments which are
not prohibited by clause 2(c) of Rule XXI, and then recognizes for
amendments proposing limitations not contained or authorized in
existing law pursuant to clause 2(d) of Rule XXI [adopted in Jan.
1983, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.], subject to the preferential motion
that the Committee of the Whole rise and report the bill to
the House with such amendments as may have been agreed to.
The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on
Oct. 27, 1983,(9) during consideration of H.R. 4139
(Departments of Treasury and Postal Service appropriations for fiscal
1984):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 129 Cong. Rec. 29630, 29631, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Christopher H.] Smith of New Jersey: Mr. Chairman, I have
a parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: (10) The gentleman will state his
parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Philip R. Sharp (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Smith of New Jersey: Mr. Chairman, would it be in order at
this time to offer a change in the language that would not be
considered under the House rules to be legislating on an
appropriations bill?
The Chairman: The Chair will first entertain any amendment to
the bill which is not prohibited by clause 2(c), rule XXI, and will
then entertain amendments proposing limitations pursuant to clause
2(d), rule XXI.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
Mr. [Bruce A.] Morrison of Connecticut: Mr. Chairman, I reserve
a point of order against the amendment.
The Chairman: The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Smith of New Jersey: On page 49,
immediately after line 2, add the following new section:
``Sec. 618. No funds appropriated by this Act shall be
available to pay for an abortion, or the administrative
expenses in connection with
any health plan under the Federal employees health benefit
program which provides any benefits or coverages for abortions.
. . .
Mr. Morrison of Connecticut: Mr. Chairman, I would like to be
heard on my point of order. . . .
Mr. Chairman, my point of order is that this amendment
constitutes a limitation on an appropriation and cannot
[[Page 10012]]
be considered by the House prior to the consideration of a motion
by the Committee to rise.
The Chairman: The Chair must indicate to the gentleman that no
such preferential motion has yet been made.
The gentleman is correct that a motion that the Committee rise
and
report the bill to the House with
such amendments as may have been adopted takes precedence over an
amendment proposing a limitation.
Mr. Morrison of Connecticut: Mr. Chairman, then I move that the
committee do now rise. . . .
The Chairman: . . . It would be more appropriate if a motion to
rise and report the bill to the House
with such amendments as have been adopted, pursuant to clause 2(d),
rule XXI were offered instead. . . .
Mr. [Edward R.] Roybal [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I move
that the Committee do now rise and report the bill back to the
House with sundry amendments, with the recommendation that the
amendments be agreed to and that bill, as amended, do pass.
[The motion was rejected.]
Mr. Smith of New Jersey: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Smith of New Jersey: On page 49,
immediately after line 2, add the following new section:
``Sec. 618. No funds appropriated by this Act shall be
available to pay for an abortion . . . .
Parliamentarian's Note: Mr. Smith was the only Member seeking
recognition to offer a limitation after the preferential motion was
rejected and could have been preempted by a member of the
Appropriations Committee or a more senior member offering an amendment
since principles governing priority of recognition would remain
applicable. A Member who has attempted to offer a limitation before the
motion to rise and report is rejected is not guaranteed first
recognition for a limitation amendment.
Amending Committee Amendment in Nature of Substitute Under Hour Rule;
Motion To Recommit With Instructions
Sec. 19.39 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).
[[Page 10013]]
On Mar. 22, 1983,(11) 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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 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 sec-
tion . . . .
Committee amendment in the nature of a substitute: Strike
out all after the resolving clause and insert:
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 Califor-nia. . . .
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 di
[[Page 10014]]
rect amendment could be made by a motion to recommit.
Chair May Recognize Manager for Request To Limit Debate Before
Amendment
Sec. 19.40 The Chair may recognize the manager of a bill to request a
limit on debate on a pending portion of the bill before recognizing
a Member to offer an amendment thereto.
On Dec. 4, 1979,(12) the following proceedings occurred
in the Committee of the Whole during consideration of the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission authorization bill (H.R. 2608):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 125 Cong. Rec. 34516, 34518, 34519, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: (13) Is there any further debate on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Harris)?
If not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Harris).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Leon E. Panetta (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The amendment was agreed to.
The Chairman: The Chair will indicate that we believe there is
one additional amendment to be offered by the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Gonzalez).
Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: Mr. Chairman, then I would
ask unanimous consent that all debate on this bill and all
amendments thereto close at 4:15.
The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Arizona?
There was no objection.
The Chairman: Members standing at the time the unanimous
consent request was granted will be recognized for 10 seconds each.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez).
Mr. [Henry B.] Gonzalez [of Tex-as]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Gonzalez: Page 11, after line 15,
add the following new title:
TITLE IV--PROTECTION FOR INSPECTORS
Sec. 401. Section 1114 of Title 18, United States Code is
amended by inserting ``any construction inspector or quality
assurance inspector on any Nuclear Regulatory Commission
licensed project,'' after ``Department of Justice.''.
After debate on a point of order, Mr. Gonzalez made a parliamentary
inquiry:
The Chairman: . . . The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez) is
recognized for 40 seconds.
Mr. Gonzalez: Mr. Chairman, I would like now to interpose my
parliamentary inquiry with regard to the time allotted me. . . .
Why should I be limited to a motion that was made subsequent to
the knowledge that I had a pending amendment to offer?
Had I known that I would come under that limitation on a
subsequent motion, though I had not been recognized for the purpose
of amendment, because the gentleman from Arizona was recognized
anticipatorily on a mo
[[Page 10015]]
tion I had no knowledge was going to be made. If I had known, I
would have objected to the unanimous-consent request, because I
wanted the opportunity to offer the amendment and be given at least
5 minutes, that is the customary time allotted a Member.
Let me say this, in order to avoid any kind of an argument. How
much net time will I have to present this amendment?
The Chairman: The gentleman has 1 minute and 20 seconds on his
amendment. . . .
With regard to the parliamentary inquiry, the Chair would
indicate that he first recognized the chairman, the gentleman from
Arizona as manager of the bill, that the gentleman made a
unanimous-consent agreement with regard to limitation of time and
that there was no objection.
Therefore, the gentleman is recognized for 1 minute and 20
seconds on his amendment.
May Not Debate Amendment Not Yet Offered
Sec. 19.41 Only one amendment to a substitute may be pending at one
time, and amendments which might be subsequently offered may not be
debated while another amendment is pending.
On May 15, 1979,(14) during consideration of the Alaska
National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1979 (H.R. 39), the
following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 125 Cong. Rec. 11178, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: (15) The question is on the amendments
offered by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Huckaby) to the
amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the Committee on
Merchant Marine and Fisheries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Paul Simon (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute
were agreed to.
Mr. [Peter H.] Kostmayer [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I
have two amendments.
The Chairman: Are these amendments to the Merchant Marine
Committee amendment?
Mr. Kostmayer: To Udall-Anderson.
The Chairman: There is already an amendment pending to the
Udall substitute. Another amendment to the Udall substitute is not
in order at this point.
Mr. Kostmayer: Well, Mr. Chairman, they can be spoken on now
and voted on later; is that correct?
The Chairman: They are not in order at this time.
Recognition for Debate as Not Precluding Point of Order
Sec. 19.42 Mere recognition for debate on an amendment does not
preclude a point of order against the amendment before the Member
recognized has begun his remarks.
[[Page 10016]]
On July 30, 1955,(16) the House was considering a
Consent Calendar bill under the five-minute rule. Mr. Clare E. Hoffman,
of Michigan, offered an amendment and was recognized by Speaker Sam
Rayburn, of Texas, to debate his amendment. Before Mr. Hoffman began
his remarks, Mr. Henry S. Reuss, of Wisconsin, made a point of order
against the amendment on the ground that
it was not germane. Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, made a point of order
against the point of order on the ground that Mr. Hoffman was
recognized before the point of order was made. The Speaker overruled
the point of order, noting that Mr. Hoffman had not begun his remarks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 101 Cong. Rec. 12408, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker then requested Mr. Reuss to reserve his point of order
so that Mr. Hoffman could explain his amendment. Mr. Reuss did so until
the conclusion of Mr. Hoffman's five minutes' time.
Chair's Discretion in Allocating Time
Sec. 19.43 Where debate on an amendment has been limited and equally
divided between the proponent and a Member opposed, and the Chair
has recognized the only Member seeking recognition in opposition to
the amendment, no objection lies against that Member subsequently
yielding back all the time in opposition.
On May 4, 1983,(17) the Committee of the Whole had under
consideration House Joint Resolution 13, calling for a freeze and
reduction in nuclear weapons. House Joint Resolution 13 was being
considered pursuant to a special rule agreed to on Mar.
16,(18) and a special rule providing for additional
procedures for consideration, agreed to on May 4.(19) Mr.
William S. Broomfield, of Michigan, rose in opposition (20)
to
an amendment (1) offered by Mr. Henry J. Hyde, of Illinois,
to a substitute amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 129 Cong. Rec. 11077, 11078, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
18. H. Res. 138, 129 Cong. Rec. 5666, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
19. H. Res. 179, 129 Cong. Rec. 11037, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
20. 129 Cong. Rec. 11078, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
1. Id. at p. 11077.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Broomfield: Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The Chairman: (2) The gentleman is recognized for 15
minutes in opposition to the amendment, for purposes of debate
only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Broomfield: Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
[[Page 10017]]
Mr. Hyde: Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time and
request a vote.
Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, we have
15 minutes in order to oppose the amendment?
The Chairman: No one stood up on that side of the aisle, and
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Broomfield) represented to the
Chair that he opposed the amendment and was recognized for 15
minutes in opposition, and he yielded back the balance of his time,
as did the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde). . . .
Mr. [Les] AuCoin [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, I have a
parliamentary inquiry. . . .
Mr. Chairman, my inquiry is this: This side, which opposes the
amendment, has been foreclosed an opportunity, not on this
amendment but on the previous amendment, to have 15 minutes in
opposition to the amendment because a Member on that side who voted
against an amendment that was hostile to the exact amendment said
he was opposed to it.
My parliamentary inquiry is, Mr. Chairman, is that in order?
The Chairman: As the Chair previously explained, no one on the
majority side of the aisle rose in opposition to that amendment.
The Chair looked to the other side of the aisle and the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Broomfield) rose, represented that he was in
opposition to the amendment and was recognized.
Parliamentarian's Note: Had another Member also been seeking to
control time in opposition at the time the first Member was recognized
and yielded back, the Chair would have allocated the time to that
Member so that it could have been utilized.
Chair Does Not Distinguish
as Between Members of Full Committee and Subcommittee
Sec. 19.44 The Chair in giving preference of recognition to members of
a committee reporting a bill does not distinguish between members
of the full committee and members of the subcommittee which handled
the bill.
On Apr. 7, 1943,(3) Chairman Luther A. Johnson, of
Texas, recognized Mr. Frank B. Keefe, of Wisconsin, in opposition to a
pro forma amendment. Mr. Keefe was a member of the Committee on
Appropriations, which had reported the pending bill. Mr. John H. Kerr,
of North Carolina, objected that he sought recognition as a member of
the subcommittee which had handled the bill. The Chairman stated as
follows on the priority of recognition: (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 89 Cong. Rec. 3067, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
4. Compare Sec. 13.7, supra (Chairman extended priority to offer
amendments to members of subcommittee handling a bill).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the Chair understands it, a member of the Committee on
Appropria
[[Page 10018]]
tions has the same right as those who are members of that committee
who happen to be members of a subcommittee. That is the
parliamentary procedure, as the Chair understands it. The Chair has
recognized the gentleman from Wisconsin. Had he not done so, he
certainly would have recognized the gentleman from North Carolina.
Extending Five-minute Debate--Proponent of Amendment Offering Pro Forma
Amendment
Sec. 19.45 Under the five-minute rule, the proponent of a pending
amendment may of-fer a pro forma amendment thereto (for additional
debate time) only by unanimous consent.
During consideration of the nuclear weapons freeze resolution (H.J.
Res. 13) in the Committee of the Whole on Apr. 13, 1983,(5)
the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 129 Cong. Rec. 8382, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Elliott C.] Levitas [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I move to
strike the requisite number of words.
The Chairman: (6) Without objection, the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Levitas) is recognized for 5 minutes. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, does the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Levitas) have an amendment pending?
The Chairman: The gentleman from New York is correct. The
gentleman from Georgia has an amendment in the nature of a
substitute to the text pending.
Mr. Stratton: Well, is it proper to strike the last word on
one's own amendment?
The Chairman: The gentleman ask-ed for recognition, and without
objection, he was recognized for 5 minutes.
Parliamentarian's Note: Technically, the proponent may rise in
opposition to a pro forma amendment offered by another Member in order
to secure an additional five minutes.
Where Five-minute Debate Continues on Subsequent Day--Proponent May
Speak Again Only by Unanimous Consent
Sec. 19.46 When the Committee of the Whole resumes consideration of an
amendment which had been debated by its proponent on a prior day,
the proponent may speak again on his amendment only by unanimous
consent.
The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on
Dec. 12, 1979,(7) during consideration of S. 423 (Dispute
Resolution Act):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 125 Cong. Rec. 35529, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: (8) . . . When the Committee of the
Whole rose on Tues
[[Page 10019]]
day, December 11, 1979, section 3 had been considered as having
been read and open to amendment at any point, and pending was an
amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kindness).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Gladys Noon Spellman (Md.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For what purpose does the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kindness)
rise?
Mr. [Thomas N.] Kindness [of Ohio]: Madam Chairman, I move to
strike the requisite number of words.
Mr. [Robert W.] Kastenmeier [of Wisconsin]: Madam Chairman, I
have a parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Kastenmeier: Madam Chairman, has the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Kindness) not already been recognized to speak for 5 minutes
on his amendment? I believe he has already spoken on his amendment
during the course of this debate.
The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
Without objection, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kindness) is
recognized for 5 additional minutes in support of his amendment.
Mr. Kastenmeier: Madam Chairman, reserving the right to object,
I will not make an objection, but I do note that this is the second
time the gentleman has spoken on his amendment.
Madam Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The Chairman: Without objection, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Kindness) is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his amendment.
There was no objection.
Speaking Twice on Same Amendment
Sec. 19.47 While a Member may not speak twice on the same amendment, he
may speak
in opposition to a pending amendment and subsequently offer a pro
forma amendment and debate the latter.
On June 30, 1955,(9) Mr. James P. Richards, of South
Carolina, was managing a bill under consideration in the Committee of
the Whole. He had spoken in opposition to a pending amendment and had
then gained the floor by offering a pro forma amendment. Mr. H. R.
Gross, of Iowa, objected that Mr. Richards could not speak twice on the
same amendment. Chairman Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, ruled that Mr.
Richards properly had the floor and could offer a pro forma amendment,
gaining time for debate, where he had already spoken in opposition to
the pending amendment.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 101 Cong. Rec. 9614, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
10. For the prohibition against one Member speaking twice to the same
question, see Rule XIV clause 6, House Rules and Manual
Sec. 762 (1995). On speaking twice to an amendment under the
five-minute rule, see Sec. 21, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 19.48 While a Member may not be recognized to speak twice on the
same amendment, he may rise in opposition to a pro forma amendment
and accomplish that result.
[[Page 10020]]
On July 20, 1951,(11) Chairman Wilbur D. Mills, of
Arkansas, answered a parliamentary inquiry on recognition to debate
amendments in the Committee of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 97 Cong. Rec. 8566, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Jesse P.] Wolcott [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, is it in
order for a Member to talk twice on the same amendment?
The Chairman: A Member may rise in opposition to a pro forma
amendment and accomplish that result, if he desires to do so.
Sec. 19.49 In the Committee of the Whole the Member in charge of the
bill having spoken on an amendment may be recognized to speak again
on
the amendment when debate under the five-minute rule has been
limited, abrogating the five-minute rule.
On Nov. 14, 1967,(12) Mr. Carl D. Perkins, of Kentucky,
manager of a bill being considered in the Committee of the Whole, moved
that all debate on the pending amendment conclude at a certain time,
and the motion was agreed to. Chairman John J. Rooney, of New York,
answered a parliamentary inquiry on the allocation of time under the
limitation:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 113 Cong. Rec. 32343-44, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John N.] Erlenborn [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. Erlenborn: I have noticed in the past, and again at this
time, that when a unanimous-consent request to limit debate has
been made, Members who have already been recognized to debate the
issue are again recognized under the unanimous-consent limitation.
I wonder if this is in order. The Chairman just announced that the
gentleman from Kentucky, the chairman of the committee, would be
recognized again, though he has already debated on this amendment.
I wonder if Members can be recognized for a second time to debate
the same amendment merely because a unanimous-consent request is
made to limit time.
The Chairman: The Chair must say to the gentleman that when the
unanimous-consent request was made and agreed to it abrogated the
5-minute rule.
Recognition for Debate Where Amendment Tree Is Full
Sec. 19.50 Where there is pending an amendment in the nature of a
substitute, a substitute therefor, an amendment to the original
amendment and an amendment to the substitute, a Member may be
recognized to debate the amendment to the substitute either prior
or subsequent to the first vote on the amendment to the amendment
in the nature of a substitute.
[[Page 10021]]
On Oct. 1, 1974,(13) during consideration of House
Resolution 988 (to reform the structure, jurisdiction, and procedures
of House committees) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair responded
to the following parliamentary inquiries:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 120 Cong. Rec. 33338, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: (14) The gentleman will state his
parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Eckhardt: Mr. Chairman, do I understand correctly that the
Thompson amendment is to the Hansen substitute, and that no other
amendment would be in order to that amendment in the nature of a
substitute until the Thompson amendment is voted upon?
The Chairman: The Chair would like to inform the gentleman that
he is correct. No additional amendments to the Hansen amendment in
the nature of a substitute are in order until the Thompson
amendment is voted on.
Further, the Chair would like to advise the gentleman that no
additional amendments to the Martin substitute are in order until
the Sullivan amendment is voted upon.
Mr. Eckhardt: Mr. Chairman, I have another parliamentary
inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Eckhardt: Mr. Chairman, would I be protected in supporting
the Sullivan amendment if I should wait and postpone asking for
recognition until after the Thompson amendment has been disposed
of?
The Chairman: The Chair would like to inform the gentleman that
he has a choice but that he can at this time debate the Sullivan
amendment, and the Chair would recognize the gentleman for that
purpose.
Mr. Eckhardt: I thank the Chairman.
The Chairman: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. Eckhardt: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Sec. 19.51 Where there was pending an amendment in the
nature of a substitute, a
substitute therefor and an amendment to the substitute, and debate
had been limited on the substitute and all amendments thereto but
not on the original amendment or amendments thereto, the Chair
indicated that (1) further amendments to the substitute or
modifications of the substitute by unanimous consent must await
disposition of the pending amendment to the substitute; (2)
amendments to the original amendment could be offered and debated
under the five-minute rule and would be voted on before amendments
to the substitute; (3) amendments to the substitute could
[[Page 10022]]
be offered and voted upon without debate unless printed in the
Record pursuant to clause 6 of Rule XXIII; and (4) the question
would not be put on the substitute until all perfecting amendments
to it and to the original amendment were disposed of.
During consideration of the Natural Gas Emergency Act of 1976 (H.R.
9464) in the Committee of the Whole on Feb. 5, 1976,(15) the
following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 122 Cong. Rec. 2646-48, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to
strike the requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on the
Smith amendment and all amendments thereto terminate immediately
upon the conclusion of consideration of the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Eckhardt).
The Chairman: (16) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Michigan?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection. . . .
Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, as I understood
it, the unanimous-consent request of the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Dingell) was that all debate on the Smith substitute amendment
cease after the disposition of the Eckhardt amendment. The Eckhardt
amendment would be the pending business then, and immediately after
the determination of the Eckhardt amendment, we would vote on the
Smith amendment. Is that not correct? . . .
The Chairman: Let the Chair add this: the Chair has said it
once, and would like to say it again. Before we vote on the Smith
substitute, amendments to the Krueger amendment are debatable if
offered.
Mr. Brown of Ohio: I understand that, Mr. Chairman. My
questions were with reference only to how we get to the Smith
amendment.
The Chairman: The point that the Chair is trying to make,
regardless of what agreements are reached, is that until the
Krueger amendment is finally perfected to the satisfaction of the
Committee, the Chair cannot put the question on the Smith
substitute. . . .
There has been no limitation of debate on the Krueger amendment
or amendments thereto. The basic parliamentary situation is that we
have a substitute amendment for the amendment in the nature of a
substitute, the Krueger amendment. Both of those are subject to
amendment, but both must be perfected before the Chair can put the
question on the substitute for the amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
Mr. Brown of Ohio: With respect to the unanimous-consent
request of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the Eckhardt
amendment is still to be voted upon, and then there are to be no
other amendments to the Smith amendment?
The Chairman: There is to be no further debate on such
amendments. . . .
[[Page 10023]]
Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, if my time still applies, I
would like to ask the Chair to state the circumstances. If I may,
before the Chair does that, I would like to ask the question this
way: As the situation stands at this moment, the Krueger amendment
is still perfectable by amendments under the normal course of time,
and there is no limitation on the Krueger amendment.
The Smith amendment, however, can be perfected only by the vote
on the Eckhardt amendment, and then if there are other amendments
to the Smith amendment there is no debate time remaining on those
amendments.
Is that correct?
The Chairman: Unless they are printed in the Record.
Mr. Brown of Ohio: And if they are printed in the Record, the
debate time is 5 minutes per side pro and con. Is that correct?
The Chairman: That is correct.
Mr. Brown of Ohio: And they must be printed as amendments to
the Smith amendment. Is that correct?
The Chairman: That is correct. . . .
Mr. [Robert] Krueger [of Texas]: . . . Mr. Chairman, my
question is this: We will vote first on the Eckhardt amendment to
the Smith substitute?
The Chairman: That is right.
Mr. Krueger: Following that, there will then be a vote without
further debate on the Smith substitute, or no?
The Chairman: The Chair cannot say, because if there were
amendments printed in the Record, there can be both an amendment
offered and debate on the amendment. If there were no amendments
that were qualified for debate by being printed in the Record, they
could not be offered and voted on without debate.
But if they are offered to the Krueger amendment in the nature
of a substitute, they would both be considered and would be
debatable under the 5-minute rule.
Mr. Krueger: Mr. Chairman, does the 5-minute rule apply also to
any possible amendments to the Smith substitute?
The Chairman: The 5-minute rule applies only to amendments to
the Smith amendment which has been printed in the Record. Other
amendments to the Smith amendment do not have debate time; they are
just voted on.
Sec. 19.52 Where there was pending an amendment in the nature of a
substitute for a bill and the permissible degree of amendments
thereto, the Chair indicated in response to parliamentary
inquiries: (1) that a motion to limit debate on the amendment in
the nature of a substitute and all amendments thereto was in order
although the bill itself had not been read; (2) that amendments
printed in the Record would be debatable for 10 minutes
notwithstanding the limitation; and (3) that all Members would be
allocated equal time under the limitation regardless of committee
membership but that Members
[[Page 10024]]
seeking to offer amendments could be first recognized.
The proceedings in the Committee of the Whole relating to
consideration of H.R. 13367 (a bill to amend and extend the State and
Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972) on June 10, 1976,(17)
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 122 Cong. Rec. 17380, 17381, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Frank] Horton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I move that all
debate on the Brooks amendment and all amendments thereto end by 6
p.m. . . .
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: . . . I do not remember
the bill being open at any point to amendment.
The Chairman: (18) The motion of the gentleman from
New York, as the Chair understood it, was that all debate on the
Brooks amendment and all amendments thereto end at 6 p.m.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Bauman: So that the motion is in order?
The Chairman: The motion is in order. It is limited to the
Brooks amendment and amendments thereto.
Mr. [Clarence D.] Long of Maryland: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Long of Maryland: Mr. Chairman, of course I believe it is
understood that this does not apply to any amendments that are
printed in the Congressional Record?
The Chairman: Under the rules of the House, it does not apply
to those amendments. . . .
Mr. [J. J.] Pickle [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary
inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Pickle: Mr. Chairman, under the proposed time limitation,
would the Chair tend to recognize a Member who is not a member of
the committee? For instance, the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Adams) has an important amendment, and if he is not recognized
within the time limitation, would the chairman of the committee let
the gentleman be recognized?
Mr. [Jack] Brooks [of Texas]: I do not have control of the
time. I think the answer, obviously, is that he will be recognized.
The Chairman: The Chair will state that under limitation of
time committee members no longer have priority in seeking
recognition. Time is equally allocated.
So the motion was agreed to.
The Chairman: Members standing at the time the motion was made
will be recognized for approximately 1 minute and 55 seconds each.
Debate Where Point of Order Is Reserved
Sec. 19.53 Once a point of order has been reserved against an amendment
and debate has commenced under the five-minute rule, the Chair will
permit the proponent of the amendment to utilize the time allotted
him before hearing arguments on the point of order.
[[Page 10025]]
The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on
Mar. 21, 1979: (19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 125 Cong. Rec. 5779-81, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: (20) When the Committee rose on
Tuesday, March 20, 1979, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiss)
had been recognized to offer an amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 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).
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. Moorhead of Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman, I would now like to
insist on my point of order against the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiss).
The Chairman: The Chair will point out that the time is under
the control of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiss).
Mr. Weiss: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Marks) had asked if I would yield to him, and I am pleased to yield
to him at this point.
Mr. [Marc Lincoln] Marks [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I
thank the gentleman for yielding. . . .
The Chairman: The time of the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Weiss) has expired.
The Chair will recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Moorhead). . . .
Mr. Moorhead of Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of
order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Weiss).
Recognition To Speak in Support of Amendment Before Another Recognized
To Offer Substitute
Sec. 19.54 Under the five-minute rule, a Member is entitled to
recognition in support of his amendment prior to recognition of
another Member to offer, and speak, to a substitute therefor.
On July 17, 1962,(1) Mr. Wayne N. Aspinall, of Colorado,
offered
[[Page 10026]]
an amendment to the pending bill, which was being read for amendment
under the five-minute rule in the Committee of the Whole. Chairman B.
F. Sisk, of California, recognized Mr. Aspinall. Mr. James E. Van
Zandt, of Pennsylvania, then inquired whether it was in order at that
time to offer a substitute amendment (before Mr. Aspinall had begun his
remarks). Chairman Sisk indicated that Mr. Van Zandt could not be
recognized until Mr. Aspinall had had an opportunity to be heard on his
amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 108 Cong. Rec. 13795, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recognizing Member Favoring Committee Amendment Before One Opposed
Sec. 19.55 In recognizing members of the committee reporting a bill,
the Chair generally recognizes a member in fa-vor of a committee
amendment prior to recognizing a member thereof who is opposed.
On Jan. 30, 1957,(2) the Committee of the Whole was
considering House Joint Resolution 117, to authorize the President to
cooperate with nations of the Middle East, under a resolution
permitting only committee amendments (Committee on Foreign Affairs). A
committee amendment was offered, and Mr. Wayne L. Hays, of Ohio, a
member of the committee, rose in opposition to the amendment. Pursuant
to a point of order, Chairman Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, extended
recognition to Mr. Frank M. Coffin, of Maine, a member of the committee
who authored and supported the amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 103 Cong. Rec. 1311, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recognition To Oppose Amendments--Debate on Amendment Printed in Record
in Addition to Speaking Under Limitation on Time
Sec. 19.56 Pursuant to Rule XXIII clause 6, a Member may be recognized
for five minutes in opposition to an amendment which had been
printed in the Record and debated by its proponent for five
minutes, notwithstanding a prior allocation of time to that Member
under a limitation on the pending proposition and all amendments
thereto.
On July 25, 1974,(3) during consideration of the Surface
Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1974 (H.R. 11500) in the
Committee of the Whole, the Chair
[[Page 10027]]
overruled a point of order, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 120 Cong. Rec. 25221, 25222, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: Mr. Chairman, I move to
strike the requisite number of words, and I rise in opposition to
the amendment.
Mr. [Craig] Hosmer [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I have a
point of order.
The Chairman: (4) The gentleman will state his point
of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hosmer: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Arizona has spoken
for a minute and 20 seconds already.
The Chairman: The Chair will state that under the rule, when
the amendment has been printed in the Record, the author of the
amendment gets 5 minutes in support of his amendment and an
opponent gets 5 minutes in opposition to the amendment, regardless
of a time limitation.
The Chair overrules the point of order.
Debate in Opposition to Amendment to Bill on Pri-vate Calendar--
Recognition
of Member of Committee
Sec. 19.57 Recognition for debate in opposition to an amendment to a
bill on the Private Calendar goes first to a member of the
committee reporting the bill.
On Dec. 14, 1967,(5) during the call of the Private
Calendar, Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, extended
recognition to oppose an amendment to a private bill to Mr. Michael A.
Feighan, of Ohio, a member of the reporting committee, over Mr. Durward
G. Hall, of Missouri, not a member of the committee, and stated ``a
member of the committee is entitled to recognition.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 113 Cong. Rec. 36535-37, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recognition After Rejection of Previous Question
Sec. 19.58 In response to parliamentary inquiries the Speaker advised
that if the previous question on a privileged resolution reported
by the Committee on Rules were voted down, the resolution would be
open to amendment, and that the Chair would recognize for that
purpose the Member who appeared to be leading the opposition.
On Oct. 19, 1966,(6) Mr. Claude D. Pepper, of Florida,
called up by direction of the Committee on Rules House Resolution 1013,
establishing a Select Committee
on Standards and Conduct. Mr.
Pepper was recognized for one
hour and offered a committee
amendment to the resolution,
which amendment was agreed to.
[[Page 10028]]
Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, then answered a series of
parliamentary inquiries on the order of recognition should Mr. Pepper
move the previous question and should the motion be defeated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 112 Cong. Rec. 27725, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, if the previous
question is refused, is it true that then amendments may be offered
and further debate may be had on the resolution?
The Speaker: If the previous question is defeated, then the
resolution is open to further consideration and action and debate.
. . .
Mr. [James G.] Fulton of Pennsylvania: Mr. Speaker, if the
previous question is refused and the resolution is then open for
amendment, under what parliamentary procedure will the debate
continue? Or what would be the time limit?
The Speaker: The Chair would recognize whoever appeared to be
the leading Member in opposition to the resolution.
Mr. Fulton of Pennsylvania: What would be the time for debate?
The Speaker: Under those circumstances the Member recognized in
opposition would have 1 hour at his disposal, or such portion of it
as he might desire to exercise.
Mr. [Cornelius E.] Gallagher [of New Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Gallagher: If the previous question is voted down we will
have the option to reopen debate, the resolution will be open for
amendment, or it can be tabled. Is that the situation as the Chair
understands it?
The Speaker: If the previous question is voted down on the
resolution, the time will be in control of some Member in
opposition to it, and it would be open to amendment or to a motion
to table.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. The rule requiring recognition to pass to the opposition after
rejection of the previous question is subject to one exception
(see Sec. 15.22, supra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 19.59 If the previous question is voted down on a resolution
before the House, recognition to offer an amendment passes to the
opponents of the resolution, and the Chair first recognizes a
Member of the minority party, if opposed.
On July 20, 1939,(8) Mr. Howard W. Smith, of Virginia,
managing a resolution to authorize an investigation, moved the previous
question on the resolution. Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama,
answered parliamentary inquiries on the order of recognition to be
followed should the previous question be rejected:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 84 Cong. Rec. 9591, 9592, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: If the previous question
is voted down, will that open up the resolution to amendment?
The Speaker: Undoubtedly.
[[Page 10029]]
Mr. Smith of Virginia: A further parliamentary inquiry, Mr.
Speaker.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Smith of Virginia: If I understand the situation correctly,
if the previous question is voted down, the control of the measure
would pass to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Keller]; and the
resolution would not be open to amendment generally, but only to
such amendments as the gentleman from Illinois might yield for. Is
my understanding correct, Mr. Speaker?
The Speaker: If the previous question is voted down, it would
not necessarily pass to the gentleman from Illinois; it would pass
to the opponents of the resolution. Of course, a representative of
the minority would have the first right of recognition.
Rejection of Previous Question Prior to Adoption of the Rules--Seating
of Member-elect
Sec. 19.60 Recognition to offer an amendment to a resolution called up
prior to the adoption of rules and relating to the seat of a
Member-elect passes to a Member leading the opposition to the
resolution if the previous question is rejected.
On Jan. 10, 1967,(9) at the convening of the 90th
Congress and before the adoption of standing rules, Mr. Morris K.
Udall, of Arizona, called up a resolution (H. Res. 1), authorizing the
Speaker to administer the oath of office to challenged Member-elect
Adam C. Powell, of New York, and referring the question of his final
right to a seat to a select committee. Pending debate on the
resolution, Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, answered
parliamentary inquiries on the procedure of consideration and
recognition for the resolution:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 113 Cong. Rec. 14, 15, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Joe D.] Waggonner [Jr., of Louisiana]: Mr. Speaker, a
further parliamentary inquiry. . . .
Mr. Speaker, if the previous question is voted down would,
then, under the rules of the House, amendments or substitutes be in
order to the resolution offered by the gentleman from Arizona [Mr.
Udall]?
The Speaker: The Chair will state to the gentleman from
Louisiana [Mr. Waggonner] that any germane amendment may be in
order to that particular amendment.
Mr. Waggonner: Mr. Speaker, one further parliamentary inquiry.
. . .
Mr. Speaker, under the rules of the House would the option or
priority or a subsequent amendment or a substitute motion lie with
the minority?
The Speaker: The Chair will pass upon that question based upon
the rules of the House. That would be a question that would present
itself to the Chair at that particular time.
. . . However, the usual procedure of the Chair has been to the
effect that
[[Page 10030]]
the Member who led the fight against the resolution will be
recognized.
Mr. Udall moved the previous question on the resolution, and the
motion was rejected.
Speaker McCormack then recognized Gerald R. Ford, of Michigan, the
Minority Leader, to offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute to
the resolution.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Id. at pp. 24-26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAPTER 29
Consideration and Debate
C. RECOGNITION ON PARTICULAR QUESTIONS
Sec. 20. For Points of Order and Debate Thereon; Objections and
Inquiries; Calls of the House
Procedural issues, which manifest themselves in points of or-der,
parliamentary inquiries, responses to requests or motions put by the
Chair, are, as a rule, not subject to debate. Whatever debate or
dialogue ensues is for the benefit of the Chair, and occurs under the
control of the Chair, who can refuse to recognize for debate at all or
can curtail it when he has heard sufficient argument.
Cross References
Call to order for disorderly debate, see Sec. Sec. 48 et seq., infra.
Objections to reading of papers, see Sec. Sec. 81 et seq., infra.
Parliamentary inquiries in general, see Ch. 31, infra.
Point of no quorum in general, see Ch. 20, supra.
Points of order generally, see Ch. 31, infra.
Points of order against amendments, see Chs. 27, 28, supra.
Points of order against appropriation bills, see Chs. 25, 26, supra.
Points of order against conference reports, see Ch. 33, infra.
Points of order against improperly yielding time, see Sec. Sec. 29-31,
infra.
Points of order against Senate amendments, see Ch. 32, infra.
Question of consideration and objection to consideration, see Sec. 5,
supra.
Reservations of objection entertained in Speaker's discretion, see
Sec. 9, supra.
Yielding for parliamentary inquiries, see Sec. 29,
infra. -------------------
Parliamentary Inquiries: Recognition Within Discretion of Chair
Sec. 20.1 Recognition for the purpose of propounding a parliamentary
inquiry is within the discretion of the Chair.
On Oct. 8, 1968,(11) the Clerk was reading the Journal
when Mr.
[[Page 10031]]
Robert J. Dole, of Kansas, attempted to raise a parliamentary inquiry.
Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, stated he would not
``entertain any more parliamentary inquiries at this time.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 114 Cong. Rec. 30214-16, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
At the time of this ruling, consideration of a bill (S.J.
Res. 175), to suspend for the 1968 campaign the equal-time
requirements for nominees for the offices of President and Vice
President, was being delayed by roll calls. Consideration was
delayed for 23 hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Dec. 13, 1932,(12) Mr. Louis T. McFadden, of
Pennsylvania, rose to a question of ``constitutional privilege'' and
offered a resolution of impeachment of President Herbert Hoover. The
resolution was read by the Clerk. Mr. William H. Stafford, of
Wisconsin, interrupted the reading of the resolution and asked whether
the Chair would entertain a parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 76 Cong. Rec. 399-402, 72d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, objected that it was improper to
disturb the reading of the resolution by a parliamentary inquiry and
that only a point of order ``would reach the matter.''
Speaker John N. Garner, of Texas, stated:
That is in the discretion of the Chair. The Chair will
recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin to make a parliamentary
inquiry.
In response to Mr. Stafford's inquiry, the Speaker stated that the
question of consideration could not be raised until the resolution was
read in full. Following the reading of the resolution, it was laid on
the table.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. For the discretion of the Chair over recognition, see Sec. 9,
supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 8, 1972,(14) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma,
declined to entertain a parliamentary inquiry not related to the
pending question (which was the previous question on a conference
report):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 118 Cong. Rec. 20339, 20340, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Carl D.] Perkins [of Kentucky]: Mr. Speaker, I do want to
point out that we have most important provisions affecting the
Vocational Educational Act of 1963. Certain of those programs will
expire unless the conference report is adopted.
Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.
Mr. [Joe D.] Waggonner [Jr., of Louisiana]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: Does the gentleman's parliamentary inquiry relate
to the previous question?
Mr. Waggonner: Mr. Speaker, it does not relate to the vote on
the previous question.
The Speaker: The question is on ordering the previous question.
The previous question was ordered.
Parliamentarian's Note: Where no Member has the floor for debate,
it is solely within the Chair's discretion as to whether he will
recognize a Member for a parliamentary inquiry, but where a
[[Page 10032]]
Member has been recognized for debate, another Member can raise a
parliamentary inquiry only if yielded to for that purpose, and the time
consumed by the inquiry and the Chair's response comes out of the time
allotted to the Member having the floor.
Parliamentary Inquiry During Call of Roll
Sec. 20.2 On one occasion, the Speaker recognized Members to propound
parliamentary inquiries during a call of the roll, relating to the
pending vote.
On Oct. 12, 1962,(15) Mr. Clarence Cannon, of Missouri,
objected to the vote on a pending appropriation bill on the ground that
a quorum was not present. During an extended call of the roll, Speaker
John W. McCormack,
of Massachusetts, entertained a number of parliamentary inquiries and
clarified the nature and effect of the pending question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 108 Cong. Rec. 23423-43, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: The House was kept in session on this date
in order that the two Houses might reach agreement on important issues
before the adjournment sine die. A quorum was not attained and the
House met on the following day.
Parliamentary Inquiry During Reading of Journal
Sec. 20.3 The Speaker entertained a parliamentary inquiry during the
reading of the Journal.
On Apr. 9, 1964,(16) while the Journal was being read,
Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, entertained a
parliamentary inquiry by Mr. Charles A. Halleck, of Indiana. The
Speaker advised Mr. Halleck that he could gain recognition to speak
briefly at that time by unanimous consent. Without objection, Mr.
Halleck was recognized for one minute to discuss the scheduling of
debate on a bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 110 Cong. Rec. 7356, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentary Inquiry Moot Where Speaker Had Recognized Member To
Withdraw Resolution
Sec. 20.4 The Speaker, having recognized one Member to
propound a parliamentary
inquiry on the status of a resolution as ``unfinished business,''
then recognized another Member to withdraw the resolution, thereby
eliminating the reason for the inquiry.
[[Page 10033]]
On Apr. 8, 1964,(17) the House was considering House
Resolution 665, providing for taking a bill from the Speaker's table
and agreeing to Senate amendments thereto. Before a vote was had on the
resolution, Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, declared a
recess pending the receipt of another bill, H.R. 10222, the Food Stamp
Act of 1964. When the House reconvened, the Speaker announced that the
unfinished business was the reading of the latter bill. Mr. Oliver P.
Bolton, of Ohio, raised a parliamentary inquiry as to the status of the
resolution pending at the recess and the Speaker, without responding to
the inquiry, recognized Mr. Richard Bolling, of Missouri, the proponent
of the resolution, who then withdrew the resolution from consideration.
In answer to further parliamentary inquiries, the Speaker stated that
the withdrawal of the resolution terminated the reason for the
parliamentary inquiry and that the Speaker retained the discretion to
recognize for a parliamentary inquiry and then to decline to respond
where the inquiry became moot.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 110 Cong. Rec. 7302-04, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
18. See Sec. 9.50, supra, for the Chair's discretion to decline to
recognize for hypothetical questions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Having Floor Need Not Yield for Parliamentary Inquiry
Sec. 20.5 A Member may not be interrupted by another Member for a
parliamentary inquiry without his consent and if the Member who has
the floor refuses to yield and demands regular order the Chair will
not recognize another Member to propound a parliamentary inquiry.
On July 8, 1975,(19) the proceedings described above
occurred in the Committee of the Whole, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 121 Cong. Rec. 21628, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Dingell to the amendment in the
nature
of a substitute offered by Mr. Hebert: . . .
Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment about which my
colleagues have received communications in the last few days from
the Sierra Club and from other nationwide conservation
organizations. . . .
Mr. [Don] Young of Alaska: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of
order to the germaneness of this amendment.
Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I do not yield for the point of
order. The point of order is too late.
[[Page 10034]]
The Chairman: (20) The Chair rules that the point of
order is too late.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Young of Alaska: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, may we have the regular order. . . .
The Chairman: The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) refuses
to yield.
Mr. Young of Alaska: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary
inquiry.
The Chairman: That could only be made before the gentleman from
Michigan was recognized with respect to his amendment. . . .
Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I ask for the regular order.
The Chairman: The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) refuses
to yield.
Under regular order, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell)
is recognized.
Recognition for Parliamen-tary Inquiry--May Not Offer Amendment
Sec. 20.6 A Member recognized to propound a parliamentary inquiry may
not, having secured the floor for that limited purpose, then offer
an amendment.
On Mar. 12, 1964,(1) Chairman Chet Holifield, of
California, ruled that where a Member was recognized for a
parliamentary inquiry, recognition was limited to that purpose and that
the Member so recognized could not then offer an amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 110 Cong. Rec. 5140, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [August E.] Johansen [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Johansen: I direct this inquiry to the Chair as to whether
it will be in order if I secure recognition to offer an amendment
to the amendment in the nature of a substitute for the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Ohio.
The Chairman: Of course, the gentleman, if he is recognized,
may offer an amendment.
Mr. [James H.] Morrison [of Louisiana]: A parliamentary
inquiry, Mr. Chairman. The gentleman secured recognition first and
asked the parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman has not been recognized, except for
a parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. Morrison: The gentleman has a substitute amendment.
The Chairman: The gentleman made the parliamentary inquiry as
to whether he could offer an amendment, and the Chair responded
that the gentleman could offer an amendment if he was recognized.
Member Recognized for Parliamentary Inquiry May Not Yield
Sec. 20.7 Recognition for a parliamentary inquiry is within the
discretion of the Chair, and a Member so recognized
[[Page 10035]]
may not yield to other Members.
On Mar. 16, 1988,(2) the following proceedings occurred
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 134 Cong. Rec. 4084, 4085, 100th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Judd] Gregg [of New Hampshire]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry. . . .
Mr. Speaker, I was just in my office viewing the proceedings
here, and during one of the proceedings, when the gentleman from
California [Mr. Dornan] was addressing the House, it
was drawn to my attention that the Speaker requested that Mr.
Dornan's microphone be turned off, upon which Mr. Dornan's
microphone was turned off.
Mr. Speaker, my inquiry of the Chair is: Under what rule does
the Speaker decide to gag opposite Members of the House? . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (3) The Chair is referring
to Mr. Dornan. He requested permission of the Chair to proceed for
1 minute, and that permission was granted by the House. Mr. Dornan
grossly exceeded the limits and abused the privilege far in excess
of 1 minute, and the Chair proceeded to
restore order and decorum to the House. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Gary L. Ackerman (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Gregg: . . . I have not heard the Chair respond to my
inquiry which is what ruling is the Chair referring to which allows
him to turn off the microphone of a Member who has the floor?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Clause 2 of rule I.
Mr. Gregg: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that that rule be read. I
would
ask that that rule be read, Mr. Speaker. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: It reads, 2. He shall preserve order
and decorum, and, in case of disturbance or disorderly conduct in
the galleries, or in the lobby, may cause the same to be cleared. .
. .
Mr. Gregg: My parliamentary inquiry is that I want to know how
the Chair can specifically turn off the microphone and what rule
the Chair does it under, because the Chair has not answered that
question.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair has responded to the
parliamentary inquiry of the gentleman from New Hampshire.
Mr. Gregg: Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time, and yield to the
gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Martin]. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair advises that a Member may
not yield time to another Member under a parliamentary inquiry.
Parliamentary Inquiry Is Not Intervening Business That Would Preclude
Right To Demand Recorded Vote
Sec. 20.8 A parliamentary inquiry relating to a pending motion
occurring after the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole has
announced the results of a voice vote does not constitute such
intervening business as to preclude the right of a Member to demand
[[Page 10036]]
a recorded vote on the pending motion.
On July 26, 1984,(4) the Committee of the Whole had
under consideration H.R. 11, the Education Amendments of 1984. A motion
was made to limit debate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 130 Cong. Rec. 21249, 21250, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Carl D.] Perkins [of Kentucky]: Then, Mr. Chairman, I move
that all debate on the Coats amendment, all substitutes and all
amendments thereto, be concluded at 2 p.m.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: (5) The question is on the
motion offered by the gentleman from Kentucky.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Abraham Kazen, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the
ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. [William F.] Goodling [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I
have a parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Goodling: I want to make sure the motion was talking only
about this portion of this bill.
Mr. Perkins: This does not include the Goodling amendment, Mr.
Chairman. This does not include the Goodling amendment, the funding
of the school programs.
Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: I want to get a
record vote.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: This motion referred to the Coats
amendment and all amendments thereto.
Mr. Walker: That is right, and I want a record vote on the
ruling of the Chair.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: Those in favor of taking this by
recorded vote.
Mr. Walker: Pending that, Mr. Chairman, I make the point of
order that a quorum is not present.
Mr. [Richard J.] Durbin [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, a point of
order.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his point of
order.
Mr. Durbin: Is it my understanding there was intervening
business between the vote which was taken orally, the parliamentary
inquiry made by the gentleman?
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The intervening business was a
parliamentary inquiry that was related to the motion, and no
independent business has been taken up.
Mr. Durbin: As a further parliamentary inquiry of the Chair,
does not this parliamentary inquiry and interruption preclude the
gentleman from Pennsylvania's right to ask for a recorded vote?
The Chairman Pro Tempore: No, it is related to the status of
the vote, and of the motion.
Recognition for Parliamentary Inquiry Denied When Point of No Quorum
Has Been Made
Sec. 20.9 The Chair has refused to recognize a Member to propound a
parliamentary inquiry when a point of no quorum has been made.
On July 23, 1942,(6) Mr. Earl C. Michener, of Michigan,
attempted
[[Page 10037]]
to state a parliamentary inquiry directly following a point of no
quorum by Mr. Wright Patman, of Texas. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas,
declined to entertain the inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 88 Cong. Rec. 6540, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair doubts the authority of the Chair to recognize the
gentleman to propound a parliamentary inquiry when a point of order
is made, unless the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Patman] withholds it.
On Oct. 8, 1968,(7) Speaker John W. McCormack, of
Massachusetts, ruled that a parliamentary inquiry could not be
propounded by Mr. John H. Dent, of Pennsylvania, where a point of no
quorum had been made. After a call of the House had been ordered, the
Speaker then recognized Mr. Dent to make the point of order relating to
the call of the House (that the Speaker had ordered the doors to the
Chamber locked but that not all the doors were in fact closed).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 114 Cong. Rec. 30093, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recognition for Parliamentary Inquiry Denied After Automatic Rollcall
Ordered on Motion To Table Resolution
Sec. 20.10 The Speaker refused to recognize Members to propound
parliamentary inquiries after an automatic rollcall had been
ordered on a motion to table a resolution.
On Oct. 19, 1966,(8) the House was considering House
Resolution 1013, establishing a Select Committee on Standards and
Conduct. The House refused to order the previous question and Mr. Joe
D. Waggonner, Jr., of Louisiana, moved to lay the resolution on the
table. Mr. Delbert L. Latta, of Ohio, objected to the vote on that
motion on the ground that a quorum was not present. Speaker John W.
McCormack, of Massachusetts, announced that a quorum was not present
and that a rollcall came automatically on the motion to lay on the
table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 112 Cong. Rec. 27725, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Waggonner attempted to raise a parliamentary inquiry and the
Speaker ruled:
The Chair will state that the rollcall has been ordered and at
this point there is nothing that can interfere with the proceedings
of the automatic rollcall.
Parliamentary Inquiry Not Entertained in Absence of Quorum--But
Recognition Given for Point of Order Relating to Pending Call of
House
Sec. 20.11 While a parliamentary inquiry is not entertained by
[[Page 10038]]
the Chair in the absence of a quorum, the Chair may recognize a
Member on a point of order which relates to a pending call of the
House.
On Oct. 8, 1968,(9) Mr. Donald Rumsfeld, of Illinois,
made a point of order that a quorum was not present, and a call of the
House was ordered. Mr. John H. Dent, of Pennsylvania, attempted to
raise a parliamentary inquiry after the point of order was made and
before the ordering of the call, but Speaker Pro Tempore Wilbur D.
Mills, of Arkansas, ruled that the inquiry could not be raised at that
time. Mr. Dent then made a point of order relating to the call of the
House, which was entertained:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 114 Cong. Rec. 30093, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Dent: Mr. Speaker, a point of order, which relates to the
call of the roll.
The Speaker: (10) The House will be in order. The
Clerk will proceed with the call of the roll.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Dent: Mr. Speaker, the point of order relates to the proper
calling of the roll.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. Dent: The point of order is the doors were ordered closed,
and the doors to the outside of the Chamber are open in the
cloakrooms.
The Speaker: The Chair has given instructions to close all
doors and allow no Members out.
Point of No Quorum--Seeking Recognition
Sec. 20.12 The fact that a Member is on his feet does not constitute
notice to the Chair that he is seeking recognition to object to a
vote on the ground that a quorum is not present.
On Oct. 5, 1962,(11) the House passed S. 1447, amending
the Teacher's Salary Act for the District of Columbia. Mr. James G.
Fulton, of Pennsylvania, then rose and objected to the vote on the
ground that a quorum was not present. Mr. Fulton insisted he had been
on his feet seeking
to gain recognition to object for
that purpose at the proper time. Speaker John W. McCormack, of
Massachusetts, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 108 Cong. Rec. 22649, 22650, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: The Chair will state that if a Member is on his
feet, that is insufficient. The gentleman did not address the
Chair.
Mr. Fulton: I was saying ``Mr. Speaker,'' and was not heard. I
was on my feet.
The Speaker: If the gentleman asks unanimous consent to vacate
the action, the Chair will entertain a request. But the passage of
the bill had been completed.
Mr. Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I was on my feet addressing the
Speaker, but I was not recognized.
[[Page 10039]]
The Speaker: The Chair does not know what is in the gentleman's
mind when the gentleman is on his feet.
The House by unanimous consent vacated the proceedings by which the
bill was passed, and a point of no quorum by Mr. Fulton and an
automatic rollcall ensued.
Under Former Practice, Point of No Quorum in Order at Any Time, Even
When Another Had Floor
Sec. 20.13 A point of no quorum was a privileged matter and was in
order at any time, even when a Member had the floor in debate
(until amendments to the rules in the 93d Congress).
On May 4, 1949,(12) in the Committee of the Whole,
Chairman Henry M. Jackson, of Washington, ruled that a motion to
adjourn was not in order and that the motion that the Committee rise
could not be made unless the Member with the floor yielded for that
purpose. Mr. Donald W. Nicholson, of Massachusetts, then made the point
of order that a quorum was not present. Mr. Monroe M. Redden, of North
Carolina, objected that Mr. Nicholson was out of order since he had not
asked the Member holding the floor [Arthur L. Miller (Nebr.)] to yield.
Chairman Jackson ruled:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 95 Cong. Rec. 5616, 5617, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair will state that a point of order based on no quorum
is a privileged matter and is in order at any time.
On July 12, 1949,(13) in the Committee of the Whole, Mr.
William R. Poage, of Texas, who had the floor, declined to yield to Mr.
Wayne L. Hays, of Ohio, who nevertheless made the point of order that a
quorum was not present. Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, objected
that Mr. Poage had not yielded for that purpose. Chairman Charles M.
Price, of Illinois, responded to the point of order, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Id. at p. 9312.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Rankin: Mr. Chairman, a point of order: A Member has no
right to interrupt the speaker to make a point of no quorum.
The Chairman: A point of no quorum may be made at any time.
Mr. Rankin: The gentleman from Texas did not yield for that
point.
The Chairman: The point of no quorum is in order at any
time.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. For the necessity of a quorum and points of no quorum, see
generally, House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 52-57 (1995)
(Comments to U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 5). For the rule
governing points of no quorum and calls of the House, see Rule
XV, House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 765 et seq. (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: In the 93d and 95th Congresses, Rules
[[Page 10040]]
XV and XXIII were amended to prohibit the making of a point of order
that a quorum was not present except in certain circumstances; see Ch.
17, supra.
Chairman in Committee of the Whole May Entertain Point of No Quorum
During General Debate
Sec. 20.14 Pursuant to clause 2, Rule XXIII as amended in the 97th
Congress, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may in his
discretion entertain a point of order of no quorum during general
debate.
The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on
Dec. 1, 1982,(15) during consideration of H.R. 6995 (Federal
Trade Commission Authorization Act):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 128 Cong. Rec. 28205, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [James T.] Broyhill [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I
make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The Chairman: (16) Under clause 2, rule XXIII, as
adopted by the House of Representatives on January 5, 1981, the
Chair, in his discretion, may entertain a point of order that a
quorum is not present.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair will entertain the point of no quorum and announces
that pursuant to the provisions of clause 2, rule XXIII, he will
vacate proceedings un-der the call when a quorum of the Committee
appears.
Members will record their presence by electronic device.
The call was taken by electronic device.
Prayer Is Not Business--Point of No Quorum Not Allowed Before Prayer
Sec. 20.15 The prayer offered at the beginning of the business of the
House is not considered as business and the Speaker does not
recognize a point of order that a quorum is not present before the
prayer.
On Aug. 4, 1950,(17) the House met at 10 a.m. and
Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, stated that the Chaplain would offer
prayer. Mr. Robert F. Rich, of Pennsylvania, made the point of order
that a quorum was not present. The Speaker ruled:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 96 Cong. Rec. 11829, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We will have the prayer first, because that is not considered
business.
Prayer will be offered by the Chaplain.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. The rules of the House were amended in the 93d Congress to prohibit
points of no quorum at various stages of House proceedings. See
H. Res. 998, 93d Cong. 2d Sess. and Rule XV, clause 6, House
Rules and Manual Sec. 774c (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 10041]]
Objection to Vote on Ground of No Quorum Is Not Too Late Where No
Business Has Intervened
Sec. 20.16 Even though preceded by a parliamentary inquiry and
following the Chair's announcement of the result of a voice vote,
an objection to a vote on the ground that a quorum was not present
and voting does not come too late and is in order where no business
has intervened.
On Mar. 7, 1956,(19) after the vote was put on an
amendment and the vote announced, Mr. Gordon Canfield, of New Jersey,
made a point of order and then inquired whether it was too late to have
the amendment read again to the House. Speaker Pro Tempore John W.
McCormack, of Massachusetts, stated that reading the amendment was not
in order after the vote. Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, then objected to the
vote on the amendment on the ground that a quorum had not been present.
Mr. John Taber, of New York, made the point of order that the point of
no quorum came too late, since a parliamentary inquiry had been
submitted after the vote and before the point of no quorum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 102 Cong. Rec. 4215, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker Pro Tempore ruled as follows:
The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Canfield] addressed the
Chair on a point of order. The gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Gross] was
justified in waiting until that point of order had been determined
by the Chair. Immediately upon that determination the gentleman
from Iowa made the point of order that a quorum was not present and
objected to the vote on the ground that a quorum was not present.
The Chair feels that the gentleman from Iowa exercised his rights
under the rules in such manner that a point of order against his
point of order would not lie.
Point of No Quorum as Dilatory After Quorum Has Been Disclosed
Sec. 20.17 The Chair has held dilatory points of no quorum made after a
quorum has been disclosed.
On July 21, 1947,(20) the House was considering under
suspension of the rules H.R. 29, making unlawful the payment of a poll
tax as a prerequisite for voting in national elections. A motion to
adjourn was offered and was rejected on a yea and nay vote,
[[Page 10042]]
resulting in 85 yeas, 299 nays, and 46 not voting. Mr. John E. Rankin,
of Mississippi, then made a point of order that a quorum was not
present. Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, ruled:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 93 Cong. Rec. 9522-51, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The gentleman's point of order is dilatory. That is obvious to
all Members.
Chair Does Not Recognize Members After Absence of Quorum Has Been
Announced
Sec. 20.18 The Chair refuses to recognize Members after the absence of
a quorum has been announced by the Chair; no business is in order
until a quorum has been established.
On June 8, 1960,(1) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan,
made the point of order that a quorum was not present. When Mr. Hoffman
attempted to speak before and during the call of the House, Speaker Sam
Rayburn, of Texas, advised him that the absence of a quorum having been
announced, following a point of no quorum, recognition for debate was
not in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 106 Cong. Rec. 12142, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Business May Intervene by Unanimous Consent Only Between Quorum Call
and Chair's Putting Demand for Recorded Vote on Pending Amendment
Sec. 20.19 No business, including debate, may intervene between a
quorum call and the Chair's putting a demand for a recorded vote
pending when the point of order of no quorum was made, except by
unanimous consent; by unanimous consent in Committee of the Whole,
a Member has been recognized to inquire as to the legislative
schedule for the remainder of the day, between the conclusion of a
quorum call and the request for a recorded vote on a pending
amendment.
During consideration of the housing and community development
amendments (H.R. 7262) in the Committee of the Whole on Aug. 21,
1980,(2) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 126 Cong. Rec. 22288, 22289, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman Pro Tempore: (3) . . . The pending
business is the demand of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Wylie) for a
recorded vote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Richard C. White (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [J. William] Stanton [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
[[Page 10043]]
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. Stanton: Mr. Chairman, the parliamentary inquiry is as
follows: Would it be possible, before this vote is taken, for me to
be able to ask the majority leader what the procedure is for the
balance of the evening after this vote is over? Could I do this by
unanimous consent?
The Chairman Pro Tempore: Without objection, the gentleman will
be recognized for that purpose.
There was no objection.
Mr. Stanton: Mr. Chairman, I take this time in order to ask the
majority leader if he could announce to the House the schedule for
this evening, after the pending Wylie amendment, and perhaps for
tomorrow.
Chair Does Not Entertain Point of No Quorum When Question Has Not Been
Put on Pending Proposition in House; May Recognize for Motion for
Call of House at Any Time
Sec. 20.20 Although the Chair may not entertain a point of order that a
quorum is not present when the question has not been put on the
pending proposition in the House, the Chair may recognize for a
motion for a call of the House at any time in his discretion.
Under Rule XV, clause 6(e)(2),(4) the Chair may
recognize for a motion for a call of the House at any time in his
discretion. Thus, on June 27, 1980,(5) the Chair recognized
for such motion, although a point of order that a quorum was not
present did not lie at that time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. House Rules and Manual Sec. 774d (1995).
5. 126 Cong. Rec. 17369, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Phil] Gramm [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of
order that a quorum is not present.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (6) That point of order
does not lie at this time, but the Chair will inquire, does the
gentleman move a call of the House?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. John P. Murtha (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Gramm: I do, Mr. Speaker. I move a call of the House.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Without objection, a call of the House
is ordered.
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I object.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Objection is heard.
The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Gramm) for a call of the House.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced
that the noes appeared to have it.
So the motion was rejected.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: A call of the House is not ordered and
the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).
[[Page 10044]]
Discretion of Chair in Recognizing for Call of House
Sec. 20.21 It is within the discretion of the Chair whether to
recognize for a call of the House when the question has not been
put on the pending motion or proposition under clause 6 of Rule XV.
An instance in which the Chair declined to recognize a Member to
move a call of the House occurred, for example, on Oct. 14, 1978:
(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 124 Cong. Rec. 38378, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: . . . I have been here
throughout the 2 hours of debate--it is almost 2 hours--and I do
not think there have ever been more than 50 Members on the floor,
and most of the time it has been in the neighborhood of 20, about
the equal of the number of staff.
Mr. Speaker, on the basis of the fact that this is considered
to be such important legislation, the most important bill we face
in this session of Congress, I would move a call of the House.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (8) The Chair will state to
the gentleman that he cannot recognize the gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. Bauman) for that request at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
May Recognize for Call of House After Previous Question Before Chair
Puts Question on Final Adoption
Sec. 20.22 Although a point of order that a quorum is not present is
not in order unless the question has been put on the pending motion
or proposition, the Chair may recognize for a call of the House at
any time after the previous question is ordered on adoption of a
proposition in
the House but before the
Chair puts the question on
final adoption thereof under clause 6(e) of Rule XV.
On Oct. 14, 1978,(9) the following proceedings occurred
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 124 Cong. Rec. 38503, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Under the rule, the previous question
is ordered.
Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, I move a call
of the House.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Without objection, a call of the House
is ordered.
Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary
inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state the
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, is this now a vote on the bill?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: This is a call of the House.
Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, I thought the question had been
put.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: No; the Chair has not put the
question.
Mr. Brown of Ohio: Are we going to have a vote on the
legislation?
[[Page 10045]]
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would like to advise the
gentleman that after the call of the House, then we will have the
final vote on these conference reports en bloc. . . .
Members will record their presence by electronic device. . . .
The Speaker: (10) On this rollcall 366 Members have
recorded their presence by electronic device, a quorum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By unanimous consent, further proceedings under the call were
dispensed with.
Points of Order: Must Seek Recognition in Timely Fashion
Sec. 20.23 The mere fact that a Member was on his feet does not entitle
him to make a point of order against certain language where he has
not affirmatively sought recognition by the Chair at
the time the language complained of was read for amendment.
On Apr. 14, 1970,(11) Chairman Chet Holifield, of
California, sustained a point of order that a point of order against
language in an appropriation bill came too late, where the Member
making the point of order was not affirmatively seeking recognition at
the proper time:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 116 Cong. Rec. 11648, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Flood),
care to be heard on the point of order?
Mr. [Daniel J.] Flood: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do.
I do not like to operate this way, but I am the chairman of the
subcommittee and obviously I must object, and make a point of order
because the point of order comes much, much too late. We have
passed that point in the bill.
The Chairman: The Chair will state that the Clerk had read past
that paragraph of the so-called title I, and stopped at line 14 on
page 3. The gentleman was not on his feet seeking recognition at
the time the first section, down through line 12 on page 2, was
read.
Mr. William D. Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, the paragraphs
are not being read. The bill is being read by paragraph headings. I
was on my feet at the beginning of the reading. As a matter of
fact, I moved from there to here as soon as the Clerk began to
read. I was never off my feet from the moment he started the
reading. I was trying to get to the point in the bill.
The Chairman: The Chair cannot observe the movements of the
Members from place to place. The gentleman was not seeking
recognition at the time when he should have been, under the rules.
He should have been seeking recognition vocally, not by standing.
The Chair sustains the point of order made by the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Flood).(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. For the requirement that Members seeking to address the House or to
raise any matter must first seek recognition from the Chair,
see Sec. 8, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 10046]]
Sec. 20.24 Members seeking to make points of order must address the
Chair and be recognized before proceeding.
On Oct. 24, 1945,(13) Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York,
demanded that Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, be called to order
for terming him the ``Jewish gentleman from New York'' in debate.
Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled that the appellation violated the
rules. Discussion ensued, and Mr. Vito Marcantonio, of New York,
attempted to make a point of order, but the Speaker ruled that no
Member could make a point of order without first being recognized by
the Chair.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 91 Cong. Rec. 10032, 10033, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recognition To Make Point of Order or Offer Amendment
Sec. 20.25 Members must be on their feet seeking recognition at the
proper time in order to protect their rights under the rules to
make points of order or to offer amendments.
On Apr. 14, 1970,(14) Chairman Chet Holifield, of
California, made the following statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 116 Cong. Rec. 11649, 11650, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
. . . The Chair wishes to say that the Chair is most desirous
of occupying this chair with dignity and with fairness to all
concerned. There were other amendments that the Chair had been told
would be offered, and the gentleman who came and told the Chair
were not on their feet seeking recognition, nor did they address
the Chair at the time, and therefore the Chair was in the position
of allowing the Clerk to continue to read.
If the Members do not protect their own rights and use the
rules of the House to their advantage, the Chair is not here to
protect them when they do not insist on their own rights at the
proper time.
Not Necessary That Member Yield for Point of Order; Chair Must
Recognize for Point of Order
Sec. 20.26 The Chair must recognize a Member to make a point of order
relative to the conduct of debate at any time, and it is not
necessary that the Member having the floor yield for that purpose.
During consideration of H.R. 14014 (the Endangered Species Act
Amendments of 1978) in the Committee of the Whole on Oct. 14,
1978,(15) Representative Dingell held the floor debating an
amendment. The tone of his de
[[Page 10047]]
bate resulted in the following exchange:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 124 Cong. Rec. 38155, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert B.] Duncan of Oregon: Mr. Chairman, may I state a
point of order.
The Chairman: (16) The gentleman will state his
point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. B. F. Sisk (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Duncan of Oregon: Mr. Chairman, the point of order is---- .
. .
Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I do not
yield for the point of order.
The Chairman: The Chair will state that it is not necessary
that the gentleman yield for that purpose. The Chair has a right at
any time to recognize a Member on a point of order.
Point of Order as Interrupting Question of Privilege
Sec. 20.27 A point of order may interrupt a Member stating a question
of privilege.
On June 30, 1939,(17) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan,
was in the process of stating a point of personal privilege based on an
insertion in the Congressional Record. Mr. Hoffman was interrupted by
points of order relating to the nature of the question of privilege and
to the scope of Mr. Hoffman's remarks. Mr. Hoffman objected to the
interruptions and stated that he did not yield for a point of order.
Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, ruled that a Member making a
point of order could be entitled to recognition while a question of
privilege was being stated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 84 Cong. Rec. 8468, 8469, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaker Did Not Observe Member Seeking Recognition--Point of Order
Entertained After Committee of the Whole Reported Back to House
Sec. 20.28 Where the Speaker failed to observe a Member seeking
recognition to make a point of order against a committee report
prior to the House resolving itself into the Committee of the
Whole, the Speaker recognized the Member for his point of order
after the House had resolved into the Committee and the Committee
had reported back to the House.
On July 25, 1966,(18) Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York,
moved that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole to
consider a bill. Mr. John Bell Williams, of Mississippi, attempted to
make a point of order but was not recognized because Speaker John W.
McCormack, of Massachusetts, did not hear him. In the Com
[[Page 10048]]
mittee of the Whole, Mr. Williams rose to a point of order and stated
that he had been seeking recognition at the proper time to make a point
of order against the bill on the grounds that the committee report did
not contain a comparative print of changes in existing law as required
by the rules of the House. Chairman Richard Bolling, of Missouri, ruled
that he did not have the power to entertain the point of order, and on
appeal his ruling was sustained. The Committee then adopted a motion
offered by Mr. Williams that the Committee rise and the Speaker then
recognized Mr. Williams for a point of order (eventually overruled):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 112 Cong. Rec. 16840, 16842, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Mississippi.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, the House resolved itself into the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union a moment
ago. When the question was put by the Chair, I was on my feet
seeking recognition for the purpose of offering a point of order
against consideration of the legislation. Although I shouted rather
loudly, apparently the Chair did not hear me. Since the [House]
proceeded to go into the Committee of the Whole, I would like to
know, Mr. Speaker, if the point of order which I had intended to
offer can be offered now in the House against the consideration of
the bill; and, Mr. Speaker, I make such a point of order and ask
that I be heard on the point of order.
The Speaker: The Chair will state that the Chair did not hear
the gentleman make his point of order. There was too much noise.
Under the circumstances the Chair will entertain the point of
order.
Member of Committee Has Priority To Make Point of Order Against
Amendment
Sec. 20.29 A member of the committee reporting a bill has priority of
recognition over one not a member of the committee to make points
of order against proposed amendments to the bill.
On Mar. 30, 1949,(19) Mr. Henry M. Jackson, of
Washington, and Mr. Carl T. Curtis, of Nebraska, simultaneously arose
in the Committee of the Whole to make a point of order against a
pending amendment on the ground that it constituted legislation on an
appropriation bill. Chairman Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, recognized Mr.
Jackson in preference over Mr. Curtis since Mr. Jackson was a member of
the committee which had reported the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 95 Cong. Rec. 3520, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point of Order Against Paragraph Too Late After Debate on Paragraph
Sec. 20.30 A point of order against language in a paragraph of
[[Page 10049]]
an appropriation bill comes too late after there has been debate on
the paragraph.
On Apr. 3, 1957,(20) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan,
attempted to make a point of order against
a paragraph in an appropriation bill. Chairman Aime J. Forand, of Rhode
Island, ruled that the point of order came too late, there having been
``a great deal of debate on the rest of the paragraph.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 103 Cong. Rec. 5032, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Germaneness Points of Order Too Late After Debate
Sec. 20.31 Germaneness points of order against a proposed amendment
come too late after debate has been had thereon.
On July 5, 1949,(1) Mr. James P. Richards, of South
Carolina, made a point of order, on the ground of germaneness, against
an amendment. Chairman Francis E. Walter, of Pennsylvania, ruled that
the point of order came too late since debate on the amendment had
commenced.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 95 Cong. Rec. 8852, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
2. See also 101 Cong. Rec. 4078, 84th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 30, 1955;
101 Cong. Rec. 3947, 3948, 84th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 29, 1955;
and 101 Cong. Rec. 3204, 3205, 84th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 18,
1955.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Due Diligence--Member Recognized Even Though Sponsor Had Commenced
Debate
Sec. 20.32 A Member who has shown due diligence is recognized to make a
point of order against a proposed amendment even though the sponsor
of the amendment has commenced his remarks.
On Sept. 26, 1967,(3) Mr. Joe D. Waggonner, Jr., of
Louisiana, offered an amendment on the pending bill in the Committee of
the Whole, and began his remarks on the amendment. Mr. Carl D. Perkins,
of Kentucky, rose to make a point of order against the amendment, but
Mr. Gerald R. Ford, of Michigan, objected that the point of order came
too late since debate on the amendment had begun. Chairman Charles E.
Bennett, of Florida, determined that Mr. Perkins had shown due
diligence and was entitled to recognition on the point of order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 113 Cong. Rec. 26878, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Gerald R. Ford: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order
that the gentleman's point of order comes too late.
The gentleman from Louisiana had started his discussion of the
amendment, and there was no previous point of order made prior to
the discussion.
Mr. Perkins: Mr. Chairman, I was on my feet seeking recognition
at the
[[Page 10050]]
time the gentleman commenced to address the Chair.
The Chairman: Was the gentleman from Kentucky on his feet
seeking recognition?
Mr. Perkins: I was, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: The Chair then overrules the point of order made
by the gentleman from Michigan, and the Chair will hear the
gentleman from Kentucky on his point of order.
Mr. Gerald R. Ford: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. Gerald R. Ford: Mr. Chairman, how far in the discussion of
a man who offers an amendment can such a point of order be made,
then?
The Chairman: The Chair will state that the gentleman from
Kentucky was on his feet seeking recognition, and so stated.
Therefore, the gentleman from Kentucky will be recognized to make
his point of order.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. See also 107 Cong. Rec. 17609, 17610, 17612, 17613, 87th Cong. 1st
Sess., Aug. 30, 1961; 106 Cong. Rec. 6381, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.,
Mar. 23, 1960; 101 Cong. Rec. 12408, 84th Cong. 1st Sess., July
30, 1955; 83 Cong. Rec. 1372, 1373, 75th Cong. 3d Sess., Feb.
1, 1938 (Chair overruled); 84 Cong. Rec. 7673, 76th Cong. 1st
Sess., June 21, 1939; and 81 Cong. Rec. 2980, 2981, 75th Cong.
1st Sess., Mar. 31, 1937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 20.33 A point of order against language in a paragraph of an
appropriation bill is not precluded by intervening debate where the
Member raising the point of order shows due diligence therein.
On May 11, 1959,(5) Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, made a
point of order against language contained in an appropriation bill, on
the ground the language was legislation in an appropriation bill. Mr.
Albert Thomas, of Texas, objected to the point of order since debate
had intervened:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 105 Cong. Rec. 7904, 7905, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Thomas: I oppose the point of order because the paragraph
was read.
The Chairman: (6) The Chair thinks the gentleman
from Iowa was within his rights to make the point of order. He
observed the gentleman standing when unanimous consent was granted
to go back to the previous section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Frank N. Ikard (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Thomas: Well, the point of order is good, then. We admit
it, then.
The Chairman: The Chair sustains the point of order.
On Sept. 15, 1961,(7) Mr. Gross made a point of order
against a paragraph in an appropriation bill, after the next paragraph
had been partially read. Chairman Oren Harris, of Arkansas, stated, in
response to a point of order that the point of order came too late,
that Mr. Gross was entitled to recognition since the Chair had observed
that Mr. Gross was on
[[Page 10051]]
his feet seeking recognition while the Clerk was reading.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 107 Cong. Rec. 19729, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 20.34 Although a point of order against a paragraph of a general
appropriation bill will not lie after an amendment thereto has been
debated, the Chair does not permit the reading of an amendment to
preclude a point of order made by a Member who has shown due
diligence and who sought recognition at the proper time.
On May 24, 1960,(8) the Clerk read a paragraph of an
appropriation bill and Mr. Fred Wampler, of Indiana, offered an
amendment thereto. Parliamentary inquiry was then made of Chairman Hale
Boggs, of Louisiana, on recognition to raise a point of order against
the amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 106 Cong. Rec. 10979, 10980, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary
inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Gross: I have a point of order against the language to be
found on this page. Will the discussion of this amendment abrogate
my right to make a point of order?
The Chairman: The gentleman is correct, it would. If the
gentleman has a point of order, it would have to be urged at this
point.
Mr. Gross: The gentleman is trying to obtain recognition from
the Chair to make a point of order.
The Chairman: The Chair recognizes the gentleman to make the
point of order.
Appropriation Bill Considered Read and Open to Amendment--Chair First
Inquires as to Points of Order to Remainder of Bill
Sec. 20.35 Where a general appropriation bill is, by unanimous consent,
considered read and open for amendment, the Chairman first
ascertains whether there are any points of order to the remainder
of the bill before recognizing Members to offer amendments.
On July 30, 1962,(9) the procedure below was followed
where a unanimous-consent request was made that the remainder of a bill
be considered as read and open for amendment at any point:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 108 Cong. Rec. 14998, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the remainder of the bill
be considered as read and open for amendment at any point.
Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: And also open to points of order
at any point, I take it?
Mr. Thomas: Yes. . . .
[[Page 10052]]
The Chairman: (10) Is there objection to the
[request of the] gentleman from Texas?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
The Chairman: Are there any points of order to be made to the
remainder of the bill?
Mr. Gross: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the
language on page 27, beginning in line 24 and running through line
12 on page 28, as being legislation on an appropriation bill.
Point of Order Reserved--Chair Permits Proponent
of Amendment To Debate Amendment Before Debate on Point of Order
Sec. 20.36 Once a point of order has been reserved against an amendment
and debate has commenced under the five-minute rule, the Chair will
permit the proponent of the amendment to utilize the time allotted
him before hearing arguments on the point of order.
The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on
Mar. 21, 1979: (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 125 Cong. Rec. 5779-81, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: (12) When the Committee rose on
Tuesday, March 20, 1979, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiss)
had been recognized to offer an amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 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).
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. Moorhead of Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman, I would now like to
insist on my point of order against the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiss).
The Chairman: The Chair will point out that the time is under
the control of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiss).
Mr. Weiss: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Marks)
[[Page 10053]]
had asked if I would yield to him, and I am pleased to yield to him
at this point.
Mr. [Marc Lincoln] Marks [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I
thank the gentleman for yielding. . . .
The Chairman: The time of the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Weiss) has expired.
The Chair will recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Moorhead). . . .
Mr. Moorhead of Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of
order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Weiss).
Point of Order Against Portion of Bill Must Be Ruled on Before
Amendments Offered
Sec. 20.37 It is not the practice to permit the reservation of a point
of order against a portion of a general appropriation bill and then
to consider amendments thereto.
On Apr. 13, 1949,(13) Mr. Frederic R. Coudert, Jr., of
New York, reserved a point of order with respect to three lines in a
paragraph of an appropriation bill, on the ground that they constituted
legislation. He stated that he would not insist on the point of order
if the amounts contained in the bill remained the same, but would
insist on his point of order if
the amounts were increased by amendment. Chairman Eugene J. Keogh, of
New York, ruled that a point of order must be ruled upon before
amendments were offered. In answer to a further inquiry
by Mr. Coudert, the Chairman stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 95 Cong. Rec. 4521, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair is informed that it has not been the practice to
reserve points of order and then consider amendments. The Chair
will entertain the gentleman's point of order if the gentleman
presses it.
Debate on Point of Order Is Within Discretion of Chair--Member
Recognized on Point of Order May Not Yield
Sec. 20.38 Discussion on a point of order is within the control of the
Chair, and a Member recognized on a point of order may not yield to
other Members.
During consideration of the conference report on H.R. 13367 (to
extend the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972) in the House
on Sept. 30, 1976,(14) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 122 Cong. Rec. 34074-76, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Jack] Brooks [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I call up the
conference report on the bill (H.R. 13367) to extend and amend the
State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972, and for other
[[Page 10054]]
purposes, and ask unanimous consent that the statement of the
managers be read in lieu of the report.
The Clerk read the title of the bill [and the statement]. . . .
Mr. [Brock] Adams [of Washing-ton]: Mr. Speaker, I raise a
point of
order against the conference agreement. . . .(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. For substantive discussion of the point of order, see Sec. 2.37,
supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Frank] Horton [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. Adams: I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Horton).
Mr. Horton: I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman understands, does he not, there is
no additional amount in fiscal year 1977?
Mr. Adams: That is correct. . . .
Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. Adams: I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).
Mr. Brown of Ohio: I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I refer to Public Law 93-344, the language that
exists on page 22(d)(2).
Mr. Adams: Would the gentleman refer to the motion, please? I
am using both the conference report and the statute.
Mr. Brown of Ohio: Section 401.
Mr. Adams: Is the gentleman referring to the statute or the
conference report?
Mr. Brown of Ohio: Section 401 of the statute.
The Speaker: (16) The Chair has been liberal in
enforcing the rules on arguing on a point of order. The Chair
controls the time and each individual Member desiring to be heard
should address the Chair and not yield to other Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) desire to be heard?
Mr. Brown of Ohio: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I do desire to be heard.
Sec. 20.39 Recognition and time for debate on a point of order are
within the discretion of the Chair, and a Member speaking on a
point of order does not control a fixed amount of time which he can
reserve or yield.
On Feb. 23, 1978,(17) a point of order was made with
respect to the germaneness of an amendment to H.R. 9214 (concerning
United States participation in the supplementary financing facility of
the International Monetary Fund). The proceedings in part were as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 124 Cong. Rec. 4421, 4426, 4427, 4451, 4452, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 9214
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
Bretton Woods Agreements Act (22 U.S.C. 286-286k-2), as
amended, is further amended by adding at the end thereof the
following new section:
``Sec. 27. (a) For the purpose of participation of the
United States in
[[Page 10055]]
the Supplementary Financing Facil-ity . . . the Secretary of
the Treasury is authorized to make resources available as
provided in the decision numbered 5509-(77/127) of the Fund, in
an amount not to exceed the equivalent of 1,450 million Special
Drawing Rights.
Mr. [Thomas R.] Harkin [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Harkin: Page 3, immediately after
line 14, insert the following:
Sec. 3. The Bretton Woods Agreements Act (22 USC 286-286k-
2), as amended, is further amended by adding at the end thereof
the following new section: . . .
``(b) In accordance with the unique character of the
International Monetary Fund, the Secretary of the Treasury
shall direct the U.S. Executive Director to take all possible
steps to the end that all Fund transactions, including economic
programs developed in connection with the utilization of Fund
resources, do not contribute to the deprivation of basic human
needs. . . .
Mr. [Stephen L.] Neal [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I make
a point of order against the amendment.
The Chairman: (18) The Chair will hear the
gentleman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Lucien N. Nedzi (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Neal: Mr. Chairman, we have just established that we are
only considering the so-called Witteveen Facility of the
International Monetary Fund, and this amendment goes far beyond
that.
The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Harkin) desire
to be heard on the point of order?
Mr. Harkin: Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
I would respond to that argument by saying that my amendment is
entirely in order because, if we look at the different sections,
the first section of my amendment goes toward instructing the U.S.
Executive Director of the IMF to do certain positive things about
initiating wide consultations, and so forth, which would help to
promote those kinds of programs that would help meet the basic
human needs in other countries. . . .
Mr. [Henry S.] Reuss [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield on his point of order?
The Chairman: The Chair will recognize the gentleman on the
point of order.
Has the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Harkin) concluded?
Mr. Harkin: Mr. Chairman, I have not concluded. I would like to
reserve the balance of my time to speak further on the point of
order.
The Chairman: It is not in order to reserve debate time on a
point of order. The gentleman has no [block] of time to reserve.
Mr. Harkin: Then, I would like to continue, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: The Chair is hearing arguments on the point of
order at the present time. The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Harkin)
will be recognized in support of his amendment at a subsequent time
if the point of order is not sustained. . . .
Mr. Harkin: . . . Mr. Chairman, I want to speak further before
the Chair rules on the point of order.
The Chairman: The Chair will hear the gentleman.
Mr. Harkin: Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr.
[[Page 10056]]
Mathis) has raised an interesting point. . . .
Mr. [Dawson] Mathis [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman from Iowa yield further on the point of order?
The Chairman: Has the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Harkin)
concluded his statement on the point of order?
Mr. Harkin: Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield to the
gentleman.
The Chairman: There is no yielding on a point of order.
Must Rise To Object to Unanimous-consent Request
Sec. 20.40 A Member must rise to object to a unanimous-consent request;
if the Member has done so, the objection to a unanimous-consent
request is timely if entered before the Chair enters an order
thereon (as by saying, ``Without objection, so ordered'').
On Nov. 7, 1991,(19) discussion arose in the House as to
whether a Member had risen to object
to a unanimous-consent request in timely fashion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 137 Cong. Rec. 30633, 102d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Would it be an
appropriate parliamentary inquiry to ask unanimous consent that the
letter the gentlewoman just referred to be placed in the Record at
this point?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (20) The Chair would inform
the gentleman that that is really not a parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. G. V. (Sonny) Montgomery (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I am asking whether or not it would be
appropriate in the procedures of the House at the moment for there
to be a unanimous-consent request that the letter to which the
gentlewoman just referred be put in the Record at this point?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: That is normally the prerogative of
the Member possessing the letter. Is the gentleman asking that the
letter be put in the Record?
Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I would ask unanimous consent that the
letter be included in the Record.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from Pennsylvania?
Mr. [Bill] Alexander [of Arkansas]: I object.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Objection is heard.
Mr. Walker: The gentleman was not standing when he made the
objection.
Mr. Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I object. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Objection is heard.
Mr. Walker: It was not a timely objection, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair looked at the gentleman
sitting and nothing else had transpired. Then the Chair recognized
that the gentleman was standing and the Chair put the question
again.
Similarly, on June 23, 1992,(1) the Chair made an
announcement
[[Page 10057]]
concerning the proper manner of seeking recognition to object to a
unanimous-consent request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 138 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 102d Cong. 2d Sess. See also
Sec. Sec. 8.27-8.31, supra, for further discussion of
recognition to object to unanimous-consent requests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John] Miller of Washington: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent to address the House for 1 minute, and to revise and extend
my remarks.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (2) Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Washington?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. G. V. (Sonny) Montgomery (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Lawrence J.] Smith of Florida: Mr. Speaker, I object.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Objection is heard.
announcement by the speaker pro tempore
The Chair would advise Members that if they wish to object,
they should please stand, so that the Chair will see the objector.
Recognition for Objection to Unanimous-consent Request Does Not Extend
Recognition in Opposition to Motion
Sec. 20.41 Recognition of a Member to object to a unanimous-consent
request for the withdrawal of a motion in the Committee of the
Whole to strike out the enacting clause does not extend recognition
in opposition to the motion.
On Mar. 1, 1950,(3) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan,
moved that the Committee of the Whole rise and report the pending bill
back to the House with the recommendation that the enacting clause be
stricken and after debating the motion asked unanimous consent to
withdraw it. Mr. Francis H. Case, of South Dakota, rose to object to
the withdrawal of the motion and to seek recognition in debate to
oppose the motion. Chairman Clark W. Thompson, of Texas, then
recognized Mr. Oren Harris, of Arkansas, a member of the committee
reporting the bill, for five minutes' debate in opposition to the
motion. Mr. Case inquired whether he had not been recognized. The
Chairman stated: ``The gentleman was recognized by the Chair to make an
objection, but not to speak.'' (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 96 Cong. Rec. 2597, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
4. Generally, recognition is limited to a specific purpose; see
Sec. 8, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chair May Refuse To Permit Debate Under Reservation of Objection to
Unanimous-consent Request
Sec. 20.42 Recognition for a reservation of objection to a unanimous-
consent request is within the discretion of the Speaker and
sometimes
[[Page 10058]]
he refuses to permit debate under such a reservation and
immediately puts the question on the request.
On Dec. 3, 1969,(5) Speaker John W. McCormack, of
Massachusetts, refused to recognize a Member for a reservation of
objection to a unanimous-consent request, stating that the Member
requesting unanimous consent ``receives permission, or she does not.''
The Speaker immediately put the question on the unanimous-consent
request and there was no objection heard.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 115 Cong. Rec. 36748, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
6. The demand for the ``regular order'' precludes recognition for a
reservation of the right to object; see the proceedings of May
16, 1979, discussed in Sec. 20.43, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Debate Under Reservation of Objection to Unanimous-consent Request May
Not Continue When Regular Order Demanded
Sec. 20.43 Debate under a reservation of the right to object to a
unanimous-consent request may not continue when the regular order
is demanded.
On May 16, 1979,(7) the following proceedings occurred
in the Committee of the Whole during consideration of the Alaska
National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1979:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 125 Cong. Rec. 11369, 11420, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Breaux to the amendment in the
nature of a substitute offered by the Committee on Merchant
Marine and Fisheries: Page 278: Strike out all after line 2 on
page 278 through line 9 on page 622 and insert in lieu thereof
the following: . . .
The Chairman: (8) The gentleman from Louisiana has
asked unanimous consent to dispense with the reading of the
amendment. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Paul Simon (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Louisiana?
Mr. Phillip Burton [of California]: Mr. Chairman, reserving the
right to object, I would like to ask our distinguished colleague in
the well, is this the 479-page amendment that the gentleman has
before the House? . . .
Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I believe on
this reservation which is now pending, we ought to proceed with the
regular order.
The Chairman: The question is, Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. Phillip Burton: I am reserving the right to object.
Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I demand regular order.
The Chairman: Regular order has been demanded.
Mr. Phillip Burton: I would like to make this point, Mr.
Chairman: I was
[[Page 10059]]
on the floor. I have the time, and I reserve the right to object.
The Chairman: When regular order is demanded, the Chair is
required to put the request to the body.
Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I will not demand regular order.
The Chairman: The gentleman from Michigan withdraws his demand
for regular order, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Phillip
Burton) is recognized.
Where Member Recognized for One Hour Makes Unanimous-consent Request,
Time Under Reservation of Objection Not Charged to Member
Sec. 20.44 Where a Member has been recognized for one hour of debate
but has not begun his remarks, and makes a unanimous-consent
request, time consumed by a Member who reserves the right to object
to that request is not charged to the Member who has been
recognized for an hour.
On Apr. 15, 1970, Mr. Louis C. Wyman, of New Hampshire, was
recognized for one hour of debate (on a ``special-order'' speech).
Before he commenced to address the House, Mr. Wyman asked unanimous
consent to revise and extend his remarks; Mr. Phillip Burton, of
California, reserved the right to object and made several remarks on
the pending resolution. In response to a parliamentary inquiry, Speaker
John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, ruled that Mr. Wyman still had one
hour of debate time available, and that the time consumed by Mr. Burton
would not be charged to Mr. Wyman's hour.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 116 Cong. Rec. 11917, 11918, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAPTER 29
Consideration and Debate
C. RECOGNITION ON PARTICULAR QUESTIONS
Sec. 21. Under the Five-minute Rule
Recognition for amendments and debate under the five-minute rule is
subject to the discretion of the Chair, who may adhere to any one of
several recognized principles to avoid being perceived as
``arbitrary.'' Seniority, committee membership, alternation between
parties--all are established as techniques or tests for bestowing
recognition. (All of these ``criteria'' for recognition are within the
discretion of the Chair. So all these principles should be considered
as alternatives.)
Cross References
Closing and limiting five-minute debate, see Sec. 78, infra.
Duration of five-minute debate, see Sec. 77, infra.
Effect of limitation on five-minute debate, see Sec. 79, infra.
[[Page 10060]]
Effect of special orders and unanimous-consent agreements on five-
minute debate, see Sec. 80, infra.
Five-minute debate in the House as in the Committee of the Whole, see
Sec. 70, infra.
Recognition for amendments generally, see Sec. 19, supra.
Recognition and debate for motion that the Committee rise and report
back the bill with the recommendation that the enacting clause be
stricken, see Sec. Sec. 77, 79, infra.
Recognition where five-minute debate has been limited, see Sec. 22,
infra.
Relevancy in five-minute debate, see Sec. 38, infra.
Yielding for debate under five-minute rule, see Sec. Sec. 29-31,
infra. -------------------
Principles of Recognition: Pri-or Recognition of Committee Members
Sec. 21.1 The matter of recognition of Members in the Committee of the
Whole to offer amendments under the five-minute rule is within the
discretion of the Chair, and he may extend preference to members of
the committee which reported the bill according to seniority.
On July 21, 1949,(10) the Committee of the Whole was
reading for amendment under the five-minute rule H.R. 5345, the
Agriculture Adjustment Act of 1949. Chairman Eugene J. Keogh, of New
York, recognized Mr. James P. Sutton, of Tennessee, to offer an
amendment. The Chairman then responded to a parliamentary inquiry on
the order of recognition for amendments under the five-minute rule:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 95 Cong. Rec. 9936, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. H. Carl Andersen [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, is it not
the custom during debate under the 5-minute rule for the Chair in
recognizing Members to alternate from side to side? At least I
suggest to the Chair that that would be the fair procedure. The
Chair has recognized three Democrats in a row.
The Chairman: The Chair will say to the gentleman that the
matter of recognition of members of the committee is within the
discretion of the Chair. The Chair has undertaken to follow as
closely as possible the seniority of those Members.
Mr. [Clifford R.] Hope [of Kansas]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Hope: For the information of the Chair, the gentleman from
Wisconsin, who has been seeking recognition, has been a Member of
the House for 10 years, and the gentleman from Tennessee is a
Member whose service began only this year.
The Chairman: The Chair would refer the gentleman to the
official list of the members of the committee, which the Chair has
before him.
[[Page 10061]]
The Clerk will report the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Tennessee.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See Rule XXIII clause 5(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 870 (1995)
for amendment under the five-minute rule in the Committee of
the Whole.
See also 117 Cong. Rec. 34287, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., Sept.
30, 1971 (recognition under five-minute rule is first accorded
to members of the reporting committee, and the Chair endeavors
to alternate between majority and minority members of the
committee).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman of Committee
Sec. 21.2 In bestowing recognition under the five-minute rule in the
Committee of the Whole, the Chair gives preference to the chairman
of the legislative committee reporting the bill under
consideration.
On Nov. 15, 1967,(12) the Committee of the Whole was
considering under the five-minute rule a bill reported from the
Committee on Education and Labor, chaired by Carl D. Perkins, of
Kentucky. Mr. Edward J. Gurney, of Flor-ida, sought recognition and
when Chairman John J. Rooney, of New York, asked for what purpose, he
stated that his purpose was to offer an amendment. The Chairman then
recognized Mr. Perkins to submit a unanimous-consent request on closing
debate before recognizing Mr. Gurney to offer his amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 113 Cong. Rec. 32655, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chair as Protecting Members' Rights to Recognition
Sec. 21.3 The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole does not
anticipate the order in which amendments may be offered under the
five-minute rule nor does he declare in advance the order of
recognition, but where he knows a Member desires recognition to
offer an amendment, he may indicate that he will protect the
Member's rights.
On Sept. 8, 1966,(13) Chairman Edward P. Boland, of
Massachusetts, answered a parliamentary inquiry as to the order of
recognition for offering amendments under the five-minute rule:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 112 Cong. Rec. 22020, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert G.] Stephens [Jr., of Georgia]: It is my
understanding that the procedures will be for the Minish amendment
to be considered and after the Minish amendment is disposed of then
I will offer a substitute and it is my understanding I will be
recognized immediately after the amendment for the purpose of
submitting that substitute. Is that the correct parliamentary
situation?
[[Page 10062]]
The Chairman: Recognition, of course, is within the discretion
of the Chair, but the Chair will protect the gentleman's
rights.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. For protection of Members seeking recognition where five-minute
debate has been limited, see Sec. 22, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Must Seek Recognition From Chair
Sec. 21.4 A Member desiring to offer an amendment under the five-minute
rule must seek recognition from the Chair, and may not be yielded
the floor for that purpose by another Member.
On Dec. 12, 1973,(15) Mr. Robert C. Eckhardt, of Texas,
sought recognition, under the five-minute rule in the Committee of the
Whole, in order to yield to Mr. Peter W. Rodino, Jr., of New Jersey,
for the latter to offer an amendment. Chairman Richard Bolling, of
Missouri, ruled that Mr. Eckhardt could not be recognized for that
purpose.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 119 Cong. Rec. 41171, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
16. See also 119 Cong. Rec. 41716, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 14, 1973
and 119 Cong. Rec. 13233, 13235, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 19,
1973.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member May Not Yield for Amendment
Sec. 21.5 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,(17) during consideration of
H.R. 8603, the Postal Reorganization Act Amendments of 1975:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 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: (18) The Chair will state that the
gentleman from Maine cannot yield for the purpose of the gentleman
from Delaware offering an amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 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?
[[Page 10063]]
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.
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:
. . .
Power of Recognition Is With the Chair--Manager of Bill May Not Yield
to Himself
Sec. 21.6 Under the five-minute rule the Member managing the bill has
preference in recognition for debate, but the power of recognition
is with the Chair and the Member cannot ``yield'' himself time for
debate.
On Mar. 26, 1965,(19) the Committee of the Whole was
considering for amendment H.R. 2362,
the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965, reported
by the Committee on Education
and Labor, chaired by Adam C. Powell, of New York. The committee agreed
to a motion to close debate on the pending section and on amendments
thereto in five minutes. Mr. Powell then stated as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 111 Cong. Rec. 6113, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
Chairman Richard Bolling, of Missouri, stated in response to a
point of order and to a parliamentary inquiry that although Mr. Powell
could not ``yield'' himself time for debate under the five-minute rule,
he could gain five minutes by offering a pro forma amendment or
speaking in opposition to the pending amendment.
Senior Member of Committee Could Offer Amendment at Any Point of
Paragraph of Appropriation Bill
Sec. 21.7 The pending paragraph of an appropriation bill be-ing read
under the five-min-ute rule is open to amendment at any point, and
a senior member of the committee reporting the bill may be first
recognized to offer an amendment notwithstanding the fact that it
would insert matter on a line in the paragraph following the line
sought to be amended by another Member.
On July 23, 1970,(20) Chairman Chet Holifield, of
California, rec
[[Page 10064]]
ognized George H. Mahon, of Texas, a member of the Committee on
Appropriations which had reported the pending bill, to offer an
amendment to the pending paragraph. Chairman Holifield then answered a
series of parliamentary inquiries on the priority of ranking members of
the reporting committee to recognition to offer amendments, where a
paragraph is open to amendment at any point:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 116 Cong. Rec. 25635, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Charles R.] Jonas [of North Carolina]: May I respectfully
remind the Chair that I was recognized, and that the Chair allowed
a point of order to intervene only, and I had been recognized. The
Chair ruled that since a point of order had been made, the Chair
would dispose of the point of order first.
The Chairman: The Chair respectfully states that the point of
order did intervene following the gentleman's recognition. The
Chair intends to recognize members of the committee in the order of
their seniority. The Chair, therefore, recognized the gentleman
from Texas. The Chair will later recognize the gentleman from North
Carolina.
Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Michel: Did the Clerk read through the section concluding
with line 3, page 39?
The Chairman: It is the understanding of the Chair that he did.
Mr. Jonas: Mr. Chairman, a further parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Jonas: I respectfully ask the Chair to rule that my
amendment does precede the amendment that will be offered by the
gentleman from Texas. My amendment goes to line 5, page 38, and my
information is that the amendment to be offered by the gentleman
from Texas comes at a later point in the paragraph.
The Chairman: A whole paragraph is open to amendment at the
same time. Therefore, the line does not determine the order of the
amendment.
Recognition in Order of Seniority Is Within Discretion of Chair
Sec. 21.8 Recognition under the five-minute rule in the Committee of
the Whole is within the discretion of the Chair, and the Chair is
not required in every instance to recognize members of the
legislative committee reporting the bill in order of their
seniority.
On Oct. 2, 1969,(1) the Committee of the Whole was
considering under the five-minute rule H.R. 14000, military procurement
authorization. Chairman Daniel D. Rostenkowski, of Illinois, recog
[[Page 10065]]
nized Mr. Charles H. Wilson, of California, a member of the Committee
on Armed Services which had reported the bill, to offer an amendment.
Mr. Lucien N. Nedzi, of Michigan, inquired whether members of the
committee were supposed to be recognized in the order of their
seniority. The Chairman responded ``That is a matter for the Chair's
discretion'' and proceeded to recognize Mr. Wilson for his amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 115 Cong. Rec. 28101, 28102, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chair Alternates Between Majority and Minority, Not Necessarily Members
Supporting and Opposing Proposition
Sec. 21.9 In recognizing Members to move to strike the last word under
the five-minute rule, the Chair attempts to alternate between
majority and minority Members; but the Chair has no knowledge as to
whether specific Members oppose or support
the pending proposition and therefore cannot strictly alternate
between both sides of the question.
On June 7, 1984,(2) during consideration of H.R. 5504
(Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1984)
in the Committee of the Whole, the following exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 130 Cong. Rec. 15423, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: (3) The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Shannon).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Dan Daniel (Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Bill] Frenzel [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Frenzel: Mr. Chairman, is it not customary to choose
Members opposed and supporting the amendment in some kind of rough
order?
The Chairman: The Chair is attempting to be fair. What the
Chair is doing is alternating between the two sides.
Mr. Frenzel: I thank the Chair.
Member Recognized in Support of Amendment Prior to Recognition of
Another To Offer Substitute
Sec. 21.10 Under the five-minute rule, a Member is entitled to
recognition in support of his amendment prior to recognition of
another Member to offer, and debate, a substitute therefor.
On July 17, 1962,(4) Mr. Wayne N. Aspinall, of Colorado,
offered an amendment to the pending bill, being considered under the
five-minute rule in the Committee of
[[Page 10066]]
the Whole. Chairman B. F. Sisk, of California, recognized Mr. Aspinall
to debate his amendment for five minutes. Mr. James E. Van Zandt, of
Pennsylvania, inquired whether it was in order at that time for him to
offer a substitute amendment. The Chairman responded that it was not in
order ``until the gentleman from Colorado has had an opportunity to be
heard on his amendment.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 108 Cong. Rec. 13795, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority of Recognition to Those Supporting Committee Amendment
Sec. 21.11 In recognizing, under the five-minute rule, members of the
committee reporting a bill, the Chair recognizes a member in favor
of
a committee amendment pri-or to recognizing a member thereof who is
opposed.
On Jan. 30, 1957,(5) Chairman Jere Cooper, of Tennessee,
ruled, sustaining a point of order, that where a bill was being amended
under the five-minute rule, a member of the reporting committee seeking
recognition to speak in support of a committee amendment was entitled
to prior recognition over a committee member seeking recognition to
speak against the committee amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 103 Cong. Rec. 1311, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extending Five-minute Debate by Unanimous Consent
Sec. 21.12 Debate in the House
as in the Committee of the Whole proceeds under the five-minute
rule, but a Member who has already been recognized for five minutes
may be recognized again by unanimous consent only.
Although a joint resolution called up under the Alaska Natural Gas
Transportation Act was not subject to substantive amendment under
section 8(d)(5)(B) of that Act, pro forma amendments for the purpose of
debate under the five-minute rule were permitted where the resolution,
on Nov. 2, 1977,(6) was being considered in the House as in
Committee of the Whole by unanimous consent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 123 Cong. Rec. 36613, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (7) The unfinished business
of the House is the further consideration of the joint resolution
(H.J. Res. 621) approving the Presidential decision on an Alaska
natural gas transportation system, and for other purposes, in the
House as in the Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Otis G. Pike (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Without objection, the Clerk will again report the joint
resolution.
[[Page 10067]]
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the joint resolution, as follows:
H.J. Res. 621
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That the House
of Representatives and Senate approve the Presidential decision
on an Alaska natural gas transportation system submitted to the
Congress on September 22, 1977, and find that any environmental
impact statements prepared relative to such system and
submitted with the President's decision are in compliance with
the Natural Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Udall: Mr. Speaker, am I correct in assuming that the joint
resolution before us has been laid before the House, but is not
amendable?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct.
Mr. Udall: Am I further correct, Mr. Speaker, in assuming that
under the procedure by which we are operating, the only way for a
Member to gain time is to make a pro forma motion to strike the
necessary number of words?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct.
It is the Chair's understanding that those who have already
offered pro forma amendments on the joint resolution may do so
again only by unanimous consent.
Sec. 21.13 A Member recognized under the five-minute rule may extend
his debate time only by unanimous consent, and a motion to that
effect is not in order.
On Apr. 28, 1976,(8) the following proceedings occurred
in the Committee of the Whole during consideration of House Concurrent
Resolution 611, the first concurrent resolution on the budget for
fiscal year 1977:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 122 Cong. Rec. 11622, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman Pro Tempore: (9) The time of the
gentleman from California (Mr. Leggett) has expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Gillis W. Long (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert L.] Leggett [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that I may be permitted to proceed for 3
additional minutes.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from California? . . .
Mr. [Clarence D.] Long of Maryland: Mr. Chairman, I object.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: Objection is heard.
Mr. Leggett: Mr. Chairman, I move that I be given 2 additional
minutes.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: That motion is not in order. The time
of the gentleman from California (Mr. Leggett) has expired.
Sec. 21.14 Under the five-minute rule, the proponent of a pending
amendment may of-fer a pro forma amendment thereto (for additional
de
[[Page 10068]]
bate time) only by unanimous consent.
During consideration of the nuclear weapons freeze resolution (H.J.
Res. 13) in the Committee of the Whole on Apr. 13, 1983,(10)
the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 129 Cong. Rec. 8382, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Elliott C.] Levitas [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I move to
strike the requisite number of words.
The Chairman: (11) Without objection, the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Levitas) is recognized for 5 minutes. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, does the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Levitas) have an amendment pending?
The Chairman: The gentleman from New York is correct. The
gentleman from Georgia has an amendment in the nature of a
substitute to the text pending.
Mr. Stratton: Well, is it proper to strike the last word on
one's own amendment?
The Chairman: The gentleman asked for recognition, and without
objection, he was recognized for 5 minutes.
Parliamentarian's Note: Technically, the proponent may rise in
opposition to a pro forma amendment offered by another Member in order
to secure an additional five minutes.
Member Speaking on Amendment Could Speak on Amendment Thereto
Sec. 21.15 While the rules forbid a Member speaking twice on an
amendment offered under the five-minute rule, he may speak on the
amendment and later in opposition to a pro forma amendment offered
during the pendency of the original amendment.
On Mar. 13, 1942,(12) Chairman Robert Ramspeck, of
Georgia, recognized, during five-minute debate in the Committee of the
Whole, Mr. Everett M. Dirksen, of Illinois, to speak in opposition to a
pro forma amendment. Mr. Frank E. Hook, of Michigan, objected that a
Member could not speak twice on the same amendment and that Mr. Dirksen
had already spoken on the pending amendment. The Chairman ruled that
Mr. Dirksen could speak on the pro forma amendment although he had
already spoken to
the pending substantive amendment.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 88 Cong. Rec. 2425, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
13. For the prohibition against one Member speaking twice to the same
question, see Rule XIV clause 6, House Rules and Manual
Sec. 762 (1995). For amendment under the five-minute rule,
permitting a Member to speak only once on an amendment, see
Rule XXIII clause 5(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 870 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 10069]]
Sec. 21.16 A Member who has offered an amendment and spoken thereon is
not precluded from recognition to speak to a proposed amendment to
his amendment.
On Nov. 15, 1967,(14) Chairman John J. Rooney, of New
York, ruled that a Member who had offered an amendment and spoken
thereon was not precluded from speaking on an amendment to his
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 113 Cong. Rec. 32644, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Augustus F.] Hawkins [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike the requisite number of words.
Mr. [Hugh L.] Carey [of New York]: A point of order, Mr.
Chairman.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Carey: Mr. Chairman, I have no wish to foreclose the right
of my colleague from California to be heard, but I believe he has
already spoken on the floor for 10 minutes in support of his
amendment.
The Chairman: Since the time the gentleman from California
addressed the Committee with regard to the Hawkins amendment,
another amendment has been offered, which is an amendment to the
Hawkins amendment, and the gentleman from California has not yet
spoken on that.
Mr. Carey: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.
Offering Pro Forma Amendment After Recognition on Previous Amendment
Sec. 21.17 A Member who has spoken in debate on a second degree
amendment may offer a further pro forma amendment to debate the
underlying first degree amendment.
On June 28, 1995,(15) during consideration of a bill
(16) making appropriations for foreign operations, export
financing, and related programs, Mrs. Carrie P. Meek, of Florida, was
debating an amendment in time yielded by Mrs. Corrine Brown, of
Florida:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 141 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
16. H.R. 1868.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Brown of Florida: I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida.
Mrs. Meek of Florida: Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding to me.
Mr. Chairman, there are a lot of things that have been said
today, but there are still a lot of questions existing. No. 1,
there is no one in this Congress, all 435 of them, that know
doodley-squat about the Haitian Constitution. They know absolutely
nothing about it.
The Chairman: (17) The time of the gentlewoman from
Florida [Ms. Brown] has expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. James V. Hansen (Utah).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(On request of Mr. Bonior and by unanimous consent, Ms. Brown
of Flor
[[Page 10070]]
ida was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mrs. Meek of Florida: Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. Brown of Florida: I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida.
. . .
Mrs. Meek of Florida: I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr.
Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I am trying to get recognized so I can move
to strike the last word on the underlying amendment.
The Chairman: The gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Brown]
requested 2 additional minutes. The time is hers now. That was
granted without objection. She has now yielded to the gentlewoman
from Florida [Mrs. Meek] in the well, so the Chair would say to the
gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek] the time is hers as long as
the gentlewoman yields to her.
Mrs. Meek of Florida: I have a further parliamentary inquiry,
Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: The gentlewoman will state her inquiry.
Mrs. Meek of Florida: Mr. Chairman, after I have expended the 2
minutes that she gives me, may I request 5 minutes.
The Chairman: The gentlewoman may, under that circumstance. . .
.
The time of the gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Brown] has again
expired.
In the following exchange, the Chair indicated that one who has
offered a pro forma amendment on a second-degree amendment may offer
another pro forma amendment on the first degree amendment:
Mr. [Thomas M.] Foglietta [of Pennsylvania]: I have a
parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman. . . .
I believe I heard the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek] say
that she moved to strike the requisite number of words on the
underlying amendment. She has spoken on her own amendment. Now she
has asked for 5 minutes on the underlying amendment. I think she is
entitled to that 5 minutes.
The Chairman: That is correct, and the Chair would recognize
the gentlewoman for 5 minutes to strike the last word on the Goss
amendment.
Mrs. Meek of Florida: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words. . . .
When the Goss amendment says ``None of the funds appropriated
in this act may be made available to the Government of Haiti when
it is made known to the President that such Government is
controlled by a regime holding power through means other than the
democratic elections scheduled for calendar year 1995 and held in
substantial compliance with requirements of the Constitution,'' I
repeat again to the gentleman, what does the gentleman mean by
``substantial,'' rhetorical statement, ``compliance?'' What does
the gentleman mean by saying that the people in Haiti are not
ready? That is the inference the gentleman is making, that they are
not ready for a free election.
Sec. 21.18 Where there was pending in the Committee of the Whole an
amendment and a substitute therefor, the Chair stated, in response
to parliamentary inquiries (1) that the Member offering the
substitute could debate it for
[[Page 10071]]
five minutes and could subsequently be recognized to speak for or
against the original amendment; and (2) that a Member recognized to
speak on a pending amendment might offer a pro forma amendment and
thereby be entitled to a second five minutes of debate.
On July 28, 1970,(18) an amendment and a substitute
therefor were pending to a bill being considered under the five-minute
rule in the Committee of the Whole. Chairman William H. Natcher, of
Kentucky, responded to parliamentary inquiries on recognition of
Members for amendments and substitute amendments:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 116 Cong. Rec. 26027, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [William H.] Harsha [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. Harsha: How many times is a Member permitted to speak on
his own amendment?
The Chairman: The gentleman from Ohio inquires as to how many
times a Member may speak on his own amendment. The answer to that
is he may speak one time to his amendment.
Mr. Harsha: The author of the amendment is asking for
additional time, and some of the rest of us have not had any time.
Mr. [B. F.] Sisk [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my
request and yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. [Harold R.] Collier [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. Collier: Is that rule not also applicable to any other
Member of the House, once he has spoken on an amendment?
The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
Mr. [James C.] Cleveland [of New Hampshire]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. Cleveland: Am I not correct
in stating that when the gentleman
from Iowa (Mr. Schwengel) offered his amendment, he spoke on it;
and am I not correct that when the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Reuss) offered an amendment the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Schwengel)
offered a substitute. Would not the gentleman from Iowa (Mr.
Schwengel) be allowed to speak for 5 minutes for or against the
Reuss amendment, as well as in support of his own substitute?
The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
Mr. Cleveland: I thank the Chairman.
Mr. [Joe D.] Waggonner [Jr., of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Waggonner: Under the rules of the House cannot a Member
move to strike the last word and be considered on the same
amendment?
[[Page 10072]]
The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
Mr. Waggonner: And under those conditions a man could speak
twice, could he not?
The Chairman: Possibly. If a Member were to speak one time in
opposition to an amendment subsequently he could move to strike the
last word and he would be entitled to be recognized.
Recognition Limited to Five Minutes
Sec. 21.19 A decision of the Committee of the Whole to permit a Member
to read a letter means that the Member may read the letter within
the five minutes allotted to him, and does not necessarily permit
him to read the entire letter.
On June 26, 1952,(19) while the Committee of the Whole
was considering under the five-minute rule H.R. 8210, the Defense
Production Act Amendments of 1952, Mr. Clinton D. McKinnon, of
California, was recognized on a pro forma amendment and began reading a
statement by Governor Arnall on a previously adopted amendment to the
bill. Mr. Jesse P. Wolcott, of Michigan, objected to the reading, under
Rule XXX of the rules of the House. Chairman Wilbur D. Mills, of
Arkansas, put the question to the Committee, which voted to permit Mr.
McKinnon to read the letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 98 Cong. Rec. 8175, 8176, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While Mr. McKinnon was reading the letter, Chairman Mills
interrupted him and stated that his five minutes had expired. Mr.
Herman P. Eberharter, of Pennsylvania, made the point of order that the
vote by the Committee permitted Mr. McKinnon to read the entire letter;
the Chairman overruled the point of order:
Mr. Eberharter: Mr. Chairman, the House decided by a teller
vote to permit the reading of this letter. I submit that the letter
should be read in its entirety; that is the point of order I make.
The Chairman: That is not the decision made by the Committee.
The Committee made the decision that the gentleman could read the
letter within the time allotted to the gentleman of 5 minutes.
Mr. Eberharter: I did not hear it so stated when the motion was
put, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: The question put to the Committee had nothing
whatsoever to do with the time to be consumed by the gentleman from
California. The Chair recognized the gentleman from California for
5 minutes; the question arose as to whether or not he could within
that 5 minutes time read extraneous papers.
The point of order is overruled.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See Rule XXX House Rules and Manual Sec. 915 (1995) and annotation
thereto for the former prohibition against reading papers, over
objection, without the consent of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 10073]]
Recognition on Reintroduced Amendment
Sec. 21.20 Upon the re-offering of an amendment which has,
by unanimous consent, been withdrawn in the Committee of the Whole,
the proponent is entitled to debate the amendment for a second
five-minute period.
On May 3, 1956,(1) Chairman J. Percy Priest, of
Tennessee, stated, in response to a parliamentary inquiry, that a
Member who again offers an amendment he has withdrawn in the Committee
of the Whole is entitled to debate the amendment for five minutes
regardless of previous debate thereon:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 102 Cong. Rec. 7439, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Noah M.] Mason [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Mason: Under the rules of the House does a man get two 5-
minute discussions on the same amendment?
The Chairman: The gentleman withdrew his amendment, and it has
been offered again. The gentleman from Maine is recognized for 5
minutes in support of his amendment.
Recognition for En Bloc Amendments
Sec. 21.21 A Member offering two amendments may, with the consent of
the Committee of the Whole, have them considered together, but such
consent does not permit
the Member to debate the amendments for two five-minute periods.
On Mar. 5, 1937,(2) while the Committee of the Whole was
considering for amendment under the five-minute rule an appropriation
bill, Mr. Everett M. Dirksen, of Illinois, asked unanimous consent that
two amendments he was offering, both applicable to the same page, be
considered together. There was no objection to the request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 81 Cong. Rec. 1919, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Dirksen then stated he assumed that he was entitled to proceed
for 10 minutes, having two amendments. Chairman Schuyler Otis Bland, of
Virginia, stated that Mr. Dirksen was entitled to only five minutes.
Recognition for Debate Does Not Preclude Timely Point of Order Against
Amendment
Sec. 21.22 Mere recognition for debate on an amendment
[[Page 10074]]
under the five-minute rule does not preclude a point of order
against the amendment before the Member recognized has begun his
remarks.
On July 30, 1955,(3) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan,
offered an amendment to a Union Calendar bill on the Consent Calendar,
being considered under the five-minute rule. Mr. Hoffman was recognized
by Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, to debate his amendment for five
minutes. Before Mr. Hoffman had begun his remarks, Mr. H. R. Gross, of
Iowa, made a point of order against the amendment on the ground that it
was not germane. Mr. Hoffman objected that Mr. Gross could not be
recognized for the point of order, since Mr. Hoffman had already been
recognized to debate the amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 101 Cong. Rec. 12408, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker overruled the point of order, stating that Mr. Hoffman
had not yet begun his remarks.
Closed Rules and Pro Forma Amendments
Sec. 21.23 When an amendment, offered by direction of a committee, is
being considered under a closed rule, only two five-minute speeches
are in order and a third Member is not entitled to recognition
notwithstanding the fact that the second Member, recognized in
opposition, spoke in favor of the amendment.
On May 18, 1960,(4) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 5, the Foreign Investment Tax Act of 1960, reported by
the Committee on Ways and Means, pursuant to the provisions of House
Resolution 468, permitting only amendments offered at the direction of
said committee and amendments thereto. Mr. George Meader, of Michigan,
was recognized by Chairman William H. Natcher, of Kentucky, for five
minutes' debate in opposition to the pending committee amendment. The
Chairman then answered a parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 106 Cong. Rec. 10579, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John H.] Dent [of Pennsylvania]: Did the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Meader] get up and ask for time to speak in
opposition and would that include any of us who are opposed to the
bill, since he is speaking in favor of the bill?
The Chairman: Under the rule, no one else can be recognized.
Mr. Meader: Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from Pennsylvania
wants me to yield to him to make a statement, I will be glad to do
so.
[[Page 10075]]
Mr. Dent: I do not think that is it. I just want to know if the
rules of the House allow the time to be usurped by those in favor
of the bill when some time is supposed, under the rules of the
House, to be allocated to those who are opposed to the bill.
The Chairman: The Chair wishes to inform the gentleman from
Pennsylvania that the gentleman from Michigan stated that he rose
in opposition to the amendment, and the Chair recognized the
gentleman from Michigan.
Sec. 21.24 When a bill is being considered under a closed rule
permitting only committee amendments, only two five-minute speeches
are in order, one in support of the committee amendment and one in
opposition, and the Chair gives preference in recognition to
members of the committee reporting the bill.
On May 18, 1960,(5) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 5, the Foreign Investment Tax Act of 1960, reported
by the Committee on Ways and Means, pursuant to the provisions of House
Resolution 468, permitting only amendments offered at the direction of
said committee. A member of the Committee on Ways and Means (Mr. Hale
Boggs, of Louisiana) offered an amendment and was recognized for five
minutes. Chairman William H. Natcher, of Kentucky, stated in response
to a parliamentary inquiry that only five minutes for and five minutes
against the amendment were in order, and that committee members had
prior rights to debate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 106 Cong. Rec. 10576, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Cleveland M.] Bailey [of West Virginia]: I rise in
opposition to the amendment and I oppose the legislation in
general.
Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Bailey: On what ground may I get recognition for the
purpose of opposing the legislation?
The Chairman: The Chair recognized the gentleman from Louisiana
[Mr. Boggs] for 5 minutes in support of the committee amendment, so
the gentleman from Louisiana would have to yield to the
distinguished gentleman from West Virginia.
Mr. Bailey: At the expiration of the 5 minutes allowed the
gentleman from Louisiana, may I be recognized to discuss the
amendment?
The Chairman: If no other member of the committee rises in
opposition to the amendment, the Chair will recognize the
gentleman.
Sec. 21.25 Where a bill is being considered under a special order
permitting only committee amendments and prohibiting amendments
thereto, a second Member rising
[[Page 10076]]
to support the committee amendment cannot be recognized, since he
would necessarily be speaking to a pro forma amendment.
On Sept. 3, 1959,(6) Chairman William Pat Jennings, of
Virginia, stated that to the pending bill, H.R. 9035, no amendments
were in order under the special rule adopted by the House except
amendments offered by the Committee on Public Works. Mr. Frank J.
Becker, of New York, was recognized for five minutes
to support the second committee amendment offered. At the conclusion of
his remarks, Mr. Toby Morris, of Oklahoma, sought recognition in
support of the amendment. Chairman Jennings declined to recognize Mr.
Morris for that purpose:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 105 Cong. Rec. 17987-89, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair will state to the gentleman that only 5 minutes is
permitted in support of the amendment and 5 minutes in opposition.
Five minutes has been consumed in support of the amendment.
Therefore, the Chair cannot recognize the gentleman at this time.
Sec. 21.26 When a committee amendment is being considered under a
``closed''
rule prohibiting amendments thereto, only two five-minute speeches
are in order, pro forma amendments are not permitted and a third
member may be recognized only by unanimous consent.
An illustration of the proposition described above occurred in the
Committee of the Whole on Mar. 8, 1977,(7) during
consideration of the Tax Reduction and Simplification Act of 1977 (H.R.
3477). The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 123 Cong. Rec. 6632, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [William M.] Ketchum [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike the requisite number of words, and I rise in support of
the committee amendment.
The Chairman: (8) The Chair will state that only two
5-minute speeches are in order under the rule absent unanimous
consent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Tom Bevill (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Ketchum: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I may
be permitted to speak in favor of the amendment.
The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Special Rule Permitting Pro Forma Amendments
Sec. 21.27 Where a special rule permits both the offering of specified
perfecting amend
[[Page 10077]]
ments in a certain order and pro forma amendments, the Chair has
discretion to recognize Members to offer pro forma amendments to
debate the underlying text between consideration of perfecting
amendments.
The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on
May 26, 1982,(9) during consideration of House Concurrent
Resolution 345 (the first concurrent resolution on the budget for
fiscal year 1983):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 128 Cong. Rec. 12141, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Henry A.] Waxman [of California]: At the appropriate time
after we have completed this amendment, I will seek to strike the
last word to make other comments that may be of interest to
Members.
Mr. [Edward R.] Madigan [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: (10) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Madigan: Is the procedure that has just been suggested by
the gentleman from California one that would be in order?
The Chairman: The Chair will entertain pro forma amendments
between amendments.
Mr. Madigan: Further pursuing my parliamentary inquiry, Mr.
Chairman, how would the gentleman from California be able to be
recognized to speak in behalf of something that he says he is not
going to offer?
The Chairman: Between amendments, no amendment is pending. That
is why a pro forma amendment presumably to one of the substitutes
will be allowed. It provides an opportunity for discussion between
amendments.
Amendments Printed in Record
Sec. 21.28 Where a special rule adopted by the House only requires that
all amendments offered to a bill in Committee of the Whole be
printed in the Record, any Member may offer any germane amendment
printed in the Record, and there is no requirement that only the
Member causing the amendment to be printed may offer it, unless the
special rule so specifies.
On Oct. 31, 1979,(11) during consideration of the
Priority Energy Projects Act of 1979 (H.R. 4985) in the Committee of
the Whole, the Chair responded to a parliamentary inquiry as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 125 Cong. Rec. 30441, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Nick J.] Rahall [II, of West Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I
have an amendment that was printed in the Record.
I also have an amendment by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Dingell) that was printed in the Record and through negotiations
between the two
[[Page 10078]]
of us, I am offering the amendment of the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Dingell) at this point. . . .
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: (12) The gentleman will
state the parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Norman D. Dicks (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, do I understand that under this rule
that governs the consideration of this bill that any Member can
offer any amendment that was printed in the Record, no matter who
the author of the amendment was?
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct. That is the
correct interpretation.
Parliamentarian's Note: The question as to who may offer a printed
amendment under such a rule must be distinguished from that of who may
offer a printed amendment under Rule XXIII, clause 6, which
specifically applies to the Member who caused the amendment to be
printed.
Limiting Debate
Sec. 21.29 A Member is not entitled to five minutes of debate on a pro
forma amendment in Committee of the Whole until the Chair has
recognized him for that purpose; and the subcommittee chairman who
is managing the bill is entitled to prior recognition to move to
limit debate over a Member seeking recognition to offer a pro forma
amendment.
During consideration of the foreign assistance and related agencies
appropriation bill for fiscal year 1978 (H.R. 7797) in the Committee of
the Whole on June 22, 1977,(13) the following proceedings
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 123 Cong. Rec. 20288, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Jonathan B.] Bingham [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike the requisite number of words.
Mr. [Clarence D.] Long of Maryland: Mr. Chairman, I was on my
feet seeking recognition.
The Chairman: (14) For what purpose does the
gentleman from Maryland rise?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Abraham Kazen, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Long of Maryland: Mr. Chairman, I rise to ask unanimous
consent for a limitation on the debate.
The Chairman: Will the gentleman make his request.
Mr. Long of Maryland: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that all debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto cease
in 10 minutes.
Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I object.
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I object.
The Chairman: Objection is heard.
Mr. Long of Maryland: Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on
[[Page 10079]]
this amendment and all amendments thereto cease in 10 minutes.
Mr. Ashbrook: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. Ashbrook: Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that the
Chairman recognized the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bingham) and
he was halfway down the aisle.
The Chairman: The Chair saw both gentlemen at the same time,
and he did recognize the gentleman from Maryland because the Chair
had to,
by custom and rule, I believe, recog-nize the chairman of the
subcommittee. . . .
The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Long).
The motion was agreed to.
Member Managing Bill Entitled to Prior Recognition To Move To Close
Debate on Amendment
Sec. 21.30 During five-minute debate in the Committee of the Whole, the
Member managing the bill is entitled to prior recognition, to move
to close debate at once on a pending amendment, over other Members
who desire to debate the amendment or to offer amendments thereto.
On Nov. 25, 1970,(15) the Committee of the Whole was
considering under the five-minute rule H.R. 19504, the Federal-aid
Highway Act, being managed by Mr. John C. Kluczynski, of Illinois. Mr.
Kluczynski moved that all debate on the pending amendment close
instantly, and the motion was agreed to. Chairman Chet Holifield, of
California, then indicated in response to parliamentary inquiries that
Mr. Kluczynski had the prior right to recognition to move to limit
debate over other Members seeking recognition, and that further debate
was not
in order (although non-debatable amendments could still be offered):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 116 Cong. Rec. 38990, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: For what purpose does the gentleman from New York
rise?
Mr. [Jonathan B.] Bingham [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment.
Mr. [Andrew] Jacobs [Jr., of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, after all,
I was recognized before the Chair recognized the gentleman from New
York.
Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry. Are men on their feet
going to be permitted to speak for their 3 seconds?
The Chairman: The Chair had not recognized the gentleman from
New York or the gentleman from Indiana. The Chair had recognized
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kluczynski). The gentleman from
Indiana misunderstood the Chair had recognized him. The Chair had
to recognize the gentleman from Illinois as chairman of the
subcommittee.
[[Page 10080]]
Mr. Jacobs: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. Jacobs: What about those of us who were on our feet when
debate was choked off? Will we be recognized?
The Chairman: There was no count made of Members standing for
time, and the motion of the gentleman from Illinois was to close
debate, and that motion was agreed to.
Debate on Motion To Strike Enacting Clause
Sec. 21.31 On a motion to strike out the enacting clause in the
Committee of the Whole, only two five-minute speeches are permitted
and the Chair declines to recognize for a pro forma amendment.
On Aug. 1, 1957,(16) after Mr. Earl Wilson, of Indiana,
offered a motion that the Committee of the Whole rise and report back
the pending bill with the recommendation the enacting clause be
stricken, Mr. Leon H. Gavin, of Pennsylvania, sought to gain
recognition on a motion to strike out the last word. Chairman Richard
Bolling, of Missouri, declined to recognize him for that purpose. After
two five-minute speeches had been had on the motion, Mr. Gavin again
sought recognition to debate the motion, and the Chairman ruled that no
further debate could be had.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 103 Cong. Rec. 13385, 13386, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 21.32 On a motion to strike out the enacting clause offered in the
Committee of the Whole, only two five-minute speeches are permitted
and the Chair generally declines to recognize a request for an
extension of that time.
On July 18, 1951,(17) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan,
offered
a motion that the Committee of
the Whole rise and report back
the pending bill with the recommendation that the enacting clause be
stricken. He then asked unanimous consent to revise and extend his
remarks and to proceed for five additional minutes. Mr. Brent Spence,
of Kentucky, objected to the request. Chairman Wilbur D. Mills, of
Arkansas, ruled as follows on the request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 97 Cong. Rec. 8371, 8372, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The gentleman may revise and extend his remarks, without
objection, but he may not proceed for an additional 5 minutes on a
motion to strike out the enacting clause.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See also 98 Cong. Rec. 1829, 1830, 82d Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 4,
1952.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 21.33 On a motion to strike out the enacting clause in the
Committee of the Whole,
[[Page 10081]]
only two five-minute speeches are permitted, notwithstanding the
fact that the second Member, recognized in opposition to the
motion, spoke in favor thereof.
On Mar. 18, 1960,(19) Mr. Paul C. Jones, of Missouri,
offered a motion that the Committee of the Whole rise and report the
pending bill back to the House with the recommendation that the
enacting clause be stricken. Mr. Jones was recognized for five minutes'
debate in support of the motion. Mr. William M. Colmer, of Mississippi,
rose in opposition to the motion and consumed his five minutes,
actually speaking in favor of the motion. Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of
Michigan, then made a point of order, which was overruled by Chairman
Francis E. Walter, of Pennsylvania:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 106 Cong. Rec. 6026, 6027, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hoffman: Mr. Chairman, a point of order. I seek recognition
in opposition to the amendment on the ground that the gentleman
from Mississippi (Mr. Colmer) did not talk against the motion.
The Chairman: The 5 minutes for the preferential motion and the
5 minutes against the motion have expired.
Sec. 21.34 A Member offering a motion in the Committee of the Whole to
strike out the enacting clause of a bill may yield to another while
he has the floor but he may not yield his five minutes of debate to
another Member to discuss the motion.
On Sept. 27, 1945,(20) Mr. Andrew J. May, of Kentucky,
offered a motion that the Committee of the Whole rise and report back
the pending bill with the recommendation that the enacting clause be
stricken. Mr. May then stated he yielded his five minutes' time on the
motion to another Member. Mr. Robert Ramspeck, of Georgia, objected
that Mr. May could not so yield all his time and Mr. May then remained
on his feet and yielded part of his time to the other Member to debate
the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 91 Cong. Rec. 9095, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 21.35 The Chair recognizes only two Members to speak on the
preferential motion that the Committee rise and report with the
recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken.
On Dec. 18, 1975,(1) during consideration of the Airport
and Airway Development Act Amendments of 1975 (H.R. 9771) in the
[[Page 10082]]
Committee of the Whole, the proceedings described above were as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 121 Cong. Rec. 41799, 41800, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: (2) The gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Conte) is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his
amendment. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
California (Mr. Anderson).
Mr. [Glenn M.] Anderson of California: Mr. Chairman, I rise in
opposition to the gentleman's motion and yield back the balance of
my time.
The Chairman: The question is on the preferential motion
offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Conte).
The preferential motion was rejected.
Parliamentarian's Note: Since Mr. Anderson utilized only a small
fraction of his time to speak against the preferential motion, Mr.
Garry Brown, of Michigan, sought recognition to speak against the
motion. The Chair declined to recognize him, since only two Members may
be recognized to speak on the motion.
Debate on Appeal of Ruling
Sec. 21.36 An appeal in the Committee of the Whole is debatable under
the five-minute rule, whether the Committee is conducting general
debate or proceeding under the five-minute rule, and such debate is
confined to the appeal.
On Feb. 22, 1950,(3) the Committee of the Whole was
conducting general debate on H.R. 4453, the Federal Fair Employment
Practice Act. Mr. Adam C. Powell, Jr., of New York, who had the floor,
yielded one minute of debate to Mr. Howard W. Smith, of Virginia. Mr.
Smith delivered some remarks on the lateness of the session and then
moved that the Committee rise. Chairman Francis E. Walter, of
Pennsylvania, ruled that Mr. Smith could not so move, having been
recognized for debate only. Mr. Smith appealed the Chair's ruling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 96 Cong. Rec. 2178, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to a parliamentary inquiry by Mr. John E. Rankin, of
Mississippi, the Chairman stated that debate on the appeal was under
the five-minute rule. Mr. Rankin debated the appeal, and Mr. Vito
Marcantonio, of New York, made a point of order against Mr. Rankin's
remarks on
[[Page 10083]]
the ground he was not confining himself to the subject of the appeal.
The Chairman sustained the point of order.
CHAPTER 29
Consideration and Debate
C. RECOGNITION ON PARTICULAR QUESTIONS
Sec. 22. Where Five-minute Debate Has Been Limited
A limitation of debate on a bill and all amendments thereto in
effect abrogates the five-minute rule; and decisions regarding the
division of the remaining time and the order of recognition of those
Members desiring to speak are largely within the discretion of the
Chair.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. See, e.g., Sec. Sec. 22.7, 22.12, and 22.19, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notwithstanding a limitation on debate and the allocation of the
remaining time by the Chair, ten minutes of debate is permitted on an
amendment which has been printed in the Record, under Rule XXIII,
clause 6.(5) The Chair in his discretion may defer
recognition of listed Members whose amendments have been printed in the
Record until after others have been recognized in the division of
time.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. See, e.g., Sec. Sec. 22.32, 22.36, and 22.38, infra.
6. See Sec. 22.19, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross References
Closing and limiting five-minute debate, see Sec. 78, infra.
Effect of limitation on five-minute debate (obtaining and using time)
and distribution of remaining time following limitation, see
Sec. 79, infra.
Recognition under the five-minute rule, see Sec. 21, supra.
Rights of committee manager of bill to move to close five-minute
debate, see Sec. 7, supra.
Use of motion to strike enacting clause under limitation on five-minute
debate, see Sec. 79, infra.
Yielding time under limitation on five-minute debate, see Sec. 31,
infra. -------------------
Motion To Limit Debate Disposed of Before Further Recognition
Sec. 22.1 When the motion to limit debate on an amendment is pending,
that motion must be disposed of prior to further recognition by the
Chair.
On June 5, 1962,(7) Mr. Adam C. Powell, of New York,
asked unanimous consent that debate on a pending amendment close. Mr.
H. R. Gross, of Iowa, interrupted Mr. Powell to object to the request.
Mr. Powell then moved that debate close at 2 o'clock. Mr. Gross then
sought recognition to offer the preferential motion that the Committee
rise and report back the bill with the recommendation that the enacting
[[Page 10084]]
clause be stricken. Chairman Jack B. Brooks, of Texas, ruled that
recognition for that purpose was not in order pending the motion to
limit debate, which must be first disposed of.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 108 Cong. Rec. 9713, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
8. The rule governing the closing of debate under the five-minute rule
in the Committee of the Whole is Rule XXIII clause 6, House
Rules and Manual Sec. 874 (1995). The rule was amended by H.
Res. 5 in the 92d Congress to allow five minutes' debate for
and against an amendment, regardless of a time limitation,
which has been printed in the Congressional Record at least one
day prior to its floor consideration.
The language of the time limitation, whether to a time
certain or for a total time for debate, determines whether time
for reading amendments, for quorum calls, for points of order
and for votes is to be taken out of the remaining time. See
Sec. 79, infra.
Debate may also be closed instantly, precluding further
recognition; see Sec. 22.51, infra.
For the priority of recognition of the bill manager to move
to close debate, see, e.g., Sec. 21.30, supra, and Sec. 22.50,
infra.
See generally Sec. Sec. 78, 79, infra, for closing and
limiting five-minute debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where Committee of the Whole Fixes Debate Time, Time Extended by
Unanimous Consent Only
Sec. 22.2 Where the Committee of the Whole has fixed the time for
debate on amendments, such time may be extended only by unanimous
consent.
On Aug. 18, 1949,(9) the Committee of the Whole agreed
to a request that all debate on pending amendments close in one hour.
Chairman Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas, then advised Members that since
30 Members wished to speak, each would be entitled to two minutes. Mr.
Cecil F. White, of California, inquired whether it would be in order to
move that the time be extended in view of the fact that so many Members
had requested time. The Chairman responded that such an extension would
require unanimous consent, debate already having been limited.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 95 Cong. Rec. 11760, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proponent of Amendment Was Recognized for Five Minutes After Motion To
Limit Debate Agreed to
Sec. 22.3 Where a motion to limit debate has been made and agreed to
following the offering of an amendment but prior to recognition of
its proponent, the Chair may nevertheless allocate five minutes to
the proponent and in his discretion divide
[[Page 10085]]
the remaining time among other Members.
A limitation on time for debate, in effect, abrogates the five-
minute rule. On one occasion, a Member who had offered an amendment but
had not been recognized to debate the amendment was recognized, in the
exercise of discretion by the Chair, for five minutes. The proceedings
of Oct. 9, 1975,(10) in the Committee of the Whole, were as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 121 Cong. Rec. 32600, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mrs. [Leonor K.] Sullivan [of Missouri] (during the reading):
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that title IV be considered
as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
The Chairman: (11) Is there objection to the request
of the gentlewoman from Missouri?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
Mrs. Sullivan: Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on the
pending amendment to title IV and all amendments thereto be limited
to 10 minutes.
The Chairman: The Chair would prefer to wait until the
amendment has been offered.
Mr. [Paul N.] McCloskey [Jr., of California]: Mr. Chairman, I
offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. McCloskey: On page 77 at line 18
add a new section as follows:
``Sec. 407. The United States hereby consents to the
jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice with respect
to any claim or controversy arising as a result of the
enactment or the implementation of this Act.''
The Chairman: Does the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs.
Sullivan) move to limit debate on this title and all amendments
thereto to 10 minutes?
Mrs. Sullivan: I do, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: The question is on the motion offered by the
gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Sullivan).
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. McCloskey: Mr. Chairman, may I ask if I will have 5 minutes
to explain my amendment?
The Chairman: The gentleman from California is correct, he will
have 5 minutes.
Recognition of Members Not in Chamber When Limitation Is Agreed to
Sec. 22.4 While a limitation of debate in the Committee of the Whole on
a pending amendment and on all amendments thereto normally
abrogates the five-minute rule, the Chair may, in his discretion,
announce his intention to recognize each Member offering an
amendment for five minutes where it is apparent that all Members
who might offer amendments are not in the Chamber at the time the
limitation is imposed.
[[Page 10086]]
On Dec. 14, 1973,(12) Chairman Richard Bolling, of
Missouri, stated in response to a parliamentary inquiry that where
there was pending an amendment in the nature of a substitute for a
bill, a motion to close all debate on the substitute and all amendments
thereto at a time certain would be in order. He indicated the procedure
to be followed in recognition by the Chair should five-minute debate be
limited:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 119 Cong. Rec. 41712, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [James T.] Broyhill of North Carolina: Mr. Chairman, my
parliamentary inquiry is this: If the time is limited, would only
those Members who are presently standing and would be listed--would
they be the only Members who could be recognized either to propose
an amendment or to oppose an amendment?
The Chairman: The Chair will state any motion that the Chair
can conceive of would involve enough time so that the Chair would
feel that he could reserve that right to recognize Members under
the 5-minute rule.
The Chair will explain that if needed.
The gentleman is talking about limiting debate on the amendment
in the nature of a substitute, and all amendments thereto?
Mr. Broyhill of North Carolina: That is correct, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: The Chairman would presume that there will be a
substantial block of amendments, and the Chair would feel that the
Chair should not fail to protect the Members who are not in the
Chamber at the moment who might have amendments that they sought to
offer.
Members To Indicate Wish To Speak Under Limitation
Sec. 22.5 The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, af-ter a
limitation of time for debate had been agreed to and the list of
Members to be recognized had been fixed, requested the Members on
the list who wished to speak to the pending amendment to so
indicate.
On May 21, 1959,(13) the Committee of the Whole agreed
to a motion closing debate on a pending amendment at a time certain.
Chairman Francis E. Walter, of Pennsylvania, indicated, in response to
parliamentary inquiries, that those Members who were standing seeking
recognition at the time the limitation was agreed to and who were noted
by the Chair would be entitled to recognition under the limitation. The
Chairman then requested Members so entitled and on the Clerk's list to
indicate whether they wished to speak.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 105 Cong. Rec. 8828-31, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 10087]]
Chair's Discretion as to Recognition and Division of Time Under
Limitation
Sec. 22.6 Where the Committee of the Whole agrees to terminate all
debate on an amendment at a certain time, the Chair may divide the
time remaining among those Members who indicate a desire to speak;
and if free time remains after these Members have been recognized,
the Chair may at his discretion recognize Members who have not
spoken to the amendment or Members who were recognized for less
than five minutes under the limitation of time.
On Mar. 17, 1960,(14) the Committee of the Whole agreed
to a request that all debate on the pending amendment close at 3:50
p.m. Chairman Francis E. Walter, of Pennsylvania, recognized then those
Members who had indicated they wished to speak. When those Members had
spoken, time still remained and the Chairman recognized for debate
Members who were not standing seeking recognition when the limitation
was agreed to. The Chair answered a parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 106 Cong. Rec. 5911, 5914, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [James C.] Davis of Georgia: Was not the time fixed for
this debate and was not the time limited to those who were standing
on their feet seeking recognition?
The Chairman: The time was fixed at 3:50. The Chair made a list
of the names of those Members who indicated they desired to speak.
However, the thing that governs is the time that was fixed in the
unanimous consent request made by the gentleman from New York, but
because the time has not arrived when debate will end, the Chair
will recognize those Members who seek recognition.
Mr. Davis of Georgia: Mr. Chairman, a further parliamentary
inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Davis of Georgia: Does that limitation then of 2 minutes
apply to me, or could I have some of this additional time?
The Chairman: Yes, the gentleman could be recognized again if
he sought recognition.
Sec. 22.7 Where the Committee of the Whole has, by motion, agreed to
limit all debate on a section and all amendments thereto, the Chair
generally divides the time equally among those who indicate, by
standing when the motion is made, that they desire recognition, or
who have submitted their names to be listed among those wishing to
[[Page 10088]]
speak; but the matter of recognition is largely within the
discretion of the Chair and he may simply recognize each Member who
seeks recognition for five minutes un-til the time for debate has
been exhausted.
On July 22, 1965,(15) the Committee of the Whole agreed
to a motion, offered by Mr. Sam M. Gibbons, of Florida, to close all
debate on the pending section
and all amendments thereto (H.R. 8283, Economic Opportunity Act
Amendments of 1965). Chairman John J. Rooney, of New York, answered a
parliamentary inquiry on recognition under the limitation:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 111 Cong. Rec. 17961, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Gerald R. Ford [of Michigan]: Will the Chair announce who
has time in the 10 minutes we have for the discussion of four or
five or six amendments?
The Chairman: The Chair has not the slightest idea who has
amendments.
Mr. Gerald R. Ford: Does not the Chair have a list of who has
time?
The Chairman: The Chair does not have a list.
Mr. Gerald R. Ford: May I ask, is it not the usual procedure
that such a list is available when time is limited?
The Chairman: Not necessarily.
Sec. 22.8 Where the Committee of the Whole fixed debate at an hour and
a half, the Chair did not note the names of the Members seeking
recognition and divide the time at less than five minutes each, as
is the practice when a shorter period is fixed.
On Feb. 22, 1950,(16) Mr. John W. McCormack, of
Massachusetts, moved that debate close on pending amendments at 2:30
a.m. and the Committee of the Whole agreed thereto. Chairman Francis E.
Walter, of Pennsylvania, then answered a parliamentary inquiry on
division of the time:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 96 Cong. Rec. 2240-46, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Jacob J.] Javits [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, is the Chair
disposed to divide the time in view of the fact that it has been
limited, and to announce the Members who will be recognized?
The Chairman: In view of the fact that one hour and a half
remains for debate, and since it was impossible for the Chair to
determine the number of Members who were on their feet, I believe
it is advisable to follow the strict rule [five minutes for each
Member recognized].
Sec. 22.9 Pending a unanimous-consent request that debate on pending
amendments be limited to a time certain,
the Chair indicated that all Members standing would be recognized
under the limi
[[Page 10089]]
tation although they might
already have debated the amendments.
On July 28, 1970,(17) Mr. B. F. Sisk, of California,
made a unanimous-consent request that all
debate on pending amendments close at a time certain. Reserving the
right to object, Mr. Alphonzo Bell, of California, asked whether a
Member who had already spoken on the amendments could speak again under
the time limitation. Chairman William H. Natcher, of Kentucky,
responded as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 116 Cong. Rec. 26032, 26033, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair would like to inform the gentleman from California
that all Members standing would be recognized.
Mr. Bell withdrew his reservation of objection.
Sec. 22.10 Where the Committee of the Whole has fixed the time for
debate on pending amendments, the Chair may prepare a list of names
of those Members seeking recognition at the time the limitation was
agreed to and
divide the time equally between them.
On Aug. 18, 1949,(18) Mr. John Kee, of West Virginia,
asked unanimous consent that debate on pending amendments close in one
hour. There was no objection. Chairman Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas,
then responded to points of order and parliamentary inquiries on the
procedure to be followed by the Chair in recognizing Members under the
limitation:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 95 Cong. Rec. 11760, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Earl] Wilson of Indiana: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Wilson of Indiana: There were a certain number of us on our
feet when the unanimous-consent request was propounded. After the
time was limited, about twice as many people got on their feet to
be recognized.
The Chairman: The Chair is endeavoring to ascertain those
Members who desire to speak, and has no disposition to violate any
rights of freedom of speech.
Mr. Wilson of Indiana: Further pressing my point of order, is
it in order after the time is limited for others to get the time
that we have reserved for ourselves? I would like to object under
the present situation.
The Chairman: Permit the Chair to answer the gentleman. If the
gentleman from Indiana will ascertain and indicate to the Chair the
names of the Members who were not standing at the time the
unanimous-consent request was agreed to, the gentleman will render
a great service to the Chair in determining how to answer the
gentleman.
Mr. [Robert F.] Rich [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
[[Page 10090]]
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Rich: That is not the duty of the gentleman from Indiana.
That is the duty of the Clerk.
The Chairman: The gentleman from Pennsylvania and the Chair
both understand that, but apparently all Members do not. The Chair
is endeavoring to do the best he can to ascertain those who desire
to speak under this limitation of time. Now permit the Chair to
ascertain that.
Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: Will the Chair, with the assistance of
the Clerk, advise me how many Members have asked for time, and how
much time each Member will be allotted?
The Chairman: Each of the Members whose names appear on the
list will be recognized for 2 minutes, there being 30 Members on
their feet at the time and debate having been limited to 1 hour.
Sec. 22.11 Where the Committee of the Whole had separately limited
debate on the remaining titles of a committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute which was open to amendment at any point,
the Chair indicated that he would give preference in recognition to
all Members who had amendments to the title being debated, and that
Members who had printed amendments in the Record should offer them
at the conclusion of debate under the limitation on that title.
When consideration of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation
Act of 1974 (19) resumed in
the Committee of the Whole on
July 24, 1974,(20) Chairman Neal Smith, of Iowa, made an
explanatory statement of the pending situation as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. H.R. 11500.
20. 120 Cong. Rec. 25009, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly the House resolved it-self into the Committee of
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further
consideration of the bill H.R. 11500, with Mr. Smith of Iowa in the
chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Chairman: The Chair will attempt to explain the situation.
Before the Committee rose on yesterday, it had agreed that the
remainder of the substitute committee amendment titles II through
VIII, inclusive, would be considered as read and open to amendment
at any point.
The Committee further agreed that the time for debate under the
5-minute rule would be limited to not to exceed 3 hours and
allocated time to titles II through VIII as follows: 50 minutes for
title II, 20 minutes for title III, 50 minutes for title IV, 5
minutes for title V, 5 minutes for title VI, 40 minutes for title
VII, and 10 minutes for title VIII.
In an attempt to be consistent with the unanimous-consent
agreement en
[[Page 10091]]
tered into on yesterday, the Chair will endeavor to recognize all
Members who wish to offer or debate amendments to title II during
the 50 minutes of time for debate on that title.
If Members who have printed their amendments to title II in the
Record would agree to offer those amendments during the 50-minute
period and to be recognized for the allotted time, the Chair will
recognize both Committee and non-Committee members for that
purpose.
Members who have caused amendments to title II to be printed in
the Record, however, are protected under clause 6, rule XXIII, and
will be permitted to debate for 5 minutes any such amendment which
they might offer to title II at the conclusion of the 50 minutes of
debate thereon.
The Chair will now compile a list of those Members seeking
recognition to offer or debate amendments to title II and will
allocate 50 minutes for debate accordingly.
The Chair will give preference where possible to those Members
who have amendments to offer to title II.
Members who were standing at the time of the determination of
the time allocation will be recognized for 1 minute and 20 seconds
each.
--Guidelines Used in Recognition
Sec. 22.12 Where all debate on a bill and amendments thereto has been
limited, the order in which the Chair recognizes Members desiring
to speak is subject to his discretion; and he may in determining
the order of recognition use several guidelines, such as seniority,
committee status, Members having amendments at the desk.
On Oct. 14, 1966,(1) the Committee of the Whole was
considering under five-minute debate S. 3708, the Demonstration Cities
Act of 1966. A motion offered by Mr. Wright Patman, of Texas, to close
debate on the bill and all amendments thereto after a certain amount of
time, was pending. Chairman Daniel Flood, of Pennsylvania, answered
parliamentary inquiries on the order of recognition under the
limitation if agreed to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 112 Cong. Rec. 26976, 26977, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Thomas L.] Ashley [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary
inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state the parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. Ashley: Mr. Chairman, I was in the cloakroom at the time
this request motion was made. I have an amendment. Am I counted
among those who have amendments at the desk?
The Chairman: We have not counted anyone. The Chair has just
stated that there are so many amendments at the Clerk's desk. And
if the gentleman has an amendment at the Clerk's desk it has been
included in the number. . . .
The motion was agreed to.
[[Page 10092]]
The Chairman: I am sure that all Members who are standing are
not seeking recognition. Will those seeking recognition remain
standing so that the Clerk can note their names.
Mr. [Thomas P.] O'Neill [Jr.], of Massachusetts: Mr. Chairman,
a parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. O'Neill of Massachusetts: Mr. Chairman, in what order will
the Chair recognize Members to offer their amendments?
The Chairman: That is up to the Chairman. The Chair always
recognizes Members in a difficult situation like this by seniority
and, of course, going from one side to the other, naturally.
Mr. [Donald J.] Irwin [of Connecticut]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. Irwin: Mr. Chairman, will Members who have amendments at
the desk be recognized before other Members?
The Chairman: Oh, yes. As far as the Chair is concerned, any
Member who has an amendment here--and, of course, this is not a
necessary procedure--but the Chair assures you that the Chair will
recognize Members who have an amendment at the desk before
recognizing Members to strike out the last word. It is not
necessary but I will so rule.
Mr. Del Clawson [of California]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary
inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Del Clawson: Will members of the committee be recognized
before other Members?
The Chairman: Members of the Committee on Banking and Currency
under the rules, will be recognized before any other Member.
Mr. Del Clawson: I thank the Chair.
The Chairman: If they have amendments at the desk.
Sec. 22.13 While a motion to limit debate on a portion of a bill and
all amendments thereto was pending, the Chair advised that in the
event the motion carried: (1) the Chair would first recognize those
Members standing, each for five minutes, then any other Members
seeking recognition, also for five minutes, until the time expired
or there were no other requests for recognition; and (2) if
requests for recognition did not consume the time set, the Chair
would direct the Clerk to read.
On Aug. 1, 1966,(2) while the Committee of the Whole was
considering under the five-minute rule H.R. 14765, the Civil Rights Act
of 1966, Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, moved that all debate on
title I and amendments
[[Page 10093]]
thereto close in one and one-half hours. Chairman Richard Bolling, of
Missouri, then answered a parliamentary inquiry stated by Mr. Gerald R.
Ford, of Michigan, on the order of recognition and time for debate
should the motion be agreed to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 112 Cong. Rec. 17759, 17760, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Gerald R. Ford: Mr. Chairman, I notice that there are
relatively only a few standing. How will the Chair determine under
that process those who will be eligible to speak? The lack of those
standing does not necessarily mean that Members will not wish to
speak.
The Chairman: The Chair will state that if the time is fixed at
1\1/2\ hours and there are no other gentlemen to be recognized or
who desire to be heard, the Chair will proceed to ask the Clerk to
read the next title.
If, however, there are 1\1/2\ hours, each Member standing now
will be recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Gerald R. Ford: A further parliamentary inquiry, Mr.
Chairman. If there are not a sufficient number of Members standing
at the present time, will the Chair proceed under the 5-minute rule
during the 1\1/2\ hours?
The Chairman: The Chair will see to it that each of those
Members now standing will be recognized in an orderly fashion. If
there are others desiring to speak within the time limitation, the
Chair will then recognize them. Those now standing will receive a
priority from the Chair.
--Five-minute Rule Abrogated Where Debate Limited
Sec. 22.14 Where the Committee of the Whole has imposed a limitation of
debate on an amendment, the five-minute rule is abrogated and the
Chair may, in his discretion, either permit continued debate under
the five-minute rule, divide the remaining time among those
desiring to speak or divide the time between a proponent and
opponent to be yielded by them.
On May 25, 1982,(3) during consideration of House
Concurrent Resolution 345 (the first concurrent resolution on the
budget for fiscal year 1983) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair
responded to an inquiry regarding recognition for debate, as indicated
below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 128 Cong. Rec. 11672, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Elliott H.] Levitas [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, further
reserving the right to object, as I understand it, the Chair's
stated intention, in the event the unanimous-consent request is not
agreed to, is to continue to go from one side to the other
recognizing Members who have been on their feet. Is that the
Chair's intention?
The Chairman Pro Tempore: (4) The Chair has the
prerogative to do one of several things. He may continue the same
process under the five-minute rule, or the Chair can apportion the
remaining time based upon the number of people who are standing or
to one
[[Page 10094]]
proponent and opponent to be yielded by them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. David E. Bonior (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 22.15 Where debate on a bill and all amendments thereto is limited
to a time certain, the five-minute rule is abrogated, and the Chair
may choose either to allocate the time among those Members standing
and desiring to speak, or choose to recognize only Members wishing
to of-fer amendments and to oppose amendments; the Chair may
decline to recognize Members more than once under the limitation
and may refuse to permit Members to divide their allotted time so
as to speak to several of the amendments which are to be offered.
On May 6, 1970,(5) the Committee of the Whole agreed to
a motion, offered by Mr. L. Mendel Rivers, of South Carolina, that all
debate on the pending bill and amendments thereto close at a certain
hour. Chairman Daniel D. Rostenkowski, of Illinois, stated his
intention to follow certain procedures in recognizing Members offering
or opposing amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 116 Cong. Rec. 14466, 14467, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: Under the limitation of
debate imposed by the House, a moment ago, is there any restriction
on those Members who will be permitted to speak on amendments,
either for or against, between now and 7 o'clock?
The Chairman: The Chair will endeavor to divide the time
equally among the proponents and the opponents of those who have
amendments. . . .(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. See also 118 Cong. Rec. 16862, 92d Cong. 2d Sess., May 11, 1972
(under limitation on five-minute debate, Chair may give
priority of recognition to those Members seeking to offer
amendments).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Stratton: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Stratton: Under the limitation of debate, is it permissible
for a Member to speak twice within his allotted time either for or
against two specific amendments?
The Chairman: The Chair will recognize the gentleman for one
time in support of or in opposition to an amendment.
Mr. Stratton: But not more than once?
The Chairman: No; not more than once.
Sec. 22.16 Where the Committee of the Whole fixes the time for debate
on amendments, the Chair may divide such time equally between
Members seeking recognition without regard to the five-minute rule.
[[Page 10095]]
On May 11, 1949,(7) Mr. Brent Spence, of Kentucky, made
a unanimous-consent request that all debate on a pending section of a
bill, and amendments thereto, close in 30 minutes. Chairman
Albert A. Gore, of Tennessee,
then answered a parliamentary
inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 95 Cong. Rec. 6055, 6056, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Earl C.] Michener [of Michigan]: Under the consent request
of the gentleman from Kentucky, the time would be limited to 30
minutes. There is nothing in the request as to a division of that
time. Under the rules, therefore, would not the first Member
recognized be entitled to 5 minutes and each succeeding Member
recognized be entitled to 5 minutes until the 30 minutes was used
up? In other words, during the reading of a bill for amendment
under the rules of the House, unless other arrangement is made by
unanimous consent, each Member as recognized is entitled to 5
minutes.
The Chairman: As a matter of parliamentary fact, while it might
perhaps be within the discretion of the Chair, if the rules were
insisted upon the Chair would have to recognize the first Member
for 5 minutes, and other Members likewise. But it has long been the
practice of the Committee of the Whole when a limitation of debate
is imposed to divide the time equally between the Members seeking
recognition.
Sec. 22.17 Where there was pending in Committee of the Whole an
amendment and a substitute therefor, the Chair stated in response
to a parliamentary inquiry that if debate on the pending amendments
were limited, the five-minute rule would be abrogated, and Members
who had already spoken on an amendment could be recognized again
under the limitation.
On July 28, 1970,(8) an amendment and a substitute
therefor were pending to a bill being considered under the five-minute
rule in the Committee of the Whole. Parliamentary inquiries were raised
on the rights of Members to speak twice on the same amendment. Mr. Joe
D. Waggonner,
Jr., of Louisiana, then inquired whether a time limitation for debate
on the pending amendment and substitute would abrogate the five-minute
rule so that a Member who had already spoken to the amendments could
speak again. Chairman William H. Natcher, of Kentucky, responded in the
affirmative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 116 Cong. Rec. 26027, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 22.18 A limitation of time for debate abrogates the five-minute
rule and allocation of the time remaining to Members seeking
recognition is within the discretion of the
[[Page 10096]]
Chair, except that Members who had caused amendments to be printed
in the Record under Rule XXIII clause 6 would receive the full five
minutes.
On June 26, 1975,(9) an illustration of the proposition
described above was demonstrated in the Committee of the Whole, as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 121 Cong. Rec. 20951, 20957, 94th Cong. 1st Sess. Under
consideration was H.R. 8121, the Departments of State, Justice,
and Commerce, the Judiciary and related agencies appropriation
bill for fiscal year 1976.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Neal] Smith of Iowa: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that all debate on the bill and all amendments thereto cease in 60
minutes.
The Chairman: (10) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Iowa?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Charles A. Vanik (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection. . . .
The Chairman: The Chair will further add that all Members who
were standing at the time the limitation of debate was made will be
recognized for approximately 2 minutes each. . . .
Mr. [Robert F.] Drinan [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, will
the time be allotted according to the three amendments now pending
at the desk?
The Chairman: All Members who were listed, who were standing at
the time the limitation of time was granted, will be accorded the
same amount of time.
Mr. Drinan: Mr. Chairman, will the time be limited with regard
to the amendments offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Heinz) so that the other Members who have filed amendments will
also have a certain amount of time?
The Chairman: The Chair will state that the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Heinz) will be recognized, and then all other
Members will be allotted 2 minutes, except for such amendments as
were printed in the Congressional Record. Every Member who has an
amendment that was printed in the Congressional Record will be
guaranteed a full 5 minutes.
Sec. 22.19 A limitation of debate on a bill and all amendments thereto
to a time certain in effect abrogates the five-minute rule; and
decisions regarding the division of the remaining time and the or-
der of recognition of those Members desiring to speak are largely
within the discretion of the Chair, who may defer recognition of
listed Members whose amendments have been printed in the Record and
who are therefore guaranteed five minutes notwithstanding the
limitation.
The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on
June 4, 1975,(11) during
[[Page 10097]]
consideration of the Voting Rights Act Extension (H.R. 6219):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 121 Cong. Rec. 16899, 16901, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Don] Edwards of California: Mr. Chairman, I move that all
debate on the bill and all amendments thereto terminate at 6:45
p.m.
The Chairman: (12) The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from California.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The motion was agreed to. . . .
The Chairman: With the permission of the Committee, the Chair
will briefly state the situation.
There are a number of Members who do not have amendments that
were placed in the Record, and the Chair feels that he must try to
protect them somewhat, so he proposes to go to a number of Members
on the list so they will at least get some time. The time allotted
will be less than a minute.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. de la
Garza).
--Chair May Continue Under Five-minute Rule
Sec. 22.20 Where debate under the five-minute rule on a bill and all
amendments thereto has been limited by motion to a time certain
(with approximately 90 minutes remaining) the Chair may in his
discretion continue to recognize Members under the five-minute
rule, according priority to members of the committee reporting the
bill, instead of allocating time between proponents and opponents
or among all Members standing, where it cannot be determined what
amendments will be offered.
On July 29, 1983,(13) during consideration of the
International Monetary Fund authorization (H.R. 2957) in the Committee
of the Whole, the Chair responded to several parliamentary inquiries
regarding recognition following agreement to a motion to limit debate
to a time certain:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 129 Cong. Rec. 21649, 21650, 21659, 21660, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Fernand J.] St Germain [of Rhode Island]: Mr. Chairman, I
ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill, H.R. 2957, be
considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at
any point.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from Rhode Island?
There was no objection.
The text of title IV and title V is as follows:
TITLE IV--INTERNATIONAL LENDING SUPERVISION
Sec. 401. This title may be cited as the ``International
Lending Supervision Act of 1983''. . . .
Mr. St Germain: I have a motion, Mr. Chairman. . . .
I now move that all debate on the bill, H.R. 2957, and all
amendments thereto, cease at 12 o'clock noon. . . .
Mr. [Ed] Bethune [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary
inquiry. . . .
[[Page 10098]]
Mr. Chairman, the parliamentary inquiry is for the Chair to
please state the process by which we will do our business from now
until the time is cut off. . . .
Mr. [Stephen L.] Neal [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, would
it not be in order at this time to ask that the time be divided
between the proponents and the opponents of this measure, since
there is a limitation on the time?
The Chairman: (14) The Chair believes not, because
the time has been limited on the entire bill. It would be very
difficult to allocate time to any one particular party or two
parties when the Chair has no knowledge of the amendments that will
be offered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Donald J. Pease (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Neal: Mr. Chairman, a further parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Neal: Mr. Chairman, is it not true that members of the
committee should be given preference in terms of recognition?
The Chairman: That is true. At the time the gentleman from
Pennsylvania was recognized, he was the only one seeking
recognition.
--Effect on Recognition of Extension of Time
Sec. 22.21 A limitation on time for debate on a pending amendment and
all amendments thereto in effect abrogates the five-minute rule and
the Chair, at his discretion, may allocate time to all Members
desiring to speak, whether or not they have previously spoken on
the amendment; and where time for debate has been limited and the
time remaining allocated to those Members wishing to speak, an
extension of time for debate by unanimous consent would increase
the time allotted to individual Members but would not allow
additional Members to seek recognition.
On Oct. 1, 1975,(15) during consideration of the
Department of Defense appropriation bill (H.R. 9861) in the Committee
of the Whole, the proceedings described above occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 121 Cong. Rec. 31074, 31075, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I move to
strike the requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I had misjudged before the desire of the House at
an earlier time to try to limit debate to 30 minutes. I want to be
sure that no one is denied the opportunity to speak. I ask
unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment and all
amendments thereto conclude in 15 minutes.
The Chairman: (16) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Texas?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection. . . .
[[Page 10099]]
Mr. [Burt L.] Talcott [of California]: Mr. Chairman, may I
inquire whether or not the Members who have already spoken on this
amendment may speak again during limited time?
The Chairman: When time is limited, Members are permitted to
speak again under the allocation of time.
Mr. Talcott: And they can yield their time to other Members?
The Chairman: That is a unanimous-consent request. . . .
Mr. [Barry] Goldwater [Jr., of California]: . . . I ask
unanimous consent that the time be extended another 15 minutes.
The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
Mr. [Andrew J.] Hinshaw [of California]: Mr. Chairman,
reserving the right to object, if we were to accede to the
unanimous-consent request, would that open the door for additional
Members to stand up to seek additional time?
The Chairman: The Chair has already announced his allocation of
time.
--Recognition of Member To Speak a Second Time
Sec. 22.22 An agreement to limit debate on a pending amendment has the
effect of abrogating the five-minute rule and a Member previously
recognized to speak on the amendment may be recognized again under
the limitation.
On Nov. 14, 1967,(17) the Committee of the Whole agreed
to a request that all debate on a pending amendment close at a certain
hour. Chairman John J. Rooney, of New York, answered a parliamentary
inquiry on the rights of Members who had already spoken to the
amendment to speak again under the time limitation:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 113 Cong. Rec. 32343, 32344, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John N.] Erlenborn [of Illinois]: I have noticed in the
past, and again at this time, that when a unanimous-consent request
to limit debate has been made, Members who have already been
recognized to debate the issue are again recognized under the
unanimous-consent limitation. I wonder if this is in order. . . .
. . . The Chairman just announced that the gentleman from
Kentucky, the chairman of the committee, would be recognized again,
though he has already debated on this amendment. I wonder if
Members can be recognized for a second time to debate the same
amendment merely because a unanimous-consent request is made to
limit time.
The Chairman: The Chair must say to the gentleman that when the
unanimous-consent request was made and agreed to it abrogated the
5-minute rule.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. For the prohibition against speaking twice on the same question,
see Rule XIV clause 6, House Rules and Manual Sec. 762 (1995).
The use of pro forma amendments under the five-minute rule
allows Members to speak twice; see Sec. Sec. 21.15, 21.16,
21.18, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 22.23 A limitation to a time certain on debate on an
[[Page 10100]]
amendment in Committee of the Whole in effect abrogates the five-
minute rule; recognition is in the discretion of the Chair under
such limitation and the Chair may recognize under the limitation
a Member who has already spoken on the amendment.
On Aug. 4, 1977,(19) during consideration of the
National Energy Act (H.R. 8444) in the Committee of the Whole, a motion
was made to limit debate on a pending amendment and the following
proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 123 Cong. Rec. 27006, 27007, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Thomas L.] Ashley [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I move that
debate on this amendment conclude at 2 o'clock.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The question is on the motion offered
by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ashley).
The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr.
Ashbrook) there were--ayes 37, noes 20.
So the motion was agreed to. . . .
The Chairman: (20) . . . The Chair recognizes the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Howard).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, a point of
order. . . .
Under the rules of the House, are not Members who have already
spoken to wait until all other Members are recognized until they
speak again on a pending amendment?
The Chairman: No one was up at the time the Chair rapped the
gavel, and the gentleman from New Jersey was standing at the time
the Chair recognized him. We will be going back and forth, but of
course, the limitation abrogates the 5-minute rule.
Sec. 22.24 In the Committee of the Whole the Member in charge of the
bill having spoken on an amendment may speak again on the amendment
after debate thereon under the five-minute rule has been limited.
On June 25, 1952,(1) during consideration of amendments
to a bill in the Committee of the Whole, a motion was adopted to close
debate on a pending amendment and all amendments thereto at a certain
time. Chairman Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas, answered a parliamentary
inquiry as to the right, under the limitation, of the Member in charge
of the bill to be recognized a second time:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 98 Cong. Rec. 8028, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman of Michigan: Under this limitation is
the chairman of the committee, who has already spoken once on this
amendment, entitled to be heard again under the rule?
The Chairman: The chairman of the committee could rise in
opposition to a pro forma amendment and be recognized again.
Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: Under the limitation?
[[Page 10101]]
The Chairman: Yes; under the limitation.
--Same Committee Member Recognized in Opposition to Each Amendment
Sec. 22.25 The time for debate having been fixed on amendments to a
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, the Chair may
without objection recognize the same committee member in opposition
to each amendment offered where no other member of the committee
seeks such recognition.
On Feb. 8, 1950,(2) Chairman Chet Holifield, of
California, answered a parliamentary inquiry after the Committee of the
Whole had agreed to a motion limiting debate on amendments to a
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 96 Cong. Rec. 1691, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: Under what precedent or
ruling is the Chair recognizing a certain member of the committee
for 1 minute in opposition to each amendment being offered? That
was not included in the motion. Had it been included in the motion,
it would have been subject to a point of order.
The Chairman: The Chair is trying to be fair in the conduct of
the committee, and the only gentleman that has arisen on the
opposite side has been the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Murray].
There was no point of order raised at the time that I announced
that I would recognize the committee for 1 minute in rebuttal to
each amendment.
Mr. Case of South Dakota: But the gentleman from South Dakota
got up at the time the Chair proposed to recognize the gentleman
from Tennessee a second time. Obviously, when the committee avails
itself of the opportunity to make a motion to limit debate it, in a
sense, is closing debate, and unless it does seek to limit time and
is successful in so doing, in principle it forfeits that courtesy.
The Members who have proposed amendments here have been waiting all
afternoon to be heard, and if the committee adopted the procedure
of seeking to close debate on 20 minutes' notice, with 10
amendments pending, it would seem as a matter of courtesy that the
committee should restrain itself to one member of the committee who
might have been on his feet, but to recognize one gentleman a
succession of times seems entirely out of keeping with the spirit
of closing debate.
The Chairman: The Chairman, in the list of names, also read the
name of the committee. If the Chair was
so inclined, the Chair could recognize
two Members for 5 minutes each on amendments, on each side, and
that would preclude the others from having any voice in the
amendments that are pending, or in the debate.
Mr. Case of South Dakota: That, of course, is true, the Chair
could do that. But, ordinarily, under the precedents always
followed in the House, when time is closed on amendments, the
[[Page 10102]]
time is divided among those who are seeking to offer amendments,
and unless the motion specifically reserves time to the committee,
it has been the precedent to divide the time among those who are
seeking to offer amendments.
The Chairman: The Chair feels that the committee is entitled to
a rebuttal on any amendment that is offered, and has so announced,
and there was no point of order made at the time. The Chair
sustains its present position.
--Proponent of Amendment Recognized Before Committee Chairman in
Opposition
Sec. 22.26 Where all time for debate on an amendment and all amendments
thereto is limited and, by unanimous consent, placed in control of
the proponent of the amendment and of the chairman of the committee
(in opposition), the Chair first recognizes the proponent of the
amendment.
On July 9, 1965,(3) the unfinished business in the
Committee of the Whole was H.R. 6400, the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Chairman Richard Bolling, of Missouri, made the following statement on
the order of recognition, the Committee having limited, on the prior
day, time for debate on a pending amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 111 Cong. Rec. 16207, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When the Committee rose on yesterday, there was pending the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. McCulloch] as a
substitute for the committee amendment.
It was agreed that all time for debate on the so-called
McCulloch substitute and all amendments thereto would be limited to
2 hours, such time to be equally divided and controlled by the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Celler] and the gentleman from Ohio
[Mr. McCulloch]. Under the unanimous-consent agreement, the Chair
recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. McCulloch] in support of
his amendment.
Parliamentarian's Note: The time limitation coupled with the
unanimous-consent agreement on control of time abrogated the five-
minute rule. Under the agreement, the two Members controlling debate
could yield for debate or for amendments. Amendments could also be
offered by Members not yielded time, after the expiration of the time
limitation, but such amendments would be considered without debate.
--Chair May Permit Reservation of Time Where Debate Limited to Specific
Number of Minutes
Sec. 22.27 Where time for debate is limited to a specific number of
minutes rather than a
[[Page 10103]]
limitation to a time certain on the clock, the Chair may permit
Members to reserve time until an amendment to an amendment has been
disposed of so as to speak on the main amendment.
On Oct. 3, 1975,(4) the proposition described above was
demonstrated in the Committee of the Whole, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 121 Cong. Rec. 31602-04, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Thomas S.] Foley [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw
my request and now I ask unanimous consent that all debate on the
Brown amendment and all amendments thereto end in 20 minutes.
The Chairman: (5) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Washington?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. William L. Hungate (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Peter A.] Peyser [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, reserving
the right to object, I would like to ask the chairman of the
committee, if this is going to be ending in 20 minutes and we have
a vote on the Symms amendment, as I understand it, does that time
for the vote go into the 20 minutes?
Mr. Foley: No. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield. I
asked unanimous consent that all debate on the Brown amendment and
all amendments thereto end in 20 minutes. . . .
The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Washington that all debate will end on the Brown
amendment in the nature of a substitute and the Symms amendment and
all amendments thereto in 20 minutes?
There was no objection. . . .
The Chairman: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. McCormack).
Mr. [Mike] McCormack [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve
my time in order to speak on the Brown of California amendment
after the vote on the Symms amendment. . . .
The Chairman: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Peyser).
Mr. Peyser: Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time until after the
vote on the Symms amendment. . . .
Mr. Foley: Is it correct that approximately 2\1/2\ minutes
remain of debate under the limitation previously adopted, and that
following that a vote will occur on the Brown amendment in the
nature of a substitute?
The Chairman: The gentleman states the question correctly. The
gentleman from New York (Mr. Peyser) has 1\1/4\ minutes, and the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. McCormack) has 1\1/4\ minutes. Then
a vote will occur on the Brown amendment.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Peyser).
Parliamentarian's Note: Where time is limited by the clock, a
Member attempting to reserve time may be preempted by votes, quorum
calls, etc., which come out of the time remaining. Therefore, the
Chair, to protect Members' right to speak, might refuse to permit a
reservation of time.
[[Page 10104]]
--Remaining Time Allocated Equally Among Three Members
Sec. 22.28 Following an agreement to limit debate on an amendment and
an amendment thereto to a time certain, the Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole may exercise his discretion and allot the
remaining time in three equal parts; in this case time was
controlled by the offeror of the amendment (Brown), the offeror of
the amendment to the amendment (Leach), and the floor manager of
the bill (Zablocki).
The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on
Apr. 13, 1983,(6) during consideration of House Joint
Resolution 13 (nuclear weapons freeze):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 129 Cong. Rec. 8425, 8426, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: . . . I ask unanimous
consent that debate close at 6:05.
The Chairman: (7) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Wisconsin?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Jack] Kemp [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I object.
The Chairman: Objection is heard.
Mr. Zablocki: 6:15?
The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
The Chairman: The unanimous-consent request is agreed to and
debate is limited to 6:15.
The Chair is going to exercise discretion and allot the time in
three equal parts to the gentleman from Iowa
(Mr. Leach), the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Brown) and the
gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Zablocki) and, of course, those Members can
yield for purposes of debate.
Mr. [Newt] Gingrich [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary
inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Gingrich: Mr. Chairman, if I may express my ignorance for a
moment, is it, in fact, the prerogative of the Chair in that sort
of unanimous-consent request to then design whatever system seems
workable?
The Chairman: Yes, it is. The Chair has exercised its
discretion in light of the circumstances and allocates 6 minutes to
the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach); 6 minutes to the gentleman
from Colorado (Mr. Brown); and 6 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Zablocki).
--Equal Allocation Between Two Members on Opposing Sides of Question
Sec. 22.29 Where the Committee of the Whole has limited debate under
the five-minute rule to a time certain and an
[[Page 10105]]
equal division of the remaining time among all the Members seeking
recognition would severely restrict each Member in his
presentation, the Chair may in his discretion equally allocate the
time between two Members on opposing sides of the question to be
yielded by them.
On June 14, 1977,(8) it was demonstrated that a
limitation of debate on amendments in the Committee of the Whole to a
time certain in effect abrogates the five-minute rule; and decisions
regarding the division of the remaining time and the order of
recognition are largely within the discretion of the Chair.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 123 Cong. Rec. 18826, 18833, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Tom] Bevill [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, I move that all
debate on these amendments and all amendments thereto, cease at 4
o'clock and 45 minutes p.m.
The Chairman: (9) The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bevill).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The motion was agreed to. . . .
The Chairman: The Chair has before him a list of more than 25
Members to occupy the next 10 minutes. It has been suggested that
it would be possible for the Chair to recognize the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Bevill) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Conte) to allocate those 10 minutes.
Accordingly, the Chair will recognize the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Conte) for 5 minutes, and the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Bevill) for 5 minutes.
Mr. John T. Myers [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. John T. Myers: How did the Chair make that decision?
The Chairman: The Chair has the authority to allocate time
under a limitation, and it is obvious to the Chair that this is the
most rational way to handle the 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Conte).
Sec. 22.30 Where the Committee of the Whole has limited to 5 minutes
the remaining time for debate on an amendment, the five-minute rule
is in effect abrogated and the Chair may in his discretion
recognize two Members to equally control the time in support of and
in opposition to the amendment, granting priority of recognition to
control the time in opposition to a member of the committee
handling the bill; but where no committee member seeks recognition
for that purpose, the Chair may recognize any Member to control the
time.
[[Page 10106]]
On June 22, 1977,(10) during consideration of H.R. 7797
(the foreign assistance and related agencies appropriation bill for
fiscal 1978) in the Committee of
the Whole, the Chair made an
announcement regarding debate under the five-minute rule. The
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 123 Cong. Rec. 20291, 20292, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Clarence D.] Long of Maryland: Mr. Chairman, I move that
all debate on this amendment and any amendments thereto close in 5
minutes.
The motion was agreed to.
The Chairman: (11) Let the Chair make this
announcement. There is no way that the Chair can divide 5 minutes
among all who wish to speak. Therefore, under the prerogative of
the Chair, the Chair will recognize one proponent and one opponent
each for 2\1/2\ minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Abraham Kazen, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair at this time recognizes the proponent, the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Wolff). . . .
The Chairman: Is there any member of the committee who wishes
to be recognized in opposition to the amendment?
If not, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Weiss) as an opponent of the amendment.
--Chair May Reallocate Time
Sec. 22.31 Where the Committee of the Whole has agreed that debate
under the five-min-ute rule close at a certain
time on an amendment and
all amendments thereto, the Chair attempts to divide the time
equally among the Members desiring recognition; but where part of
the fixed time is consumed by voting, it may not be possible for
the Chair to reach each Member on his list before the time expires,
and no point of order lies against the inability of the Chair to
recognize each Member on the list.
On June 27, 1977,(12) the situation described above
occurred in the Committee of the Whole, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 123 Cong. Rec. 20916, 20918, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert W.] Kastenmeier [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I
move that all debate on this amendment and all other amendments to
the bill close at 5:40 p.m.
The Chairman: (13) The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kastenmeier).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Bill D. Burlison (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr.
Ashbrook) there were--ayes 46, noes 20. . . .
The Chairman: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Kastenmeier) to close debate.
Mr. Kastenmeier: Mr. Chairman, this is, of course, the Legal
Services
[[Page 10107]]
Liquidation Act of 1977, as proposed by the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Ashbrook). It must be rejected. . . .
The Chairman: All time has expired.
Mr. [Robert] McClory [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, the Chair has
not recognized me yet. The Chair read my name, but the Chair has
not recognized me yet.
The Chairman: The Chair would advise the gentleman from
Illinois that we have run out of time.
Mr. McClory: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. McClory: Mr. Chairman, when there is a time limitation and
Members are standing, it is my understanding that the Chair must
divide the time equally among the Members standing.
Mr. Chairman, I was standing and my name was read.
The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman that
according to the motion, which limited all debate to 5:40 p.m., we
are bound by the clock. Time consumed by voting has required the
Chair to reallocate time. Therefore, the Chair overrules the point
of order.
Protection of Right To Debate Amendment Which Has Been Printed in
Record
Sec. 22.32 Notwithstanding a limitation of debate to a time certain and
the allocation of the remaining time by the Chair, a Member who has
inserted the text of his amendment in the Record is entitled, under
Rule XXIII clause 6, to be recognized for five minutes upon
offering that amendment during the limitation.
On Apr. 19, 1973,(14) the Committee of the Whole agreed
to
a unanimous-consent request, offered by Mr. James C. Wright, Jr., of
Texas, that all debate on the pending title and amendments, being
considered under the five-minute rule, close at a certain time.
Chairman Morris K. Udall, of Arizona, allotted the remaining time to
Members seeking recognition, each Member being entitled to 45 seconds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 119 Cong. Rec. 13253, 13254, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Thomas F. Railsback, of Illinois, was recognized and offered an
amendment. At the conclusion of 45 seconds the Chairman stated that his
time had expired. Mr. Railsback objected that he had printed his
amendment in the Congressional Record prior to floor consideration
thereof, and was therefore entitled to debate his amendment for five
minutes pursuant to Rule XXIII clause 6. The Chairman, who had not been
aware the amendment was printed in the Record, ruled that Mr. Railsback
was entitled to five minutes.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Rule XXIII clause 6 was amended in the 92d Congress to allow the
proponent of the amendment five minutes of debate, regardless
of a limitation, on an amendment printed in the Record. See
House Rules and Manual Sec. 874 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 10108]]
Sec. 22.33 Where all debate in the Committee of the Whole on
a bill and on amendments thereto has been terminated, a Member
offering an amendment which has been printed in the Record on a
preceding day may nevertheless, pursuant to Rule XXIII clause 6,
debate that amendment for five minutes, and another Member opposing
the amendment may then speak for five minutes.
On Aug. 2, 1973,(16) Chairman William H. Natcher, of
Kentucky, answered a parliamentary inquiry on the right of Members with
amendments printed in the Record to debate them for five minutes, after
the Committee had agreed to a unanimous-consent agreement closing all
debate on the pending bill and amendments thereto at a time certain:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 119 Cong. Rec. 27712, 27715, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John] Dellenback [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Dellenback: May I ask whether under the rules of the House
for every amendment that has been published in the Record is it not
true the sponsor has 5 minutes?
The Chairman: The gentleman is correct. . . .
Mr. Dellenback: Do I understand that those 5 minutes as
accumulated will come out of the deadline time rather than be
subsequent time?
The Chairman: The Chair would like to advise the gentleman all
debate on the bill and all amendments thereto is limited to 9:30.
Mr. Dellenback: I thank the Chairman.
At the expiration of the time agreed to, the following ensued:
The Chairman: The Chair desires to announce at this time that
all time under the limitation has expired. This does not apply to
those Members who had their amendments previously printed in the
Record. Those Members whom the Chair observed standing who have
amendments, those amendments will be reported and voted upon.
Are there amendments from the members of the committee who were
standing at the time the limitation was set? If not, the Chair
recognizes the Members who have had their amendments printed in the
Record.
Mr. [John F.] Seiberling [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows: . . .
Mr. [Sam] Steiger of Arizona: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary
inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. Steiger of Arizona: Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding
that the proponent of the amendment is entitled to be recognized
for 5 minutes.
[[Page 10109]]
The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
Mr. Steiger of Arizona: And also any Member opposing the
amendment is entitled to 5 minutes?
The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
--Chair May Recognize Member With Amendment Printed in Record After
Member's Recognition Under Limitation
Sec. 22.34 The Committee of the Whole having agreed to a limitation on
debate under the five-minute rule on a section of a bill and all
amendments thereto, distribution of the time under the limitation
is within the discretion of the Chair, who may recognize under the
limitation first those Members offering amendments which have not
been printed in the Congressional Record, and Members speaking in
opposition to such amendments, and recognize after the limitation
has expired those Members with amendments printed in the Record,
since printed amendments are debatable for 10 minutes, 5 for and 5
against, notwithstanding the expiration of the limitation.
On June 26, 1979,(17) during consideration of the
Defense Production Act Amendments of 1979 (H.R. 3930) in the Committee
of the Whole, it was demonstrated that priority of recognition under a
limitation of time for debate under the five-minute rule is in the
complete discretion of the Chair. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 125 Cong. Rec. 16677, 16678, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [William S.] Moorhead of Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman, I move
that all debate on section 3 and all amendments thereto cease at
6:40 p.m. . . .
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes
209, noes 183, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 41, as follows: .
. .
The Chairman: (18) The Chair will attempt to explain
the situation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee has just voted to end all debate on section 3 and
all amendments thereto at 6:40. The Chair in a moment is going to
ask those Members wishing to speak between now and then to stand.
The Chair will advise Members that he will attempt, once that list
is determined, to recognize first those Members on the list with
amendments which are not protected by having been printed in the
Record. . . .
Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, did I understand
the Chair correctly that Members who are
[[Page 10110]]
protected by having their amendments printed in the Record will not
be recognized until the time has run so that those Members will
only have 5 minutes to present their amendments, but that other
Members will be recognized first for the amendments which are not
printed in the Record?
The Chairman: Those Members who are recognized prior to the
expiration of time have approximately 20 seconds to present their
amendments. Those Members whose amendments are printed in the
Record will have a guaranteed 5 minutes after time has expired. . .
.
The Chair will now recognize those Members who wish to offer
amendments which have not been printed in the Record.
The Chair will advise Members he will recognize listed Members
in opposition to the amendments also for 20 seconds. . . .
Mr. [Richard] Kelly [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, is it not
regular order that the Members of the Committee with amendments be
given preference and recognition?
The Chairman: The Chair would advise the gentleman once the
limitation of time has been agreed to and time divided, that
priority of recognition is within the complete discretion of the
Chair.
--Priority in Recognition for Opposition to Amendment Printed in Record
Sec. 22.35 The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole gives priority in
recognition, in opposition to an amendment printed in the Record
and offered after debate is limited, to senior members of the
committee reporting the bill regardless of party affiliation.
On June 7, 1977,(19) during consideration of the Federal
Employees' Political Activities Act of 1977 (H.R. 10) in the Committee
of the Whole, Chairman James R. Mann, of South Carolina, responded to a
parliamentary inquiry, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 123 Cong. Rec. 17700, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Edward J.] Derwinski [of Illinois]: The Chairman just
referred to the situation whereby debate was limited, which is
under clause 6, rule XXIII, and under that procedure any Member who
has filed and published an amendment is protected in his right to
call up the amendment and is entitled to 5 minutes to explain the
amendment.
My parliamentary inquiry is: How will the Chair determine the
appropriate Member to speak in opposition to the amendment? In
other words, what will qualify a Member to speak in opposition to
these pending amendments?
The Chairman: The Chair will endeavor to recognize committee
members who are opposed, and if there is more than one committee
member desiring to speak in opposition to the amendment, the Chair
will seek to recognize the most senior of the committee members.
The matter of party affiliation will not be controlling.
[[Page 10111]]
--Member Permitted To Debate in Opposition Notwithstanding Prior
Allocation of Time Under Limitation
Sec. 22.36 Pursuant to Rule XXIII clause 6, a Member may be recognized
for five minutes in opposition to an amendment which had been
printed in the Record and debated by its proponent for five
minutes, notwithstanding a prior allocation of time to that Member
under a limitation on the pending proposition and all amendments
thereto.
On July 25, 1974,(20) during consideration of the
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1974 (H.R. 11500) in the
Committee of the Whole, the Chair overruled a point of order, as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 120 Cong. Rec. 25221, 25222, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: Mr. Chairman, I move to
strike the requisite number of words, and I rise in opposition to
the amendment.
Mr. [Craig] Hosmer [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I have a
point of order.
The Chairman: (1) The gentleman will state his point
of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hosmer: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Arizona has spoken
for a minute and 20 seconds already.
The Chairman: The Chair will state that under the rule, when
the amendment has been printed in the Record, the author of the
amendment gets 5 minutes in support of his amendment and an
opponent gets 5 minutes in opposition to the amendment, regardless
of a time limitation.
The Chair overrules the point of order.
--Recognition in Opposition Both to Amendment and to Substitute Printed
in Record
Sec. 22.37 Where under a time limitation only five minutes of debate is
available in opposition both to an amendment and to a substitute
therefor printed in the Record, one Member cannot simultaneously be
recognized for 10 minutes in opposition to both amendments, but
must be separately recognized on each amendment, with preference of
recognition being accorded to members of the committee reporting
the bill.
The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on
June 27, 1985,(2) during consideration of H.R. 1872
(Department of Defense authorization for fiscal 1986):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 131 Cong. Rec. 17799-802, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment offered by Mr. Markey: Insert the following new
section at the
[[Page 10112]]
end of title X (page 200, after line 4): . . .
(a) Limitation of Funds Authorized for Fiscal Year 1986.--
None of the funds appropriated pursuant to the authorizations
of appropriations in this or any other Act may be used for the
production of the 155-millimeter artillery-fired, atomic
projec-tile. . . .
Mr. [Vic] Fazio [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment as a substitute for the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Fazio as a substitute for the
amendment offered by Mr. Markey: Insert the following new
section at the end of title X (page 200, after line 4): . . .
Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I move to
strike the requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and the
amendment to the amendment.
Mr. [Robert E.] Badham [of California]: Mr. Chairman, at this
time, I would ask a parliamentary inquiry of the Chair. . . .
My inquiry is that since there were two offerings, an amendment
and an amendment to the amendment in the form of a substitute,
would the opposition now be exercising its prerogative in using 10
minutes in opposition to both?
The Chairman Pro Tempore: (3) That is correct,
except that the gentleman from New York rose in opposition to the
Markey amendment. There would be 5 minutes of debate left in
opposition to the Fazio substitute. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Marty Russo (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Stratton: Mr. Chairman, I rose in opposition to both
amendments, both the Markey amendment and the Fazio amendment.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that the
gentleman can only rise in opposition to one amendment at a time,
and when he rose, the Chair understood him to rise first in
opposition to the Markey amendment. That leaves only 5 minutes in
opposition to the Fazio substitute amendment.
Any Member wishing to rise in opposition to the Fazio
substitute amendment may, and a member of the committee is
recognized before other Members.
--Where Proponent of Amendment Did Not Claim Time Under Rule XXIII
Sec. 22.38 While under clause 6 of Rule XXIII, five minutes of debate
in favor of an amendment and five minutes in
opposition is permitted notwithstanding a limitation on debate
where the amendment has been printed in the Record, if the
proponent of the amendment offers it during his allocated time
under the limitation and does not claim a separate five-minute
recognition under the rule, then a Member opposing the amendment to
whom time has been allocated under the limitation must consume that
time and cannot claim a separate five minutes under the rule.
[[Page 10113]]
On Mar. 2, 1976,(4) the Chair ruled that, pursuant to
Rule XXIII, clause 6, a separate ten minutes of debate on an amendment
printed in the Record is in order only where the proponent of the
amendment claims that time notwithstanding an imposed limitation; and
where the amendment is offered and debated within the time allocated
under the limitation, a separate five minutes in opposition is not
available:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 122 Cong. Rec. 4994, 4995, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Philip H.] Hayes of Indiana: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Hayes of Indiana: Page 39,
immediately after line 12, insert the following new subsection:
``(c) Section 402(d) of the Act (30 U.S.C. 902(d)) is
amended by inserting immediately before the period at the end
thereof the following: `, including any individual who is or
was employed in any aboveground mining operation'.'' . . .
Mr. [John N.] Erlenborn [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: (5) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Sam Gibbons (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Erlenborn: Mr. Chairman, since this amendment was one of
the published amendments, 5 minutes in opposition to the amendment
is available not counting against the limit?
The Chairman: The gentleman would be correct if debate on the
amendment were outside of the limitation. . . .
Mr. Erlenborn: Mr. Chairman, may I have the 5 minutes, under
the rule?
The Chairman: It will be counted against the gentleman's time
if the gentleman takes it at this time.
Mr. Erlenborn: Mr. Chairman, I understand there are 5 minutes
in opposition that are available, under the rule; and I claim those
5 minutes.
The Chairman: It is the Chair's understanding that at this
point debate on the amendment is under the limitation. The
gentleman could claim his 5 minutes under the rule if the amendment
were offered, notwithstanding the limitation, but not at this time.
. . .
Mr. Erlenborn: Mr. Chairman, I have 5 minutes, under the time
limitation?
The Chairman: That is correct.
Mr. Erlenborn: Without using that, am I not entitled to 5
minutes to oppose a published or printed amendment?
The Chairman: No, because the proponent of the amendment did
not take his time under the rule. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Hayes) had 5 minutes reserved under the limitation of time. The
Chair understands the gentleman from Indiana took his time under
the limitation and not under the rule.
May Not Reserve or Allocate Time by Motion
Sec. 22.39 Under the five-minute rule, the time for debate may be
fixed, but control of the
[[Page 10114]]
time may not be allotted to certain Members by motion if a point of
order is made.
On May 11, 1949,(6) Chairman Albert A. Gore, of
Tennessee, stated in response to a parliamentary inquiry that where the
Committee of the Whole fixes by consent the time for debate, the
Chairman divides such time equally between Members seeking recognition.
Mr. Brent Spence, of Kentucky, therefore made the following motion,
which the Chairman ruled out of order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 95 Cong. Rec. 6055, 6056, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Spence: Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on section 1
and all amendments thereto conclude at 3:30 and that the time be
equally divided among those Members who asked for time and that the
last 5 minutes be assigned to the committee.
Mr. [Francis H.] Case [of South Dakota]: Mr. Chairman, the same
point of order. The Committee of the Whole cannot allot time that
way. That is in the discretion of the House of Representatives and
not the committee. It must be by unanimous consent.
The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.
Mr. Spence: Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on section 1
and all amendments thereto conclude at 3:30.
The Chairman: The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Kentucky.
The motion was agreed to.
Sec. 22.40 Where there was pending an amendment in the
nature of a substitute for a
bill, the Chair indicated in
response to a parliamentary
inquiry that debate on all amendments to said amendment could be
limited and allocated only by unanimous consent.
On Dec. 14, 1973,(7) there was pending an amendment in
the nature of a substitute for a bill in the Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Harley O. Staggers, of West Virginia, made the following unanimous-
consent request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 119 Cong. Rec. 41711, 41712, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that each amendment to
the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered be considered
for not more than 5 minutes on each side. . . .
The request was objected to by Mr. Robert D. Price, of Texas, and
Chairman Richard Bolling, of Missouri, then answered a parliamentary
inquiry as to whether he could entertain a motion on the matter.
Mr. [Lawrence G.] Williams [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
Why cannot the Chair accept a motion from the chairman of the
committee to limit debate on each amendment to 10 minutes?
[[Page 10115]]
The Chairman: A motion to control debate can neither divide the
time nor allocate or reserve the time. A unanimous-consent request,
if agreed to, can do that, but a motion to allocate and break up
time is not entertainable.
Reserving or Yielding Time
Sec. 22.41 The Chair stated that he would not recognize Members for
requests that time, allotted them under a limitation for debate on
an amendment, be given to other Members; and that under such a
limitation for debate, those who actually desired to utilize the
time should have it equally divided among them.
On July 19, 1951,(8) the Committee of the Whole agreed
to a motion limiting debate on pending amendments to a time certain.
Mr. Noah M. Mason, of Illinois, then inquired of Chairman Wilbur D.
Mills, of Arkansas, whether a Member who had reserved time, by
indicating he wished to be recognized, could award or yield his time to
another Member. The Chairman responded:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 97 Cong. Rec. 8479, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair stated a few days ago he would not recognize anyone
for the purpose of asking unanimous consent that his time be given
to another Member. The Chair may say that it was the thought of the
Chair that when Members are seeking to be recognized under a
limitation of time those who actually desire to utilize the time
should have the time equally divided among them.
Parliamentarian's Note: Under recent precedents, where time under a
limitation is equally divided, a Member allocated time may reserve a
portion or yield his time to another Member only by unanimous consent.
Use of Time Reserved Under Limitation
Sec. 22.42 When debate on a bill and all amendments thereto had been
limited, a Member allotted time pursuant to the limitation was
permitted by the Chair to use whatever part thereof he desired in
support of each of the various amendments he might offer.
On July 22, 1958,(9) the Committee of the Whole agreed
to a request that debate close in 30 minutes on a pending bill and
amendments thereto, the last five minutes to be reserved to the
reporting committee. Chairman James J. Delaney, of New York, answered a
parliamentary inquiry by Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 104 Cong. Rec. 14659-64, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Chairman, I have three amendments and under the limitation
of time
[[Page 10116]]
I have 4 minutes. Is it possible to offer an amendment and reserve
time following each amendment pending the disposition of the
amendment?
The Chairman: The gentleman may take whatever time he desires
on each amendment.
Unused Time Under an Allocation
Sec. 22.43 Where the Committee of the Whole has limited debate on an
amendment to a time certain and the time allocated by the Chair
among those initially desiring to speak is not totally consumed,
the Chair may either reallocate the remaining time among other
Members in his discretion or may proceed again under the five-
minute rule.
On Aug. 4, 1977,(10) the Committee of the Whole had
under consideration the National Ener-gy Act (H.R. 8444) and had lim-
ited debate on an amendment
when the following proceedings
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 123 Cong. Rec. 27021, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Gary A. Myers [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I have a
parliamentary inquiry. . . .
The parliamentary inquiry is, Mr. Chairman, did the House not
limit itself to debate until 2 o'clock?
The Chairman: (11) The gentleman is correct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Edward P. Boland (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Gary A. Myers: Under that limitation, I would like to ask
unanimous consent to speak on the unclaimed time of the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Whalen).
The Chairman: The Chair will state that the gentleman from
Pennsylvania may claim his own time. . . .
Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania desire to strike the
requisite number of words and be recognized?
Mr. Gary A. Myers: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
The Chairman: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Pennsylvania.
Mr. Kazen: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Kazen: Supposing there are 20 of us who want to do the same
thing.
The Chairman: If there are 20 who want to do the same thing,
and they can all do it before 2 o'clock, they will all be
recognized, or if feasible, the Chair could divide the remaining
time among other Members seeking recognition who were not included
in the original limitation.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gary A. Myers) has now
been recognized.
Procedure Where Limitation Vacated; Recognition Under Subsequent
Limitation
Sec. 22.44 Where a Member has been allotted time under a
[[Page 10117]]
limitation on five-minute debate, and that limitation is vacated,
he must reindicate his desire to speak in order to be recognized
under any subsequent limitation which is imposed.
On Sept. 30, 1971,(12) the Committee of the Whole agreed
to a unanimous-consent request that debate under the five-minute rule
close at 2:30 p.m. Chairman John J. Rooney, of New York, noted the
Members standing and desiring to be heard under the limitation. Before
the limitation had expired, Mr. Carl D. Perkins, of Kentucky, stated
that the limitation, requested by him, had been misstated, and he asked
unanimous consent to vacate the limitation, which was agreed to. He
then requested a new limitation, which was agreed to, to close debate
only on his amendment and not on others.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 117 Cong. Rec. 34289, 34290, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When the time under the limitation expired, the Chairman answered
an inquiry:
The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Perkins) to the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Brademas).
Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I question
whether all time has expired. I thought the distinguished Chairman
read my name as one standing when time was limited.
The Chairman: The Chair read the name of the gentleman from
Missouri with regard to the first request. However, he was not
standing at the time of the second request, which is the one under
which we are now operating. However, there is still time if the
gentleman wishes to be recognized. The Chair recognizes the
gentleman from Missouri.
Where Committee Rises and Resumes Sitting
Sec. 22.45 Prior to rising for the day, the Committee of the Whole
limited debate on a title of a bill and all amendments thereto to
one hour and the Chair advised that upon again resolving into the
Committee, Members would be recognized during the time limit under
the five-minute rule.
On Aug. 2, 1966,(13) the Committee of the Whole was
considering for amendment title III of H.R. 14765, the Civil Rights Act
of 1966. Prior to rising for the day, the Committee agreed to a request
by Mr. Peter W. Rodino, Jr., of New Jersey, that all debate on the
title and amendments
[[Page 10118]]
thereto terminate in one hour. Chairman Richard Bolling, of Missouri,
stated in response to a parliamentary inquiry that under the
limitation, when the Committee again took up the bill on a following
day, Members would be recognized under the five-minute rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 112 Cong. Rec. 17856, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Debate Limited on Motion To Strike--Perfecting Amendment Offered After
Expiration of Limitation
Sec. 22.46 Where the Committee of the Whole had limited debate to a
time certain on a motion to strike a portion of pending text, the
Chair requested a Member to withhold offering a perfecting
amendment to the text until the expiration of the limitation since
the limitation
did not apply to perfecting amendments which could be offered,
debated, and voted upon prior to the vote on the motion to strike
and since debate on the perfecting amendment, if offered during the
limitation, would reduce time remaining under the limitation.
On May 24, 1977,(14) the Committee of the Whole having
under consideration the International Security Assistance Act of 1977
(H.R. 6884), the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 123 Cong. Rec. 16172, 16175, 16176, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: (15) When the Committee of the Whole
House rose on Monday, May 2, 1977, the bill had been considered as
having been read and open to amendment at any point, and pending
was an amendment offered by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Ichord).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Don Fuqua (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Without objection, the Clerk will again report the amendment.
There was no objection.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Ichord: Page 8, line 17, strike
out ``$2,214,- 700,000'' and insert in lieu thereof
``$12,114,700,000''; on page 9, line 17, strike out
``sections'' and insert in lieu thereof ``section''; strike out
line 18 on page 9 and all that follows through line 2 on page
11; and in line 3 on page 11, strike out ``534'' and insert in
lieu thereof ``533''. . . .
Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I
wonder if
we could determine how many more speakers we have.
I ask unanimous consent that all
debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto end at 1:15
p.m. . . .
The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection. . . .
The Chairman: The time of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Bauman) has expired.
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I have an
[[Page 10119]]
amendment at the desk which has been printed in the Record.
The Chairman: Would the gentleman withhold his amendment until
the limitation of time expires.
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, will the amendment then be in order
and may it be offered prior to the vote on the Ichord amendment?
The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman that the
amendment will be in order as a perfecting amendment prior to the
vote on the Ichord amendment.
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, in that case, I will withhold the
amendment at this time.
Amendment Adding New Section Not Covered by Limitation on Pending
Section
Sec. 22.47 Where debate has been limited on a pending section and all
amendments thereto and time allocated among those Members desiring
to offer amendments to that section, the Chair may decline to
recognize a Member to offer an amendment
adding a new section and
therefore not covered by
the limitation, until perfecting amendments to the pending section
have been disposed of under the limitation.
On June 26, 1979,(16) during consideration of H.R. 3930,
the Defense Production Act Amendments of 1979, the Committee of the
Whole was proceeding under a limitation on debate on section 3 and
amendments thereto, when an amendment was offered by Mr. Morris K.
Udall, of Arizona:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 125 Cong. Rec. 16679, 16680, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment offered by Mr. Udall: Page 8, after line 13 add the
following new section and renumber the subsequent sections
accordingly.
Sec. 4. The Secretary of Energy is hereby authorized to
designate a proposed synthetic fuel or feedstock facility as a
priority synthetic project . . . .
Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, is this
amendment to section 3 or section 4? . . .
The copy I have indicates that it is to section 4, Mr.
Chairman. Is that correct?
Mr. Udall: I had modified it to apply to section 3.
The Chairman: (17) The Clerk will cease reading the
amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair will advise the gentleman from Arizona that this
amendment currently being read adds a new section 4, and is not
covered by the limitation on time, and should not be offered at
this time. . . .
Mr. Udall: I had intended--I had so instructed the Clerk to
change this to an amendment to section 3, not section 4. . . .
The Chairman: . . . The Chair will advise the gentleman from
Arizona that he is within his rights to redraft the amendment as an
amendment to section 3, but the Chair understood that is not the
amendment currently being read.
[[Page 10120]]
Mr. Udall: I so offer it as an amendment to section 3.
The Chairman: The Clerk will report the amendment.
Motion To Strike Enacting Clause Offered During Time Limitation
Sec. 22.48 Where debate under the five-minute rule has been limited to
terminate at a time certain, time consumed on a preferential
motion, that the Committee rise and report the bill to the House
with the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken, comes
out of the limitation and may prevent recognition of Members
initially allotted time under the limitation.
On Sept. 18, 1979,(18) during consideration of the
Department of Transportation appropriations for fiscal year 1980 (H.R.
4440) in the Committee of the Whole, Chairman Gerry E. Studds, of
Massachusetts, responded to a parliamentary inquiry concerning time for
debate. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 125 Cong. Rec. 25078, 25084, 25091, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert] Duncan of Oregon: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that all debate on this amendment and all amendments
thereto end at 1:55 p.m.
The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Oregon?
There was no objection.
The Chairman: Members standing at the time the unanimous
consent request was granted will be recognized for approximately 2
minutes. . . .
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 out.
The Chairman: The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized
for five minutes in support of his motion. . . .
The question is on the preferential motion offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Conte).
The preferential motion was rejected.
The Chairman: All debate on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and all amendments thereto
has expired.
Mr. John L. Burton [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. John L. Burton: Mr. Chairman, I believe my name was on the
list and I was not recognized.
The Chairman: All time has expired.
Mr. John L. Burton: How did my time get eaten up, if I may ask?
The Chairman: I will inform the gentleman that his time and
that of several other Members on the list was consumed by the
offering of the pref
[[Page 10121]]
erential motion by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Conte).
Debate and Vote on Motion To Strike Enacting Clause Take Precedence
Sec. 22.49 Debate on a preferential motion in Committee of the Whole to
strike the enacting clause, and a vote on that motion, takes
precedence over remaining debate on a pending amendment on which
time has been limited and allocated; thus, where a Member offers a
preferential motion to strike the enacting clause in order to
obtain
five minutes of debate on
the pending amendment on which debate has been limited and
allocated, the Chair must put the question on the preferential
motion immediately after debate thereon, unless unanimous consent
is given to combine that debate with time remaining under the
allocation on the amendment.
The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on
June 25, 1986,(19) during consideration of H.R. 5052
(military construction appropriations for fiscal 1987):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 132 Cong. Rec. 15500-502, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [W. G.] Hefner [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment and all
amendments hereto end in 20 minutes.
The Chairman: (20) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from North Carolina?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. William J. Hughes (N.J.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
The Chairman: Members standing at the time the unanimous-
consent request was agreed to will be recognized for 2 minutes
each. . . .
Mr. [Ronald V.] Dellums [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I move
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 gentleman from California (Mr. Dellums) is
recognized for 5 minutes in support of his preferential motion.
Mr. Dellums: Mr. Chairman, I will not insist upon my motion
that the Committee do now rise. I simply use this extraordinary
tactic in order to gain some opportunity to speak on this terribly
important matter. I think that we ought to limit debate only on
issues that are noncontroversial . . . .
The Chairman: The time of the gentleman from California (Mr.
Dellums) has expired.
Mr. Dellums: Mr. Chairman, I still have 1 minute on the earlier
request.
The Chairman: The preferential motion takes preference over the
1 minute.
[[Page 10122]]
Mr. Dellums: Mr. Chairman, I still have 1 minute after the
preferential motion is voted up or down; is that not correct, Mr.
Chairman.
The Chairman: The gentleman is correct. Does the gentleman
desire to take that now?
Mr. Dellums: That is my request, and then I would logically
conclude my discussion, Mr. Chairman, if I may.
The Chairman: Without objection, the gentleman may proceed for
1 additional minute, on the preferential motion, in lieu of his 1
minute allocated on the pending amendment.
There was no objection.
Recognition To Close Debate Under Limitation
Sec. 22.50 The right to recognition to close debate under a limitation
of debate on an amendment in Committee of the Whole belongs to the
manager of the bill and not to the proponent of the amendment.
The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on
July 21, 1982,(1) during consideration of H.R. 6030 (the
military procurement authorization for fiscal year 1983):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 128 Cong. Rec. 17363, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, may I
ask, how many minutes do we have remaining?
The Chairman Pro Tempore: (2) The gentleman from New
York (Mr. Stratton) has 7 minutes remaining, and
the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) has 9\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Les AuCoin (Oreg.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Stratton: Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the gentleman from
Washington consume his time because the Committee wants to reserve
the final 7 minutes for a windup, as is the proper procedure.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: Does the gentleman from Washington
(Mr. Dicks) wish to use or yield additional time?
Mr. [Norman D.] Dicks [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, is it not
the proper procedure that the Member who offers the amendment gets
the last portion of time to close debate?
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair will advise the gentleman
that the usual and customary procedure, and the procedure we are
following, is for the Committee to have the prerogative and the
right to close.
Chair Puts Question on Amendment After Debate Closed
Sec. 22.51 Where debate on a pending amendment has been closed
instantly by motion, the Chair puts the question on the amendment
and does not recognize Members who seek to debate the amendment
further.
On Nov. 25, 1970,(3) Mr. John C. Kluczynski, of
Illinois, the man
[[Page 10123]]
ager of the pending bill in the Committee of the Whole, moved that all
debate on the pending amendment close instantly. The Committee agreed
to the motion by division vote. Mr. Andrew Jacobs, Jr., of Indiana, and
Mr. Jonathan B. Bingham, of New York, then sought recognition to debate
the amendment. Chairman Chet Holifield, of California, ruled that no
further debate was in order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 116 Cong. Rec. 38990, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Jacobs: What about those of us who were on our feet when
debate was choked off? Will we be recognized?
The Chairman: There was no count made of Members standing for
time, and the motion of the gentleman from Illinois was to close
debate, and that motion was agreed to.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. The manager of a bill has priority of recognition to move to close
debate instantly on an amendment, even if other Members seek to
debate it further or to offer amendments thereto; see
Sec. 21.30, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAPTER 29
Consideration and Debate
C. RECOGNITION ON PARTICULAR QUESTIONS
Sec. 23. Recognition for Particular Motions and Debate Thereon
This section discusses illustrative principles of recognition for
various types of motions. The general subject of motions is treated
comprehensively in Chapter 23, supra, and particular motions are
discussed in detail in that chapter.
As a general matter where a Member is recognized to offer a
resolution, after the resolution is read, that Member must again be
recognized for debate; and between the two recognitions, a proper
motion may intervene after presentation of the
resolution.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. See 6 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 65.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where two or more Members rise at the same time seeking recognition
to offer motions or for debate, the Speaker inquires into their purpose
in seeking recognition, and then under Rule XIV, clause 2, names the
Member to speak first.(6) The fact that the Chair asks a
Member, ``for what purpose does the gentleman rise'' does not confer
recognition on the Member to offer a motion.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. See Sec. 23.4, infra.
7. See Sec. 23.1, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dilatory motions are not entertained by the Chair, and the
determination of whether a motion is dilatory is within the Chair's
discretion.(8) The Chair has on occasion indicated a
reluctance to hold motions to be dilatory,(9) unless it was
obvious that dilatory tactics were being used.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. See Sec. 23.7, infra.
9. See Sec. 23.8, infra.
10. See Sec. 23.12, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several motions discussed in this section are used in the Committee
of the Whole. (Proceedings
[[Page 10124]]
in the Committee of the Whole are covered in more detail in Chapter 19,
supra.) For motions to resolve into the Committee of the Whole for the
consideration or resumption of consideration of a bill, recognition is
first accorded the manager of a bill.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See Sec. 23.27, infra; and see, generally, Ch. 19 Sec. 4, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Member recognized to offer and debate an amendment may move that
the Committee of the Whole rise,(12) but a Member yielded
time for general debate may not make the motion unless yielded to for
that purpose.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See 113 Cong. Rec. 32694, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 15, 1967.
13. See 96 Cong. Rec. 2178, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 22, 1950. For
general discussion of motions to rise, see Ch. 19 Sec. Sec. 22-
25, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The motion that the Committee of the Whole rise is privileged and
may be offered during the pendency of a motion to limit debate or
immediately upon the adoption of that motion; similarly, the
preferential motion that the Committee rise with the recommendation
that the enacting or resolving clause be stricken may be offered while
the motion to limit debate is pending.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See Sec. 23.31, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other motions discussed in this section include the following
motions used in the House.
A Member, if recognized for that purpose, may move to suspend the
rules and pass a bill with amendments. The fact that the amendments
have not been considered or adopted by a committee does not prevent
their consideration.(15) Recognition for a motion to suspend
the rules is within the discretion of the Speaker. Thus, for example,
the previously announced scheduling of a House bill under suspension
does not preclude the consideration of a similar Senate bill in lieu
thereof if recognition is granted by the Speaker.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See Sec. 23.16, infra. A second on a motion to suspend the rules,
formerly required in some circumstances, is no longer required.
See Sec. 23.19, infra.
16. See Sec. 23.17, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker may recognize any Member who signed a motion to
discharge to call up that motion; and the proponents of a successful
motion to discharge are entitled to prior recognition to debate the
discharged bill.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. See Sec. 23.23, infra. See Ch. 18, supra, for further discussion of
motions to discharge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After the previous question is ordered on the passage of a bill
or joint resolution, a motion to
recommit is in order, and the Speaker gives preference in recognition
for such purpose to a
[[Page 10125]]
Member who is opposed to the bill or joint resolution.(18)
In recognizing Members to move to recommit, the Speaker gives
preference first to the ranking minority member of the committee
reporting the bill, if opposed to the bill, and then to the remaining
minority members of that committee in the order of their
rank.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See Rule XVI, clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 782 (1995).
19. See Sec. 23.45, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A member of the minority has priority of recognition to offer a
motion to recommit, even where the proposition has been discharged from
committee and the chairman of the committee has controlled the time in
opposition thereto.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See Ch. 23 Sec. Sec. 25 et seq., supra, for further discussion of
the motion to recommit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule XI, clause 4(b)(1) now provides that the Committee
on Rules shall not report any rule or order which would prevent the
motion to recommit from being made as provided in clause 4 of Rule XVI,
including a motion to recommit with instructions to report back an
amendment otherwise in order (if offered by the Minority Leader or a
designee), except with respect to a Senate bill or resolution for which
the text of a House-passed measure has been substituted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. House Rules and Manual Sec. 729a (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case of a motion to commit offered pursuant to Rule XVII,
clause 1, the Member offering
the motion in some circumstances need not qualify as
opposed.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. See Sec. 23.55, infra. For discussion of distinctions between the
motion to recommit and the motions to commit or refer, see Ch.
23 Sec. 25, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross References
Motions generally, see Ch. 23, supra.
Motions cannot interrupt Member with floor, see Sec. 32, infra.
Motions to close or limit debate, see Sec. Sec. 76, 78, infra (duration
of debate in Committee of the Whole).
Motions on conference reports, see Ch. 33, infra.
Motion to resolve into the Committee of the Whole, see Ch. 19, supra.
Motions on Senate amendments, see Ch. 32, infra (amendments between the
Houses) and Ch. 33, infra (amendments in disagreement reported from
conference).
Nondebatable motions, see, for example, Sec. Sec. 6.4 (motion to
correct reference of bill); 6.19 (motion to close debate under
five-minute rule); 6.29, 6.30 (motion that Committee of the Whole
rise); 6.14 (motion to dispense with proceedings under call of the
House); 6.9 (motion to lay on table); 6.35 (motion for previous
question); 6.60 (motion returning bill to Senate pursuant to Senate
request), supra.
Prior rights to recognition of opposition after rejection of essential
motion made by Member in charge, see Sec. 15, supra.
[[Page 10126]]
Yielding for motions, see Sec. 30,
infra. -------------------
What Constitutes Recognition
Sec. 23.1 The fact that the Speaker or Chairman asks a Member ``for
what purpose does the gentleman rise'' does not confer recognition
on the Member to offer a motion.
On Apr. 13, 1946,(3) Mr. Dewey Short, of Missouri,
sought recognition from Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, after the
engrossment and third reading of the pending bill had been ordered. The
Speaker inquired of Mr. Short ``for what purpose does the gentleman
from Missouri rise?'' and Mr. Short stated that he was offering a
motion to recommit the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 92 Cong. Rec. 3669, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker recognized Mr. Edward E. Cox, of Georgia, to demand the
reading of the engrossed copy of the bill. Mr. Vito Marcantonio, of New
York, made the point of order that Mr. Short had been recognized to
offer a motion to recommit. The Speaker stated:
The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Short] was not recognized. The
Chair asked the gentleman for what purpose he rose, and then
recognized the gentleman from Georgia.
On June 26, 1951,(4) Chairman Albert A. Gore, of
Tennessee, ruled in the Committee of the Whole that his inquiry as to a
Member's purpose in seeking recognition did not confer recognition:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 97 Cong. Rec. 7174, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York] rose.
The Chairman: For what purpose does the gentleman from New York
rise?
Mr. [Harold D.] Cooley [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I
move----
Mr. Celler: Mr. Chairman, was I not recognized?
The Chairman: The Chair inquired for what purpose the gentleman
rose; that does not entail recognition.
Sec. 23.2 The mere making of a motion does not confer recognition, and
where another Member has shown due diligence he may be recognized
even though a motion has been made.
On Apr. 16, 1943,(5) an amendment to a bill being
considered in the Committee of the Whole was rejected on a division
vote. Chairman William M. Whittington, of Mississippi, then ruled that
it was not too late to demand tellers where an intervening motion that
the Committee rise was made without recognition by the Chair:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 89 Cong. Rec. 3502, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: The amendment is rejected.
[[Page 10127]]
Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I move that
the Committee do now rise.
Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I ask for
tellers.
Mr. Tarver: Mr. Chairman, I raise the point of order that it is
too late to demand tellers.
Mr. Taber: I was on my feet, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Tarver: The Chair had announced the result of the vote, and
a motion had been made that the Committee rise.
Mr. Taber: The gentleman from Georgia had not been recognized
by the Chair.
Mr. Tarver: The Chair had announced the vote.
The Chairman: The gentleman from New York demands tellers.
The gentleman from Georgia makes the point of order that the
request comes too late. The Chair would say in deference to the
gentleman from New York and the gentleman from Georgia that there
had not been formal recognition of the gentleman from Georgia.
Tellers were ordered, and the Chair appointed Mr. Tarver and
Mr. Taber to act as tellers.
Sec. 23.3 Recognition of a Member to object to a unanimous-consent
request for the
withdrawal of a motion in
the Committee of the Whole
(to strike out the enacting clause) does not extend recognition to
speak in opposition to the motion.
On Mar. 1, 1950,(6) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan,
offered the preferential motion that the Committee of the Whole rise
and report the pending bill back to the House with the recommendation
that the enacting clause be stricken. After debating his motion, Mr.
Hoffman asked unanimous consent to withdraw his motion. Mr. Francis H.
Case, of South Dakota, objected to withdrawal of the motion and claimed
time in opposition to the motion at the same time that Mr. Carl
Hinshaw, of California, rose in opposition to the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 96 Cong. Rec. 2598, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman Clark W. Thompson, of Texas, recognized Mr. Hinshaw since
he was a member of the committee which had reported the bill.
Mr. Case then inquired whether he had not been recognized to speak.
The Chairman responded:
The gentleman was recognized by the Chair to make an objection,
but not to speak.
Speaker's Authority To Recognize
Sec. 23.4 Where two or more Members rise at the same time seeking
recognition to offer motions or for debate, the Speaker inquires
into their purpose in seeking recognition, and then under Rule XIV
clause 2, names the Member to speak first.
[[Page 10128]]
On Apr. 26, 1933,(7) the House was considering House
Joint Resolution 157 (relating to the Saint Lawrence Seaway) pursuant
to a special order (H. Res. 112) providing for consideration in the
House and ordering the previous question on the joint resolution to
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit.
Pending was a motion to recommit with instructions, offered by Mr.
James S. Parker, of New York, on Apr. 25 and coming over as unfinished
business (the previous question having been ordered on the passage of
the joint resolution). The previous question was ordered on the motion
to recommit as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 77 Cong. Rec. 2413, 73d Cong. 1st Sess.
See Rule XIV clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 753
(1995): ``When two or more Members rise at once, the Speaker
shall name the Member who is first to speak.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Bertrand H.] Snell [of New York] and Mr. [Sam] Rayburn [of
Texas] rose.
Mr. Snell: Mr. Speaker, at the appropriate time I desire to be
recognized against the motion to recommit. This is the unfinished
business before the House.
Mr. Rayburn: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.
Mr. Snell: Mr. Speaker, I am on my feet demanding recognition.
The previous question has not been ordered.
Mr. [John J.] O'Connor [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I certainly
shall object to the establishment of any precedent of debating
motions to recommit.
Mr. Snell: This is not a precedent. Motion to close debate by
ordering the previous question has not been made. This is the
unfinished business before the House.
Mr. Rayburn: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question. I think
I have the right to make this motion.
The Speaker: The question is on ordering the previous question
on the motion to recommit.
Mr. [Robert F.] Rich [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Rich: Mr. Speaker, is it proper procedure, when one Member
has obtained recognition, for another Member to be recognized? The
gentleman from New York [Mr. Snell] had the floor and was
recognized.
The Speaker: The Chair recognized the gentleman from New York
to ascertain for what purpose he rose.
Mr. Rich: Is it proper procedure for the Chair now to recognize
the gentleman from Texas?
The Speaker: The question is on the motion to recommit.
The previous question was ordered on the motion to recommit, which
was rejected.
Parliamentarian's Note: At the time of this precedent, a motion to
recommit with instructions, offered after the previous question
[[Page 10129]]
had been ordered on a bill or joint resolution to passage, was not
debatable; Rule XVI, clause 4 was amended in the 92d Congress to
specifically allow debate (five minutes for and five minutes against)
on such a motion to recommit with instructions. Thus in the instant
precedent the motion to recommit was not debatable regardless of
whether the previous question was ordered thereon.
Sec. 23.5 Where a Member seeks recognition to call up District of
Columbia business, privileged on District of Columbia Monday, and
at the same time another Member seeks recognition to move to
suspend the rules and agree to a bill, that motion made privileged
by unanimous consent, it is within the discretion of the Speaker as
to which of the two Members he will recognize.
On Aug. 27, 1962,(8) Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York,
moved to suspend the rules and pass Senate Joint Resolution 29,
proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Mr.
Thomas G. Abernethy, of Mississippi, made a point of order against such
recognition on the ground that he wanted recognition to offer a
District of Columbia bill and that pursuant to Rule XXIV clause 8 of
the House rules, District of Columbia business was privileged. He
alleged that the Speaker was permitted only to recognize for District
of Columbia business. Mr. Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, stated that the
Suspension Calendar had been transferred by unanimous consent to that
day and contended that under the rules the Speaker had the power of
recognition at his discretion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 108 Cong. Rec. 17654, 17655, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, ruled as follows:
Several days ago on August 14 unanimous consent was obtained to
transfer the consideration of business under suspension of the
rules on Monday last until today. That does not prohibit the
consideration of a privileged motion and a motion to suspend the
rules today is a privileged motion. The matter is within the
discretion of the Chair as to the matter of recognition.
Sec. 23.6 The Speaker may not be compelled by a motion under Rule XXV
to recognize Members for scheduled ``special orders'' immediately
upon completion of scheduled legislative business, but rather may
continue to exercise his power of recognition under Rule XIV clause
2 to recognize other Members for unanimous-consent requests
[[Page 10130]]
and permissible motions; thus, the Speaker has declined to
recognize a Member who sought to invoke Rule XXV to interfere with
the Speaker's power of recognition.
Rule XXV, which provides that ``questions as to the priority of
business shall be decided by a majority without debate,'' merely
precludes debate on motions to go into Committee of the Whole, on
questions of consideration, and on appeals from the Chair's decisions
on priority of business, and should not be utilized to permit a motion
directing the Speaker to recognize Members in a certain order or to
otherwise establish an order of business. Thus, for example, on July
31, 1975,(9) the Speaker(10) refused to recognize
a Member who sought to make a motion to direct recognition of Members
for special orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 121 Cong. Rec. 26249, 26251, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
10. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Phillip Burton [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point
of order that a quorum is not present.
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I make a
point of order. . . .
Mr. Speaker, I would like to make the point of order to this
effect: Under the new rules of the House, is it not true that once
the House has proceeded to the closing business of the day,
granting requests for absences and special orders, that it is no
longer in order to make a point of order that a quorum is not
present?
The Speaker: The Chair has not started to recognize Members for
special orders yet. All the business on the Chair's desk has been
completed. . . .
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the
rules preclude a quorum at this point because personal requests
have already been read from the desk. A leave of absence was
granted to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Teague).
Under the new rules, Mr. Speaker, a quorum does not lie after
this point of business in the day.
The Speaker: If the Chair understands the gentleman's point of
order, it relates to the fact, which is a new rule, not the rule we
used to follow. The rule is that once a special order has started,
the Member who has the special order and is speaking cannot be
taken off his feet by a point of order of no quorum. However, there
is nothing in the rules of which the Chair is aware that requires
the Chair to begin to call a special order at any particular time.
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I move under rule XXV that the House
proceed to recognize the Members previously ordered to have special
orders today, and on that I ask for a rollcall vote.
Mr. [Michael T.] Blouin [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, I move that the
House do now adjourn.
The question was taken.
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, on that, I demand the yeas and nays.
[[Page 10131]]
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas
137, nays 202, not voting 95, as follows: . . .
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, under rule XXV, I again renew my
motion that the Chair proceed to the recognition of other Members
who have previously been granted special orders for today.
The Speaker: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California
(Mr. Danielson).
Mr. [George E.] Danielson [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise
and extend my remarks.
The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from California?
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, there is a motion pending.
Mr. Speaker, I object.
The Speaker: Objection is heard.
Mr. [Richard] Bolling [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I move that
the House do now adjourn.
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. [John J.] Rhodes [of Arizona]: Mr. Speaker, I demand the
yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas
142, nays 205, not voting 87, as follows: . . .
Dilatory Motions
Sec. 23.7 Dilatory motions are not entertained by the Chair, and the
determination of whether a motion is dilatory is within the Chair's
discretion.
On May 16, 1938,(11) Speaker Pro Tempore Sam Rayburn, of
Texas, stated in response to a parliamentary inquiry that the
determination whether a motion is dilatory is within the discretion of
the Chair:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 83 Cong. Rec. 6938, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John J.] Cochran [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I rise to
submit a parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Cochran: . . . My parliamentary inquiry is whether a point
of order would lie against the motion of a Member to strike out the
title when, as a matter of fact, the Member was not in favor of
striking out the title.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The present occupant of the Chair
would have no way of reading a Member's mind or questioning his
motives with reference to any amendment that he might offer. The
Chair thinks that any Member who gained the floor to offer any
permissible amendment would be in order and he would be entitled to
the floor.
Mr. Cochran: It was certainly a violation of the spirit of the
rule when one offers an amendment to strike out a title and then in
the first sentence after recognition says that he is not going to
insist upon his motion and consumes 5 minutes that should be
allowed in opposition to the title.
[[Page 10132]]
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The rule interpreted otherwise would
make it pretty hard on the occupant of the chair.
Mr. [Cassius C.] Dowell [of Iowa]: Where it becomes apparent to
the Chair that a motion is made for the purpose of delay, then a
point of order may be made and would be sustained, would it not?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The present occupant of the chair
understands that the determination of whether a motion is dilatory
is entirely within the discretion of the Chair.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Rule XVI clause 10, House Rules and Manual Sec. 803 (1995) provides
``No dilatory motion shall be entertained by the Speaker.''
Dilatory motions are expressly forbidden during
consideration of reports from the Committee on Rules (Rule XI
clause 4(b), House Rules and Manual Sec. 729(a) [1995]).
For an occasion where a motion to recommit was held
dilatory under the ``twenty-one day rule'' in effect in the
89th Congress, see 111 Cong. Rec. 18087, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.,
July 26, 1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 23.8 The Speaker recognized a Member to move to adjourn
notwithstanding a point of order that such motion was dilatory, and
referred to
the heavy responsibilities involved in holding a motion dilatory.
On June 5, 1946,(13) there was a series of quorum calls
and motions to adjourn, to delay reaching the Committee on Labor on
Calendar Wednesday which intended to call up the federal employment
practices bill. When a further point of no quorum was made, Mr. Dan R.
McGehee, of Mississippi, made the point of order that the point of no
quorum was dilatory. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, overruled the point
of order, stating that a ``point of no quorum is a question of very
high privilege.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 92 Cong. Rec. 6352-56, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After the yeas and nays had been had on a motion to dispense with
further proceedings under a call of the House, Mr. L. Mendel Rivers, of
South Carolina, moved that the House adjourn. Mr. Christian A. Herter,
of Massachusetts, made a point of order against the motion on the
ground the motion was dilatory. Due to the importance of the pending
ruling by the Speaker, a call of the House ensued.
After debate on the Speaker's power to hold motions dilatory, the
Speaker ruled as follows:
. . . One of the greatest responsibilities any occupant of the
Chair could assume would be to hold that motions are dilatory.
However, that is not to say that the present occupant of the Chair
will not, under certain circumstances, hold motions to be dilatory.
In the weeks to come and for the remainder of this day the Chair
will scrutinize very carefully motions that are made.
[[Page 10133]]
The Chair is going to put the motion to adjourn.
The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from
South Carolina [Mr. Rivers].
Sec. 23.9 The Speaker, on a Calendar Wednesday, recognized the chairman
of a committee to call up a bill in spite of repeated motions to
adjourn, thereby inferentially holding such motions dilatory.
On Feb. 15, 1950,(14) which was Calendar Wednesday,
Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, directed the Clerk to call the roll of
committees and recognized the chairman of the Committee on the District
of Columbia to call up a bill, ignoring repeated motions to adjourn (in
effect holding them dilatory):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 96 Cong. Rec. 1811, 1812, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: The Clerk will call the committees.
The Clerk called the Committee on the District of Columbia.
Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The Chair does not yield to the gentleman for a
parliamentary inquiry at this time.
Mr. [Howard W.] Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, I move that the
House do now adjourn.
The Speaker: The Clerk has called the Committee on the District
of Columbia. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina
[Mr. McMillan].
Mr. Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do
now adjourn. That motion is always in order.
The Speaker: The Chair has recognized the gentleman from South
Carolina [Mr. McMillan].
Mr. [William M.] Colmer [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I offer
a preferential motion.
The Speaker: The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. McMillan]
has been recognized.
Mr. Colmer: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
The Speaker: The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. McMillan]
has been recognized.
Sec. 23.10 A motion that the House adjourn will not be regarded as
dilatory merely because the House has rejected such a motion an
hour previously.
On Feb. 22, 1950,(15) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas,
overruled a point of order that a motion to adjourn was dilatory:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 96 Cong. Rec. 2161, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Sikes] moves that
the House do now adjourn.
Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a point of
order on the motion.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
[[Page 10134]]
Mr. Marcantonio: Mr. Speaker, I submit the motion to adjourn is
dilatory. While I recognize that intervening business has been
transacted, such as voting on the motion to dispense with Calendar
Wednesday business, it seems to me that the House had expressed its
will on this matter about an hour ago and the House refused to
adjourn. I think it is obvious to the Speaker that the House has
refused to adjourn and the motion, therefore, is dilatory.
The Speaker: The Chair has already entertained the motion. The
question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Florida.
Sec. 23.11 The Chair overruled the point of order that a motion to
strike out the enacting clause of a bill was dilatory where the
Member offering the motion stated he was opposed to the bill ``in
its present form.''
On Mar. 30, 1950,(16) Chairman Oren Harris, of Arkansas,
overruled a point of order that a motion was dilatory:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 96 Cong. Rec. 4424, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [James G.] Fulton [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I offer
a preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Fulton moves that the Committee do now rise and that
the bill be reported to the House with the enacting clause
stricken.
Mr. [Frank B.] Keefe [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, a point of
order.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Keefe: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order against the
preferential motion that it is dilatory. The gentleman from
Pennsylvania is not opposed to this bill and is not in good faith
asking that the enacting clause be stricken out; he is advocating
this bill vehemently and is simply taking this means to get 5
minutes time when many others of us have been waiting for 2 days
trying to get time, but in vain.
The Chairman: The Chair would like to inquire of the gentleman
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fulton] if he is opposed to the bill?
Mr. Fulton: In its present form I would be opposed to it.
The Chairman: The Chair must accept the statement of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania.
The Chair overrules the point of order and recognizes the
gentleman from Pennsylvania in support of his preferential
motion.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. See also 95 Cong. Rec. 5531, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., May 3, 1949 (a
second motion that the committee rise and report back the bill
with the
recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken held not
dilatory, where the first such motion was withdrawn).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 23.12 The Speaker announced that he would not hold a motion to be
dilatory unless it was ``obvious to everybody'' that dilatory
tactics were being used.
On July 25, 1949,(18) the House was considering House
Resolution
[[Page 10135]]
276, making in order the consideration of H.R. 3199, the Federal Anti-
Poll Tax Act. A series of roll calls intervened to prevent or delay the
question being put on its adoption. After the previous question had
been ordered on the resolution, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas,
entertained a motion by Mr. Robert L. F. Sikes, of Florida, that the
House adjourn. The Speaker then made the following statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 95 Cong. Rec. 10095-97, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair desires to make a statement. Since the present
Speaker has occupied the chair he has yet to hold a motion to be
dilatory, and will not until it becomes obvious to everybody that
dilatory tactics are being indulged in and that a filibuster is
being conducted.
Motions Relating to Quorum
Sec. 23.13 Where a motion that the House resolve into Committee of the
Whole had been offered, and pending that motion a unanimous-consent
request to limit general debate had been made, the Chair declined
to entertain a point of order of no quorum, being proscribed by
Rule XV clause 6(e) from recognition for that purpose until the
pending question had been put to a vote (notwithstanding precedents
to the contrary established prior to adoption of that rule).
During consideration of the District of Columbia appropriation bill
for fiscal year 1978 (H.R. 9005) in the House on Sept. 16,
1977,(19) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 123 Cong. Rec. 29601, 29602, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [William H.] Natcher [of Kentucky]: Madam Speaker, I move
that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R.
9005) making appropriations for the government of the District of
Columbia and other activities chargeable in whole or in part
against the revenues of said District for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 1978, and for other purposes, and pending that
motion, Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that general debate
on the bill be limited to 1 hour, the time to be equally divided
and controlled by the gentleman from California (Mr. Burgener) and
myself.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (20) Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Kentucky?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Barbara Jordan (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Reserving the right to
object, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is about to put the
question, and the Chair has not yet put the question on the motion.
Therefore, the point of order is out of order at this time.
Mr. Bauman: Madam Speaker, Cannon's Precedents, volume VI,
section 665, indicates that following a motion
[[Page 10136]]
to resolve into the Committee of the Whole, and pending a request
for unanimous consent to fix control of the time for debate, a
point of no quorum may be raised, and no business is in order until
the presence of a quorum is ascertained.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would cite to the gentleman
from Maryland the new rule, clause 6(e) of rule XV of the 95th
Congress, that it shall not be in order to make or entertain a
point of order that a quorum is not present unless the Speaker has
put the pending motion or proposition to a vote. It is the ruling
of the Chair, then, that the point of order is not in order at this
time, inasmuch as the Chair has not put the question on the motion
to resolve into Committee of the Whole.
Is there objection to the unanimous-consent request of the
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Natcher)?
There was no objection.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the motion offered
by the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Natcher). . . .
[The] motion was agreed to. . . .
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of
the bill H.R. 9005, with Mr. Fuqua in the chair.
Sec. 23.14 A point of order in the House that a quorum is not present
only lies when the Speaker has put the pending proposition or
motion to a vote, although the Speaker may recognize for a motion
for a call of the House at any time within his discretion.
On Apr. 20, 1978,(1) Speaker Pro Tempore James C.
Wright, Jr., of Texas, responded to a parliamentary inquiry regarding a
point of order that a quorum was not present. The proceedings were as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 124 Cong. Rec. 10990, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Richard L.] Ottinger [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Ottinger: Mr. Speaker, it does not appear that there is a
quorum on the floor of the House. Does a point of order lie at this
time on that fact?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Not until the Chair puts the question
on the motion to be offered by the gentleman from California (Mr.
Danielson). At that point, it would be in order, under the rules.
The Chair is not going to recognize anybody prior to that motion.
The Chair is going to recognize the gentleman from California
(Mr. Danielson). If anyone wants to object to the vote on the
ground that a quorum is not present, that would indeed be in order.
Sec. 23.15 While a point of order of no quorum is not in order during
debate in the House when the Speaker has not put a pending question
to a vote, the Speaker retains the
[[Page 10137]]
right to recognize any Member to move a call of the House, in his
discretion un-der Rule XV, clause 6.
On Mar. 30, 1977,(2) a resolution (H. Res. 445)
providing for the consideration in the House as in the Committee of the
Whole of another resolution (H. Res. 433, providing for the
continuation of the Select Committee on Assassinations) was called up
for immediate consideration following which a point of no quorum was
made. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 123 Cong. Rec. 9554, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Richard] Bolling [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, by direction
of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 445 and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution as follows:
H. Res. 445
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider the resolution (H. Res. 433) to
provide for the continuation of the Select Committee on
Assassinations, in the House as in the Committee of the Whole.
The Speaker: (3) The gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Bolling) is recognized for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [J. J.] Pickle [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of
order that a quorum is not present. I move a call of the House.
The Speaker: The gentleman's point of order is not in order at
this particular time.
Mr. Pickle: Mr. Speaker, I renew my point of order that a
quorum is not present.
The Speaker: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri
(Mr. Bolling) to move a call of the House.
Motion To Suspend the Rules
Sec. 23.16 If recognized for that purpose, a Member may move to suspend
the rules and pass a bill with amendments and the fact that the
amendments have not been considered or adopted by a committee does
not prevent their consideration.
On Apr. 8, 1975,(4) during consideration in the House of
the Older Americans Act (H.R. 3922), Speaker Pro Tempore John J.
McFall, of California, responded to a parliamentary inquiry as
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 121 Cong. Rec. 9203, 9204, 9213, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John] Brademas [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend
the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3922) to amend the Older
Americans Act of 1965 to extend the authorizations of
appropriations contained in such act, and for other purposes, as
amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the
[[Page 10138]]
United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act
may be cited as the ``Older Americans Amendments of 1975''.
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry. . . .
Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman from Indiana, representing the
Committee on Education and Labor, have the right to offer so-called
committee amendments that have been discussed with only a few
members but never formally acted upon by the Committee on Education
and Labor, since this bill is being offered under suspension of the
rules?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state, in answer to the
parliamentary inquiry, that the gentleman has moved to suspend the
rules and pass the bill in the form in which the bill was sent to
the desk. So the answer to the gentleman's inquiry is: Yes, the
motion is in order in the form in which it has been sent to the
desk, with the amendments therein.
Sec. 23.17 Recognition for a motion to suspend the rules is within the
discretion of the Speaker and the previously announced scheduling
of a House bill under suspension does not preclude the
consideration of a similar Senate bill in lieu thereof if
recognition is granted by the
Speaker.
On Mar. 16, 1964,(5) Mr. Chet Holifield, of California,
moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill S. 2448, to amend the
Atomic Energy Act. He moved to pass that bill instead of H.R. 9711,
which had been scheduled for
consideration under suspension of the rules and which dealt with the
same subject matter. In response to a parliamentary inquiry, Speaker
John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, stated that recognition to suspend
the rules was within the discretion of the Speaker:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 110 Cong. Rec. 5291, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John P.] Saylor [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state the parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. Saylor: Mr. Speaker, the House Calendar lists a bill to
come up under suspension and it is a House bill. Does it not
require unanimous consent to suspend the rules and take up a Senate
bill?
The Speaker: The Chair will advise the gentleman from
Pennsylvania, under the rules of the House, the Speaker may
recognize a Member on a motion to suspend the rules.
Is a second demanded?
Mr. [Craig] Hosmer [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a
second.
The Speaker: Without objection, a second will be considered as
ordered.
There was no objection.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. See also 80 Cong. Rec. 2239, 2240, 74th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 17,
1936.
The Committee on Rules has reported and the House has
adopted resolutions authorizing the Speaker to recognize
Members for motions to suspend the rules on days other than
suspension calendar days. See, for example, H. Res. 422, 107
Cong. Rec. 16562, 16563, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 21, 1961.
For detailed treatment of recognition to move to suspend
the rules, see Ch. 21, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 10139]]
Sec. 23.18 Pursuant to Rule XXVII clause 1, the Speaker may in his
discretion decline to recognize a Member to move to suspend the
rules.
On Mar. 5, 1974,(7) a Member of the minority party
attempted to gain recognition for a motion to suspend the rules:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 120 Cong. Rec. 5316, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
REQUEST TO SUSPEND RULES AND CONSIDER HOUSE RESOLUTION 807
Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, I move that the rules
be suspended and the House proceed to the consideration of the
resolution, House Resolution 807, disapproving pay increases.
The Speaker: (8) The Chair will state that the
gentleman from Iowa has not consulted the Chair and the Chair is
not going to recognize the gentleman from Iowa for that purpose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair would like to state further that the request of the
gentleman from Iowa violates the ``Gross'' rule whereby he has
requested that notification of suspensions be given 24 hours in
advance.
Mr. Gross: What kind of a rule is that?
The Speaker: The Gross rule.
Sec. 23.19 In recognizing a Member to demand a second on a motion to
suspend the rules (under a former rule), the Speaker gave
preference to
a member of the reporting committee who was opposed to the bill
over another Member of the same party.
On Feb. 20, 1967,(9) Speaker John W. McCormack, of
Massachusetts, ruled as follows, on recognition to demand a second on
the motion to suspend the rules and pass a bill (H.R. 2) reported from
the Committee on Armed Services:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 113 Cong. Rec. 3829, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: Is a second demanded?
Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a
second.
The Speaker: For what reason does the gentleman from Michigan
[Mr. Nedzi], a member of the committee, stand?
Mr. [Lucien N.] Nedzi: Mr. Speaker, I demand a second.
Mr. Yates: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. Yates: The distinguished gentleman from Michigan is my good
friend. Is it in order to inquire as to
[[Page 10140]]
whether the gentleman from Michigan is opposed to the bill?
Mr. Nedzi: I will allay the gentleman's fears. He is.
Mr. Yates: I will withdraw.
The Speaker: The Chair had not reached that point yet. The
Chair would have asked that question.
Is the gentleman from Michigan opposed to the bill?
Mr. Nedzi: I am, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: The gentleman qualifies. Without objection, a
second will be considered as ordered.
After the expiration of the 20 minutes of debate in favor of the
motion, the Speaker then recognized Mr. Nedzi to control the 20 minutes
against the motion.
Parliamentarian's Note: The Member demanding a second on the motion
to suspend the rules was entitled to recognition for debate against the
motion.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See 105 Cong. Rec. 17600, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 1, 1959.
For an occasion where the debate in opposition to the
motion, allotted to the Member demanding the second, was
transferred to another by unanimous consent, see Sec. 25.24,
infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prior to the 102d Congress, certain motions to suspend the rules
were required to be seconded, if demanded, by a majority by tellers,
but this requirement was eliminated from Rule XXVII in the 102d
Congress (see H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1991).
Sec. 23.20 Under clause 2 of Rule XXVII,(11) a Member
opposed to a motion to suspend the rules is entitled to control 20
minutes of debate in opposition to the motion; ordinarily, the
ranking minority member of the reporting committee controls the 20
minutes of debate unless he is challenged at the time the
allocation is made and does not qualify as being opposed to the
motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. House Rules and Manual Sec. 907 (1995). The provision providing for
forty minutes of debate on a motion to suspend the rules was
formerly contained in clause 3. Former clause 2 of Rule XXVII,
requiring certain motions to suspend the rules to be seconded
by a majority of tellers if demand was made, was repealed by H.
Res. 5, 102d Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 3, 1991.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During consideration of the Equal Access Act (H.R. 5345) in the
House on May 15, 1984,(12) the following proceedings
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 130 Cong. Rec. 12214, 12215, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Carl D.] Perkins [of Kentucky]: Mr. Speaker, I move to
suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5345) to provide that no
Federal educational funds may be obligated or expended to any State
or local educational agency which discriminates against any
meetings of students in public secondary schools who wish to meet
voluntarily for religious purposes.
[[Page 10141]]
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 5345
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this
Act may be cited as the ``Equal Access Act''. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (13) . . . The gentleman
from Kentucky (Mr. Perkins) will be recognized for 20 minutes and
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. William F. Goodling, ranking
minority member of Committee on Education and Labor] will be
recognized for 20 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Wyche Fowler, Jr. (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Perkins).
Mr. Perkins: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes. . . .
Mr. [Hamilton] Fish [Jr., of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Fish: Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to this bill. Do I have a
right to the full 20 minutes on our side?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will advise the gentleman
from New York that his objection is not timely. The gentleman is
too late. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) controls
the time.
Mr. [Gary L.] Ackerman [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, does the
gentleman from Pennsylvania oppose this bill? . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that any
gentleman had the opportunity at the appropriate time to make the
appropriate challenge. The Chair has ruled that the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) controls the time and is recognized for
20 minutes.
Sec. 23.21 To control the time in opposition to a motion to suspend the
rules and pass a bill, the Speaker recognizes a minority Member who
is opposed to the bill, and if no minority member of the reporting
committee qualifies to control the time in opposition, a minority
Member who is opposed may be recognized.
The following proceedings occurred in the House on May 4,
1981,(14) during consideration of the Cash Discount Act
(H.R. 3132):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 127 Cong. Rec. 8323, 8324, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Frank] Annunzio [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I move to
suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3132) to amend the Truth
in Lending Act to encourage cash discounts, and for other purposes.
. . .
The Speaker: (15) . . . The gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Annunzio) will be recognized for 20 minutes, and the gentleman
from Delaware (Mr. Evans) will be recognized for 20 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
[[Page 10142]]
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Walker: May I inquire, Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman from
Delaware (Mr. Evans) opposed to the bill?
The Speaker: Is the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Evans) opposed
to the bill?
Mr. [Thomas B.] Evans [Jr.] of Delaware: No; Mr. Speaker, I am
not opposed to the bill.
The Speaker: Is the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Walker)
opposed to the bill?
Mr. Walker: Yes; Mr. Speaker, I am.
The Speaker: The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Walker) is
entitled to the time that the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Evans)
would have had.
So the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Annunzio) will be
recognized for 20 minutes, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Walker) will be recognized for 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Annunzio).
Parliamentarian's Note: Representative Barney Frank, of
Massachusetts, a majority party member of the Banking Committee,
desired recognition to control the time in opposition, but a minority
Member opposed is entitled to recognition over a majority Member even
if on the committee.
Sec. 23.22 The Speaker accorded priority of recognition to demand a
second on a motion to suspend the rules (under a former rule) to a
minority member of the committee reporting the bill who qualified
as being opposed to the motion.
On Sept. 20, 1976,(16) during consideration of H.R.
14319 (the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Act) in the House, the
following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 122 Cong. Rec. 31328, 31333, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
All three Members demanding a second were minority Members,
with Mr. Carter ranking on the committee reporting the bill,
Mr. Broyhill junior on that committee, and Mr. Symms not on the
committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Harley O.] Staggers [of West Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I
move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 14319) to amend
the Public Health Service Act and the Social Security Act to revise
and improve the authorities under those acts for the regulation of
clinical laboratories, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
short title
Section 1. This Act may be cited
as the ``Clinical Laboratory Improvement Act of 1976''. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (17) Is a second demanded?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. John J. McFall (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Steven D.] Symms [of Idaho]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a
second.
Mr. [Tim Lee] Carter [of Kentucky]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a
second.
[[Page 10143]]
Mr. [James T.] Broyhill [of North Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, I
demand a second.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is each of the gentlemen who request a
second opposed to the bill?
Mr. Symms: I am opposed to the bill, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Broyhill: I am opposed to the bill, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Carter: Mr. Speaker, so am I, in its present form.
Mr. Symms: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. Symms: Mr. Speaker, did the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr.
Carter) say that he is opposed to the bill?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that the
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Carter) did say he is opposed to the
bill, in its present form.
Mr. Carter: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my demand for a second.
Mr. Broyhill: Mr. Speaker, I demand a second.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is the gentleman from North Carolina
opposed to the bill?
Mr. Broyhill: I am, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Without objection, a second will be
considered as ordered.
There was no objection.
Parliamentarian's Note: Prior to the 102d Congress, certain motions
to suspend the rules were required to be seconded, if demanded, by a
majority by tellers, but this requirement was eliminated from Rule
XXVII in the 102d Congress (see H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1991).
Motion To Discharge--Who May Move
Sec. 23.23 The Speaker may recognize any Member who signed a motion to
discharge to call up that motion, and points of order as to who
shall control the bill if the motion is agreed to should be made
when the question of consideration of the bill in the Committee of
the Whole is moved.
On Oct. 12, 1942,(18) Mr. Joseph A. Gavagan, of New
York, who had signed a petition to discharge a bill from committee,
moved the discharge of the bill and was recognized by Speaker Sam
Rayburn, of Texas, for 10 minutes on the motion. Mr. Sam Hobbs, of
Alabama, made a point of order against the motion--partly on the ground
that Mr. Gavagan did not have the authority to call up the motion to
discharge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 88 Cong. Rec. 8066, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker ruled:
The rule states that the Chair may recognize any Member who
signed the petition to make the motion just made
[[Page 10144]]
by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gavagan], whom the Chair has
recognized for that purpose.
Parliamentarian's Note: Recognition in opposition to the motion to
discharge is extended to members of the committee sought to be
discharged in the order of rank.(19) The proponents of a
successful motion to discharge are entitled to prior recognition to
debate the discharged bill.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See 80 Cong. Rec. 336, 337, 74th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 13, 1936.
20. See 75 Cong. Rec. 12911, 72d Cong. 1st Sess., June 14, 1932. For a
complete discussion of recognition for the motion to discharge,
see Ch. 18, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motion To Postpone
Sec. 23.24 A motion to postpone consideration of a measure being
considered in the House is in order after the measure is under
consideration but before the manager has been recognized to
control debate thereon (the measure being ``under debate'' within
the meaning of clause 4, Rule XVI, and the Member in charge not
being taken from the floor).
On May 30, 1980,(1) during consideration of House Joint
Resolution 554 (supplemental Federal Trade Commission appropriation for
fiscal year 1980) in the
House, the following proceedings
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 126 Cong. Rec. 12821, 12822, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to the rule adopted a few moments ago, I call up the joint
resolution (H.J. Res. 554) making an appropriation for the Federal
Trade Commission for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1980, for
consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the joint resolution, as follows:
H.J. Res. 554
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
following sum is appropriated . . . for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 1980. . . .
Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Ashbrook moves to postpone further consideration of
House Joint Resolution 554 until June 10, 1980.
Mr. Whitten: Mr. Speaker, I move that the motion offered by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ashbrook) be laid on the table.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (2) The question is on the
motion to table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Michael L. Synar (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced
that the ayes appeared to have it. . . .
[T]he motion to table the motion to postpone consideration was
agreed to.
Parliamentarian's Note: Under clause 4, Rule XVI, all the mo
[[Page 10145]]
tions except the motion to amend may be made in the House after
consideration of a measure has begun and before the Member in charge
has control of the floor. An amendment may not be offered until the
Member in charge yields the floor for that purpose or the previous
question is voted down.
Motion To Reconsider
Sec. 23.25 A motion to reconsider must be offered by a Member who voted
on the prevailing side of the question to be reconsidered.
During consideration of House Resolution 660 (in the matter
of Representative Charles H. Wilson) in the House on May 29,
1980,(3) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 126 Cong. Rec. 12663, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Allen E.] Ertel [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I was in
the House when the previous speaker . . . evidently brought in
material which was not in the record before the committee, which in
my judgment means there has been surprise to the defense in this
case in the fact that the gentleman brought up evidence, which is a
document from the State of California.
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me in fairness we are required to give
the defendant or the accused in this case, whatever we want to call
him, an opportunity to rebut that because, in fact, he did not have
the opportunity of cross-examination and to see the document. We do
not know the authenticity of that document.
Now, the defendant is faced with that fact. It seems to me in
fairness we ought to continue these proceedings until he has an
opportunity to examine the document and give him an opportunity to
answer it in detail.
I would ask the Chair, is there any procedure where I can make
a motion so that we can handle this in a fair and expeditious
manner and give him the opportunity to respond to that
and to get the evidence from California? . . .
The Speaker: (4) The only motion available that the
Chair would know of, unless the gentleman from Florida would yield,
would be the motion for reconsideration, if the gentleman voted on
the prevailing side of the motion of the gentleman from California
(Mr. Rousselot). That was a motion to postpone to a day certain,
which was defeated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Ertel: Mr. Speaker, I did vote on the prevailing side not
to postpone. I would not have voted not to postpone, except for
this what I consider to be a very unfair procedure.
I would make that motion, if I could get unanimous consent. I
would request that.
Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote to postpone.
The Speaker: The gentleman moves to reconsider the vote on the
motion to postpone.
Motion To Resolve Into Committee of the Whole
Sec. 23.26 Motions that the House resolve into the Committee
[[Page 10146]]
of the Whole for initial or further consideration of separate bills
pursuant to separate special orders adopted by the House are of
equal privilege, and the Speaker may exercise his discretionary
power of recognition as to which bill shall be next
eligible for consideration.
Where the Committee of the Whole had risen following completion of
general debate but prior to reading of a bill for amendment under the
five-minute rule, the Speaker Pro Tempore indicated in response to
parliamentary inquiries that he would exercise his power of recognition
to permit consideration of another bill, rather than return to the bill
under the five-minute rule. The proceedings of Sept. 22,
1982,(5) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 128 Cong. Rec. 24690, 24691, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Walter B.] Jones of North Carolina: . . . I make a motion
that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore
(Mr. Bennett) having assumed the chair, Mr. Simon, Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R.
5543) to establish an ocean and coastal resources management and
development fund and to require the Secretary of Commerce to
provide to coastal States national ocean and resources management
and development block grants from sums in the fund, had come to no
resolution thereon.
Mr. Jones of North Carolina: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry. . . .
Was it not proper that the bill should have been read for
amendments while we were sitting at the Committee of the Whole?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (6) The Committee has risen
now, and the Chair does not know of any way of automatically going
back at this point to do that. If the Committee of the Whole had
proceeded to consider the bill for amendment, it would have
conflicted with a determination made by the leadership as to the
legislative schedule, so the House should not resume consideration
of the bill anyway at this point. In other words, the leadership
had indicated that we would have general debate only today. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Charles E. Bennett (Fla.).
See Rule XXIII, clause 2 (adopted in the 98th Cong. 1st
Sess., Jan. 3, 1983) for the process whereby the Speaker
declares the House in Committee of the Whole pursuant to the
terms of a special order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Jones of North Carolina: . . . Would I have the privilege
as the Chairman of this committee to move that the House resolve
itself into the Committee once again?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair's understanding is that the
leadership does not want to entertain that motion, which would
conflict with the legislative schedule.
[[Page 10147]]
Somebody has sent for the gentleman from California (Mr.
Waxman), who will make a motion of equal privilege, to arrive, and
he is undoubtedly on his way. The Chair would be glad to respond to
any further conversation that the gentleman would want to have on
this subject which would be in order, until the gentleman arrives.
Mr. [Joel] Pritchard [of Washington]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
Is it the ruling of the Chair that we cannot by unanimous
consent go back into the Committee?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is following the wishes of
the leadership and, therefore, would not recognize any Member for
the purpose of moving that the House resolve itself into the
Committee of the Whole for further consideration of the bill at
this time.
What the gentleman might do, he might contact the Speaker,
perhaps after the next matter is taken care of. But it should not
be done at this point without the consent of the Speaker.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) has now arrived, and
he is recognized.
Mr. [Henry A.] Waxman [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I move that
the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R.
6173) to amend the Public Health Service Act . . . .
Sec. 23.27 Recognition is first accorded the manager of a bill to move
that consideration of a bill be resumed in Committee of the Whole.
The Committee of the Whole having risen and reported to the House
that it had come to no conclusion on the bill (7) under
consideration therein, the Chair stated in response to parliamentary
inquiries that the bill remained pending in the Committee of the Whole
and that its consideration could be resumed when the manager of the
bill moved to resolve into the Committee of the Whole for its further
consideration, at a time to be determined by the leadership and the
House when the House was in session. The proceedings of Nov. 3,
1977,(8) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. H.R. 9179, a bill to amend the Foreign Assistance Act with respect
to the Overseas Private Investment Corporation.
8. 123 Cong. Rec. 36918, 36919, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Leo J.] Ryan [of California]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary
inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (9) The gentleman will
state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Ryan: Mr. Speaker, I inquire, along with the gentleman from
Connecticut, with regard to the status of [H.R. 9179]. We spent
several hours yesterday and today on this legislation, and the
purpose of my parliamentary inquiry is to find out where the bill
stands and when and if at any time it will be brought up again. We
ought to have a chance to bring this bill to the vote today. We are
just about to ad
[[Page 10148]]
journ and we will come back on the 29th and for a couple of days
then. Will there be the opportunity then for the leadership to
bring this up again?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would like to advise the
gentleman from California that when a motion is made to go back
into the Committee of the Whole, for further consideration of H.R.
9179, further action on that bill would take place. . . .
As the gentleman from California well knows, by previous order
of the House the House will recess at 2:15 today. Following the
recess, after 3 o'clock a motion to resolve into the Committee of
the Whole would be in order. That would be after the recess takes
place.
Mr. Ryan: In the event it does not take place today, is it
possible to take that legislation up tomorrow?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: That would be a matter to be
determined by the leadership and by the House.
Mr. Ryan: And under the rules already adopted by this House for
recess purposes, would it be possible to take that bill up during
the time we are scheduled to come back, after the 29th of November?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Following the recess, is that what the
gentleman has in mind?
Mr. Ryan: Yes.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair could recognize the manager
of the bill for that purpose.
Motions in Committee of the Whole: Motion To Limit Debate
Sec. 23.28 While it is customary for the Chair to recognize the manager
of the pending bill to offer motions to
limit debate, any Member
may, pursuant to Rule XXIII clause 6, move to limit debate at the
appropriate time in Committee of the Whole.
The following proceedings occurred in the House on July 31, 1975:
(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 121 Cong. Rec. 26223, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: (11) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hays of Ohio: Would it be in order for a person not a
member of the committee to move to close debate on whatever pending
amendment there might be, and all amendments thereto, to this bill
when we go into the Committee of the Whole?
The Speaker: It is the practice and custom of the House that
the Chair looks to the manager of the bill for motions relating to
the management of the bill.
Mr. Hays of Ohio: If I made the motion--and I will make it more
specific--would it be out of order or in violation of the rules?
The Speaker: A proper motion could be entertained at the proper
time.
Mr. Hays of Ohio: I am prepared to make such a motion and I
will seek the proper time.
Order of Amendments
Sec. 23.29 When a general appropriation bill has been read,
[[Page 10149]]
or considered as read, for amendment in its entirety, the Chair
(after entertaining points of order) first entertains amendments
which are not prohibited by clause 2(c) of Rule XXI, and then
recognizes for amendments proposing limitations not contained or
authorized in existing law pursuant to clause 2(d) of Rule XXI,
subject to the preferential motion that the Committee of the Whole
rise and report the bill to
the House with such amendments as may have been agreed to.
The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on
Oct. 27, 1983,(12) during consideration of H.R. 4139
(Department of Treasury and Postal Service appropriations for fiscal
1984):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 129 Cong. Rec. 29630, 29631, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Christopher H.] Smith of New Jersey: Mr. Chairman, I have
a parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: (13) The gentleman will state his
parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Philip R. Sharp (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Smith of New Jersey: Mr. Chairman, would it be in order at
this time to offer a change in the language that would not be
considered under the House rules to be legislating on an
appropriations bill?
The Chairman: The Chair will first entertain any amendment to
the bill which is not prohibited by clause
2(c), rule XXI, and will then entertain amendments proposing
limitations pursuant to clause 2(d), rule XXI.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
Mr. [Bruce A.] Morrison of Connecticut: Mr. Chairman, I reserve
a point of order against the amendment.
The Chairman: The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Smith of New Jersey: On page 49,
immediately after line 2, add the following new section:
``Sec. 618. No funds appropriated by this Act shall be
available to pay for an abortion, or the administrative
expenses in connection with
any health plan under the Federal
employees health benefit program which provides any benefits or
coverages for abortions. . . .
Mr. Morrison of Connecticut: Mr. Chairman, I would like to be
heard on my point of order. . . .
Mr. Chairman, my point of order is that this amendment
constitutes a limitation on an appropriation and cannot be
considered by the House prior to the consideration of a motion by
the Committee to rise.
The Chairman: The Chair must indicate to the gentleman that no
such preferential motion has yet been made.
The gentleman is correct that a motion that the Committee rise
and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have
been adopted takes precedence over an amendment proposing a
limitation.
Mr. Morrison of Connecticut: Mr. Chairman, then I move that the
committee do now rise. . . .
[[Page 10150]]
The Chairman: . . . It would be more appropriate if a motion to
rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as have
been adopted, pursuant to clause 2(d), rule XXI were offered
instead. . . .
Mr. [Edward R.] Roybal [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I move
that the Committee do now rise and report the bill back to the
House with sundry amendments, with the recommendation that the
amendments be agreed to and that bill, as amended, do pass.
[The motion was rejected.]
Mr. Smith of New Jersey: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Smith of New Jersey: On page 49,
immediately after line 2, add the following new section:
``Sec. 618. No funds appropriated by this Act shall be
available to pay for an abortion. . . .
Parliamentarian's Note: Mr. Smith was the only Member seeking
recognition to offer a limitation after the preferential motion was
rejected and could have been preempted by a member of the
Appropriations Committee or a more senior member offering an amendment
since principles governing priority of recognition would remain
applicable. A Member who has attempted to offer a limitation before the
motion to rise and report is rejected is not guaranteed first
recognition for a limitation amendment.
Motion To Rise
Sec. 23.30 The motion that the Committee of the Whole rise is
privileged and may be offered during the pendency of a motion to
limit debate or immediately upon the adoption of that motion.
The proceedings of Oct. 7, 1974, are discussed in Sec. 23.31,
infra.
Motions Relating to Enacting Clause--May Be Offered While Motion To
Close or Limit Debate Pending
Sec. 23.31 The preferential motion under Rule XXIII, clause 7, that the
Committee of the Whole rise with the recommendation that the
enacting or resolving clause
be stricken may be offered while the motion to limit debate is
pending.
On Oct. 7, 1974,(14) the following proceedings occurred
in the Committee of the Whole during consideration of House Resolution
988 (to reform the structure, jurisdiction, and procedures of House
committees):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 120 Cong. Rec. 34170, 34171, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Richard] Bolling [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I move that
all debate on the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered
by the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. Hansen), and all
amendments thereto, conclude in 5 hours.
[[Page 10151]]
The Chairman: (15) The question is on the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. Bolling: Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote. . . .
[Several parliamentary inquiries ensued at this point.]
Mr. [David T.] Martin of Nebraska: Mr. Chairman, I offer a
preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Martin of Nebraska moves that the Committee rise and
report the resolution H. Res. 988 to the House with the
recommendation that the resolving clause be stricken out.
The Chairman: The Chair would like to ask the gentleman from
Nebraska, is the gentleman opposed to this resolution?
Mr. Martin of Nebraska: I am, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: The gentleman qualifies to make the motion.
The gentleman from Nebraska is recognized for 5 minutes in
support of his motion.
Mr. Bolling: Mr. Chairman, I wish to propound a parliamentary
inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. Bolling: Mr. Chairman, my understanding of the situation is
that the question that is now pending is on the motion that I made
to limit debate on the amendment in the nature of a substitute
offered by the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. Hansen) and all
amendments thereto.
My parliamentary inquiry is this: If that motion carries, my
intention is to move that the Committee then rise.
Mr. Chairman, is there anything unparliamentary in that?
The Chairman: The gentleman's motion in that event would be in
order.
Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a
preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Dingell moves the Committee do now rise.
The Chairman: The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).
[After rejection of the motion, the Chair put the question on
Mr. Martin's motion:]
The Chairman: The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Martin) to strike the resolving
clause.
[The preferential motion was rejected.]
Mr. [John H.] Dent [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I have a
parliamentary inquiry. . . .
[A]s I understand the motion, the motion is to limit the time
to 5 hours on the issue itself, the Hansen amendment and all
amendments thereto; is that true?
The Chairman: The Chair will now state the question.
The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Bolling) moves that debate on
the Hansen amendment in the nature of a substitute, and all
amendments thereto be limited to 5 hours. . . .
The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Bolling) that all debate on the amendment in the
nature of a substitute offered by the gentlewoman from Washington
(Mrs. Hansen), and all amend
[[Page 10152]]
ments thereto, be limited to 5 hours, on which a recorded vote has
been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
Parliamentarian's Note: While the provisions of clause 7 of Rule
XXIII, relating to the privileged status of a motion to strike the
enacting words, refer only to ``bills,'' the motion has been applied in
Committee of the Whole to a simple resolution, since it is the only
motion available to enable a test vote on whether to proceed with
consideration of a resolution during the five-minute rule in Committee
of the Whole, and since similar language in Rule XXIII, clause 6,
permitting motions to limit debate on ``bills'' has consistently been
construed to apply to simple resolutions being considered in Committee
of the Whole.
Sec. 23.32 The motion to strike or recommend striking the enacting
clause is preferential to the motion to close debate.
The proceedings of June 28, 1995,(16) demonstrate that
the motion to strike the enacting clause is preferential to the motion
to close debate. The Committee of the Whole had under consideration
H.R. 1868, the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related
Programs Appropriations Act of 1996:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 141 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Porter J.] Goss [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I move that
all debate on the Goss amendment and all amendments thereto close
immediately.
Mr. [Harold L.] Volkmer [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I have a
preferential motion at the desk.
The Chairman: The Clerk will report the preferential motion.
Mr. Volkmer moves that the Committee do now rise and report
the bill back to the House with recommendation that the
enacting clause be stricken.
Mr. Volkmer: Mr. Chairman, the attempt by the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Goss] to limit debate on this very important amendment
of the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] to the gentleman's
amendment, I do not think is appropriate at this time.
On July 13, 1995,(17) a motion to limit debate was made
during consideration of H.R. 1977, the Department of the Interior and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1996, followed by a motion to
recommend striking the enacting clause.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 141 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Ralph] Regula [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I move to limit
debate on title I and all amendments thereto to 90 minutes not
including vote time.
Mr. [David R.] Obey [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a
privileged mo
[[Page 10153]]
tion. I move that the Committee rise and report the bill back to
the House with a recommendation that the enacting clause be
stricken.
Mr. Chairman, what is at issue here, in my view, is whether or
not this House is going to be able to conduct the business at
reasonable times in public view or whether we are going to be
reduced to making virtually every major decision in subcommittees
and on the floor at near midnight, with minimal public attention
and minimal public understanding and minimum attention. . . .
Mr. Regula: Mr. Chairman, I oppose the motion.
I was not a party to the earlier negotiations. The gentleman
from Illinois [Mr. Yates] and I discussed a possible agreement here
that we would finish title I with time limits on the amendments
that remain. . . .
The Chairman: The question is on the preferential motion
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. Obey: Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes
162, noes 236, not voting 36, as follows: . . .
On one occasion, when a preferential motion to close debate was
before the Committee of the Whole, the Chair declined to recognize a
Member to offer another privileged motion until the pending motion had
been disposed of. On Mar. 26, 1965,(18) Adam C. Powell, of
New York, Chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor, offered the
privileged motion that all debate close on the pending title of H.R.
2362, the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, reported
by his committee. Chairman Richard Bolling, of Missouri, advised
Members that the motion to close debate was not debatable. Mrs. Edith
S. Green, of Oregon, then sought recognition to offer a preferential
motion. The Chairman ruled that since the preferential motion to close
debate was before the Committee of the Whole, no Member could be
recognized to offer another preferential motion until the pending
motion was disposed of.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 111 Cong. Rec. 6098, 6099, 89th Cong. 1st Sess. See Sec. 23.31,
supra, indicating that while a motion to limit debate is
pending, the preferential motion that the Committee of the
Whole rise with the recommendation that the enacting clause be
stricken may be offered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Qualification To Offer: Opposition to Bill
Sec. 23.33 To obtain recognition to offer a motion that the Committee
of the Whole rise and report a bill to the
[[Page 10154]]
House with the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken,
a Member, if challenged, must qualify by stating that he is opposed
to the bill.
On May 3, 1949,(19) Mr. Hale Boggs, of Louisiana,
offered the motion that the Committee of the Whole rise and report the
pending bill back to the House with the recommendation that the
enacting clause be stricken. Mr. Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of
Massachusetts, made the point of order that Mr. Boggs was not opposed
to the bill. Chairman Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, inquired of Mr. Boggs
whether he was opposed to the bill. When Mr. Boggs stated he was in
favor of the bill, the Chairman ruled he did not qualify for
recognition to offer the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 95 Cong. Rec. 5531, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 6, 1950,(20) Mr. Boggs offered the motion that
the Committee rise and report back the pending bill with the
recommendation the enacting clause be stricken. Mr. John Taber, of New
York, made the point of order that Mr. Boggs had not stated that he was
opposed to the bill. Chairman Cooper inquired whether Mr. Boggs
qualified and Mr. Boggs stated he was opposed to the bill, thereby
qualifying to offer the motion.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 96 Cong. Rec. 6571, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
1. In recognizing a Member in opposition to the motion, which is
debated five minutes for and five minutes against, the Chairman
extends priority to a member of the committee handling the bill
(see 96 Cong. Rec. 2597, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 1, 1950).
For detailed discussion of the motion that the Committee of the
Whole rise and report back the bill with the recommendation
that the enacting clause be stricken, see Sec. Sec. 77-79,
infra, and Ch. 19, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Two Members Recognized To Speak
Sec. 23.34 The Chair recognizes only two Members to speak on the
preferential motion that the Committee of the Whole rise and report
with the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken.
The principle described above was illustrated on Dec. 18,
1975,(2) in the Committee of the Whole during consideration
of the Airport and Airway Development Act Amendments of 1975 (H.R.
9771):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 121 Cong. Rec. 41799, 41800, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 10155]]
bill back to the House with the recommendation that the
enacting clause be stricken.
The Chairman: (3) The gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Conte) is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his
amendment. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
California (Mr. Anderson).
Mr. [Glenn M.] Anderson of California: Mr. Chairman, I rise in
opposition to the gentleman's motion and yield back the balance of
my time.
Mr. Anderson having used only a small portion of his time to speak
against the motion, Mr. Garry E. Brown, of Michigan, sought recognition
to speak against the motion. The Chair declined to recognize him, since
only two Members may be recognized to speak on the motion.
The Chairman: The question is on the preferential motion
offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Conte).
The preferential motion was rejected.
--Ten-minute Debate
Sec. 23.35 Only ten minutes of
debate, five for and five against, are permitted on a preferential
motion that the Committee of the Whole rise and report a bill to
the House with the recommendation that the enacting clause be
stricken.
During consideration of H.R. 12452 (the comprehensive employment
and training amendments of 1978) in the Committee
of the Whole on Aug. 9,
1978,(4) the following proceedings
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 124 Cong. Rec. 25248, 25249, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Ronald V.] Dellums [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer
a preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Dellums moves that the Committee do now rise and report
the bill back to the House with the recommendation that the
enacting clause be stricken out.
Mr. Dellums: Mr. Chairman, I do not seek this vehicle as a
parliamentary tactic. I make it with deadly seriousness. . . .
Mr. [Ronald A.] Sarasin [of Connecticut]: Mr. Chairman, I rise
in opposition to the preferential motion.
The Chairman: (5) The gentleman from Connecticut
(Mr. Sarasin) is recognized for 5 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Sarasin: Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
preferential motion offered by the gentleman from California (Mr.
Dellums). . . .
The Chairman: The question is on the preferential motion
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Dellums).
Mr. [Augustus F.] Hawkins [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I rise
in opposition to the preferential motion.
[[Page 10156]]
The Chairman: The Chair will state that all time for debate on
the preferential motion has expired.
The question is on the preferential motion offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Dellums).
The preferential motion was rejected.
Parliamentarian's Note: While Mr. Hawkins as manager of the bill
would have been recognized first in opposition to the motion if he had
sought recognition at the time Mr. Sarasin was recognized, he was not
entitled to recognition after Mr. Sarasin had concluded.
--Preferential Motion and Debate Thereon Where Debate Time Has Been
Limited
Sec. 23.36 A limitation of all debate time on a bill and all amendments
thereto to a time certain does not preclude the offering of a
preferential motion to rise with the recommendation that the
enacting clause be stricken, nor debate thereon during time
remaining under the limitation; and where the remaining time for
debate on
a bill and all amendments thereto is consumed by debate on a
preferential motion, an amendment pending when the preferential
motion was offered is voted on without further debate, if that
amendment was not printed in the Record.
On Oct. 6, 1981,(6) during consideration of H.R. 4560
(Labor, Health and Human Services appropriations for fiscal year 1982)
in the Committee of the Whole, the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 127 Cong. Rec. 23361, 23362, 23396, 23397, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [William H.] Natcher [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that all debate on the bill and all amendments
thereto conclude not later than 5 o'clock.
The Chairman: (7) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Kentucky?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Don Fuqua (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Theodore S.] Weiss [of New York]: . . . I wonder if the
distinguished gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Natcher) would not agree
that a 6 o'clock time frame would be more appropriate?
Mr. Natcher: Mr. Chairman, I would accept the recommendation,
and so move.
The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Kentucky? . . .
There was no objection.
The Chairman: The time will be limited to 6 o'clock. . . .
Mr. [Trent] Lott [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a
preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Lott moves that the Committee do now rise and report
the
[[Page 10157]]
bill back to the House with the
recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken out. . . .
Mr. Weiss: Mr. Chairman, at the time the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Natcher) requested unanimous consent that debate be
terminated at 6 o'clock, we were given assurances that all the
amendments that . . . any Member had to offer would be entertained.
So I now raise the point of order that in fact the gentleman is
proceeding out of the regular order that was agreed to.
The Chairman: The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Lott) has
offered a preferential motion which is in order and not precluded
by the unanimous-consent agreement, and under the unanimous-consent
agreement, the gentleman from Mississippi is recognized for 2\1/2\
minutes. . . .
Mr. Lott: Mr. Chairman, I take this time to make one brief
point. This bill is over budget, whether it be the President's
budget or the first concurrent resolution on the budget passed by
this House. This bill is over budget whether you look at outlays or
budget authority. . . .
The Chairman: The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Natcher) is
recognized for 2\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Natcher: . . . When we started debate on this bill, the
Members will recall that I said that at the proper time we would
offer an amendment
to take out of this bill $74 million
in budget authority. We offered the amendment, and the $74 million
was taken out. That put us in line with the section 302 target for
discretionary budget authority. . . .
The Chairman: All time has expired. The question is on the
preferential motion offered by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr.
Lott).
The preferential motion was rejected.
The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg).
Mr. [Joseph M.] Gaydos [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make
a point of order.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. Gaydos: Mr. Chairman, I am asking the Chair whether or not
I have 5 minutes to respond to the amendment as offered by the
gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg).
The Chairman: All time for debate on the bill and on the
pending amendment has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg). . . .
So the amendment was rejected.
Mr. [Donald J.] Pease [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Chairman: Is the gentleman's amendment printed in the
Record?
Mr. Pease: It is, Mr. Chairman. It is amendment No. 1.
[Mr. Pease was subsequently recognized to debate the
amendment.]
Parliamentarian's Note: During debate on the preferential motion,
there was discussion of a prospective motion to recommit. For
discussion of the distinction between a motion to recommit pending a
vote on a motion to strike the enacting clause, and the motion to
recommit pending final passage, see Sec. 15, supra.
[[Page 10158]]
Sec. 23.37 Debate on a preferential motion in Committee of the Whole to
strike the
enacting clause, and a vote
on that motion, takes precedence over remaining debate on a pending
amendment on which time has been limited and allocated; thus, where
a Member offers a preferential motion to strike the enacting clause
in order to obtain five minutes of debate on the pending amendment
on which debate has been limited and allocated, the Chair must put
the question on the preferential motion immediately after debate
thereon, unless unanimous consent is given to combine that debate
with time remaining under the allocation on the amendment.
The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on
June 25, 1986,(8) during consideration of H.R. 5052
(military construction appropriations for fiscal 1987):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 132 Cong. Rec. 15500-502, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [W. G.] Hefner [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment and all
amendments hereto end in 20 minutes.
The Chairman: (9) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from North Carolina?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. William J. Hughes (N.J.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
The Chairman: Members standing at the time the unanimous-
consent request was agreed to will be recognized for 2 minutes
each. . . .
Mr. [Ronald V.] Dellums [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I move
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 gentleman from California (Mr. Dellums) is
recognized for 5 minutes in support of his preferential motion.
Mr. Dellums: Mr. Chairman, I will not insist upon my motion
that the Committee do now rise. I simply use this extraordinary
tactic in order to gain some opportunity to speak on this terribly
important matter. I think that we ought to limit debate only on
issues that are noncontroversial. . . .
The Chairman: The time of the gentleman from California (Mr.
Dellums) has expired.
Mr. Dellums: Mr. Chairman, I still have 1 minute on the earlier
request.
The Chairman: The preferential
motion takes preference over the 1 minute.
Mr. Dellums: Mr. Chairman, I still have 1 minute after the
preferential motion is voted up or down; is that not correct, Mr.
Chairman.
The Chairman: The gentleman is correct. Does the gentleman
desire to take that now?
Mr. Dellums: That is my request, and then I would logically
conclude my discussion, Mr. Chairman, if I may.
[[Page 10159]]
The Chairman: Without objection, the gentleman may proceed for
1 additional minute, on the preferential motion, in lieu of his 1
minute allocated on the pending amendment.
There was no objection.
--Where Debate Time Has Expired
Sec. 23.38 The 10 minutes of debate otherwise permitted on a
preferential motion to recommend that the enacting clause be
stricken is not available where all time for debate under the five-
minute rule on a bill and all amendments thereto has expired.
On Apr. 9, 1976,(10) during consideration of the
military procurement authorization bill (H.R. 12438) in the Committee
of the Whole, the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 122 Cong. Rec. 10245, 10246, 10249, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Melvin] Price [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that all debate on the remainder of the bill, title VII and
all amendments thereto, close in 10 minutes.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: (11) Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Illinois?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. John Brademas (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection. . . .
The Chairman Pro Tempore: All time for debate has expired. . .
.
Mr. [Tom] Harkin [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a
preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Harkin moves that the Committee do now rise and report
the bill back to the House with the
recommendation that the enacting clause of H.R. 12438 be
stricken.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman's motion is not
debatable, in that all time has expired.
The question is on the preferential motion offered by the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Harkin).
The preferential motion was rejected.
Sec. 23.39 When the Committee of the Whole has limited debate on the
bill and all amendments thereto to a time certain, even a
preferential motion to strike the enacting clause is not debatable
if offered after the expiration of time for debate.
On Aug. 1, 1984,(12) during consideration of H.R. 6028
(Departments of Labor and Health, Education and Welfare appropriations
for fiscal 1985) in the Committee of the Whole, the following
proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 130 Cong. Rec. 21869, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: (13) All time has expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Don Fuqua (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [William E.] Dannemeyer [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I
have a preferential motion at the desk.
The Chairman: The Clerk will state the motion.
[[Page 10160]]
The Chair will first advise the gentleman that it is not
debatable at this point under the unanimous-consent agreement.
Mr. Dannemeyer: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry. .
. .
Is it not true that on behalf of this motion this Member would
have 5 minutes?
The Chairman: All debate on the bill and all amendments to the
bill under the unanimous-consent agreement was to end at 1:30,
unless amendments had been printed in the Record.
Mr. Dannemeyer: This is not an amendment.
The Chairman: All debate on the bill ended at 1:30, under the
unanimous-consent agreement.
Mr. Dannemeyer: Maybe this Member does not understand, but the
preferential motion takes precedence over the time limitation that
has been agreed to; does it not?
The Chairman: It could be offered, but there will be no debate
on the preferential motion.
Mr. Dannemeyer: This Member would have no time on behalf of it?
The Chairman: The gentleman would not have any time under the
unanimous-consent agreement.
Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I have
a parliamentary inquiry. . . .
The time limitation was on the bill itself; is that correct?
The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
Mr. Walker: The preferential motion deals with a specific
motion before the House which would be my understanding, would
permit the gentleman 5 minutes of time to debate his motion. That
is the pattern that I have understood we have used before when time
limitations have been declared. Is this a change of policy on the
part of the Chair?
The Chairman: The Chair will state that the precedents of the
House are that when the time limit is on the entire bill, that
includes all motions thereto.
Mr. Walker: So that the Chair is ruling that this motion is a
part of the debate on the bill?
The Chairman: That is correct.
--Priority in Recognition of Members in Opposition
Sec. 23.40 The Chair normally recognizes the manager of a bill for five
minutes if he rises in opposition to a preferential motion that the
enacting clause be stricken, and no preference in recognition is
granted to the minority.
An illustration of the proposition described above occurred on Apr.
23, 1975,(14) in the Committee of the Whole during
consideration of the Vietnam Humanitarian Assistance Act (H.R. 6096):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 121 Cong. Rec. 11505, 11506, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Thomas P.] O'Neill [Jr., of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman,
I offer a preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
[[Page 10161]]
Mr. O'Neill 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: (15) The Chair recognizes the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. O'Neill) in support of his
preferential motion. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Otis G. Pike (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I rise
in opposition to the preferential motion offered by the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. O'Neill).
Mr. [Pierre S.] du Pont [IV, of Delaware]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. du Pont: Mr. Chairman, my parliamentary inquiry is this:
Does the grant of time by the Chairman to
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Morgan) preclude anyone on the
minority side from rising in opposition
to the preferential motion and being heard?
The Chairman: The Chair will say that that is correct.
Mr. du Pont: Under the rules, is not time designated to the
minority side?
The Chairman: The Chair will state that is not a prerogative of
the minority on a preferential motion of this sort.
Sec. 23.41 The chairman of a committee managing a bill is entitled to
recognition for debate in opposition to a motion that the Committee
rise and report the bill to the House with the recommendation that
the enacting clause be stricken, over the minority manager of the
bill.
The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on
Apr. 28, 1983,(16) during consideration of House Joint
Resolution 13 (nuclear weapons freeze):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 129 Cong. Rec. 10425, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: (17) When the Committee of the Whole
rose on Thursday, April 21, 1983, pending was the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute which is considered as an
original resolution for the purpose of amendment. All time for
debate on the text of the resolution had expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are there further amendments?
preferential motion offered by mr. au coin
Mr. [Les] AuCoin [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a
preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. AuCoin moves that the committee do now rise and report
the resolution back to the House with the recommendation that
the resolving clause be stricken out.
The Chairman: The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. AuCoin) is
recognized for 5 minutes in support of his preferential motion. . .
.
Mr. [William S.] Broomfield [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I rise
in opposition to the preferential motion.
[[Page 10162]]
Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin] [Chairman of Committee
on Foreign Affairs]: Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
preferential motion and ask for a vote.
The Chairman: The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Zablocki) is
recognized for 5 minutes in opposition to the preferential motion.
Sec. 23.42 Priority of recognition in opposition to a preferential
motion to recommend that the enacting clause be stricken is
accorded to a member of the committee reporting the bill.
During consideration of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1976 (H.R.
10498) in the Committee of the Whole on Sept. 15, 1976,(18)
the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 122 Cong. Rec. 30469, 30470, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [James C.] Wright [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a
preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Wright 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: (19) The gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Wright) is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his preferential
motion. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. J. Edward Roush (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Mike] McCormack [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, I rise in
opposition to the motion.
The Chairman: Is the gentleman on the committee?
Mr. McCormack: No, I am not; but I rise in opposition to the
motion.
The Chairman: For what purpose does the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Rogers) seek recognition? . . .
Mr. McCormack: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.
The Chairman: The gentleman from Washington will state his
point of order.
Mr. McCormack: Mr. Chairman, there is a motion on the floor. I
rise in opposition to it.
As I understand, under the rules, one Member is allowed 5
minutes to speak in opposition to a motion like this.
The Chairman: The Chair will state that what the gentleman says
is absolutely true.
However, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr.
Rogers, a member of the committee and manager of the bill] who is
on his feet, if he seeks recognition in opposition to the
preferential motion.
Sec. 23.43 Members of the committee managing the bill have priority of
recognition for debate in opposition to a preferential motion that
the Committee of the Whole rise and report the bill back to the
House with the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken.
The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on
May 5, 1988,(20) during
[[Page 10163]]
consideration of the Department of Defense authorization for fiscal
1989 (H.R. 4264):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 134 Cong. Rec. 9955, 100th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman Pro Tempore: (1) Does any Member desire
to rise in opposition to the preferential motion? Members of the
committee have priority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Kenneth J. Gray (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John G.] Rowland of Connecticut: Mr. Chairman, I rise in
opposition to the motion.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Connecticut is
recognized for 5 minutes.
--Motion Not Affected by Special Rule Prohibiting Pro Forma Amendments
Sec. 23.44 A special rule governing consideration of a bill
in Committee of the Whole which prohibits the Chair from
entertaining pro forma amendments for the purpose of debate does
not preclude the offering of a preferential motion that the
Committee rise and report the bill to the House with the
recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken, since that
motion is not a pro forma amendment and must be voted on (or
withdrawn by unanimous consent).
On May 4, 1983,(2) the Committee of the Whole had under
consideration House Joint Resolution 13, calling for a freeze and
reduction in nuclear weapons. House Joint Resolution 13 was being
considered pursuant to a special rule agreed to on Mar.
16,(3) and a special rule providing for additional
procedures for consideration, including the prohibition of pro forma
amendments offered for purposes of obtaining debate time, agreed to on
May 4.(4) A preferential motion was offered:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 129 Cong. Rec. 11072, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
3. H. Res. 138, 129 Cong. Rec. 5666, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
4. H. Res. 179, 129 Cong. Rec. 11037, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Elliott H.] Levitas [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a
preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Levitas moves that the Committee rise and report the
resolution back to the House with the recommendation that the
resolving clause be stricken.
Mr. [Thomas J.] Downey of New York: Mr. Chairman, I have a
point of order.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: (5) The gentleman will
state his point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Leon E. Panetta (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Downey of New York: Mr. Chairman, my understanding of the
rule is that there is a provision in the rule that prohibits
motions of this sort for the purpose of debate time. Is that
correct?
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair will advise the gentleman
it only prohibits pro forma amendments, not
[[Page 10164]]
preferential motions such as the gentleman has offered.
Motions To Recommit, Commit, or Refer
Sec. 23.45 In recognizing Members to move to recommit, the Speaker
gives preference first to the ranking minority member of the
committee reporting the bill, if opposed to the bill, and then to
the remaining minority members of that committee in the or-der of
their rank.
On June 18, 1957,(6) the House was considering H.R.
6127, the Civil Rights Act of 1957. In response to a parliamentary
inquiry, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, stated that the order of
recognition for a motion to recommit would be in the order of rank of
minority members of the committee reporting the bill, the Committee on
the Judiciary. When two minority members of the committee arose to
offer the motion, the Speaker recognized the member higher in rank:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 103 Cong. Rec. 9516, 9517, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Joseph W.] Martin [Jr., of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, on
a motion to recommit, for over 20 years it has been the custom for
the minority leader to select the Member who shall make that
motion. The leader has selected a member of the committee who is
absolutely opposed to the bill. My parliamentary inquiry is, does
he have preference over someone who would move to recommit with
instructions but who at the same time would not vote for the bill
even if the motion to recommit should prevail? So I propound the
inquiry whether a gentleman who is absolutely opposed to the bill,
who led the fight for the jury trial amendment in the committee,
would have preference over someone who would not vote for the bill
even in the event a motion to recommit prevailed.
The Speaker: The Chair in answer to that will ask the Clerk to
read the holding of Mr. Speaker Champ Clark, which is found in
volume 8 of Cannon's Precedents of the House of Representatives,
section 2767.
The Clerk read as follows:
The Chair laid down this rule, from which he never intends
to depart unless overruled by the House, that on a motion to
recommit he will give preference to the gentleman at the head
of the minority list, provided he qualifies, and then go down
the list of the minority of the committee until it is gotten
through with. And then if no one of them offer a motion to
recommit the Chair will recognize the gentleman from Kansas
[Mr. Murdock], as the leader of the third party in the House.
Of course he would have to qualify. The Chair will state it
again. The present occupant of the chair laid down a rule here
about a year ago that in making this preferential motion for
recommitment the Speaker would recognize the top man on the
minority of the committee if he qualified--that is, if he says
he is opposed to the bill--and so on down to the end of the
minority list of the committee.
[[Page 10165]]
Mr. Martin: Will the Clerk continue the reading of the section?
I think there is a little more to it than that.
The Speaker: If the gentleman desires, the Clerk will read the
entire quotation. The Clerk will continue to read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Then, if no gentleman on the committee wants to make the
motion, the Speaker will recognize the gentleman from Illinois,
Mr. Mann, because he is the leader of the minority. Then, in
the next place, the Speaker would recognize the gentleman from
Kansas, Mr. Murdock. But in this case, the gentleman from
Kansas, Mr. Murdock, is on the Ways and Means Committee, which
would bring him in ahead, under that rule, of the gentleman
from Illinois, Mr. Mann.
Mr. Martin: The Chair does not think that preference should be
given to an individual who was going to make a motion to recommit
and who was absolutely opposed to the bill?
The Speaker: The Chair is not qualified to answer a question
like that. The Chair in response to the parliamentary inquiry of
the gentleman from Massachusetts will say that the decision made by
Mr. Speaker Champ Clark has never been overturned, and it has been
upheld by 1 or 2 Speakers since that time, especially by Mr.
Speaker Garner in 1932.
In looking over this list, the Chair has gone down the list and
will make the decision when someone arises to make a motion to
recommit. The Chair does not know entirely who is going to seek
recognition.
Mr. [Richard H.] Poff [of Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
motion to recommit.
The Speaker: Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. Poff: I am, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. [Russell W.] Keeney [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I also
offer a motion to recommit, and I, too, am opposed to the bill.
The Speaker: In this instance the Chair finds that no one has
arisen who is a member of the minority of the Committee on the
Judiciary until it comes down to the name of the gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. Poff]. He ranks the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
Keeney] and is therefore senior. Under the rules and precedents of
the House, the Chair therefore must recognize the gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. Poff].(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Where recognition is required by rule or precedent to pass to the
opposition, the Speaker inquires whether the Member seeking
recognition is opposed in fact to the measure or motion. For
general discussion of rights to recognition of the opposition
after rejection of an essential motion, see Sec. 15, supra. For
full treatment of recognition for the motion to recommit, see
Ch. 23, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 23.46 In response to a parliamentary inquiry the Speaker stated
that recognition to offer a motion to recommit is the prerogative
of a Member opposed to the bill, that the Speaker will first look
to minority members of the committee reporting the bill in their
order of seniority on the committee, second to other Members of the
minor
[[Page 10166]]
ity and finally to majority Members opposed to the bill; thus, a
minority Member opposed to a bill but not on the committee
reporting it is entitled to recognition to offer a motion to
recommit over a majority Member who is also a member of the
committee.
On July 10, 1975,(8) during consideration of H.R. 8365
(Department of Transportation appropriations) in the House, the Speaker
put the question on passage of the bill and then recognized Mr. William
A. Steiger, of Wisconsin, a minority Member, to offer a motion to
recommit. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 121 Cong. Rec. 22014, 22015, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: (9) The question is on the passage of
the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Steiger of Wisconsin: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to
recommit.
The Speaker: Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. Steiger of Wisconsin: I am, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: The gentleman qualifies. The Clerk will report the
motion to recommit.
Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry. . . .
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is not a member of the Committee on
Appropriations. As I understand the rule, a member of the Committee
on Appropriations must offer a motion to recommit.
The gentleman who offered the motion is not on the Committee on
Appropriations.
The Speaker: A member of the minority has priority over all the
members of the majority, regardless of whether he is on the
committee.
Mr. Yates: Mr. Speaker, may I continue with my statement on the
point of order.
The Speaker: You may.
Mr. Yates: ``Cannon's Precedents'' states, Mr. Speaker, that if
a motion is offered by a person other than a member of the
committee, a member of the committee takes precedence in offering a
motion to recommit.
The Speaker: A motion to recommit is the prerogative of the
minority, and the Chair so rules and so answers the parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. Yates: Mr. Speaker, may I refer the attention of the Chair
to page 311.
I am quoting from page 311 of ``Cannon's Precedents.''
A member of the committee reporting the measure and opposed
to it is entitled to recognition to move to recommit over one
not a member of the committee but otherwise qualified.
And, Mr. Speaker, it cites volume 8, page 2768.
The Speaker: The Chair desires to call the attention of the
gentleman on the question of the motion to ``Deschler's Procedure''
chapter 23, section 13. It provides that in recognizing Members who
move to recommit, the Speaker gives preference to the minority
Member, and these recent precedents are consistent with the one
cited by the gentleman from Illinois.
[[Page 10167]]
What the gentleman is saying is that because he is a member of
the Committee on Appropriations, he is so entitled. The Chair has
not gone over all the precedents, but the Chair can do it if the
gentleman desires him to do so.
The rule is not only that a member of the minority on the
Committee on Appropriations has preference over a majority member,
but any Member from the minority is recognized by the Speaker over
any Member of the majority, regardless of committee membership.
Mr. Yates: Mr. Speaker, if the Speaker will permit me to
continue----
The Speaker: The only exception is when no Member of the
minority seeks to make a motion to recommit.
Mr. Yates: Mr. Speaker, in that respect may I say that
``Cannon's Precedents'' is clear on that point; that where none of
those speaking, seeking recognition, are members of the committee
and otherwise equally qualified, the Speaker recognizes the Member
from the minority over the majority.
But the point is, Mr. Speaker, that I am a member of the
committee where the gentleman offering the motion to recommit on
the minority side is not a member of the committee.
I suggest, therefore, that under the precedents, I should be
recognized.
The Speaker: The Chair will state that in order that there can
be no mistake the Chair will ask the Clerk to read the following
passage from the rules and manual of the House.
The Clerk read as follows (from section 788):
Recognition to offer the motion to recommit, whether in its
simple form or with instructions, is the prerogative of a
Member who is opposed to the bill (Speaker Martin, Mar. 29,
1954, p. 3692); and the Speaker looks first to minority members
of the committee reporting the bill, in order of their rank on
the committee (Speaker Garner, Jan. 6, 1932, p. 1396; Speaker
Byrns, July 2, 1935, p. 10638), then to other Members on the
minority side (Speaker Rayburn, Aug. 16, 1950, p. 12608). If no
Member of the minority qualifies, a majority Member who is
opposed to the bill may be recognized (Speaker Garner, Apr. 1,
1932, p. 7327).
The Speaker: The Chair states that that definitely settles the
question, and the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin to
offer the motion to recommit.
The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Steiger of Wisconsin moves to recommit the bill H.R.
8365 to the Committee on Appropriations.
Sec. 23.47 A minority member of
a committee reporting a bill
is entitled to recognition to offer a motion to recommit,
if opposed to the bill, over
a minority Member not on
the committee, although the Speaker may have failed to notice the
committee member seeking recognition at the time the noncommittee
Member sought to offer a motion but before it was reported by the
Clerk.
During consideration of the Department of Agriculture appro
[[Page 10168]]
priation bill for fiscal 1976 (H.R. 8561) in the House on July 14,
1975,(10) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 121 Cong. Rec. 22620, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John H.] Rousselot [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
motion to recommit.
The Speaker: (11) Is the gentleman opposed to the
bill?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Rousselot: Yes, I am, Mr. Speaker.
motion to recommit offered by mr. michel
Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
motion to recommit.
The Speaker: The gentleman from Illinois is the ranking member
of the Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. Rousselot: Mr. Speaker, I believe I was recognized.
The Speaker: The Chair did not see the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. Michel: Mr. Speaker, I was on my feet and I was standing
right here. I had the motion at the desk. I was just standing here
as a matter of courtesy.
The Speaker: The Chair was at fault in that the Chair did not
see the gentleman from Illinois because the gentleman from
California was addressing the Chair and the Chair was looking in
that direction.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Michel).
Mr. Rousselot: Mr. Speaker, I believe I was recognized and the
Clerk was proceeding with the motion to recommit.
The Speaker: The Chair did not
see the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Michel) who was entitled to
recognition being the senior member on the Committee on
Appropriations and entitled to recognition, and the motion to
recommit had not been reported by the Clerk.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Michel).
Sec. 23.48 Until a Member desiring to offer a motion to recommit has
had his motion read by the Clerk, he is not entitled to the floor
so as
to prevent another Member from seeking recognition to offer another
recommittal motion.
During consideration of the State Department authorization bill
(H.R. 3303) in the House on Apr. 24, 1979,(12) it was
demonstrated that the fact that the Chair has inquired of a Member
seeking recognition to offer a
motion to recommit whether he qualifies as being opposed to the bill
does not confer recognition on that Member, where the Chair has not
directed the Clerk to report the motion. The proceedings were as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 125 Cong. Rec. 8360, 8361, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: (13) The question is on the engrossment
and third reading of the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 10169]]
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and
was read the third time.
The Speaker: The question is on the passage of the bill.
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
motion at the desk.
The Speaker: The Chair is aware that the gentleman is standing
and the Chair intends to recognize the gentleman. . . .
Is there any member of the committee that desires to make a
motion to recommit on the minority side? . . .
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.
The Speaker: Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the bill.
The Speaker: The Clerk will----
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I was recognized.
The Speaker: The Chair under the precedents of the House, will
recognize the gentleman from Michigan to make a motion if he
qualifies. . . .
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, had not the Speaker said to the
gentleman from Maryland, ``Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?''
And the gentleman from Maryland was thus recognized.
The Speaker: The Chair appreciates that the gentleman is
opposed to the bill; but under the precedents of the House, the
Clerk has not reported the motion. . . .
Mr. Bauman: I make a point of order against recognizing the
gentleman from Michigan or anyone else, because he did not rise in
a timely fashion to make the motion. Once the Chair recognizes a
Member, the precedents will support the fact that he has the right
to offer the motion.
The Speaker: On the point of order, the gentleman's motion has
not been read yet; so the Chair will recognize the gentleman from
Michigan, a senior member of the committee, who is standing. . . .
Mr. [William S.] Broomfield [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, I offer
a motion to recommit.
The Speaker: Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. Broomfield: Yes, I am, Mr. Speaker. . . .
The Speaker: The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Broomfield moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 3363, to
the Committee on Foreign Affairs. . . .
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman makes a point of order
that the gentleman is not in order in making the motion, since
another Member had already been recognized. The Chair has already
conferred that recognition and had inquired whether or not the
gentleman from Maryland was opposed.
The Speaker: In the opinion of the Chair, until the motion has
been read, the gentleman has not been recognized for that purpose.
Mr. Bauman: Well, the gentleman did not yield to anyone else to
offer a motion.
The Speaker: The gentleman had not been recognized for that
purpose and consequently--the Chair asked the gentleman if he was
in opposition. The gentleman replied. The gentleman was not then
recognized for that purpose.
[[Page 10170]]
That is the statement and the opinion of the Chair. The Chair did
not recognize the gentleman by directing the Clerk to report the
motion. The Chair is trying to follow the precedents of the House.
Now, the Chair has ruled on the gentleman's point of order and
the gentleman from Michigan is entitled to 5 minutes. The Chair so
recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Broomfield).
Sec. 23.49 The ranking minority member of the Committee
on Appropriations, who had voted in favor of the passage of a
continuing appropriations bill after having stated his opposition
to the bill in order to obtain recognition to offer an unsuccessful
motion to recommit (without
instructions), addressed the House on a following day to explain
and to apologize for his failure to vote against the bill.
On Sept. 25, 1979,(14) during consideration of House
Joint Resolution 404 (continuing appropriations) in the House, the
following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 125 Cong. Rec. 26152, 26153, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: (15) The question is on the engrossment
and third reading of the joint resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a
third time, and was read the third time.
Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I offer
a motion to recommit.
The Speaker: Does the gentleman qualify?
Mr. Conte: I do, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Conte moves to recommit the joint resolution (H.J. Res.
404) to the Committee on Appropriations.
The Speaker: Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The Speaker: The question is on the motion to recommit.
The motion to recommit was rejected.
The Speaker: The question is on the passage of the joint
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. [Gerald B.] Solomon [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a
recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes
208, noes 203, not voting 23, as follows: . . .
On Sept. 28, 1979,(16) Mr. Conte was recognized to make
the following statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 125 Cong. Rec. 26810, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Mr. Conte asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
[[Page 10171]]
Mr. Conte: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, September 25, 1979, when
the House considered House Joint Resolution 404, the fiscal year
1980 continuing resolution . . . I voted ``aye.'' . . .
However, I should have voted ``nay.''
As the record of debate shows, I offered a motion to recommit
House Joint Resolution 404 to the Committee on Appropriations.
The Speaker asked me if I qualified to offer the motion. As the
ranking member of the Appropriations Committee I assumed I was
qualified and so stated.
Upon further reflection and counseling with my friends and
colleagues, I came to realize that the honorable, if not the
technical, duty of a Member offering a motion to recommit is to
vote against the bill on final passage.
Thus, I wish to take this occasion to apologize to the House
for my error in not adhering to the strong expectation that an
author of an unsuccessful motion to recommit will in turn vote
``nay'' on final passage.
Sec. 23.50 The previous question having been ordered on a simple
resolution in the House, a motion to recommit with or without
instructions is in order; it must be offered by a Member who is
opposed to the resolution, and is not debatable.
The following proceedings occurred in the House on June 10, 1980:
(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 126 Cong. Rec. 13801, 13819, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: (18) The unfinished business is the
further consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 660) in the matter
of Representative Charles H. Wilson.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk will report the resolution.
The Clerk read the resolution as follows:
Resolved,
(1) That Representative Charles H. Wilson be censured;
(2) That Representative Charles H. Wilson be denied the
chair on any committee or subcommittee of the House of
Representatives . . . .
Mr. [Charles E.] Bennett [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, I move the
previous question on the resolution, as amended.
The previous question was ordered.
Mr. [Paul N.] McCloskey [Jr., of California]: Mr. Speaker, I
offer a motion to recommit.
The Speaker: Is the gentleman opposed to the resolution?
Mr. McCloskey: Yes I am, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: The gentleman qualifies.
The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. McCloskey moves to recommit the resolution (H. Res.
660) to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct with
instructions to report the same to the House forthwith with the
following amendment. . . .
The Speaker: The question is on the motion to recommit offered
by the gentleman from California (Mr. McCloskey). . . .
[[Page 10172]]
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas
97, nays 308, answered ``present'' 4, not voting 24. . . .
Sec. 23.51 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,(19) 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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 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:
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 Cali-fornia . . . .
[[Page 10173]]
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.
Sec. 23.52 The ten minutes of debate permitted on a motion to recommit
with instructions by clause 4 of Rule XVI applies only to a bill or
joint resolution and not to a simple resolution.
During consideration of House Resolution 1097 (relating to
investigative funds for the Committee on the Judiciary) in the House on
Mar. 29, 1976,(20) a motion to recommit was offered, as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 122 Cong. Rec. 8444, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion
to recommit.
The Speaker: (1) Is the gentleman opposed to the
resolution?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Ashbrook: I am, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Ashbrook moves that House Resolution 1097 be
recommitted to the Committee on House Administration with
instructions that said committee forthwith report back to the
House said resolution with the following amendment, to wit: on
page 2, line 11 of the resolution add the following new
sentence: ``Not to exceed $300,000 of the total amount provided
by this resolution shall be used to carry out activities within
the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary under the
provisions of rule X, clause (M) (19) of the Rules of the House
of Representatives.
Mr. Ashbrook: Mr. Speaker, may I be recognized for 5 minutes?
The Speaker: The rule regarding debate does not apply to a
motion to recommit a resolution.
The question is on the motion to recommit.
Sec. 23.53 The Speaker has taken the floor to be recognized
for five minutes pursuant to clause 4 of Rule XVI in opposition to
a motion to recommit a bill with instructions.
On Dec. 18, 1979,(2) during consideration of H.R. 5860
(author
[[Page 10174]]
izing loan guarantees to the Chrysler Corporation) in the House, the
following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 125 Cong. Rec. 36838, 36840, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [J. William] Stanton [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
motion to recommit.
The Speaker: (3) Is the gentleman opposed to the
bill?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Stanton: I am, Mr. Speaker, in its present form.
The Speaker: The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Stanton moves to recommit the bill H.R. 5860 to the
Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs with
instructions to report back the same forthwith with the
following amendment: On page 23, after line 18, add the
following new section: . . .
Mr. [Thomas P.] O'Neill [Jr., of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I
rise in opposition to the motion to recommit. . . .
Today I rise as Tip O'Neill, the Congressman, not as a Democrat
or a Republican, just as a fellow that has been in public life for
43 years. I have seen recessions and depressions, upturns and
downturns. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Without objection, the previous
question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the motion to
recommit.
--Motion To Commit
Sec. 23.54 A Member seeking recognition to offer a motion to commit a
concurrent resolution after the previous question has been ordered,
pursuant to clause 1 of Rule
XVII, must qualify by being
opposed to the resolution (whether or not the concurrent resolution
has been reported from committee).
On Nov. 28, 1979,(4) the following proceedings occurred
in the House during consideration of the second concurrent resolution
on the budget for fiscal year 1980 (S. Con. Res. 53):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 125 Cong. Rec. 33904, 33914, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (5) Pursuant to the order
of the House of November 27, the previous question is considered as
having been ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Delbert L.] Latta [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
motion.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is the gentleman opposed to the
concurrent resolution?
Mr. Latta: I am, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the motion to
commit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Latta moves to commit Senate Concurrent Resolution 53
to the Committee on the Budget with the following instructions:
For fiscal year 1980, after excluding the National Defense and
Veterans Affairs functions, reduce the remaining total amount
of new budget authority and total amount of outlays by two
percent . . . . The Committee on
[[Page 10175]]
the Budget is further instructed to report S. Con. Res. 53 back
to the House promptly with these changes.
Sec. 23.55 Where the previous question had been ordered on a privileged
resolution electing minority Members to committees, a minority
Member offered a motion to commit the resolution to a select
committee to be appointed by the Speaker with instructions to
report back forthwith with an amendment increasing the number of
minority Members on the Committee on Ways and Means by two.
On Jan. 28, 1981,(6) during consideration of House
Resolution 45 (electing minority Members
to standing committees) in the House, Minority Leader Robert H. Michel,
of Illinois, offered the resolution and the proceedings that followed
were as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 127 Cong. Rec. 1142, 1144, 1146, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Michel: Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged resolution (H.
Res. 45), and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 45
Resolution designating membership on certain standing
committees of the House
Resolved, That the following named Members, Delegates, and
Resident Commissioner be, and they are hereby, elected to the
following standing committees of the House of Representatives:
committee on agriculture . . .
The Speaker: (7) The gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Michel) is recognized for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Michel: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might
consume. . . .
I have no more requests for time, Mr. Speaker, but before
moving the previous question, I would simply advise the membership
of the House that the parliamentary situation is such that the
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Lott), after the previous question
has been ordered, will move to commit. That is a nondebatable
motion, and there will be a vote immediately following which will
give Members an opportunity to express themselves on the substitute
which is embodied in the gentleman's motion.
Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
Mr. [Trent] Lott [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
motion to commit.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the motion to
commit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Lott moves to commit the resolution (H. Res. 45) to a
select committee to be appointed by the Speaker and to be
composed of nine members not more than five of whom shall be
from the same political party, with instructions to report the
same back to the House forthwith with the following amendment:
[[Page 10176]]
Strike all after the resolving clause and insert in lieu
thereof the following:
The following named Members . . . be, and they are hereby,
elected to the following standing committees of the House of
Representatives:
committee on ways and means . . .
[T]he motion to commit was rejected.
Parliamentarian's Note: The motion to commit under clause 1 of Rule
XVII is applicable to simple resolutions and may create a select
committee with instructions to report back forthwith with a germane
amendment. The Member offering the motion need not qualify as opposed
where the resolution is offered from the floor as privileged and has
not been reported from committee, and the minority party has no prior
right to recognition in such a situation. As noted by Mr. Michel, a
motion to commit is not debatable after the previous question has been
ordered on a resolution, but is amendable unless the previous question
is separately ordered thereon.
Sec. 23.56 It is the prerogative of the minority, prior to adoption of
the rules, to offer a motion to commit the resolution adopting the
rules;
and instances have occurred where, the previous question having
been ordered on a resolution adopting the rules of the House, the
Minority Leader has offered a motion to commit the resolution to
a select committee with instructions to report back to the House
within a specified number of days with an amendment.
The following proceedings occurred in the House on Jan. 3, 1983:
(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 129 Cong. Rec. 49-51, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
RULES OF THE HOUSE
The Speaker: (9) The question is on ordering the
previous question. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, on that I
demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas
249, nays 156, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 12, as follows: .
. .
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. Michel: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to commit.
The Speaker: Is the gentleman opposed to the resolution?
Mr. Michel: Indeed I am, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: The Clerk will report the motion to commit.
The Clerk read as follows:
[[Page 10177]]
Mr. Michel moves to commit the resolution, House Resolution
5, to a select committee to be appointed by the Speaker and to
be composed of ten members, not more than six of whom shall be
from the same political party, with instructions to report the
same back to the House within two legislative days with only
the following amendment: Strike clause ``(5)'' relating to
restrictions on the offering of certain amendments to
appropriations bills, and redesignate succeeding clauses
accordingly. . . .
The Speaker: Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to commit.
There was no objection.
The Speaker: The question is on the motion to commit. . . .
So the motion to commit was rejected.
Similarly, in the 97th Congress,(10) the Minority Leader
offered a motion to commit the resolution to a select committee with
instructions to report back to the House within seven calendar days
with an amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 127 Cong. Rec. 98, 111-13, 97th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 5, 1981.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Michel: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to commit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Michel moves to commit the resolution (H. Res. 5) to a
select committee to be appointed by the Speaker and to be
composed of nine members, not more than five of whom shall be
from the same political party, with instructions to report the
same back to the House within 7
calendar days with the following amendment:
On page 10, after line 8, add the following:
(19) In rule X, clause 6(a) is amended by adding the
following new subparagraph:
``(3) The membership of each committee (and of each
subcommittee, task force or subunit thereof), shall reflect the
ratio of majority to minority party members of the House at the
beginning of this Congress. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (11) Without objection, the
previous question is ordered on the motion to commit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Bill Alexander (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the motion to
commit. . . .
So the motion to commit was rejected.
Parliamentarian's Note: On the opening day of the 63d Congress, a
motion to commit the resolution adopting the rules to a select
committee with instructions ``to report back to the House a substitute
therefor, together with the views and recommendations of the select
committee, in substance as fol-lows . . .'' was held in order by
Speaker Champ Clark.(12) At the beginning of the 65th
Congress, the motion to commit with instructions to report back
forthwith with an amendment to the rules was offered and not
challenged.(13)
[[Page 10178]]
Under modern practice, the motion to commit should not include
instructions to report ``forthwith'' a rules change which would be
immediately effective, particularly since the view is now held that,
prior to adoption of the rules, a resolution to adopt the rules is not
subject to amendment unless the previous question is voted down or the
Member in control yields for that purpose.(14) Generally,
the defeat of the previous question is considered the only method by
which the minority may offer an amendment to the rules proposed by the
majority, although the question may depend upon the extent to which the
Chair would rely upon House rules (such as Rule XVII, permitting the
motion to commit with instructions to report back forthwith with an
amendment) prior to adoption of the rules. It should also be noted that
where a Member of the minority offers a motion to commit the resolution
adopting the rules, such Member need not qualify as opposed to the
resolution.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2755.
13. See also the proceedings of Dec. 6, 1915, at the beginning of the
64th Congress.
14. See Ch. 1 Sec. 9.3, supra.
15. See, for example, 127 Cong. Rec. 98, 112, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.,
Jan. 5, 1981.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Motion To Refer
Sec. 23.57 While recognition to offer a motion to recommit a bill or
joint resolution (previously referred to committee) under clause 4
of Rule XVI is the prerogative of the minority party if opposed to
the bill, recognition to offer a motion to refer under clause 1 of
Rule XVII after the previous question has been moved or ordered on
a resolution (not previously referred to committee) does not depend
on party affiliation or upon opposition to the resolution.
During consideration of House Resolution 1042 (directing the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to investigate the
unauthorized publication of the report of the Select Committee on
Intelligence) in the House on Feb. 19, 1976,(16) the
following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 122 Cong. Rec. 3914-21, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: I rise to a question
involving the privileges of the House, and I offer a privileged
resolution.
The Clerk read the resolution as follows:
[[Page 10179]]
H. Res. 1042
Resolution requiring that the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct inquire into the circumstances leading to the
public publication of a report containing classified material
prepared by the House Select Committee on Intelligence
Whereas the February 16, 1976, issue of the Village Voice,
a New York City newspaper, contains the partial text of a
report or a preliminary report prepared by the Select Committee
on Intelligence of the House, pursuant to H. Res. 591, which
relates to the foreign activities of the intelligence agencies
of the United States and which contains sensitive classified
information . . . Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct be and it is hereby authorized and directed to inquire
into the circumstances surrounding the publication of the text
and of any part of the report
of the Select Committee on Intelligence, and to report back to
the House in a timely fashion its findings and recommendations
thereon.
The Speaker: (17) The gentleman from New York (Mr.
Stratton) is recognized for 1 hour. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Stratton: I yield for the purposes of debate only to the
distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. O'Neill). . . .
Mr. [Thomas P.] O'Neill [Jr., of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker,
some of the Members have been curious as to why the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Stratton) has the floor at this time and why the
resolution is privileged.
It is privileged because he believes that the rules of the
House and the processes of the integrity of the House have been
transgressed.
I believe that Mr. Stratton's motion to usurp the normal
procedure is transgressing on the rights of all our membership
here, and especially the rights of the members of the Rules
Committee which normally would have jurisdiction over this issue.
We should demand the normal course. We should not just say, ``Here,
we will send this to the Ethics Committee and the Ethics Committee
will make an investigation, because we are going to bypass the
Committee on Rules.'' That is exactly what Mr. Stratton desires. I
want the Members to know that when the time comes, after the hour
provided to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Stratton) is over, and
after that gentleman has moved the previous question, that I will
rise, and I will expect that the Speaker will recognize me and I
will then move, at that time, that, pursuant to clause 1 of rule
XVII, that the resolution be referred to the Committee on Rules. .
. .
Mr. Stratton: Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time
and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The Speaker: Without objection, the previous question is
ordered.
There was no objection.
Mr. O'Neill: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to rule XVII, clause 1, I
move to refer the resolution to the Committee on Rules.
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, a point of
order.
The Speaker: The gentleman from Maryland will state the point
of order.
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the
gentleman's
[[Page 10180]]
motion comes too late. The Chair has already put the previous
question and it has been moved.
The Speaker: The motion to refer a resolution is in order after
the previous question is ordered under clause 1, rule XVII. . . .
Mr. [John B.] Anderson of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman
from Massachusetts, the distinguished majority leader, has offered,
in effect, a motion to recommit the original resolution. Is it not
true that under the practices and procedures of this House one who
is opposed to the motion and who is on the minority side of the
aisle is entitled to control of the motion to recommit? Would I not
be entitled to preference over the gentleman from Massachusetts in
offering a motion to recommit which is, in effect, what the
gentleman from Massachusetts has offered?
The Speaker: The gentleman is referring to the procedure under
rule XVI. In this rather unique situation, the resolution has not
been before a committee and the House technically cannot recommit a
resolution that has never been previously referred to committee.
This is a motion to commit or refer under rule XVII and not a
motion to recommit under clause 4, rule XVI.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See also 2 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 1456.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry. . . .
The question this gentleman would like to put is when a
question of privilege is before the House, is a motion to refer
which would, in effect, avoid a final vote on the question of
privilege, in order prior to a vote on the question of privilege
itself?
The Speaker: It is. The remedy of the House is to vote down, if
the House is in opposition, to vote down the motion of the
gentleman from Massachusetts.
The question is on the motion to refer offered by the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. O'Neill).
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. O'Neill: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas
172, nays 219, answered ``present'' 2, not voting 39, as follows: .
. .
So the motion was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Parliamentarian's Note: If the Majority Leader had offered the
motion to refer under clause 1 of Rule XVII when the previous question
was moved but before it was ordered, the motion to refer would itself
have been debatable as well as amendable.
Under Rule XXIII, clause 7,(19) when a bill is reported
from the Committee of the Whole with an adverse recommendation, a
motion to refer the bill to any committee with or without instructions
is in order pending a vote on the motion to strike the enacting clause
in the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 875 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Right of recognition to offer a motion to recommit pending final
[[Page 10181]]
passage, which is the prerogative of the minority if opposed, should be
distinguished from the right of recognition for a motion to refer under
Rule XXIII clause 7 pending a vote in the House on a motion to strike
out the enacting clause. In the latter case, a Member seeking
recognition need not be opposed to the bill, since the motion to refer
in this case is a measure designed to avert final adverse disposition
of the bill. As stated by Speaker Frederick H. Gillett, of
Massachusetts, on May 19, 1924 (see 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2629),
``apparently the provision for a motion to refer was inserted so that
the friends of the original bill might avert its permanent death by
referring it again to the committee, where it could again be considered
in the light of the action of the House.'' By the same reasoning,
Speaker Gillett pointed out, rejection of the motion to refer should
not give the right of recognition to sponsors of the bill, but to one
supporting the motion to strike the enacting clause.
Sec. 23.58 A motion to refer (where the previous question has not been
ordered on the pending proposition) is debatable for one hour,
controlled by the Member offering the motion.
During consideration of House Resolution 142 (to expel Charles C.
Diggs, Jr.) in the House on Mar. 1, 1979,(20) the following
exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 125 Cong. Rec. 3746, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Newt] Gingrich [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a
question of the privileges of the House, and I offer a privileged
resolution (H. Res. 142) and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution as follows:
H.R. 142
Resolved, That Charles C. Diggs, Jr., a Representative from
the Thirteenth District of Michigan, is hereby expelled from
the House of Representatives.
Mr. [James C.] Wright [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Wright moves to refer House Resolution 142 to the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
The Speaker: (1) The gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Wright) is recognized for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 23.59 Pursuant to clause 4 of Rule XVI, a motion to refer takes
precedence over a motion to amend and the Chair recognizes the
Member seeking to offer the preferential motion before the less
preferential motion is read.
The following proceedings occurred in the House on Aug. 13,
[[Page 10182]]
1982,(2) during consideration of House Resolution 560
(waiving certain points of order against H.R. 6957, Commerce, Justice,
and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act,
1983). The previous question having been rejected, an amendment to the
resolution was offered, then ruled out of order as not germane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 128 Cong. Rec. 20977, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Trent] Lott [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, in view of the
ruling of the Chair,(3) I have a substitute rule at the
desk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. An amendment in the nature of a substitute previously offered by
Mr. Lott was ruled out of order as not germane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Leo C.] Zeferetti [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
preferential motion.
Mr. Lott: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: (4) The gentleman will state his
parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Lott: Mr. Speaker, should not the substitute rule be read
first, before the preferential motion?
The Speaker: A preferential motion to refer takes precedence
over the motion to amend, as ascertained by the Chair's inquiry
``for what purpose did the gentleman rise?''
The Clerk will report the preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Zeferetti moves to refer House Resolution 560 to the
Committee on Rules.
Sec. 23.60 The motion to refer a resolution offered as a question of
the privileges of the House, which is in order pending the demand
for the previous question or after the previous question is
ordered, is not subject to debate; and a Member offering the motion
need not qualify as stating his opposition to the resolution since
it has not been reported from committee but has been offered as an
original proposition on the floor of the House.
On Apr. 28, 1983,(5) the House had under consideration a
resolution,(6) presented as a question of the privileges of
the House, of refusal to comply with a subpena duces tecum issued by a
U.S. District Court served on the Clerk for the production of records
in his custody (documents of a select committee from a prior Congress).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 129 Cong. Rec. 10417, 10423, 10424, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
6. H. Res. 176, concerning privileges of the House related to
investigative records of the Select Committee on Aging.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (7) The gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Foley) is recognized for 1 hour. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[After debate:]
Mr. [Thomas S.] Foley [of Washington: . . . Mr. Speaker, I move
the previous question on the resolution.
[[Page 10183]]
Mr. [F. James] Sensenbrenner [Jr., of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker,
I offer a motion to refer.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Sensenbrenner moves to refer the resolution to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Without objection, the previous
question is ordered on the motion to refer.
There was no objection.
[The motion to refer was rejected, the previous question was
ordered, the resolution agreed to.]
Sec. 23.61 When a resolution is offered as a question of privilege and
is debatable under the hour rule, a motion to refer is in order
before debate begins and is debatable for one hour under the
control of the offeror of the motion.
On Mar. 4, 1985,(8) during consideration of House
Resolution 97 (to seat Richard D. McIntyre as a Member from Indiana) in
the House, the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 131 Cong. Rec. 4277, 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: (9) The gentleman states a
valid question of privilege.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr.
Alexander).
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 recognized.
Mr. Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Alexander: Mr. Speaker, for what period of time am I
recognized?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is entitled to 1 hour
under that motion, during which time the gentleman from Arkansas
controls the time.
[[Page 10184]]
Mr. Alexander: Mr. Speaker, does the minority wish time on the
motion?
Mr. Michel: Yes.
Mr. Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I would yield 30 minutes for
purposes of debate only, to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Michel).
Motions To Instruct Conferees
Sec. 23.62 A member of the minority is first entitled to recognition
for a motion to instruct conferees, on a bill being sent to
conference, other factors influencing recognition being equal.
On Oct. 31, 1939,(10) a resolution asking for a
conference on a bill with Senate amendments was offered and agreed to.
Mr. Hamilton Fish, Jr., of New York, the ranking minority member of the
Committee on Foreign Affairs, with jurisdiction over the bill, and Mr.
James A. Shanley, of Connecticut, a majority member of the committee,
arose simultaneously to offer a motion to instruct the conferees on the
bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 85 Cong. Rec. 1092-1105, 76th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, ruled that Mr. Fish was
entitled to prior recognition for the motion if he so
desired.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. For full discussion of the motion to instruct conferees, see Ch.
33, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motions To Adjourn
Sec. 23.63 A motion to adjourn is not in order while a Member has the
floor unless he yields for the motion.
On Oct. 18, 1945,(12) Mr. Edward E. Cox, of Georgia, who
had the floor, yielded to Mr. John Edward Sheridan, of Pennsylvania, at
the latter's request. Mr. Sheridan then moved that the House adjourn,
and Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, inquired of Mr. Cox whether he
yielded for that purpose. Mr. Cox replied:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 91 Cong. Rec. 9814, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Speaker, I do not yield for that purpose, and the gentleman
should not have taken advantage of the courtesy I extended to
him.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. For general discussion of the motion to adjourn, see Ch. 40, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 23.64 The Chair cannot refuse to recognize a Member having the
floor for a motion to adjourn.
On Mar. 16, 1945,(14) Mr. Robert F. Jones, of Ohio,
objected to the vote on a question to recommit on the ground that a
quorum was not present. A call of the House was ordered and a quorum
failed to vote. Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, was recognized for a
[[Page 10185]]
parliamentary inquiry and then stated that if there was not a quorum,
he moved that the House adjourn. Speaker Sam Rayburn,
of Texas, asked him to withhold
his request and Mr. Hoffman responded ``If the Chair is refusing
recognition, I will.'' The Speaker stated that he could not so refuse
recognition for a motion to adjourn. Mr. John W. McCormack, of
Massachusetts, then moved adjournment and the motion was agreed
to.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 91 Cong. Rec. 2379, 2380, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
15. The Chair may decline to recognize for a motion to adjourn which is
dilatory (see Sec. Sec. 23.8-23.10, 23.12, supra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 23.65 A Delegate to the House may offer the motion to adjourn (in
this instance while serving as Acting Majority Leader).
On Jan. 9, 1981,(16) Mr. Fofo I. F. Sunia, the Delegate
from American Samoa, made the following motion:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 127 Cong. Rec. 248, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Sunia: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 12 o'clock and 25
minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until
Tuesday, January 13, 1981, at 12 o'clock noon.
Parliamentarian's Note: A non-voting Delegate may offer any motion
except the motion to reconsider, but he may not vote on any motion so
offered.
Sec. 23.66 While the motion to adjourn takes precedence over any other
motion under clause 4 of Rule XVI, the Speaker may through his
power of recognition recognize the Majority Leader by unanimous
consent for one minute to announce the legislative program prior to
entertaining the motion to adjourn; and on one occasion, the
Speaker recognized the Majority Leader to announce the program for
the remainder of the day and declined to recognize a Member to
offer a motion to adjourn pending that announcement, although the
Majority Leader had neglected to obtain unanimous consent to
address the House for one minute. The Speaker then suggested that
decorum would best be maintained by unanimous-consent permission to
announce the leadership program pending a motion to adjourn.
On Dec. 14, 1982,(17) the following proceedings occurred
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 128 Cong. Rec. 30549, 30550, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 10186]]
The Speaker: (18) The Chair recognizes the majority
leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Wright).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Denny] Smith of Oregon: Mr. Speaker, I have a preferential
motion I send to the desk.
The Speaker: The gentleman will be seated. The Speaker has the
right of recognition.
Mr. Smith of Oregon: Mr. Speaker, I have a preferential motion.
Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Regular order, Mr.
Speaker.
The Speaker: The Chair recognizes the majority leader, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Wright).
LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM
Mr. [James C.] Wright [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, let me
simply announce for the benefit of the Members that it is our
intention now to have no further votes tonight. We plan to take up
the things that we put off last night in order that Members might
go and attend the reception in the White House, the remaining
suspension, as was agreed with the Republican leadership and our
leadership last night, but we will not have any votes. We will roll
the votes until tomorrow, let the votes be the first thing
tomorrow.
Mr. Smith of Oregon: Mr. Speaker, I offer a preferential
motion.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state his preferential motion.
Mr. Smith of Oregon: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now
adjourn.
The Speaker: The question is on the preferential motion offered
by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Smith).
The question was taken, and the Speaker announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. Smith of Oregon: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas
122, nays 202, not voting 109, as follows: . . .
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER
The Speaker: The Chair will make the following statement:
It is the usual and customary practice in this House that when
we come to the end of a proceeding, as we did, that the majority
leader then announces the program for the remainder of the night.
The majority leader had informed me that he was going to make that
announcement. Normally it is a unanimous-consent request, and that
is what the Chair anticipated that the majority leader would do.
It is the prerogative and the duty of the Speaker of the House
to run this body in an expeditious manner and he should be informed
when motions are going to be made, whether they are privileged or
otherwise, and when he is suddenly confronted with a privileged
motion, then it is my opinion, while the Chair appreciates that he
follows the rules of the House, it does not improve the decorum of
the House. The Speaker at all times tries to be fair, and thought
he was being fair with the Members when he was recognizing the
majority leader to inform the membership what the program was for
the remainder of the evening.
Sec. 23.67 On one occasion, the Speaker Pro Tempore having attempted by
unanimous consent to adjourn the House
[[Page 10187]]
at the end of special-order speeches, there being an objection by a
minority Member on the floor, the Member objecting was then
recognized to move adjournment; there was no majority Member on the
floor at the time.
The following proceedings occurred in the House on May 23,
1984:(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 130 Cong. Rec. 13960, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (20) Without objection, the
House stands adjourned.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Sander M. Levin (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I
object.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Walker) have a motion?
Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I have always wanted to do this.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is going to recognize the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Walker).
Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 11 o'clock and 37
minutes p.m.) the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, May 24,
1984, at 10 a.m.
Sec. 23.68 Where the two Houses have adopted a concurrent resolution
permitting an adjournment of the House to a day certain in excess
of three days upon motion made by the Majority Leader or a Member
designated by him, the Speaker may recognize the Member so
designated to move to adjourn pursuant
to the concurrent resolution, over another Member whose motion to
adjourn if agreed to would only permit the House to adjourn
overnight.
On Aug. 4, 1983,(1) the following proceedings occurred
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 129 Cong. Rec. 23244, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (2) The Chair recognizes
the gentleman from Texas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. William H. Gray, 3d (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Hank] Brown of Colorado: Mr. Speaker, I have a privileged
motion. I move the House adjourn.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Texas.
Mr. [Henry B.] Gonzalez [of Tex-as]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
House Concurrent Resolution 153, I move that the House do now
adjourn.
The motion was agreed to.
[[Page 10188]]
CHAPTER 29
Consideration and Debate
D. CONTROL AND DISTRIBUTION OF TIME FOR DEBATE
Sec. 24. In General; Role of Manager
In the practice of the House, one or more designated Members manage
a measure during its consideration on the floor of the House. The
manager of the measure has prior right to recognition unless he
surrenders or loses control or unless a preferential motion is offered
which is within the province of those who oppose the
bill.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. For prior rights to recognition of the Member in control, see
Sec. Sec. 24.1, 24.2, infra. An example of a motion within the
province of the opposition (with priority of recognition to the
minority party) is the motion to recommit (see Ch. 23, supra).
For the surrendering or losing of control, see Sec. 33, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The manager is generally designated by the committee reporting the
bill or resolution and is normally the chairman of the full committee
or of the relevant subcommittee. Where a proposition is considered
pursuant to a special order from the Committee on Rules, the special
order typically provides that debate be controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority member of the committee which has applied to the
Committee on Rules for such an order.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. For management by the reporting committee, see Sec. 26, infra. The
effect and forms of special orders are discussed in Sec. 28,
infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If a measure is considered un-der the hour rule in the House, the
Member calling it up is normally entitled to one hour of debate, which
he may in his discretion yield to other Members. He may at any time
move the previous question, thereby bringing the matter to a vote and
terminating further debate.(5) On conference reports and
amendments reported in disagreement from conference, the hour is
equally divided between the majority and minority
parties.(6) Where a bill is called up in the House under
suspension of the rules, debate continues for forty minutes, equally
divided (see Chapter 21, supra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. For further discussion of the hour rule, see Sec. 68, infra. For
the previous question, see Sec. 24.21, infra.
6. See Ch. 33 (House-Senate Conferences), infra. See also Sec. 26,
infra, for the requirement that one-third of debate time be
allotted to one opposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If a matter is to be considered in the Committee of the Whole,
general debate therein is controlled and divided by the Members in
charge. When the bill is read for amendment in the Committee, the
managers have prior right to recognition for debate and to move to
limit debate or to move that the Committee rise.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. For priority of recognition to move that the Committee rise, see
Sec. 24.15, infra. For priority of recognition to move to close
debate, see Sec. 24.16, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 10189]]
During consideration in the House as in the Committee of the Whole,
only five-minute debate is conducted, with priority of recognition to
members of the reporting committee for debate or to move the previous
question or to limit debate.
Cross References
Calling up and passing bills and resolutions generally, see Ch. 24,
supra.
Committee procedure as to management of bills, see Ch. 17, supra.
Management of bills called up under suspension of the rules, see Ch.
21, supra.
Management of bills on the various calendars, see Ch. 22, supra.
Management of resolutions of impeachment, see Ch. 14,
supra. -------------------
Manager's Prior Right to Recognition
Sec. 24.1 Where more than one Member seeks recognition, the Speaker
recognizes the Member in charge of the bill or resolution if he
seeks recognition.
On Sept. 11, 1945,(8) Mr. Robert F. Rich, of
Pennsylvania, and Mr. Adolph J. Sabath, of New York, arose at the same
time seeking recognition on a bill being handled by Mr. Sabath. Speaker
Sam Rayburn, of Texas, recognized Mr. Sabath since he had priority of
recognition as the Member in charge and then answered parliamentary
inquiries on the order of recognition:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 91 Cong. Rec. 8510, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Rich: After the reading of section 4 of the bill which
contained subsections (a), (b), and (c), could not a Member have
risen to strike out the last word and have been recognized?
The Speaker: The gentleman did not state for what purpose he
rose. The gentleman from Illinois who is in charge of the
resolution was on his feet at the same time. The Chair recognized
the gentleman from Illinois, and the gentleman from Illinois made a
preferential motion.
Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Hoffman: Must a Member on the floor addressing the Speaker
state the purpose for which he addresses the Speaker before he may
be recognized?
The Speaker: Two Members rose. The Speaker always has the right
to recognize whichever Member he desires. The Chair recognized the
gentleman from Illinois who was in charge of the resolution. The
gentleman from Illinois made a preferential motion; the Chair put
the motion and it was adopted.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. For more extensive discussion of the priority of recognition for
the Member in control, see Sec. 14, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 10190]]
Sec. 24.2 Where the Member handling a bill on the floor and a minority
Member both seek recognition, the Chair gives preference to the
former.
On Nov. 15, 1967,(10) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 2388, economic opportunity amendments, reported by the
Committee on Education and Labor (chaired by Carl D. Perkins [Ky.]).
Mr. Edward J. Gurney, of Florida, sought recognition to offer an
amendment, but Chairman John J. Rooney, of New York, recognized Mr.
Perkins to submit
a unanimous-consent request (to close debate at a certain hour).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 113 Cong. Rec. 32655, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Gurney made a point of order against recognition of Mr.
Perkins, and the Chairman overruled the point of order:
Mr. Gurney: Mr. Chairman, I am a member of the committee. I was
on my feet. The Chair recognized me, and I did not yield for a
unanimous-consent request on the other side.
The Chairman: The Chair asked the gentleman for what purpose he
rose.
Mr. Gurney: And I said to offer an amendment, and I was
recognized for that purpose.
The Chairman: The Chair had not recognized the gentleman from
Florida at that point.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Manager's Right To Open and Control Debate
Sec. 24.3 A Member calling up a measure or offering a motion in the
House is recognized to open and to control debate
thereon.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See, for example, 114 Cong. Rec. 30217, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., Oct.
8, 1968 (special order from Committee on Rules); 113 Cong. Rec.
14, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 10, 1967 (prior to adoption of
rules); 111 Cong. Rec. 23608, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 13,
1965 (motion to reconsider); 105 Cong. Rec. 11599, 86th Cong.
1st Sess., June 23, 1959 (conference report); 96 Cong. Rec.
1514, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 6, 1950 (question of
privilege); 89 Cong. Rec. 7051, 78th Cong. 1st Sess., July 2,
1943 (override of veto); 87 Cong. Rec. 3917, 77th Cong. 1st
Sess., May 12, 1941 (District of Columbia bills); 80 Cong. Rec.
7025-27, 74th Cong. 2d Sess., May 11, 1936 (motion to discharge
a committee); and 78 Cong. Rec. 4931, 73d Cong. 2d Sess., Mar.
20, 1934 (unanimous-consent consideration of bill).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Control of Time Where Manager Is Opposed
Sec. 24.4 The senior manager on the part of the House at a conference
called up for consideration and managed the debate on the
conference report, although he had not signed the report and was
opposed to it.
[[Page 10191]]
On Dec. 6, 1967,(12) William R. Poage, of Texas,
Chairman of the Committee on Agriculture and senior manager for the
House in conference on H.R. 12144, the Federal Meat Inspection Act of
1967, called up the conference report on that bill and managed the
debate thereon. Mr. Poage delivered the following remarks when calling
up the report:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 113 Cong. Rec. 35144-55, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, today I find myself in the same position which I
occupied when we sent this bill to conference. I have no desire to
interfere with or delay consideration of the bill. I full well
recognize the very proper desire of every Member of this House to
secure and maintain the very best possible meat inspection program
for the United States. I join in that desire. The conference report
which our committee brings you is intended to achieve that result.
I hope it will.
This report is signed by all of the conferees on the part of
the Senate and all but two of the conferees on the part of the
House. I am one of those two.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. For occasions where the manager of a bill relinquished control by
reason of his opposition thereto, see Sec. Sec. 26.7, 26.8,
infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manager Recognized in Opposition to Amendment
Sec. 24.5 Where a special rule
limits debate on designated amendments and allocates time between
the proponent and an opponent, the manager of the bill will be
recognized to control debate in opposition to the amendment if he
qualifies as opposed.
On Dec. 1, 1982,(14) during consideration of H.R. 6995
(Federal Trade Commission Authorization Act) in the Committee of the
Whole, the Chair responded to an inquiry regarding debate, as indicated
below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 128 Cong. Rec. 28235, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [James T.] Broyhill [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I
have a parliamentary inquiry with respect to the procedure followed
here.
It is my understanding that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Florio) [the manager of the bill] will control the time in
opposition to the Luken amendment; is that correct?
The Chairman: (15) If the gentleman is opposed to
the amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [James J.] Florio [of New Jersey]: I am, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Florio) will
therefore be recognized to control the time in opposition to the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio.
Sec. 24.6 Where a special rule adopted by the House limits debate on an
amendment to be controlled by the propo
[[Page 10192]]
nent and an opponent, and prohibits amendments thereto, the Chair
may in his discretion recognize the manager of the bill if opposed
and there is no requirement for recognition of the minority party.
The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on
June 18, 1986,(16) during consideration of H.R. 4868 (Anti-
Apartheid Act of 1986):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 132 Cong. Rec. 14275, 14276, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: (17) Under the rule, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Dellums) will be recognized for 30 minutes,
and a Member opposed to the amendment will be recognized for 30
minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Bob Traxler (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Will those gentlemen who are opposed to the Dellums amendment
kindly stand so the Chair can designate?
Is the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Bonker) opposed to the
amendment?
Mr. [Don] Bonker [of Washington]: I advise the Chair that I
oppose the amendment.
The Chairman: Then the Chair will recognize the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Bonker) for 30 minutes in opposition to the Dellums
amendment.
Does the gentleman from Washington wish to yield any of his
time or share any of his time?
Mr. Bonker: Mr. Chairman, I would yield half the allotted time,
15 minutes, to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Siljander).
The Chairman: The time in opposition will be equally divided
between the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Bonker) and the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Siljander). . . .
Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, do I
understand that the process that has just taken place has given the
minority side one-quarter of the time.
The Chairman: The Chair would counsel the gentleman from
Pennsylvania in regard to his inquiry that the rule provides that a
Member will be recognized in opposition. The gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Bonker) was recognized in opposition, and he shared
his time with your side.
Mr. Walker: In other words, the minority, though, was not
recognized for the purposes of opposition. Is that correct?
The Chairman: The Chair would state that the procedures of the
House are governed by its rules, but more importantly in this
instance, by the rule adopted by the House as reported from the
Committee.
Manager's Right To Make Essential Motion
Sec. 24.7 The Speaker recognized the manager of a special rule, pending
when a recess had been declared to await the copy of an engrossed
bill, to withdraw the special rule from consideration.
On Apr. 8, 1964,(18) the House was considering a special
rule (H.
[[Page 10193]]
Res. 665), offered by Mr. Richard Bolling, of Missouri, from the
Committee on Rules, providing for taking a bill from the Speaker's
table and agreeing to Senate amendments thereto. Before a vote was had
on the resolution, Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts,
declared a recess pending the receipt of an engrossed bill, H.R. 10222,
the Food Stamp Act of 1964. When the House reconvened, the Speaker
announced that the unfinished business was the reading of the latter
bill. Mr. Oliver P. Bolton, of Ohio, made a parliamentary inquiry as to
the status of the resolution pending at the recess and the Speaker,
without responding to the inquiry, recognized Mr. Bolling, the manager
of the resolution, who then withdrew the resolution from consideration.
In answer to further parliamentary inquiries, the Speaker stated that
the withdrawal of the resolution terminated the reason for the
parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 110 Cong. Rec. 7302-04, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: The rules no longer permit a Member to
demand the reading of an engrossed bill.
Manager's Right To Withdraw Resolution; Effect on Debate
Sec. 24.8 A Member calling up
a privileged resolution from the Committee on Rules is recognized
for a full hour notwithstanding the fact that as manager he has
previously called up the resolution and withdrawn it after debate.
On Apr. 8, 1964,(19) Mr. Richard Bolling, of Missouri,
called up at the direction of the Committee on Rules House Resolution
665, making in order the consideration of
a bill. As noted above (Sec. 24.7, supra), Mr. Bolling withdrew this
resolution in order that the engrossed copy of a bill could be taken up
as unfinished business. In response to a parliamentary
inquiry, the Speaker, John W.
McCormack, of Massachusetts,
stated that when the Committee
on Rules resolution was again brought up, the Member calling
it up would be recognized for a
full hour despite the fact that it
had already been brought up and withdrawn:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 110 Cong. Rec. 7303-08, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, in view of
the withdrawal of the resolution by the gentleman from Missouri
[Mr. Bolling] do I understand that we start all over again on the
consideration of the rule for the wheat-cotton bill?
The Speaker: When the gentleman calls it up, the understanding
of the gentleman is correct.
[[Page 10194]]
Mr. Halleck: We will start all over again with 30 minutes on a
side?
The Speaker: That is correct.
Manager's Right To Offer and Debate Amendments
Sec. 24.9 Recognition to offer amendments is first extended to the
manager of a bill, and the fact that the Committee of the Whole has
just completed consideration of one amendment offered by the
manager does not preclude his being recognized to offer another.
On Apr. 6, 1967,(20) Robert W. Kastenmeier, of
Wisconsin, was the Member in charge of H.R. 2512, being considered for
amendment in the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Kastenmeier had offered an
amendment, which was adopted by the Committee. He then immediately
offered another amendment. Mr. Byron G. Rogers, of Colorado, made a
point of order against recognition for that purpose, and Chairman John
H. Dent, of Pennsylvania, overruled the point of order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 113 Cong. Rec. 8617, 8618, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Rogers of Colorado: The gentleman from Wisconsin just
offered an amendment, and certainly I as a member of the committee
ought to have the privilege of offering an amendment.
The Chairman: The gentleman from Wisconsin is manager of the
bill. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Sec. 24.10 In the Committee of the Whole, the Member in charge of the
bill may speak again on an amendment where debate under the five-
minute rule is limited (and the remaining time is allocated by the
Chair).
On June 25, 1952,(1) during consideration of amendments
to a bill in the Committee of the Whole, a motion was agreed to to
close debate on a pending amendment and all amendments thereto at a
certain time. Chairman Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas, answered a
parliamentary inquiry as to the right to be recognized, under the
limitation, of the Member in charge of the bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 98 Cong. Rec. 8028, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman of Michigan: Under this limitation is
the chairman of the committee, who has already spoken once on this
amendment, entitled to be heard again under the rule?
The Chairman: The chairman of the committee could rise in
opposition to a pro forma amendment and be recognized again.
Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: Under the limitation?
The Chairman: Yes; under the limitation.
[[Page 10195]]
Extension of Debate Time
Sec. 24.11 Although the manager of a bill has control of time for
general debate in the Committee of the Whole, he may not consume
more than one hour except by unanimous consent.
For example, on June 22, 1958,(2) Mr. Clarence Cannon,
of Missouri, was in control of time for debate on an appropriation
bill. Chairman James J. Delaney, of New York, advised him that he had
consumed one hour. When Mr. Cannon indicated he needed more time, the
Chairman asked whether there was objection to Mr. Cannon's proceeding
for one additional minute. Mr. Donald W. Nicholson, of Massachusetts,
objected to the request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 104 Cong. Rec. 14647, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Likewise, on Mar. 6, 1962,(3) Mr. J. Vaughan Gary, of
Virginia, was in control of time for general debate on an appropriation
bill. When Chairman W. Homer Thornberry, of Texas, advised him that he
had consumed one hour of his time, he asked and was given permission by
unanimous consent to proceed for five additional minutes.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 108 Cong. Rec. 3484-89, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
4. See also 115 Cong. Rec. 21174-78, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., July 29,
1969; and 111 Cong. Rec. 26258, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 7,
1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yielding Time to Self
Sec. 24.12 Under the five-minute rule in the Committee of the Whole the
Member handling a bill has preference in recognition for debate but
the power of recognition remains with the Chair and the Member
cannot ``yield'' himself time for debate.
On Mar. 26, 1965,(5) Adam C. Powell, of New York, was
the Member in charge of debate on H.R. 2362, the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965, which was being considered for
amendment under the five-minute rule in the Committee of the Whole. Mr.
Powell arose and stated ``I yield myself 5 minutes.'' Chairman Richard
Bolling, of Missouri, stated as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 111 Cong. Rec. 6113, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The gentleman cannot yield himself 5 minutes. The Chair assumes
he moves to strike out the last word.
Mr. Melvin R. Laird, of Wisconsin, objected that Mr. Powell had not
moved to strike out the last word, and so moved himself. The Chairman
first recognized Mr. Powell for the pro forma amendment, as manager of
the bill and chairman on the Committee on Education and Labor.
[[Page 10196]]
Manager Allotting Time to Others; Effect on Allotted Time Where Manager
Loses Floor
Sec. 24.13 A Member in control as manager of the time for debate under
the hour rule may allot portions of his time to other Members; but
if he loses the floor (by yielding for an amendment), Members who
have been promised time by him also lose the right of recognition.
On Nov. 29, 1967,(6) Mr. William R. Anderson, of
Tennessee, called up by direction of the Committee on Rules House
Resolution 960, authorizing travel by members of the Committee on
Education and Labor for investigatory purposes. Mr. Anderson yielded to
Mr. Durward G. Hall, of Missouri, to offer an amendment, thereby
surrendering control of the resolution to Mr. Hall. When Speaker Pro
Tempore Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, stated that the question was on the
resolution, a parliamentary inquiry was raised:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 113 Cong. Rec. 34136-38, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [H. Allen] Smith of California: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state the
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. Smith of California: I was yielded 30 minutes a while ago
by the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Anderson]. Do I not have that
time?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: When the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr.
Anderson] yielded to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Hall] for the
purpose of offering an amendment, he surrendered all his time, and
the Chair
so informed the gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. Smith of California: If the gentleman has agreed to yield
30 minutes to me, I lose it?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: When the gentleman yielded for the
purpose of amendment.
Motion To Postpone
Sec. 24.14 A motion to postpone further consideration of a privileged
resolution (to censure a Member) may be offered before the manager
of the resolution has been recognized for debate, and is debatable
for one hour controlled by the Member offering the motion.
On May 29, 1980,(7) the following proceedings occurred
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 126 Cong. Rec. 12649, 12650, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Charles E.] Bennett [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, by
direction of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, I call
up a privileged resolution (H. Res. 660) in the matter of Rep
[[Page 10197]]
resentative Charles H. Wilson, and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 660
Resolved,
(1) That Representative Charles H. Wilson be censured; . .
.
(4) That the House of Representatives adopt the report of
the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct dated May 8,
1980, in the matter of Representative Charles H. Wilson.
Mr. [John H.] Rousselot [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Rousselot moves to postpone further consideration of
House Resolution 660 until June 10, 1980.
The Speaker: (8) The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from California (Mr. Rousselot) for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manager's Discretion as to Motion To Rise
Sec. 24.15 The motion that the Committee of the Whole rise (thereby
cutting off debate) is within the discretion of the Member handling
the bill before the Committee.
On June 16, 1948,(9) Mr. Walter G. Andrews, of New York,
was handling the consideration of H.R. 6401 in the Committee of the
Whole. He moved that the Committee rise, and Chairman Francis H. Case,
of South Dakota, ruled that the motion was within Mr. Andrews'
discretion:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 94 Cong. Rec. 8521, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Andrews of New York: Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that
two or three Members who have time are not here, I move that the
Committee do now rise.
The Chairman: The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Andrews].
Mr. [George A.] Smathers [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I would
like to be heard on that.
The Chairman: That is not a debatable motion. It is always
within the discretion of the gentleman handling the bill to move
that the Committee rise.
Manager's Discretion in Moving To Close Debate
Sec. 24.16 During five-minute debate in the Committee of the Whole, the
Member managing the bill is entitled to prior recognition to move
to close debate on a pending amendment, over other Members who
desire to debate
the amendment or to offer amendments thereto.
On Nov. 25, 1970,(10) the Committee of the Whole was
conducting five-minute debate on H.R. 19504, which was being han
[[Page 10198]]
dled by Mr. John C. Kluczynski, of Illinois. Mr. Kluczynski was
recognized by Chairman Chet Holifield, of California, to move that all
debate on the pending amendment immediately close. The motion was
adopted; Mr. Jonathan B. Bingham, of New York, attempted to offer an
amendment and Mr. Andrew Jacobs, Jr., of Indiana, attempted to debate
the amendment on which debate had been closed. The Chairman stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 116 Cong. Rec. 38990, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair had not recognized the gentleman from New York or the
gentleman from Indiana. The Chair had recognized the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Kluczynski). The gentleman from Indiana misunderstood
the Chair had recognized him. The Chair had to recognize the
gentleman from Illinois as the chairman of the subcommittee.
Closing Debate
Sec. 24.17 The proponents of a bill before the House have the right to
conclude debate thereon.
On Nov. 13, 1941,(11) the House discussed the division
of time for debate on a pending bill; Speaker Pro Tempore Jere Cooper,
of Tennessee, stated in response to a parliamentary inquiry that the
proponents of a bill had the right to close debate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 87 Cong. Rec. 8880, 8881, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Hamilton] Fish [Jr., of New York]: Mr. Speaker, we have
two speakers on our side in opposition to this important measure. I
am informed there are two speakers on the other side. I recognize,
of course, that the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
has the right to close the debate, but I insist on the right of the
minority that the opposition should be given the next to the last
speech on this important measure.
My inquiry is, if I have not correctly stated the situation?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state in response to
the parliamentary inquiry that under the rules of the House the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Bloom], chairman of the committee in
charge of the bill, is entitled to close the debate. With reference
to recognition of Members prior to close of debate, of course, that
is under the control of the gentleman in charge of the time.
Mr. [Earl C.] Michener [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a further
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Michener: With all due respect to the Speaker pro tempore,
may I call his attention to the fact that if his ruling is
construed literally it will permit the chairman of the committee
controlling the time----
Mr. [Sol] Bloom [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I shall yield to
the gentleman from New York, and will put on a speaker, then he can
put on a speaker.
Mr. Michener: May I finish my parliamentary inquiry?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is entitled to complete
his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. Michener: Reverting to my question before I was interrupted
by
[[Page 10199]]
the gentleman from New York: If the chairman of the committee
controlling the time is permitted to close the debate and is not
limited to one speaker in closing the debate, would it not be
possible for such a chairman to open the debate, for instance, and
then compel the opposition to use all of its time before the
proponent used any more time?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct.
Mr. Michener: That right to close debate means one speech. If
it meant two, it might mean three, and if it meant three it might
mean four. It might be within the power of the proponents of any
bill to compel the other side to put on all their speakers, then
wind up with only the speeches of the proponents. Such a precedent
should not be set. Am I correct?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct in the
statement that the proponents of the bill have the right to close
debate. That has been the holding of the Chair and it is in line
with an unbroken line of precedents of the House. The Chair has no
way of knowing how many different Members the gentlemen in charge
of the time on the two sides may desire to yield time to. The Chair
holds that the proponents of the bill are entitled to close
debate.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See also Sec. 7.13, supra (while the Member who demands a second on
a motion to suspend the rules is recognized for 20 minutes of
debate, it is customary for the Speaker to recognize the Member
making the motion to conclude the debate).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 24.18 The manager of a bill in the Committee of the Whole, and not
the proponent of the pending amendment, is entitled to close debate
on the amendment.
On July 9, 1965,(13) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 6400, the Voting Rights
Act of 1965, under the terms of
a unanimous-consent agreement providing two hours' debate on an
amendment, to be divided and controlled by Chairman Emanuel Celler, of
New York, and the ranking minority member, Mr. William M. McCulloch, of
Ohio, of the Committee on the Judiciary, which had reported the bill.
Chairman Richard Bolling, of Missouri, ruled that Mr. Celler, as
manager of the bill, and not Mr. McCulloch, the proponent of the
pending amendment, had the right to close debate on the amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 111 Cong. Rec. 16228, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Celler: Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time remains on
this side?
The Chairman: The gentleman from New York has 4 minutes
remaining and the gentleman from Ohio 1 minute.
Mr. Celler: Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman from Ohio yield me
1 minute he has remaining so that we can close debate on this side?
Mr. McCulloch: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
[[Page 10200]]
The Chairman: The gentleman will state the parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. McCulloch: Mr. Chairman, since the debate at this time is
on the substitute amendment, pursuant to the rule, would not the
privilege of closing debate come to this side of the aisle?
The Chairman: The closing of debate, the Chair will inform the
gentleman from Ohio, would be in the hands of the manager of the
bill.
Sec. 24.19 The manager of a bill is entitled to close general debate,
and the minority Member controlling one-half the time must consume
it or yield it back prior to closing of debate.
On Mar. 2, 1976,(14) the Committee of the Whole having
under consideration H.R. 10760 (Black Lung Benefits Reform Act of
1976), the following exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 122 Cong. Rec. 4979, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John H.] Dent [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, does the
gentleman from Illinois have any further requests for time?
Mr. [John N.] Erlenborn [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I have no
further requests for time and reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Dent: Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time
remaining, which is around 3 minutes, I think.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: (15) The gentleman from
Pennsylvania [manager of the bill] is recognized for 4 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Jim Lloyd (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair will ask now whether the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Erlenborn) yields back the balance of his time?
Mr. Erlenborn: Is that required, Mr. Chairman? I said I would
reserve the balance of my time.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Pennsylvania is
entitled to close the debate.
Mr. Erlenborn: Well, I do not intend to upstage the gentleman.
I do not intend to use my time. If the gentleman is finished and
has no further time, then I will yield back the balance of my time.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 4
minutes.
Sec. 24.20 The manager from the committee reporting a bill has the
right to close debate on an amendment under the five-minute rule,
and not the sponsor of the amendment.
On July 29, 1982,(16) during consideration of H.R. 6030
(military procurement authorization for fiscal year 1983) in the
Committee of the Whole, the Chair responded to a parliamentary inquiry
regarding the conclusion of debate, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 128 Cong. Rec. 18582, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Edward J.] Markey [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I have
a parliamentary inquiry.
[[Page 10201]]
The Chairman: (17) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Les AuCoin (Oreg.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Markey: Mr. Chairman, is it not my right as the maker of
the amendment to make the concluding statement on the pending
amendment?
The Chairman: The Committee has the right to close.
Moving Previous Question
Sec. 24.21 The Member calling up a proposition in the House may move
the previous question and cut off further debate.
On Jan. 4, 1965,(18) at the convening of the 89th
Congress and before the adoption of rules, Mr. Carl Albert, of
Oklahoma, offered a resolution and, after some debate, moved the
previous question:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 111 Cong. Rec. 20, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Albert: Mr. Speaker, I offer a resolution (H. Res. 2) and
ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read as follows:
H. Res. 2
Resolved, That the Speaker is hereby authorized and
directed to administer the oath of office to the gentleman from
New York, Mr. Richard L. Ottinger.
Mr. Albert: Mr. Speaker, again this is a resolution involving a
Member whose certificate of election in due form is on file in the
Office of the Clerk. I ask for the adoption of the resolution.
Mr. [James C.] Cleveland [of New Hampshire]: Mr. Speaker, will
the gentleman yield for a parliamentary inquiry?
Mr. Albert: I yield for a parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. Cleveland: If this resolution is adopted, will it be
impossible for me to offer my own resolution pertaining to the same
subject matter, either as an amendment or a substitute?
The Speaker: (19) If the resolution is agreed to, it
will not be in order for the gentleman to offer a substitute
resolution or an amendment, particularly if the previous question
is ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Cleveland: Is it now in order, Mr. Speaker?
The Speaker: Not unless the gentleman from Oklahoma yields to
the gentleman for that purpose.
Mr. Cleveland: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Albert: The gentleman from Oklahoma does not yield for that
purpose.
Mr. Cleveland: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry. Will there
be any opportunity to discuss the merits of this case prior to a
vote on the resolution offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma?
The Speaker: The gentleman from Oklahoma has control over the
time. Not unless the gentleman from Oklahoma yields for that
purpose.
Mr. Cleveland: Will the gentleman from Oklahoma yield for that
purpose?
Mr. Albert: Mr. Speaker, I yield for a question and a very
brief statement. I do not yield for a speech.
[[Page 10202]]
Mr. Cleveland: May I inquire if the gentleman will yield so
that I may ask for unanimous consent that certain remarks of mine
pertaining to this matter be incorporated in the Record?
Mr. Albert: No. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.
Mr. [Thomas G.] Abernethy [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: Does the gentleman from Oklahoma yield to the
gentleman from Mississippi for the purpose of submitting a
parliamentary inquiry?
Mr. Albert: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the
resolution.
The Speaker: The question is on the motion.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
On Mar. 11, 1941,(20) the House was considering House
Resolution 131 under the terms of a unanimous-consent request providing
for two hours of debate and dividing control of debate between Mr. Sol
Bloom, of New York, and Mr. Hamilton Fish, Jr., of New York. Mr. Bloom
moved the previous question prior to the expiration
of the two hours' time, and Mr.
Martin J. Kennedy, of New York,
objected on the ground that
the unanimous-consent agreement was not being complied with
in that the previous question
had been demanded prematurely. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled
that the previous question could be moved at any time in the discretion
of the Members controlling debate on the resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 87 Cong. Rec. 2177, 2178, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 24.22 A Member calling up
a bill or joint resolution in
the House pursuant to a special order controls one hour
of debate thereon and may offer an amendment thereto and move the
previous question on the amendment and on the bill or joint
resolution.
On Nov. 3, 1977,(1) the proceedings relating to
consideration of House Joint Resolution 643 (continuing appropriations)
in the House were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 123 Cong. Rec. 36970, 36971, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the
rule
just adopted, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 643) making
further
continuing appropriations for the fis-cal year 1978, and for other
purposes. . . .
The Clerk read the joint resolution, as follows:
H.J. Res. 643
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
following sums are appropriated out of any money in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, and out of applicable
corporate or
[[Page 10203]]
other revenues, receipts, and funds, for the several
departments, agencies, corporations, and other organizational
units of the Government for the fiscal year 1978, namely:
Sec. 101. Such amounts as may be necessary for continuing
projects or activities which were conducted in the fiscal year
1977, and for which appropriations, funds, or other authority
would be available in the District of Columbia Appropriations
Act, 1978 (H.R. 9005) as passed the House of Representatives or
the Senate. . . .
The Speaker: (2) The gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Mahon) is recognized for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Mahon: Mr. Speaker, Members need to understand what our
problem is at the moment. In view of the fact that final action has
not been taken on the District of Columbia appropriation bill and
on the Labor-Health, Education, and Welfare bill, we have to have a
continuing resolution. . . .
Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Mahon: On page 2, line 6, strike
the period and insert the following: ``: Provided further, That
the rate of operations for the Disaster Loan Fund of the Small
Business Administration contained in said Act shall be the rate
as passed the Senate. . . .
Mr. Mahon: It is absolutely urgent that we find a way to get
this continuing resolution acted upon by the Congress tomorrow,
since we cannot do it tonight. It is imperative that we get through
the Congress a continuing resolution on tomorrow and send it to the
President. Otherwise, there will be some very serious problems.
Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the amendment and
the joint resolution to final passage.
The previous question was ordered.
The amendment was agreed to.
The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a
third time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to
reconsider was laid on the table.
--Previous Question as Terminating Debate Time Previously Yielded
Sec. 24.23 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,(3) 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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 123 Cong. Rec. 6816, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: (4) The gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Bolling) is recognized for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 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. . . .
[[Page 10204]]
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. . . .
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.
Bill Called Up in House by Unanimous Consent
Sec. 24.24 Where the House has agreed to consider in the House a bill
called up
by unanimous consent, the Member calling up the bill is recognized
for one hour, and amendments may not be offered by other Members
unless the Member in charge yields for that purpose.
On Oct. 5, 1962,(5) Mr. Francis E. Walter, of
Pennsylvania, obtained unanimous consent for the consideration of a
bill, but before he began speaking, Mr. Arch A. Moore, Jr., of West
Virginia, a minority Member, offered an amendment. After Mr. Walter was
recognized to control the time (one hour) on the bill, Speaker John W.
McCormack, of Massachusetts, asked Mr. Walter whether he was willing to
accept the amendment, and Mr. Walter answered in the affirmative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 108 Cong. Rec. 22606-09, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 24.25 When a bill is called
up by unanimous consent for consideration in the House, the Member
making the request is recognized for one hour.
On Mar. 12, 1963,(6) Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York,
asked unanimous consent for the immediate consideration in the House of
private bill H.R. 4374, to proclaim Sir Winston Churchill an honorary
citizen of the United States. Speaker John W. McCormack, of
Massachusetts, answered parliamentary inquiries on the control and time
for debate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 109 Cong. Rec. 3993, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, under what
circumstances
[[Page 10205]]
will this resolution be considered? Will there be any time for
discussion of the resolution, if unanimous consent is given?
The Speaker: In response to the parliamentary inquiry of the
gentleman from Iowa, if consent is granted for the present
consideration of the bill, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Celler]
will be recognized for 1 hour and the gentleman from New York may
yield to such Members as he desires to yield to before moving the
previous question.
Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object,
is some time to be allocated to this side of the aisle?
Mr. Celler: I intend to allocate half of the time to the other
side.
Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
Member Calling Up Privileged Resolution
Sec. 24.26 A Member recognized to call up a privileged resolution by
direction of the Committee on Rules controls one hour of debate
thereon and may offer one or more amendments thereto, and unanimous
consent is not required for such purpose.
The proceedings of July 29, 1977,(7) relating to House
consideration of House Resolution 727 (providing for consideration of
H.R. 8444, the National Energy Act of 1977) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 123 Cong. Rec. 25653-55, 25663, 25664, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Richard] Bolling [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, by direction
of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 727 and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 727
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to move . . . that the House resolve itself
into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union
for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 8444) to establish a
comprehensive national energy policy. . . .
The Speaker: (8) The gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Bolling) is recognized for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Bolling: Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Anderson), and pending that, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am soon going to ask unanimous consent to
correct some errors in language. . . .
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that on page 4, line 7, to
strike ``July 28'' and insert ``July 29''.
The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Missouri?
Mr. [Clifford R.] Allen [of Tennessee]: Mr. Speaker, I object.
. . .
Mr. Bolling: Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
[[Page 10206]]
Amendment offered by Mr. Bolling: On page 4, line 7, strike
out July 28 and insert July 29.
The Speaker: The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Bolling).
The amendment was agreed to. . . .
Mr. [Garry] Brown of Michigan: . . . Mr. Speaker, what was the
order of business at the time the gentleman offered the amendment
to the rule? . . .
I was not sure whether or not the Chair had decided to take up
the rule at that time because the gentleman's unanimous-consent
request was made after we started consideration of the rule. Is
that correct?
The Speaker: The rule is pending at the present time. The
gentleman has asked unanimous consent for a couple of technical
amendments, which the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Allen) objected
to.
The gentleman from Missouri then offered an amendment, which he
has authority to do as manager of the resolution and the House has
agreed to the first of those.
Sec. 24.27 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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 amend
[[Page 10207]]
ments 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.
Member Offering Privileged Resolution Prior to Adoption of Rules
Sec. 24.28 Prior to the adoption of the rules, a Member offering a
privileged resolution on the seating of a Member-elect is entitled
to one hour of debate.
On Jan. 10, 1967, prior to the adoption of rules, Mr. Morris K.
Udall, of Arizona, offered as privileged House Resolution 1,
authorizing the Speaker to administer the oath of office to challenged
Member-elect Adam C. Powell, of New York, and referring the question of
his final right to a seat to a select committee. Speaker John W.
McCormack, of Massachusetts, ruled that Mr. Udall was entitled to
recognition for one hour.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 113 Cong. Rec. 14, 15, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
For the privilege and disposition of resolutions before the
adoption of rules, see Ch. 1, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limitation on Amendment--Chair May Allocate Time Between Proponent and
Opponent
Sec. 24.29 The Chair has discretion to allocate time under a limitation
on an amendment between the proponent and an opponent thereof, to
be yielded by them.
On Aug. 5, 1982,(12) the Committee of the Whole had
under consideration House Joint Resolution 521 (nuclear freeze
amendment), when the following exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 128 Cong. Rec. 17758, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Albert A.] Gore [Jr., of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that debate on all of the perfecting amendments
to the resolution end at 6:30 p.m., and that debate on the
Broomfield substitute be limited to 1 hour, a half hour allocated
to each side. . . .
The Chairman: (13) The Chair will state the
unanimous-consent request as understood by the Chair.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The gentleman from Tennessee has asked unanimous consent that
all debate on perfecting amendments to the resolution cease at 6:30
and that thereafter there will be 1 hour of debate
on the Broomfield substitute and all amendments thereto, the time
to be equally divided.
Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Tennessee?
[[Page 10208]]
There was no objection. . . .
The Chair will inquire if there are other perfecting amendments
to the resolution.
If not, under the previous agreement, by unanimous consent, the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Broomfield) will be afforded the
opportunity to offer his amendment in the nature of a substitute.
There will be an hour of debate on that substitute and all
amendments thereto. The time will be equally divided between the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Zablocki) and the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Broomfield).
Five-minute Debate May Not Be Reserved
Sec. 24.30 The Member recognized for five minutes in support of her
motion to recommit with instructions must use or yield back all of
that time, and may not reserve a portion thereof.
On June 26, 1981,(14) during consideration of H.R. 3982,
the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, in the House, the following
exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 127 Cong. Rec. 14740, 14792, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mrs. [Claudine] Schneider [of Rhode Island]: Mr. Speaker, I
offer a motion to recommit.
The Speaker: (15) Is the gentlewoman opposed to the
bill?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mrs. Schneider: I am, Mr. Speaker, in its present form.
The Speaker: The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mrs. Schneider moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 3982, to
the Committee on the Budget with instructions to report the
bill back forthwith with the following amendments: . . .
The Speaker: The gentlewoman from Rhode Island (Mrs. Schneider)
is recognized for 5 minutes. . . .
Mrs. Schneider: Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
The Speaker: The Chair will state that the gentlewoman from
Rhode Island (Mrs. Schneider) cannot reserve her time. She must use
all of it now.
Mrs. Schneider: Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The Speaker: The gentlewoman from Rhode Island (Mrs. Schneider)
has yielded back her time.
Remaining Time Allocated Between Proponents of Two Amendments; Manager
Closes
Sec. 24.31 Where debate in Committee of the Whole on a pending
amendment and amendment thereto has been limited to a time certain,
the Chair may in his discretion allocate the remaining time between
the proponents of the two amendments, one of whom being the manager
of the bill, has the right to close debate.
The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the
[[Page 10209]]
Whole on Mar. 16, 1983,(16) during consideration of House
Joint Resolution 13 (nuclear freeze resolution):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 129 Cong. Rec. 5792, 5793, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I move
that all debate on the pending amendment and amendment thereto end
at 9:15 p.m.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Mr. Zablocki was the manager of the bill and the proponent of the
amendment to the amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: (18) The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Zablocki). . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
So the motion was agreed to. . . .
The Chairman: Under the motion just agreed to, debate has been
limited to 9:15. The Chair will exercise discretion and apportion
the remaining time.
The Chair will recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Zablocki) for 3 minutes, and the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Stratton) for 3 minutes. Each of those gentlemen may apportion
their 3 minutes as they wish. . . .
The Chair will inquire, does the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Zablocki) wish to exercise his right to allot time?
Mr. Zablocki: The gentleman from Wisconsin reserves his time. I
reserve the balance of my time.
The Chairman: The gentleman from Wisconsin has the right to
terminate debate.
Unallocated Time
Sec. 24.32 Where by unanimous consent debate on a pending amendment in
Committee of the Whole has been equally 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,(19) the Chair responded to inquiries regarding
recognition for debate time. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 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: (20) 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)?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Les AuCoin (Oreg.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Stratton: That is correct.
[[Page 10210]]
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.
Amendment Offered for Which Time Was Not Allocated
Sec. 24.33 By unanimous consent, the Committee of the Whole agreed at
the beginning of general debate to limit and divide control of time
for
debate on any amendments
to be offered by designated Members to certain paragraphs (or to
amendments thereto); and where total time for debate on any
amendments to be offered by two Members had been limited and
control in favor thereof given to one of those Members by unanimous
consent, time consumed on the first amendment offered was deducted
from the total time and a third Member offering an amendment was
required to obtain debate time from the Member in control.
The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on
July 23, 1981,(1) during consideration of the energy and
water development appropriation bill (H.R. 4144):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 127 Cong. Rec. 16983, 16997, 16998, 17014, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Tom] Bevill [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the debate on the amendments by the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Pritchard) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Edgar) in title I to the paragraph entitled ``Construction,
General'' on page 2, be limited to 2 hours, one-half of the time to
be controlled equally by the gentleman from Washington and one-half
by myself.
The Chairman: (2) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Alabama?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Anthony C. Beilenson (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 10211]]
There was no objection. . . .
Mr. [John T.] Myers [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Myers: On page 3, line 1, strike
out ``$1,509,941,000'' and insert in lieu thereof
``$1,518,941,000''. . . .
Mr. [Joel] Pritchard [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment to the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Pritchard to the amendment offered
by Mr. Myers: In the proposed amendment strike the sum
``$1,518,941,000'' and insert ``$1,320,941,000''. . . .
The Chairman: The Chair would remind the Members, if the
gentleman would suspend, that the gentleman from Washington, under
the unanimous-consent agreement, has 55 minutes remaining under his
control of the time on this particular amendment or on any
subsequent amendment he or the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Edgar) may offer to the pending paragraph.
The gentleman from Alabama has 60 minutes remaining under his
control
of time on this or such subsequent amendment.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Pritchard) for such further time as he may consume. . . .
Mr. [Bob] Edgar [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment to the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Edgar to the amendment offered by
Mr. Myers: In the Myers amendment, strike out
``$1,518,941,000'' and insert in lieu thereof
``$1,429,941,000''.
The Chairman: The Chair should point out that under the
unanimous-consent agreement, there are 11 minutes remaining under
the control of
the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Pritchard), and there are 4
minutes remaining under the control of the gentleman from Alabama
(Mr. Bevill).
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Pritchard) to yield such time as he desires.
Mr. Pritchard: Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Edgar).
Division of Time on Disciplinary Resolution
Sec. 24.34 The manager of a disciplinary resolution divided his one
hour of debate equally among himself, the ranking minority member
of the committee, and the Member charged.
On Dec. 18, 1987,(3) after calling up a privileged
resolution (H. Res. 335) for consideration in the House, the manager of
the resolution divided his one hour of debate time, as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 133 Cong. Rec. 36266, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Julian C.] Dixon [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I call up a
privileged reoslution (H. Res. 335) in the matter of Representative
Austin J. Murphy, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
[[Page 10212]]
H. Res. 335
Resolved, That the House of Representatives adopt the
report by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct dated
December 16, 1987, in the matter of Representative Austin J.
Murphy of Pennsylvania.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (4) The gentleman from
California [Mr. Dixon] is recognized for 1 hour. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Dave McCurdy (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Dixon: Mr. Speaker, I yield 20 minutes to the gentleman
from Indiana [Mr. Myers], 20 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania, Mr. Austin J. Murphy, and I will retain 20 minutes
for myself. I wish to state that the yielding of such time is for
purposes of debate only.
Appropriation Bills--Control Where Time Not Fixed
Sec. 24.35 When the House resolves itself into the Committee of the
Whole for the consideration of an appropriation bill without fixing
the time for general debate by unanimous consent, the majority
Member first recognized is entitled to an hour and may yield such
portions of that time as he desires, and after that hour, a
minority Member may be recognized for an hour.
On Mar. 24, 1947,(5) 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, an appropriation bill. He proposed a
unanimous-consent agreement for time for general debate on the bill,
and Mr. John J. Rooney, of New York, objected to the request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 93 Cong. Rec. 2464, 2465, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, then answered a
parliamentary inquiry on recognition and time for debate in the
Committee of the Whole, where the time and control of debate had not
been fixed:
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. Rooney: 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.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Since appropriation bills reported by the Committee on
Appropriations are privileged for consideration (see Rule XI
clause 4(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 726 [1995]), they are
normally considered without a special order from the Committee
on Rules. See, generally, Ch. 25, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 10213]]
--Debate Controlled by Three Members
Sec. 24.36 On one occasion, time in general debate on an appropriation
bill in the Committee of the Whole was controlled by three Members:
the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations and the chairman
and ranking minority member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on
the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies.
On Feb. 18, 1958,(7) Mr. Michael J. Kirwan, of Ohio,
made a unanimous-consent request on the control of time for debate on
an appropriation bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 104 Cong. Rec. 2298, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the
consideration of the bill (H.R. 10746) making appropriations for
the Department of the Interior and related agencies for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1959, and for other purposes; and pending that
motion, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that general debate be
limited to 2 hours, 1 hour to be controlled by the gentleman from
Missouri [Mr. Cannon] and 1 hour to be equally divided and
controlled by the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Jensen] and myself.
The Speaker: (8) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Ohio?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
Parliamentarian's Note: Mr. Kirwan was the chairman of the
Subcommittee on Appropriations for the Department of the Interior and
Related Agencies; Mr. Ben F. Jensen, of Iowa, was the ranking minority
member of that subcommittee; and Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, was the
chairman of the full Committee on Appropriations.
--Legislative Provisions
Sec. 24.37 The Chairman ruled that while members of the Committee on
Appropriations are ordinarily entitled to recognition in debate on
a general appropriation bill, where a rule was adopted waiving
points of order against legislative provisions in the bill,
recognition under the five-minute rule would be divided between
members of the committee and other Members interested in the bill.
On Mar. 5 and 6, 1941,(9) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 3737, a general appropriation bill, pursuant to House
Resolution 126, waiving all points of order against the bill.
[[Page 10214]]
The Committee discussed and Chairman John E. Rankin, of Mississippi,
ruled on the procedure for distribution of time, which departed from
normal practice:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 87 Cong. Rec. 1846, 1921, 1922, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Pace] has been seeking
recognition. The Chair realizes that this is an appropriation bill,
and that ordinarily members of that committee would be entitled to
preference, but under the rule adopted yesterday we made this part
of it a legislative bill by making certain legislation in order.
The Chair is going to divide the time between the members of the
Appropriations Committee and the other Members of the House who are
vitally interested in this proposition. . . .
The Chair may say to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Cannon]
that there is no written rule on this subject, but within the last
two or three decades appropriations have been taken away from other
committees and concentrated in the hands of one committee. The
Chair is not speaking any more with reference to the Committee on
Appropriations than any other committee. It is perfectly fair for a
committee to have charge of general debate and probably debate
under the 5-minute rule to a large extent, but the Chair does not
think it is fair--especially under conditions such as we have here,
where a rule has been adopted making legislation that ordinarily
comes from the Committee on Agriculture and from other committees
of the House in order on the bill--the Chair does think it fair to
the rest of the membership of the House to recognize members of the
Committee on Appropriations under the 5-minute rule to the
exclusion of the other Members of the House.
So far as the present occupant of the chair individually is
concerned, if the time should come when that matter is presented,
the Chair might go a step further and apply it to all measures
coming before the House and considered under the 5-minute rule. If
we are going to have legislation by the entire Congress we will
have to come to that decision ultimately.
Parliamentarian's Note: The Chairman indicated that his ruling on
recognition and distribution of time on the appropriation bill was not
to be taken as a precedent, differing as it did from normal practice.
--Unanimous-consent Agreement
Sec. 24.38 In the consideration of a general appropriation bill,
containing all the annual appropriations for the various agencies
of the government, it was agreed by unanimous consent that: (1)
general debate would run without limit to be equally divided
between the chairman and the ranking minority member of the
Committee on Appropriations; (2) following the reading of the first
chapter of the bill for amendment, not to exceed two hours' gen
[[Page 10215]]
eral debate would be had before the reading of each subsequent
chapter, one-half to be controlled by the chairman and one-half by
the ranking minority member of the subcommittee in charge of the
chapter (to be followed by operation of the five-minute rule on
each chapter).
On Apr. 3, 1950,(10) the House was considering H.R. 7786
(the general appropriation bill for 1951). Clarence Cannon, of
Missouri, Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, made the
following unanimous-consent request on the control of time for debate,
which was agreed to by the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 96 Cong. Rec. 4614, 4615, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the
consideration of the bill (H.R. 7786) making appropriations for the
support of the Government for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1951,
and for other purposes; and pending that I ask unanimous consent
that time for general debate be equally divided, one-half to be
controlled by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Taber] and one-half
by myself; that debate be confined to the bill; and that following
the reading of the first chapter of the bill, not to exceed 2 hours
general debate be had before the reading of each subsequent
chapter, one-half to be controlled by the chairman and one-half by
the ranking minority member of the subcommittee in charge of the
chapter.
--Amendments to Appropriation Bill: General Priorities
Sec. 24.39 On one occasion, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole
announced that in recognizing Members under the five-minute rule
for amendments to an appropriation bill, he would alternate
recognition between the majority and minority sides of the aisle
and would follow these priorities: first, members of the
subcommittee handling the bill; second, members of the full
Committee on Appropriations; and finally, other Members of the
House.
On July 30, 1969,(11) Chairman Chet Holifield, of
California, made an announcement on the order of recognition during
consideration under the five-minute rule of H.R. 13111, appropriations
for the Departments of Labor and Health, Education, and Welfare:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 115 Cong. Rec. 21420, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair might state, under the procedures of the House, he is
trying to recognize first members of the subcommittee on
appropriations handling
[[Page 10216]]
the bill and second general members of the Committee on
Appropriations. It is his intention to go back and forth to each
side of the aisle to recognize Members who have been standing and
seeking recognition the longest. The gentlewoman from Hawaii sought
recognition all yesterday afternoon, and the Chair was unable to
recognize her because of the procedures of the House, having to
recognize Members on both sides of the aisle who are members of the
committee. I wish the Members to know that the Chair will recognize
them under the normal procedures.
Parliamentarian's Note: Normally subcommittee membership does not
accord a priority in recognition, full committee seniority being the
determining factor.
Motion To Instruct Conferees
Sec. 24.40 Under a former practice, a Member recognized to offer a
motion to instruct conferees managed its consideration under the
hour-rule and was not required to divide the hour or to yield time
for debate.
The following proceedings occurred in the House on June 15,
1988,(12) during consideration of a motion to instruct
conferees on H.R. 3051, the Airline Passenger Protection Act:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 134 Cong. Rec. 14621, 100th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [E. Clay] Shaw [Jr., of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
rule XXVIII, clause 1(b), I offer a privileged motion.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (13) The Clerk will report
the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Thomas S. Foley (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Shaw moves that the managers on the part of the House
at the conference on H.R. 3051 and the Senate amendments
thereto be instructed to agree to section 4 of the Senate
amendment. . . .
Mr. Shaw: Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time. I
yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question
on the motion.
Mr. [Henry B.] Gonzalez [of Tex-as]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Florida will
withhold the motion for the previous question.
The gentleman from Texas will state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. Gonzalez: Mr. Speaker, at this point, is it not still the
rule that an allotted time be permitted to this side of the House
inasmuch as the privileged resolution entitles the author of the
resolution to 1 hour? I understood the rules provide for some
opportunity to discuss this.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would advise the gentleman
from Texas that the gentleman from Florida may, if he wishes, yield
time, but he is not required under the rule to divide the time or
to yield.
Parliamentarian's Note: The debate on a motion to instruct is now
divided according to Rule XXVIII clause (1)(b), House Rules and Manual
Sec. 909a (1995).
[[Page 10217]]
Control of Debate on Conference Report
Sec. 24.41 Pursuant to Rule XXVIII, clause 2(a) (as amended in the 92d
Congress, 1st Session), one hour of debate, equally divided and
controlled by the majority and minority parties, is permitted on a
conference report.
On Jan. 19, 1972,(14) Mr. Wayne L. Hays, of Ohio, called
up the conference report on S. 382, Federal Elections Campaign Act of
1972. Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, stated in response to a
parliamentary inquiry that the total time for debate on the report was
limited to one hour, ``30 minutes to each side'' (the majority and
minority). Mr. Hays controlled 30 minutes of debate and Mr. William
Springer, of Illinois, controlled the 30 minutes of debate for the
minority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 118 Cong. Rec. 319-24, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: Prior to the 1971 revision of clause 2 of
Rule XXVIII, a conference report was debatable under the hour rule,
with the entire time under the control of the Member calling up the
report. See, for example, the statement of Speaker Sam Rayburn, on June
23, 1959,(15) that Mr. Albert Rains, of Alabama, would
control one hour of debate on a conference report he had called up.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 105 Cong. Rec. 11599, 86th Cong. 1st Sess. See also 115 Cong. Rec.
40451, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 20, 1969.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 99th Congress, the pertinent rule governing conference
report debate [Rule XXVIII, clause (b)(1)] was amended to provide for a
three-way division of the hour. If both the majority and minority are
in favor of the report, a Member opposed is entitled to 20 minutes.
Amendments in Disagreement
Sec. 24.42 Following rejection of a conference report, debate on a
motion to dispose of the Senate amendment in disagreement is
equally divided between the majority and minority (under the
rationale contained in Rule XXVIII clause 2(b) for division of time
on a motion to dispose of an amendment reported from conference in
disagreement); and, the Member recognized to offer the motion
controls the floor and may move the previous question on his
motion.
During consideration of the conference report on H.R. 5262
(relating to international financial
[[Page 10218]]
institutions) in the House on Sept. 16, 1977,(16) the
following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 123 Cong. Rec. 29597, 29599, 29601, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
So the conference report was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. [Tom] Harkin [of Iowa]: Madam Speaker, I offer a
preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Harkin moves that the House recede from its
disagreement to the amendment of the Senate to the text of the
bill (H.R. 5262) to provide for increased participation by the
United States in the International Bank for Reconstruction and
Development, the International Development Association, the
International Finance Corporation, the Asian Development Bank
and the Asian Development Funds, and for other purposes, and
agree to the same with an amendment as follows:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate
amendment insert the following: . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (17) The gentleman from
Iowa (Mr. Harkin) will be recognized for 30 minutes in support of
his motion, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stanton) will be
recognized for 30 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Barbara Jordan (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Harkin). . .
.
Mr. Harkin: Madam Speaker, I move the previous question on the
preferential motion.
The previous question was ordered.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the preferential
motion offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Harkin).
The preferential motion was agreed to.
Sec. 24.43 The stage of disagreement having been reached on a Senate
amendment to a House amendment to a Senate amendment to a House
bill, the motion to concur in the Senate amendment takes precedence
over a motion to disagree and request a conference, but the Member
offering the preferential motion does not thereby obtain control of
the time which is controlled by the manager of the bill and is
equally divided between the majority and minority.
On Oct. 13, 1977,(18) the House had under consideration
H.R. 7555 (Departments of Labor and Health, Education, and Welfare
appropriation bill for fiscal 1978) when the following proceedings
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 123 Cong. Rec. 33688, 33689, 33693, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Daniel J.] Flood [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I move to
take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 7555) making
appropriations for the Departments of Labor, and Health, Education,
and Welfare, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 1978, and for other pur
[[Page 10219]]
poses, with a Senate amendment to the House amendment to Senate
amendment numbered 82, disagree to the amendment of the Senate, and
request a conference with the Senate on the disagreeing votes of
the two Houses.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Speaker: (19) The Clerk will report the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
motion offered by mr. flood
Mr. Flood moves to take from the Speaker's table the bill
H.R. 7555, making appropriations for the Departments of Labor,
and Health, Education, and Welfare, and related agencies for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 1978, and for other
purposes, with a Senate amendment to the House amendment to
Senate amendment numbered 82, disagree to the amendment of the
Senate, and request a conference with the Senate on the
disagreeing votes of the two Houses.
Mr. [Newton I.] Steers [Jr., of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I offer
a preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Steers of Maryland moves that the House concur in the
Senate Amendment to the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment
No. 82.
The Speaker: The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Flood) is in
control of the time, and the gentleman is recognized for 30
minutes.
Mr. [John J.] Rhodes [of Arizona]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, since the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Steers) made the motion which is being considered by the House,
does the gentleman from Maryland not have control of the time?
The Speaker: In response to the parliamentary inquiry, the
preferential motion made by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Steers) does not take the time from the gentleman from
Pennsylvania, the chairman of the committee, who previously had the
time under his original motion. The motion was in order. The vote
will come first on the preferential motion.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Flood).
Sec. 24.44 While the manager of
a conference report controls the majority time on all motions with
respect to an amendment in disagreement where he has offered an
initial motion and sought recognition to control time for debate,
he does not necessarily control the majority time on a motion to
concur with an amendment offered after the House has voted to
recede (a motion to recede and concur having been divided), if: (1)
the manager's original motion was to insist, which has been
preempted by adoption of the motion to recede, and (2) the manager
did not seek recognition to control debate time on the
[[Page 10220]]
motion to recede and concur when it was offered, but allowed the
Chair to immediately put the question on receding; in such case,
the proponent of the preferential motion to concur with an
amendment may be recognized to control one-half the time and a
Member of the other party one-half the time under the hour rule as
required by Rule XXVIII, clause 2(b).
The following proceedings occurred in the House on Oct. 1,
1982,(20) during consideration of House Joint Resolution 599
(continuing appropriations for fiscal year 1983):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 128 Cong. Rec. 27295-97, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (1) The Clerk will
designate the next amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Norman Y. Mineta (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The amendment reads as follows:
Senate amendment No. 83: Page 19, after line 2, insert:
Sec. 151. (a) Section 4109 of title 5, United States Code
is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new
subsection:
``(c) Notwithstanding subsection (a)(1) of this section,
the Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, may pay an
individual training to be an air traffic controller . . . at
the applicable rate of basic pay for the hours of training
officially ordered or approved in excess of forty hours in an
administrative workweek.''. . . .
Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Whitten moves that the House insist on its disagreement
to the amendment of the Senate numbered 83.
Mr. [Lawrence] Coughlin [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I offer
a preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Coughlin moves that the House recede from its
disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 83 and
concur therein.
Mr. [William D.] Ford of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, I demand a
division of the question.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question will be divided.
The Chair will state that the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr.
Whitten) has the time. Does the gentleman wish to use his time for
debate now?
Mr. Whitten: Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Coughlin).
The Speaker Pro Tempore: If the gentleman from Mississippi does
not seek to control debate time, the Chair will put the question on
receding.
The question is, will the House recede from its disagreement to
Senate amendment No. 83?
The House receded from its disagreement to Senate amendment No.
83.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: For what purpose does the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Ford) seek recognition?
Mr. Ford of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, I offer a preferential
motion.
[[Page 10221]]
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Ford moves that the House concur in Senate amendment
numbered 83 with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the matter
proposed to be inserted by the Senate amendment, insert the
following: . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Since the House has receded, the
gentleman from Mississippi's original motion has been preempted and
he did not seek to control time therefore the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Ford) will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Coughlin) will be recognized for
30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ford).
Concur in Senate Amendment
Sec. 24.45 A Member making a unanimous-consent request to concur in
Senate amendments is not entitled to recognition to control debate
on the request; another Member who reserved the right to object to
the request should be recognized.
The following proceedings occurred in the House on Oct. 11,
1984,(2) during consideration of H.R. 5386 (payment rates
for routine home care and other services included in hospice rates).
The chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means asked unanimous consent
to take the House bill with the Senate amendment from the Speaker's
table and concur in the amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 130 Cong. Rec. 32304, 32305, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Conable, the ranking member, reserved the right to object, but
before entertaining the reservation, the Speaker Pro Tempore
(3) directed the reading of the Senate amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Frank Harrison (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk proceeded to read as follows:
Amendment: Page 2, after line 14, insert:
``public pension offset provisions.''
Mr. [Dan] Rostenkowski [of Illinois] (during the reading): Mr.
Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate amendment be
considered as read and printed in the Record.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from Illinois?
There was no objection.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Rostenkowski) is recognized.
Mr. Rostenkowski: Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5386 passed the House of
Representatives unanimously on October 1, 1984. . . .
Mr. [Barber B.] Conable [Jr., of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I have
a parliamentary inquiry. . . .
Mr. Speaker, under what procedure is the chairman now
proceeding? Has he been recognized for a specific period of time? .
. .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Illinois asked
unani
[[Page 10222]]
mous consent to have the Senate amendment considered as read and
printed in the Record. The Chair put the unanimous-consent request
and at that point heard no reservation and in error recognized the
gentleman from Illinois but the Chair should recognize the
gentleman from New York under his reservation to the original
request.
Sec. 24.46 A motion to concur in
a Senate amendment to a House amendment to a Senate amendment to a
House measure, the stage of disagreement having been reached, is
debatable for one hour equally divided between the majority and
minority parties.
The proceedings of Nov. 6, 1985,(4) illustrate the
principle that a motion to concur in a
Senate amendment to a House amendment to a Senate amendment to a House
measure, the stage of disagreement having been reached, is debatable
for one hour equally divided between majority and minority parties
(pursuant to rule XXVIII, clause 2).(5) This precedent in
effect overrules that of Jan. 27, 1976,(6) which had
indicated that the Member offering a preferential motion controls the
entire hour where the amendment is not reported from conference in
disagreement. The proceedings of Nov. 6, 1985, relating to House Joint
Resolution 372, to increase the public debt limit, were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 131 Cong. Rec. 30852, 30853, 30863, 30864, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
5. House Rules and Manual Sec. 912a et seq. (1995).
6. See 122 Cong. Rec. 1035-1057, 94th Cong. 2d Sess. (conference
report on H.R. 9861).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A message from the Senate by Mr. Sparrow, one of its clerks,
announced that the Senate agrees to the report of the committee of
conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the
amendments of the Senate to the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 372)
entitled ``Joint resolution increasing the statutory limit on the
public debt.''
The message also announced that the Senate concurs in first
House amendment to Senate amendment No. 1.
The message also announced that the Senate concurs in second
House amendment to Senate amendment No. 1, with an amendment.
The message also announced that the Senate concurs in House
amendment to Senate amendment No. 2, with an amendment.
Mr. [Richard A.] Gephardt [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that when the House considers the Senate
amendments to the House amendments to the Senate amendments to
House Joint Resolution 372, it first consider motions to dispose of
the Senate amendment to the House amendment to Senate amendment No.
2.
The Speaker: (7) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Missouri?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 10223]]
There was no objection.
preferential motion offered by mr. mack
Mr. [Connie] Mack [III, of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Mack moves to take from the Speaker's table House Joint
Resolution 372, with the Senate amendment to the House
amendment to Senate amendment No. 2 and to concur in the Senate
amendment as follows:
Senate amendment to House amendment to Senate amendment No.
2.
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the
amendment of the House of Representatives, insert:
TITLE II--DEFICIT REDUCTION PROCEDURES
sec. 201. short title and table of contents.
(a) Short Title.--This title may be cited as the ``Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985''. . . .
The Speaker: The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mack) will be
recognized for 30 minutes and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Gephardt) will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mack). . .
.
Mr. Mack: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. Mack: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of my question is to find
out whether the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) has 30
minutes, as I do, or do I control the hour?
The Speaker: The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mack) has 30
minutes, and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) has 30
minutes.
Parliamentarian's Note: The motion in this instance, to concur in a
Senate amendment to a House amendment to a Senate amendment to a House
measure, the stage of disagreement having been reached, is preferential
to a motion to disagree and request a conference. When the above
message was received from the Senate, the Speaker was obliged to
recognize Mr. Mack, a minority member with the most preferential motion
to dispose of the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate
amendment, although he could have first recognized Mr. Gephardt, to
move to disagree and request a conference, subject to recognition of
Mr. Mack with an immediate preferential motion to concur.
Sec. 24.47 Debate on a motion to dispose of an amendment reported from
conference in disagreement is equally divided between the majority
and minority parties under Rule XXVIII clause 2(b), and where the
manager of the conference report making the motion does not
immediately seek recognition for debate, the Chair neverthe
[[Page 10224]]
less allocates 30 minutes to him and may recognize a minority
Member at that time for 30 minutes.
The House having under consideration the bill H.R. 7797 (relating
to foreign assistance appropriations for fiscal year 1978) on Oct. 18,
1977,(8) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 123 Cong. Rec. 34112, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Clarence D.] Long of Maryland: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Long of Maryland moves that the House recede from its
disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 74 and
concur therein with an amendment, as follows: Restore the
matter stricken by said amendment, amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 503C. Of the funds appropriated or made available
pursuant to this Act, not more than $18,100,000 shall be used
for military assistance, not more than $1,850,000 shall be used
for foreign military credit sales, and not more than $700,000
shall be used for international military education and training
to the Government of the Philippines.''. . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (9) . . . Does the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Long) seek recognition?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Long of Maryland: Mr. Speaker, I do not, at this time.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Does the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Young) desire to be recognized.
Mr. [C. W.] Young of Florida: Mr. Speaker, I do.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Long)
and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) will be recognized for
30 minutes each.
Sec. 24.48 Prior to the amendment to Rule XXVIII, clause 2(b) in the
92d Congress (providing that debate on an amendment in disagreement
be divided between the majority and minority parties), debate on an
amendment reported from conference in disagreement was under the
hour rule and the Member calling up the conference report was in
control of the debate on motions disposing of each amendment.
On Aug. 1, 1962,(10) Mr. John E. Fogarty, of Rhode
Island, called up a conference report with Senate amendments in
disagreement. During consideration of the amendment, Speaker Pro
Tempore Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, answered a parliamentary inquiry put
by Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 108 Cong. Rec. 15294, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Gross: Is the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Fogarty]
going to explain any of these amendments?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: That is within the discretion of the
gentleman.
[[Page 10225]]
Mr. Gross: A further parliamentary inquiry. Does not the
gentleman have an hour on each of these amendments?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman has if he desires to use
it.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See also 108 Cong. Rec. 23432-43, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 12,
1962.
For a discussion of propositions and motions considered
under the hour rule, see Sec. 68, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: House Resolution 1153, which was adopted on
Oct. 13, 1972, 92d Cong. 2d Sess., to become effective at the end of
the 92d Congress, amended Rule XXVIII by requiring that
debate on amendments reported from conference in disagreement be
equally divided and controlled by the majority and minority parties.
Sec. 24.49 As each amendment in disagreement between the House and
Senate is reported, the Chair recognizes the Member handling the
conference report to offer a motion relating to that amendment; and
even though another Member offers a preferential motion relating to
that amendment which is considered by the House, the Member
offering the initial motion remains in control of the debate under
the hour rule.
On Oct. 24, 1967,(12) Mr. Joseph L. Evins, of Tennessee,
was handling a conference report being considered by the House on H.R.
9960, the independent offices appropriation for fiscal 1968. As each
amendment in disagreement was reported, Speaker John W. McCormack, of
Massachusetts, recognized Mr. Evins to make a motion in regard to that
amendment. On amendments 58 and 59, Mr. Evins moved that the House
insist on its disagreement. Mr. Robert N. Giaimo, of Connecticut, then
made the preferential motion that the House recede and concur in those
amendments. The House rejected Mr. Giaimo's motion and the Speaker
again recognized Mr. Evins as the Member in control of the report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 113 Cong. Rec. 29837, 29838, 29842, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: Pursuant to Rule XXVIII, clause 2(b), as
amended in the 92d and 99th Congresses, the hour of debate would under
current practice be divided and controlled by the majority (the Member
calling up the report) and the minority, and, perhaps, by a Member
opposed, if both the majority and minority are in agreement.
Sec. 24.50 Where the proponent of a motion to recede and con
[[Page 10226]]
cur in a Senate amendment failed to seek recognition to debate the
motion, the Chair recognized the Member handling the conference
report (no other motion being pending).
On May 14, 1963,(13) the House was considering a
conference report and Senate amendments in disagreement, called up and
managed by Mr. Albert Thomas, of Texas. Mr. Robert R. Barry, of New
York, offered a preferential motion that the House recede and concur in
a certain amendment in disagreement. A division of the question was
demanded and Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, stated that
the question was on receding from disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 109 Cong. Rec. 8506, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Thomas then raised a parliamentary inquiry:
Mr. Speaker, is it in order for the chairman of the House
conferees to make a short statement at this time on it?
The Speaker answered that the motion was debatable, and since Mr.
Barry did not seek recognition, the Speaker recognized Mr. Thomas on
the motion. In answer to a parliamentary inquiry by Mr. Barry, the
proponent of the motion, the Speaker stated that Mr. Thomas had control
of time on the motion since he had been recognized.
Parliamentarian's Note: In this case, Mr. Thomas had offered an
initial motion (to recede and concur with an amendment) which was ruled
out of order. Usually, the manager will offer an initial motion which
remains pending if a preferential motion is offered, and the manager
controls the majority time on the preferential motion.
CHAPTER 29
Consideration and Debate
D. CONTROL AND DISTRIBUTION OF TIME FOR DEBATE
Sec. 25. Distribution and Alternation
The distribution and alternation of time for debate, where time is
equally divided or where consideration is proceeding under the five-
minute rule, is governed not only by certain rules but by the
principles of comity and courtesy between the majority and
minority.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See Sec. Sec. 25.26 et seq., infra, for cases where the rules
require the division of time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair may alternate recognition between those favoring and
opposing the pending proposition where sides are ascertainable;
(15) similarly, where a propo
[[Page 10227]]
sition is considered pursuant to the terms of a special rule, the rule
equally divides control of debate between the majority and minority
sides of the aisle.(16) And when the special rule itself,
reported by the Committee on Rules, is being considered, the Committee
on Rules traditionally divides time for debate on the resolution
between the majority and minority sides of the aisle by the manager of
the resolution yielding half the time for debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See Sec. Sec. 25.4, 25.7, 25.21, 25.22, infra.
For the principle of alternation, see House Rules and
Manual Sec. 756 (1995).
16. See Sec. 28, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross References
Division of time on motions, see Ch. 23, supra.
Motion to allocate time under limitation on five-minute debate not in
order, see Sec. 22, supra.
Yielding time, see Sec. Sec. 29, 31,
infra. -------------------
In Committee of the Whole
Sec. 25.1 During general debate on District of Columbia business in
Committee of the Whole after the manager of the bill has consumed
his hour of debate and where debate has not been limited, the Chair
alternates in recognizing between those for and against the pending
legislation, giving preference to members of the Committee on the
District of Columbia.
On Apr. 11, 1932,(17) Chairman Thomas L. Blanton, of
Texas, answered a parliamentary inquiry on recognition in the Committee
of the Whole during general debate on a District of Columbia bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 75 Cong. Rec. 7990, 72d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [William H.] Stafford [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, when
the Committee on the District of Columbia has the call and the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union is
considering legislation, is it necessary, in gaining recognition,
that a Member has to be in opposition to the bill or is any Member
whatsoever entitled to one hour's time for general debate?
The Chairman: From the Chair's experience, gained through
having been a member of this committee for over 10 years, he will
state that where a bill is called up for general debate on District
day in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union,
and the chairman of the committee has yielded the floor, a member
of the committee opposed to the bill is entitled to recognition
over any other member opposed to the bill, and it was the duty of
the Chair to ascertain whether there were any members of the
committee opposed to the bill who would be entitled to prior
recognition. The Chair, having ascertained there were no members of
the committee opposed to the bill, took pleasure, under the
direction of the gentleman from Wisconsin, in recognizing the
gentleman from Mississippi.
[[Page 10228]]
Sec. 25.2 On resolutions disapproving reorganization plans and on
motions to discharge a committee from further consideration of such
resolutions, debate was equally
divided and controlled by those favoring and those opposing the
resolution, pursuant to the Reorganization Act of 1949.
On July 19, 1961,(18) Mr. Dante B. Fascell, of Florida,
called up House Resolution 328, disapproving Reorganization Plan No. 5,
transmitted to the Congress by the President. Unanimous consent was
given that debate on the resolution in the Committee of the Whole be
equally divided and controlled by Mr. Fascell, the proponent of the
resolution, and Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, the ranking minority
member of the Committee on Government Operations, the reporting
committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 107 Cong. Rec. 12905, 12906, 12932 (two separate requests), 87th
Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Aug. 3, 1961,(19) Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, moved to
discharge the Committee on Government Operations from the further
consideration of House Resolution 335, disapproving a reorganization
plan. After Mr. Gross assured Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, that he
qualified to make the motion since he was in favor of the resolution,
the Speaker recognized him to open debate and to control 30 minutes,
and recognized a Member in opposition to the motion to discharge to
control the following 30 minutes. Mr. Gross was recognized to close
debate on the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Id. at pp. 14548, 14554.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: The Reorganization Act of 1949, Public Law
No. 81-109, provided that debate on a resolution disapproving a
reorganization plan and debate on a motion to discharge such a
resolution be equally divided and controlled between those favoring the
resolution and those opposing it.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 63 Stat. 207, Sec. Sec. 204(b), 205(b). The statute was enacted as
an exercise of the rule-making power of the House and Senate,
with full recognition of the constitutional right of either
House to change such rules at any time. Similar statutes divide
debate between those favoring and those opposing approval or
disapproval resolutions. For discussion of other statutes
prescribing procedures as an exercise of the rule-making power
of the House and Senate, see House Rules and Manual Sec. 1013
(1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under Special Rules
Sec. 25.3 Where, under a special rule, general debate is di
[[Page 10229]]
vided and controlled by two committees, the Chair may permit the
chairman of the primary committee involved to reserve a portion of
his allotted time to close general debate, while recognizing the
chairman of the other committee to utilize his time.
During consideration of the Intergovernmental Emergency Assistance
Act (H.R. 10481) in the Committee of the Whole on Dec. 2,
1975,(1) the proceedings described above occurred as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 121 Cong. Rec. 38141, 38166, 38174, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: (2) Pursuant to the rule, general
debate will continue for not to exceed 3 hours, 2 hours to be
equally divided and controlled between the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Banking, Currency and Housing,
and 1 hour to be equally divided and controlled between the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and
Means.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. James G. O'Hara (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the rule, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Ashley, chairman
of the Committee on Banking, Currency, and Housing] will be
recognized for 1 hour; the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr.
McKinney) will be recognized for 1 hour; the gentleman from Oregon
(Mr. Ullman) will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Schneebeli) will be recognized for 30
minutes. . . .
Mr. [Thomas L.] Ashley [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I have no
further requests for time and I reserve the balance of my time.
The Chairman: Under the rule, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
Ullman) is recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Conable) is recognized for 30 minutes.
[Mr. [Al] Ullman [of Oregon] addressed the Committee.]
Mr. Ashley: Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes to close
debate.
Sec. 25.4 Where a special rule divided the control of general debate on
a bill among the chairmen and ranking minority members of two
standing committees, the Chairman indicated that he would alternate
recognition among all four of the members controlling the time.
On Sept. 28, 1976,(3) during consideration of the Public
Disclosure of Lobbying Act of 1976 (H.R. 15) in the Committee of the
Whole, the following exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 122 Cong. Rec. 33044, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: (4) Under the rule, the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Flowers) will be recognized for 1 hour, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Moorhead) will be recognized for 1 hour, the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bennett) will be recognized for 1 hour,
and the gentleman from South Caro
[[Page 10230]]
lina (Mr. Spence) will be recognized for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Flowers).
Mr. [Walter] Flowers [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, may I inquire
of the Chair if it is the Chairman's intention to alternate among
the Members who have control of the time or at least loosely
alternate among the Members who have control of the time?
The Chairman: The Chair will inform the gentleman from Alabama
(Mr. Flowers) that the Chair will attempt to alternate among all
four of the gentlemen who have control of the time.
Sec. 25.5 Where a special rule provides separate control of general
debate time among the chairmen and ranking minority members of two
committees, but does not specify the order of recognition, the
Chair may in his discretion either alternate recognition among the
four Members or permit the primary committee to first utilize most
of its time and then permit the manager of the bill to close
general debate after the sequential committee uses its time.
During consideration of the Fair Practices in Automotive Products
Act (H.R. 5133) in the Committee of the Whole on Dec. 10,
1982,(5) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 128 Cong. Rec. 29982, 29984, 29985, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [James J.] Florio [of New Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, I move that
the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R.
5133) to establish domestic content requirements for motor vehicles
sold in the United States, and for other purposes.
The Speaker: (6) The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Florio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of
the bill, H.R. 5133, with Mr. Panetta in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Chairman: (7) Pursuant to the rule, the first
reading of the bill is dispensed with.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Leon E. Panetta (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the rule, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Florio) will
be recognized for 30 minutes, the gentleman from North Carolina
(Mr. Broyhill) will be recognized for 30 minutes, the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Gibbons) will be recognized for 30 minutes, and
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Frenzel) will be recognized for
30 minutes.
Mr. [James T.] Broyhill [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I
have a parliamentary inquiry. . . .
I wish to inquire as to whether the time will run concurrently
or whether one committee goes first and the second committee
follows.
[[Page 10231]]
The Chairman: The Chair would interpret the rule to allow each
of the respective Members to allot their time respectively without
any kind of a pattern, so it could be done interchangeably. . . .
The Chair would advise the Members that although the time could
be used interchangeably that it is the will of those controlling
the time that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Florio) and the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Broyhill) use their time first
and then the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gibbons) and the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Frenzel).
Mr. Florio: On that point, Mr. Chairman, it would be my hope to
reserve some time to be in a position to take part in the
concluding portion of the 2 hours' debate.
The Chairman: The gentleman is free to do that. . . .
Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, am I correct
in my understanding that the rule provides that the time may be
used alternatively by the several persons who control this time?
The Chairman: The rule does permit that, the Chair would advise
the gentleman, but it does not provide for any necessary order.
Mr. Dingell: And as the Chair advises, there is no necessary
order. It can be used interchangeably, and so forth.
The Chairman: That is correct.
Sec. 25.6 Where a special rule limiting debate on an amendment under
the five-minute rule requires the time thereon to be equally
divided and controlled by the proponent of the amendment and a
Member opposed thereto, the Chair has discretion in determining
which Member to control the time in opposition, and may recognize
the majority chairman of the subcommittee with jurisdiction over
the subject matter of an amendment which has been offered by a
member of the minority, over the ranking minority member of the
full committee managing the bill, to control the time in opposition
under the principle of alternation of recognition.
On Sept. 24, 1984,(8) the Committee of the Whole had
under consideration House Joint Resolution 648 (continuing
appropriations) when an amendment was offered as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 130 Cong. Rec. 26769, 26770, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Hank] Brown of Colorado: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Chairman: (9) The Clerk will designate the
amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Brown of Colorado: Page 2, line
24, strike out the period at the end of section 101(b) and
insert in lieu thereof the following: ``: Provided, That 2
percent of the aggregate amount of new
[[Page 10232]]
budget authority provided for in each of the first three titles
of H.R.
6237 shall be withheld from obli-gation . . . .
The Chairman: Pursuant to House Resolution 588, the amendment
is considered as having been read.
The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Brown) will be recognized for
15 minutes and a Member opposed will be recognized for 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Brown). .
. .
Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I rise
in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. [Clarence D.] Long of Maryland: Mr. Chairman, I rise in
opposition to the amendment.
The Chairman: The Chair is required to choose between these two
distinguished gentlemen and would prefer to alternate the parties
in this case.
The Chair will recognize the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Long). The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 15 minutes in
opposition to the amendment.
Five-minute Rule
Sec. 25.7 In the Committee of the Whole, during consideration of an
appropriation bill un-der the five-minute rule, the Chairman
customarily alternates recognition between the majority and
minority sides of the aisle and in so doing may extend prior
recognition first to members of the relevant subcommittee then to
members of the full committee and then to Members who have been on
their feet seeking recognition.
On July 30, 1969,(10) Chairman Chet Holifield, of
California, made an announcement on the order of recognition during
consideration under the five-minute rule of
H.R. 13111, appropriations for the Health, Education, and Welfare and
Labor Departments:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 115 Cong. Rec. 21420, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair might state, under the procedures of the House, he is
trying to recognize first members of the subcommittee on
appropriations handling the bill and second general members of the
Committee on Appropriations. It is his intention to go back and
forth to each side of the aisle to recognize Members who have been
standing and seeking recognition the longest. . . .
Sec. 25.8 Where the Committee of the Whole has, by motion, agreed to
limit all debate on a section and all amendments thereto, the Chair
generally divides the time equally among those who indicate, by
standing when the motion is made, that they desire recognition; but
the matter of recognition is largely within the discretion of the
Chair and he may continue to recognize each Member who
[[Page 10233]]
seeks recognition for five minutes until the time for debate has
been exhausted.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 111 Cong. Rec. 17961, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., July 22, 1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 25.9 Where debate on a bill and all amendments thereto is limited
to a time certain, the five-minute rule is abrogated, and the Chair
may choose either to allocate the time among those Members standing
and desiring to speak, or choose to recognize only Members wishing
to offer amendments and to oppose amendments; such decisions are
largely within the discretion of the Chair who may decline to
recognize Members more than one time under the limitation and may
refuse to permit Members to divide their allotted time so as to
speak to several of the amendments which are to be offered.
On May 6, 1970,(12) after the Committee of the Whole had
agreed to close debate on a pending bill and amendments thereto at a
certain hour, Chairman Daniel D. Rostenkowski, of Illinois, answered a
parliamentary inquiry as to whether he would, in his discretion, allow
certain Members to speak:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 116 Cong. Rec. 14466, 14467, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: Under the limitation of
debate imposed by the House a moment ago, is there any restriction
on those Members who will be permitted to speak on amendments,
either for or against, between now and 7 o'clock?
The Chairman: The Chair will endeavor to divide the time
equally among the proponents and the opponents of those who have
amendments. . . .
Mr. Stratton: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Stratton: Under the limitation of debate, is it permissible
for a Member to speak twice within his allotted time either for or
against two specific amendments?
The Chairman: The Chair will recognize the gentleman for one
time in support of or in opposition to an amendment.
Mr. Stratton: But not more than once?
The Chairman: No; not more than once.
Sec. 25.10 Where the Committee of the Whole agrees to terminate all
debate on an amendment at a certain time, the Chair divides the
time remaining among those Members who indicate a desire to speak;
and if free time remains after these Members have been recognized,
the
[[Page 10234]]
Chair may recognize Members who have not spoken to the amendment or
Members who were recognized for less than five minutes under the
limitation of time.
On Mar. 17, 1960,(13) the Committee of the Whole agreed
to a request that all debate on the pending amendment close at 3:50
p.m. Chairman Francis E. Walter, of Pennsylvania, recognized under the
limitation Members who had indicated they wished to speak. When those
Members had spoken, time still remained and the Chairman recognized for
debate Members who were not standing seeking recognition when the
limitation was agreed to. The Chair answered a parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 106 Cong. Rec. 5911, 5914, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [James C.] Davis of Georgia: Was not the time fixed for
this debate, and was not the time limited to those who were
standing on their feet seeking recognition?
The Chairman: The time was fixed at 3:50. The Chair made a list
of the names of those Members who indicated they desired to speak.
However, the thing that governs is the time that was fixed in the
unanimous-consent request made by the gentleman from New York, but
because the time has not arrived when debate will end, the Chair
will recognize those Members who seek recognition.
Mr. Davis of Georgia: Mr. Chairman, a further parliamentary
inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Davis of Georgia: Does that limitation then of 2 minutes
apply to me, or could I have some of this additional time?
The Chairman: Yes, the gentleman could be recognized again if
he sought recognition.
Sec. 25.11 Where the Committee of the Whole has limited debate under
the five-minute rule to a time certain and
an equal division of the remaining time among all the
Members seeking recognition would severely restrict each Member in
his presentation, the Chair may in his discretion equally allocate
the time between two Members on opposing sides of the question to
be yielded by them.
On June 14, 1977,(14) it was demonstrated that a
limitation of debate on amendments in the Committee of the Whole to a
time certain in effect abrogates the five-minute rule; and decisions
regarding the division of the remaining time and the order of
recognition are largely within the discretion of the Chair.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 123 Cong. Rec. 18826, 18833, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Tom] Bevill [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, I move that all
debate on these amendments and all amend
[[Page 10235]]
ments thereto, cease at 4 o'clock and 45 minutes p.m.
The Chairman: (15) The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bevill).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The motion was agreed to. . . .
The Chairman: The Chair has before him a list of more than 25
Members to occupy the next 10 minutes. It has been suggested that
it would be possible for the Chair to recognize the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Bevill) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Conte) to allocate those 10 minutes.
Accordingly, the Chair will recognize the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Conte) for 5 minutes, and the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Bevill) for 5 minutes.
Mr. John T. Myers [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. John T. Myers: How did the Chair make that decision?
The Chairman: The Chair has the authority to allocate time
under a limitation, and it is obvious to the Chair that this is the
most rational way to handle the 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Conte).
Sec. 25.12 By unanimous consent, the Committee of the Whole agreed
that, on a general appropriations bill considered as read and open
to amendment at any point, debate under the five-minute rule should
terminate at a time certain, with 30 minutes of the time remaining
for debate to be allowed on a particular amendment and to
be equally divided and controlled.
On Sept. 22, 1983,(16) the following proceedings
occurred in the Committee of the Whole during consideration of H.R.
3913 (the Departments of Labor and Health and Human Services
appropriations for fiscal year 1984):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 129 Cong. Rec. 25407, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [William H.] Natcher [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, at this
time
I would ask unanimous consent that
all debate on the bill and all amendments thereto conclude not
later than 3:30. . . .
Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman,
reserving the right to object, the motion does not, however,
include the 30 minutes for the abortion debate that I thought the
gentleman from Illinois was assured of? . . .
Mr. Natcher: The gentleman is correct.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask that debate conclude not later than
3:30 with 30 minutes of the time to be allocated to the amendment
pertaining to abortion. . . .
Mr. [Les] AuCoin [of Oregon]: Reserving the right to object,
Mr. Chairman, I want to be sure I understand
[[Page 10236]]
what the gentleman just said. My understanding is that in that 30
minutes the time will be divided equally
between those who agree with Mr.
Hyde and those who agree with the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. AuCoin)? . . .
Mr. Natcher: . . . The gentleman (Mr. AuCoin) is correct. . . .
The Chairman Pro Tempore: (17) Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Kentucky?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Abraham Kazen, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
Sec. 25.13 Where debate under the five-minute rule on a bill and all
amendments thereto has been limited by motion to a time certain
(with approximately 90 minutes remaining) the Chair may in his
discretion continue to recognize Members under the five-minute
rule, according priority to members of the committee reporting the
bill, instead of allocating time between proponents and opponents
or among all Members standing, where it cannot be determined what
amendments will be offered.
On July 29, 1983,(18) during consideration of the
International Monetary Fund authorization (H.R. 2957) in the Committee
of the Whole, the Chair responded
to several parliamentary inquir-ies regarding recognition following
agreement to a motion to limit debate to a time certain:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 129 Cong. Rec. 21649, 21650, 21659, 21660, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Fernand J.] St Germain [of Rhode Island]: Mr. Chairman, I
ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill, H.R. 2957, be
considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at
any point.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from Rhode Island?
There was no objection.
The text of title IV and title V is as follows:
TITLE IV--INTERNATIONAL LENDING SUPERVISION
Sec. 401. This title may be cited as the ``International
Lending Supervision Act of 1983''. . . .
Mr. St Germain: I have a motion, Mr. Chairman. . . .
I now move that all debate on the bill, H.R. 2957, and all
amendments thereto, cease at 12 o'clock noon. . . .
Mr. [Ed] Bethune [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary
inquiry. . . .
Mr. Chairman, the parliamentary inquiry is for the Chair to
please state the process by which we will do our business from now
until the time is cut off. . . .
Mr. [Stephen L.] Neal [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, would
it not be in order at this time to ask that the time be divided
between the proponents and the opponents of this measure, since
there is a limitation on the time?
The Chairman: (19) The Chair believes not, because
the time has been
[[Page 10237]]
limited on the entire bill. It would be very difficult to allocate
time to any one particular party or two parties when the Chair has
no knowledge of the amendments that will be offered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Donald J. Pease (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Neal: Mr. Chairman, a further parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Neal: Mr. Chairman, is it not true that members of the
committee should be given preference in terms of recognition?
The Chairman: That is true. At the time the gentleman from
Pennsylvania was recognized, he was the only one seeking
recognition.
Sec. 25.14 In recognizing Members to move to strike the last word under
the five-minute rule, the Chair attempts to alternate between
majority and minority Members; but the Chair has no knowledge as to
whether specific Members oppose or support the pending proposition
and therefore cannot strictly alternate between both sides of the
question.
On June 7, 1984,(20) during consideration of H.R. 5504
(Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1984)
in the Committee of the Whole, the following exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 130 Cong. Rec. 15423, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: (1) The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Shannon).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Dan Daniel (Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Bill] Frenzel [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Frenzel: Mr. Chairman, is it not customary to choose
Members opposed and supporting the amendment in some kind of rough
order?
The Chairman: The Chair is attempting to be fair. What the
Chair is doing is alternating between the two sides.
Mr. Frenzel: I thank the Chair.
In House
Sec. 25.15 Where the previous question is ordered on a debatable motion
without debate, a Member may demand the right to debate; and the 40
minutes permitted under the rule is divided between the person
demanding the time and some Member who represents the opposing view
of the question.
On Sept. 13, 1965,(2) the previous question was ordered,
without debate, on the motion to approve the Journal, as read. Speaker
John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, stated, in response to
a parliamentary inquiry by Mr. Durward G. Hall, of Missouri, that
pursuant to Rule XXVII clause 3, any Member could de
[[Page 10238]]
mand the right to debate the motion since it was debatable and since
the previous question had been ordered without debate. The Speaker
recognized Mr. Hall for 20 minutes and then recognized for 20 minutes
Mr. Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, representing the opposing view of the
question.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 111 Cong. Rec. 23602, 23604-06, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
3. Rule XXVII clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 907 (1995) also
requires a division of time on the motion to suspend the rules.
Other House rules similarly require a division of the time for
debate between those favoring and those opposing the motion or
question. See, for example, Rule XVI clause 4, House Rules and
Manual Sec. 782 (1995) (motion to recommit with instructions);
Rule XXVIII, clauses 4 and 5 House Rules and Manual
Sec. Sec. 913b and 913c (1995) (motion to reject nongermane
matter agreed to by the Senate, if included in a conference
report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 25.16 In recognizing a Member to control time for debate in
opposition to a bill taken away from a committee through the
operation of the discharge rule on
a special order pending in
the Committee on Rules,
the Speaker recognizes the chairman of the committee having
jurisdiction of the subject matter if he is opposed to the bill
considered pursuant to the adopted resolution.
On Aug. 14, 1950, the House agreed to a motion to discharge the
Committee on Rules from the further consideration of a resolution
making in order the consideration of a bill within the jurisdiction of
the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service. The resolution, which
was then adopted, provided that the bill be considered on the following
day. On Aug. 15, 1950, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled as follows
on recognition to control time for debate in opposition to the bill:
Pursuant to the provisions of House Resolution 667, the Chair
designates the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Murray], chairman of
the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, to control time for
debate in opposition to the bill H.R. 8195.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 96 Cong. Rec. 12543, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 25.17 House debate on the confirmation of Vice President-designate
Rockefeller was limited to 6 hours and was equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on the Judiciary (both of whom favored the nomination),
and Robert W. Kastenmeier, of Wisconsin (a majority member of the
Judiciary Committee who opposed the nomination).
[[Page 10239]]
The following resolution was reported on Dec. 19, 1974:
(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 120 Cong. Rec. 41419, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 1519
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order
to move, clause 28(d)(4) of rule XI to
the contrary notwithstanding, that the House resolve itself into
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the
consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 1511) confirming Nelson A.
Rockefeller as Vice President of the United States. After general
debate, which shall be confined to the resolution and shall
continue not to exceed six hours, to be equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and the ranking minority member of the
Committee on the Judiciary, and Representative Robert W.
Kastenmeier, of Wisconsin, the Committee shall rise and report the
resolution to the House, and the previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the resolution to final adoption or
rejection.
House Resolution 1519, after the customary hour of debate, was
agreed to.(6) The House then resolved into the Committee of
the Whole for consideration of House Resolution 1511, confirming Nelson
A. Rockefeller as Vice President of the United States. After debate as
provided for in House Resolution 1519, the Committee rose, and House
Resolution 1511 was agreed to by a vote of 287 yeas, 128 nays.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 120 Cong. Rec. 41425, 93d Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 19, 1974.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Dec. 6, 1973,(7) House Resolution 738, providing for
consideration of the resolution confirming the nomination of Mr. Gerald
R. Ford as Vice President of the United States, contained the following
provisions:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. See 119 Cong. Rec. 39807, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 738
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to move, clause 27(d)(4) of rule XI to the
contrary notwithstanding, that the House resolve itself into
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for
the consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 735) confirming
the nomination of Gerald R. Ford, of the State of Michigan, to
be Vice President of the United States. After general debate,
which shall be confined to the resolution and shall continue
not to exceed six hours, to be equally divided and controlled
by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
the Judiciary, the Committee shall rise and report the
resolution to the House, and the previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the resolution to final passage.
After House Resolution 738 was agreed to,(8) and debate
proceeded in Committee of the Whole in accordance therewith, the
Committee rose; and the House agreed to House Resolution 735 con
[[Page 10240]]
firming Mr. Ford as Vice President of the United States.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 119 Cong. Rec. 39812, 39813, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 6, 1973.
9. See 119 Cong. Rec. 39899, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 6, 1973.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 25.18 By unanimous consent the House extended for an additional 30
minutes the time for debate on a special order from the Committee
on Rules (with the understanding that such time would be equally
divided and controlled).
The proceedings of July 29, 1977,(10) relating to House
consideration of House Resolution 727 (providing for consideration of
H.R. 8444, the National Energy Act of 1977) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 123 Cong. Rec. 25653-55, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Richard] Bolling [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, by direction
of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 727 and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 727
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to move . . . that the House resolve itself
into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union
for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 8444) to establish a
comprehensive national energy policy. . . .
The Speaker: (11) The gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Bolling) is recognized for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Bolling: Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Anderson), and pending that, I yield myself such
time as I may consume. . . .
Mr. [John B.] Anderson of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent at this time that in addition to the 1 hour of
debate provided for in this resolution, House Resolution 727, the
time for debate be extended for an additional 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, there is some precedent for this. Before the Chair
puts the request, I would like to state very briefly that there is
some precedent on very important resolutions for an extension of
the normal amount of time that is used for debate. Just a couple of
weeks ago the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiss) made a similar
request at the time we were considering a resolution for the Select
Committee on Intelligence.
Very frankly, I have had more requests for time on this rule
from my side of the aisle than I can accommodate within the 30
minutes that has been allotted to the minority. . . .
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the time for debate
on this resolution be extended for 30 minutes.
The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Illinois? . . .
There was no objection.
The Speaker: The Chair will state that an additional 15 minutes
will be allotted to each side.
[[Page 10241]]
Sec. 25.19 While alternation of recognition between the majority and
minority Members controlling debate in the House, or continued
recognition of that Member having the most time remaining, are two
customary factors governing recognition by the Chair, neither
factor is binding on the Chair, who may exercise discretion in
conferring recognition where control has been equally divided, and
may entertain a motion for the previous question by the manager of
the measure if neither side seeks to yield further time.
On June 23, 1983,(12) Speaker Pro Tempore Jim Moody, of
Wisconsin, responded to several parliamentary inquiries regarding
procedures for recognition. The proceedings in the House during
consideration of House Concurrent Resolution 91 (revising the fiscal
1983 congressional budget and setting forth the fiscal 1984 budget)
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 129 Cong. Rec. 17089, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The time of the gentleman has expired.
Does the gentlewoman seek recognition?
Mrs. [Lynn] Martin of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, could the Chair
inform us how much time each side of the aisle has remaining?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Oklahoma has 35
minutes left and the gentleman from Ohio has 21\1/2\ minutes left.
Mrs. Martin of Illinois: Then we will allow the other side of
the aisle to catch up.
Mr. [James R.] Jones of Oklahoma: Does the gentlewoman want to
yield back her time?
Mrs. Martin of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, I am reserving the
balance of my time.
Mr. Jones of Oklahoma: Our side just spoke. If the gentlewoman
does not want to use her time and have her side go forward, the
gentlewoman can reserve her time and we can reserve ours and we can
dispense with the rest of the debate.
Mrs. Martin of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the outstanding
chairman, the gentleman from Oklahoma, will he then yield that time
to us?
Well, we will reserve our time for now and await the
gentleman's decision.
Mr. Jones of Oklahoma: Mr. Speaker, I would like to state a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Jones of Oklahoma: Mr. Speaker, if we reserve our time, is
the previous question then in order?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Will the gentleman restate the
question?
Mr. Jones of Oklahoma: The gentlewoman has reserved her time.
If we reserve our time, is the previous question then in order?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: If neither side yields time, the Chair
will en
[[Page 10242]]
tertain a motion for the previous question from the manager of the
motion.
Mr. [E. G.] Shuster [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Shuster: Mr. Speaker, if not the rules of the House, is it
not the tradition of the House that the side with the most time
remaining takes the floor?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: That is one variable. Alternating from
side to side is another tradition of the House.
Sec. 25.20 The Speaker, in announcing a new policy for recognition for
one-minute speeches and for special-or-der requests, indicated that
he would: (1) alternate recognition between majority and minority
Members in the order in which they seek recognition; (2) recognize
Members for special-order speeches first who want to address the
House for five minutes or less, alternating between majority and
minority Members, otherwise in the order in which permission was
granted; and (3) then recognize Members who wish to address the
House for longer than five minutes and up to one hour, alternating
between majority and minority Members in the order in which
permission was granted by the House.
For discussion of the announcement by the Speaker on Aug. 8,
1984,(13) and for other precedents relating to recognition
for special-order requests and one-minute speeches, see, generally,
Sec. 10, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See Sec. 10.48, supra, discussing the proceedings at 130 Cong. Rec.
22963, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Calendar Wednesday
Sec. 25.21 On Calendar Wednesday, debate on bills considered in the
Committee of
the Whole is limited to two hours, one hour controlled by the
Member in charge of the bill and one hour by the ranking minority
member of the committee who is opposed to the bill.
On Apr. 14, 1937,(14) Chairman J. Mark Wilcox, of
Florida, stated in response to a parliamentary inquiry that debate on a
bill (called up under the Calendar Wednesday procedure) in the
Committee of the Whole would be limited to two hours, one hour to be
controlled by the chairman of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce, and one hour to be controlled by the ranking minority
committee member opposed to the bill. The Chairman indi
[[Page 10243]]
cated he would recognize in opposition Mr. Pehr G. Holmes, of
Massachusetts, who assured the Chairman that he was the most senior
minority member of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce who
was opposed to the bill.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 81 Cong. Rec. 3456, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
15. See also 92 Cong. Rec. 8590, 79th Cong. 2d Sess., July 10, 1946.
Rule XXIV clause 7, House Rules and Manual Sec. 897 (1995)
governs
the consideration of bills called up
by committees under the Calendar Wednesday procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Suspension
Sec. 25.22 Alternation of recognition is generally but not necessarily
followed during the 40 minutes of debate on a motion to suspend the
rules where the proponent of the motion and the Member demanding a
second equally control the time.
On Sept. 20, 1961,(16) Mr. William R. Poage, of Texas,
moved to suspend the rules and pass a bill. After a second was ordered,
Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 107 Cong. Rec. 20491, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I understand that under the rules it is not necessary to rotate
time under a suspension of the rules.
The Speaker Pro Tempore, John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts,
responded ``That is correct.''
On Apr. 16, 1962,(17) Mr. James Roosevelt, of
California, moved to suspend the rules and pass a bill. Speaker Pro
Tempore Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, stated, in response to a
parliamentary inquiry by Mr. Gross, that under suspension of the rules
it was not necessary to rotate the time between opposing and favoring
sides of the question.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 108 Cong. Rec. 6682, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
18. The practice of alternation is not necessarily followed where a
limited time is controlled by Members, as in the 40 minutes'
debate for suspension of the rules and after the previous
question has been ordered without debate on a debatable motion
(see 2 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 1442).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: A second is no longer required on a motion
to suspend the rules.
Sec. 25.23 Where a Member controls the time for debate on a motion to
suspend the rules, the manner in which he allocates his time is not
within the province of the Chair.
On Dec. 15, 1969,(19) Mr. Robert W. Kastenmeier, of
Wisconsin, moved to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 14646, granting the
consent of Congress to an interstate compact. Speaker John W.
[[Page 10244]]
McCormack, of Massachusetts, recognized Mr. Burt L. Talcott, of
California, who stated that he was opposed to the bill, to demand a
second and to control the 20 minutes of debate in opposition to the
bill. When Mr. Kastenmeier and Mr. Talcott each had one minute of
debate remaining, Mr. Lester L. Wolff, of New York, made a point of
order against the allocation of time by Mr. Talcott; the Speaker
overruled the point of order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 115 Cong. Rec. 39029, 39034, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Wolff: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. Wolff: The gentleman from California (Mr. Talcott) when he
was asked whether or not he opposed the legislation, said that he
did. However, he has not yielded any time whatsoever to any
opponents of the bill.
The Speaker: That is not within the province of the
Chair.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See also 109 Cong. Rec. 19953, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 21, 1963
(after recognition of seconder for 20 minutes of debate on
motion to suspend the rules, the Chair refused to entertain
unanimous-consent request for additional allotment of time to
opposition); 105 Cong. Rec. 10810, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., June
15, 1959 (a member may not speak to a motion to suspend the
rules unless yielded time by mover or seconder of the motion).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: A second is no longer required on a motion
to suspend the rules.
Sec. 25.24 By unanimous consent, the 20 minutes debate allotted a
Member demanding a second (under a former practice) on a motion to
suspend the rules was transferred to another Member.
On Apr. 20, 1970,(1) Mr. Carl D. Perkins, of Kentucky,
moved to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 10666, to establish a national
commission on libraries and informational science. Mr. John R.
Dellenback, of Oregon, demanded a second (thereby being entitled to
control the 20 minutes of debate in opposition to the motion). Mr.
Dellenback later requested that the debate time allotted him be
transferred to another Member in opposition:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 116 Cong. Rec. 12415, 12416, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Dellenback: Mr. Speaker, while I demanded the second, which
was ordered, I ask unanimous consent that control of the time be
transferred to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reid).
The Speaker: (2) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Oregon?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
Parliamentarian's Note: A second is no longer required on a motion
to suspend the rules.
Sec. 25.25 While the manager of a motion to suspend the rules
[[Page 10245]]
has the right to close debate thereon, the Chair attempts to evenly
alternate recognition between the majority and minority in order
that a comparable amount of time remains for closing speakers on
both sides.
On Oct. 2, 1984,(3) during consideration of the balanced
budget bill (H.R. 6300) in the House, the following proceedings
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 130 Cong. Rec. 28517, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Judd] Gregg [of New Hampshire]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
I have 9 minutes remaining. The chairman of the Committee on
the Budget has 13 more minutes remaining. After I yield this next
point, I will have 7 minutes remaining.
I would request the Chair, in fairness, to proceed with the
other side until the time is in more balance as we get closer to
the closing of debate.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (4) The Chair would
announce that the Chair is not trying to have this debate conducted
in an unfair manner. The Chair will allow the gentleman from
Oklahoma to have the chance to yield to a speaker to close debate
and, therefore, the Chair will try to keep the division of time as
near even as possible, given the consideration that the gentleman
from Oklahoma have the opportunity to end the debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conference Reports
Sec. 25.26 One hour of debate, equally divided between the majority and
minority parties, is permitted on a conference report; and where
conferees have been appointed from two committees of the House, the
Speaker recognizes one of the minority Members (not necessarily a
member of the same committee as the Member controlling the majority
time) to control 30 minutes of debate.
On Jan. 19, 1972,(5) Wayne L. Hays, of Ohio, Chairman of
the Committee on House Administration, called up a conference report on
S. 382, the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1972. Conferees on the
part of the House had been appointed from two House committees with
jurisdiction over the bill, the Committee on House Administration and
the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 118 Cong. Rec. 319, 320, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, recognized Mr. Hays for 30
minutes of debate to control time for the majority. He recognized Mr.
William L. Springer, of Illinois, ranking minority member of the
Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, to control 30 minutes of
debate for the minority.
Parliamentarian's Note: Mr. Springer controlled the minority
[[Page 10246]]
time although he had resigned as a conferee on the bill, and even
though Mr. Samuel L. Devine, of Ohio, ranking minority member of the
Committee on House Administration and a conferee on the bill, was on
the floor and participated in debate. Under normal practice, the
Members controlling the time for debate on a conference report are
among those who served as House managers in conference.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. For division of debate on a conference report, see Rule XXVIII
clause 2(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 912(a) (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 25.27 Where a Member opposed to a section of a
conference report (containing nongermane Senate language) demanded
a separate vote on the section pursuant to a special order
permitting such procedure, that Member and the Member calling up
the conference report were each recognized for 20 minutes of debate
on a motion to strike that section pursuant to Rule XX clause 1.
After the House agreed to retain the section it then considered the
entire conference report, with the Member calling up the report and
a member
of the minority party each being recognized for 30 minutes under
Rule XXVIII clause 2.
On Nov. 10, 1971,(7) Mr. F. Edward Hebert, of Louisiana,
called up a conference report. Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, stated
that the special order under which the report was being considered,
House Resolution 696, provided that a separate vote could be demanded
on certain sections of the conference report. Mr. Donald M. Fraser, of
Minnesota, demanded a separate vote on section 503 of
the report pursuant to the special order and pursuant to Rule XX clause
1 of the House rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 117 Cong. Rec. 40483, 40489, 40490, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker then stated the order of recognition pending the
separate vote:
Under clause 1 of Rule XX, 40 minutes of debate are permitted
before a separate vote is taken on a nongermane Senate amendment,
one-half of such time in favor of, and one-half in opposition to
the amendment.
Pursuant to that rule, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr.
Hebert] will be recognized for 20 minutes, and the gentleman from
Minnesota [Mr. Fraser] will be recognized for 20 minutes.
The House agreed to the section after 40 minutes of debate.
The House then considered the entire conference report, and the
Speaker stated that one hour of debate would be had, the Member calling
up the report, Mr. Hebert, to be recognized for 30 minutes,
[[Page 10247]]
and a Member of the minority party, Mr. Leslie C. Arends, of Illinois,
to be recognized for 30 minutes.
Sec. 25.28 The time for debate on an amendment reported from conference
in disagreement is equally divided between the majority and
minority parties under Rule XXVIII clause 2(b), and a Member
offering a preferential motion does not thereby gain control of
time for debate; nor can the Member who has offered the
preferential motion move the previous question during time yielded
to him for debate, since that would deprive the Members in charge
of control of the time for debate.
On Dec. 4, 1975,(8) an example of the proposition
described above occurred in the House during consideration of the
conference report on H.R. 8069 (the Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare and related agencies appropriation bill):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 121 Cong. Rec. 38714, 38716, 38717, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Daniel J.] Flood [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Flood moves that the House recede from its disagreement
to the amendment of the Senate numbered 72 and concur therein
with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the matter inserted
by said amendment, insert the following:
``Sec. 209. None of the funds contained in this Act shall
be used to require, directly or indirectly, the transportation
of any student to a school other than the school which is
nearest or next nearest the student's home . . . .
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Bauman moves that the House recede from its
disagreement to Senate amendment No. 72 and concur therein.
The Speaker: (9) The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Flood).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, may I inquire, who has the right to
the time under the motion?
The Speaker: The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Flood) has 30
minutes, and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Michel) has 30
minutes. The time is controlled by the committee leadership on each
side, and they are not taken from the floor by a preferential
motion. . . .
Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I yield such
time as he may consume to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman).
Mr. Bauman: The gentleman from Maryland has made his case and
if the gentleman would like to concur in the stand taken by the
majority party in favor of busing he can do that. I do not concur.
[[Page 10248]]
Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the motion.
Mr. Flood: Mr. Speaker, I demand the question be divided.
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.
The Speaker: The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Flood) has
the floor and the Chair is trying to let the gentleman be heard.
Mr. Flood: Mr. Speaker, I demand a division.
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I have not yielded. My time has not
expired.
The Speaker: The gentleman has time for debate only.
Mr. Bauman: No; Mr. Speaker, it was not yielded for debate
only.
The Speaker: The gentleman from Maryland has 15 seconds.
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.
The Speaker: The gentleman was yielded to for debate only. The
gentleman from Illinois had no authority under clause 2, rule
XXVIII to yield for any other purpose but debate.
Parliamentarian's Note: Debate on a motion that the House recede
from its disagreement to a Senate amendment and concur is under the
hour rule. In the above instance, the motion to recede and concur was
divided.(10) If the motion is so divided, the hour rule
applies to each motion separately.(11) Thus, technically,
the Bauman motion to concur could have been debated under the hour
rule, since the request for division of the question was made prior to
the ordering of the previous question. Control of the time, however,
would have remained with the majority and minority under the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 121 Cong. Rec. 38717, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
11. See 86 Cong. Rec. 5889, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., May 9, 1940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether or not the division demand was made before or after the
ordering of the previous question on the motion to recede and concur,
the preferential motion
offered by Mr. Flood to concur
with an amendment could have
been debated under the hour rule equally divided, since it was a
separate motion not affected by ordering the previous question on the
motion to recede and concur.
Had the Bauman motion to concur been rejected, the motion to concur
with another amendment would have been in order, and preferential to a
motion to insist on disagreement.
Sec. 25.29 Time for debate on motions to dispose of amendments in
disagreement is equally divided, under Rule XXVIII clause 2(b),
between the majority and minority party; and if a minority Member
has been designated by his party to control time, another minority
Member who offers a preferential motion
[[Page 10249]]
does not thereby gain control of the time given to the minority.
On May 14, 1975,(12) during consideration of the
conference report on H.R. 4881(13) in the House, the
following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 121 Cong. Rec. 14385, 14386, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
13. The Emergency Employment Appropriations for fiscal year 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: (14) The Clerk will report the next
amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Senate amendment No. 61: Page 41, line 9, insert:
``Federal Railroad Administration
``rail transportation improvement and employment
``For payment of financial assistance to assist railroads
by providing funds for repairing, rehabilitating, and improving
railroad roadbeds and facilities, $700,000,000 . . . .
Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Mahon moves that the House insist on its disagreement
to the amendment of the Senate numbered 61.
preferential motion offered by mr. conte
Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I offer
a preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Conte moves that the House recede from its disagreement
to Senate amendment Number 61 and concur therein with an
amendment, as follows: In lieu of the matter proposed to be
inserted by the Senate, insert the following:
``CHAPTER VIII
``Department of Transportation
``federal railroad administration
``For payment of financial assistance to assist railroads
by providing funds for repairing, rehabilitating, and improving
railroad roadbeds and facilities, $200,000,000 . . . .
Mr. [E. G.] Shuster [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Shuster: Mr. Speaker, how is the time divided?
The Speaker: The time is divided equally between the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Mahon), who has 30 minutes, and the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Michel) who has 30 minutes or such small fraction
thereof as he may decide to use.
CHAPTER 29
Consideration and Debate
D. CONTROL AND DISTRIBUTION OF TIME FOR DEBATE
Sec. 26. Management by Reporting Committee; One-third of Debate Time on
Certain Propositions Allotted to One Opposed
Most business considered by the House is reported by standing
committees of the House, and each measure is managed for con
[[Page 10250]]
sideration by the relevant committee.(15) The chairman of a
committee has the special responsibility, under the rules, to bring to
the floor or to take measures to bring to the floor any measure
approved by his committee.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Control may be taken away from the committee by a motion to
discharge (see Ch. 18, supra) or by a special order (see
Sec. 2, supra).
If the committee manager loses control of the proposition
on the floor, control usually passes to an opposing member of
the committee, although it may pass to any Member of the House
in opposition. For control passing to the opposition, see
Sec. 34, infra.
16. See Sec. Sec. 26.8, 26.9, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First the committee managers, and then the other members of the
committee in order of seniority, have priority of recognition at all
stages of consideration.(17) The member of a committee who
calls up a committee-approved proposition for consideration must be so
authorized by his committee.(18) The manager for the
committee has prior rights to recognition in debate and prior rights to
offer motions expediting the consideration and passage of the
bill.(19) The manager may yield time which he controls as he
sees fit,(20) and he may delegate his authority to another
Member, such as the chairman of the subcommittee concerned with the
legislation.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. See Sec. Sec. 26.1-26.5, infra, for recognition generally, and
Sec. Sec. 26.19-26.23, infra, for recognition under the five-
minute rule.
18. See Sec. Sec. 27.1, 27.2, infra.
19. For the role of the manager, see Sec. 24, supra.
20. See Sec. 26.29, infra.
1. Any delegation must be communicated to the Chair; see Sec. 26.32,
infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where a special order does not designate the managers on behalf of
a committee, or where the designated manager is unavoidably absent, the
Chair may recognize a committee member in his discretion.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. See Sec. Sec. 27.6, 27.7, 28.8, infra. As to power and discretion
of Chair generally, see Sec. 9, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee management extends to the consideration of a conference
report on the bill in question; the senior manager on the part of the
House is often the chairman of the legislative committee (or
subcommittee) with jurisdiction over the subject matter of the original
bill.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. See Sec. Sec. 26.10-26.12, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recent changes in the rules provide for debate time for a Member
opposed to certain propositions, where Members recognized on the
majority and minority party sides both support the proposition. Rule
XXVIII, clause 1(b) provides: (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. House Rules and Manual Sec. 909a (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 10251]]
The time allotted for debate on any motion to instruct House
conferees shall be equally divided between the majority and
minority parties, except that if the proponent of the motion and
the Member from the other party are both supporters of the motion,
one-third of such debate time shall be allotted to a Member who is
opposed to said motion.
Similarly, the time allotted for debate in the consideration of a
conference report is equally divided between the majority party and the
minority party, except that if the floor manager for the majority and
the floor manager for the minority are both supporters of the
conference report, one third of such debate time is allotted to a
Member who is opposed to said conference report.(5)
Recognition of a Member in opposition does not depend upon party
affiliation and is within the discretion of the Speaker(6)
who accords priority in recognition to a member of the conference
committee.(7) Where the time is divided three ways, the
right to close debate falls to the majority manager calling up the
conference report, preceded by the minority manager, preceded in turn
by the Member in opposition.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Rule XXVIII, clause 2(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 912a (1995).
6. See Sec. Sec. 26.51, 26.52, 26.62, infra.
7. See Sec. 26.54, infra.
8. See Sec. 26.57, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule XXVIII, clause 2(b)(1) provides: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 912b (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The time allotted for debate on [an amendment in disagreement]
shall be equally divided between the majority party and the
minority party, except that if the floor manager for the majority
and the floor manager for the minority are both supporters of the
original motion offered by the floor manager for the majority to
dispose of the amendment, one third of such debate time shall be
allotted to a Member who is opposed to said motion.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. As noted above, recognition of a Member in opposition does not
depend upon party affiliation and is within the discretion of
the Speaker, who accords priority in recognition to a member of
the conference committee. The right to close the debate where
the time is divided three ways falls to the manager offering
the motion. For further discussion of recognition under Rule
XXVIII, clause 2, see Sec. Sec. 26.51, 26.52, 26.54, and 26.62,
infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross References
Committee powers and procedure as to management of bills, see Ch. 17,
supra.
Effect of special orders on committee management, see Sec. 28, infra
and Ch. 21, supra (special orders generally).
Management where committee has been discharged from consideration of
bill, see Sec. 18, supra.
Prior rights to recognition of members of reporting committee, see
Sec. 13, supra.
[[Page 10252]]
-------------------Prior Recognition of
Committee Members
Sec. 26.1 As a practice of long standing and in the absence of any
other considerations, members of a committee reporting a bill are
entitled to prior recognition thereon.
On Feb. 10, 1941,(11) Chairman Clarence Cannon, of
Missouri, responded to a parliamentary inquiry on the nature of the
practice of extending priority for recognition to members of the
committee reporting a bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 87 Cong. Rec. 875, 876, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Lyle H.] Boren [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a
parliamentary inquiry. I want it thoroughly understood that I
recognize fully the custom of members of the committee being
recognized ahead of any other Member on the floor, not a member of
the committee. I am quite willing to withdraw my amendment for that
purpose, but as I understood it the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr.
Cooper] rose to make the point of order that my recognition at that
time was not in order. I understood the Chair sustained the point
of order and recognized the gentleman from New York [Mr. Crowther].
I should like to be enlightened as to under what rule of the House
that point of order is sustained after the Chair had recognized me
for the purpose of offering an amendment.
The Chairman: The gentleman from New York [Mr. Crowther] is a
member of the committee reporting the bill and, therefore, entitled
to prior recognition.
Mr. [Jack] Nichols [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary
inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Nichols: Is there a rule of the House that gives the
members of the committee the right to recognition ahead of other
Members of the House? Is that a rule of the House?
The Chairman: It is a procedure of long standing.
Mr. Nichols: It is not a rule of the House.
The Chairman: In the absence of other considerations, members
of the committee in charge of the bill are entitled to prior
recognition. The rule is essential to expedition in legislation and
its importance is too obvious to require justification.
Sec. 26.2 Where more than one Member seeks recognition, the Speaker
recognizes the Member in charge or a member of the reporting
committee, if he seeks recognition.
On Nov. 15, 1967,(12) the Committee of the Whole was
considering under the five-minute rule a bill reported from the
Committee on Education and Labor, chaired by Mr. Carl D. Perkins, of
Kentucky. Mr. Edward J. Gurney, of Florida, sought recognition and
[[Page 10253]]
when Chairman John J. Rooney, of New York, asked for what purpose, he
(Mr. Gurney) stated he sought recognition to offer an amendment. The
Chairman then recognized Mr. Perkins to submit a unanimous-consent
request on closing debate before recognizing Mr. Gurney to offer his
amendment.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 113 Cong. Rec. 32655, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
13. See Rule XIV clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 753 (1995):
``When two or more Members rise at once, the Speaker shall name
the Member who is first to speak. . . .'' See id. at
Sec. Sec. 754-757 for the usages and priorities which govern
the Chair when two or more Members rise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 26.3 Although members of the committee reporting a bill under
consideration usually have preference of recognition, the power of
recognition remains in the discretion of the Chair.
On July 19, 1967,(14) Chairman Joseph L. Evins, of
Tennessee, recognized in the Committee of the Whole Mr. Edmond
Edmondson, of Oklahoma, for a parliamentary inquiry and then recognized
him to offer an amendment to the pending bill. Mr. William C. Cramer,
of Florida, made the point of order that William M. McCulloch, of Ohio,
the ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary, which
had reported the bill, had been on his feet seeking recognition to
offer an amendment at the time and that members of the committee
reporting the bill had the prior right to be recognized. The Chairman
overruled the point of order and stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 113 Cong. Rec. 19416, 19417, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair is trying to be fair and trying to recognize Members
on both sides. The Chair will recognize the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. McCulloch).
Sec. 26.4 Members of the committee reporting a bill are entitled to
prior recognition over the Member who has introduced the bill.
On July 8, 1937,(15) Chairman Marvin Jones, of Texas,
answered a parliamentary inquiry on the order of recognition on the
pending bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 81 Cong. Rec. 6946, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, what is the
order of priority on the bill? Does the author of the bill precede
a member who is not a member of the committee?
The Chairman: If the Chair understands the rule correctly, the
members of the committee which report the bill have preference.
After that all members of the Committee of the Whole are on equal
standing.
Sec. 26.5 In giving preference of recognition to members of a
[[Page 10254]]
committee reporting a bill, the Chair does not usually distinguish
between members of the full committee and members of the
subcommittee.
On Apr. 7, 1943,(16) Chairman Luther A. Johnson, of
Texas, recognized Mr. Frank B. Keefe, of Wisconsin, in opposition to a
pro forma amendment. Mr. Keefe was a member of the Committee on
Appropriations, which had reported the pending bill. Mr. John H. Kerr,
of North Carolina, objected that he asked to be recognized, as a member
of the subcommittee which had handled the bill. The Chairman stated as
follows on the priority of recognition:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 89 Cong. Rec. 3067, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the Chair understands it, a member of the Committee on
Appropriations has the same right as those who are members of that
committee who happen to be members of a subcommittee. That is the
parliamentary procedure, as the Chair understands it. The Chair has
recognized the gentleman from Wisconsin. Had he not done so, he
certainly would have recognized the gentleman from North Carolina.
Control of Privileged Resolution
Sec. 26.6 Debate on a privileged resolution is under the hour rule and
the committee member recognized to call it up has control of the
time.
On Feb. 27, 1963,(17) Mr. Samuel N. Friedel, of
Maryland, called up by direction of the Committee on House
Administration House Resolution 164, a privileged resolution providing
funds for the Committee on Armed Services. Speaker John W. McCormack,
of Massachusetts, answered a parliamentary inquiry as to control of the
time for debate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 109 Cong. Rec. 3051, 3052, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, the Majority Leader, then made the
[[Page 10255]]
following statement on distribution of time to the minority:
Following the statement of the distinguished Speaker of the
House, the gentleman from Ohio made the statement that he is in
favor of the principle involved here. Of course, the principle is
well established under the rules of the House and has been observed
by both parties from time immemorial, that the Member recognized to
call up the resolution has control of the time under the 1-hour
rule. But, I would like to advise the gentleman, as the gentleman
from Maryland has, I am sure the gentleman from Maryland will yield
at least half of the time to the minority.
On Feb. 25, 1954,(18) Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of
Massachusetts, answered parliamentary inquiries on the control of
debate on a privileged resolution called up by the chairman of the
Committee on House Administration:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 100 Cong. Rec. 2282, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Karl M.] LeCompte [of Iowa]: Under the rules the Chairman
has control of the time.
The Speaker: The gentleman has 1 hour to yield to whomsoever he
desires.
Mr. LeCompte: And he has control of the matter of offering
amendments.
The Speaker: A committee amendment is now pending. No other
amendment can be offered unless the gentleman yields the floor for
that purpose.
Mr. LeCompte: A motion to recommit, of course, belongs to some
member of the minority opposed to the resolution. Would any motion
except a motion to recommit be in order except by the gentleman in
charge of the bill?
The Speaker: Not unless the gentleman yields for that purpose.
The gentleman from Iowa is recognized for 1 hour.
Responsibility of the Committee Chairman
Sec. 26.7 On one occasion, the chairman of a committee, acting at the
President's request, introduced a bill, presided over the hearings
in committee, reported the bill, applied to the Committee on Rules
for a special order, and moved that the House resolve itself into
the Committee of the Whole; when recognized to control one-half of
the debate in the committee, he then announced his opposition to
the measure and turned over management of the bill to the ranking
majority member of the committee.
On June 14, 1967,(19) Harley O. Staggers, of West
Virginia, Chairman of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,
moved that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the
[[Page 10256]]
Whole for the consideration of House Joint Resolution 559, providing
for the settlement of a railroad labor dispute. The House had adopted
House Resolution 511, making in order the consideration of the bill and
providing that general debate be controlled by the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 113 Cong. Rec. 15822, 15823, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Committee of the Whole, Chairman Wilbur D. Mills, of
Arkansas, recognized Mr. Staggers to control one-half the time on the
bill. Mr. Staggers made the following statement:
Mr. Chairman, I am here today in a most unusual position. I was
requested by the President to introduce the bill we have before us
today, and because of my responsibilities as chairman of the
committee, I introduced the bill. If the House was to be given an
opportunity to work its will on this legislation, it was necessary
that hearings begin promptly and continue as expeditiously as
possible, and I think the record will bear me out, that the
hearings before our committee have been prompt, they have not been
delayed in any respect.
In fact we interrupted consideration of a very important piece
of health legislation in order to take up this bill. We have heard
every witness who wanted to be heard on the legislation. I did this
because I felt it to be my responsibility to the House as chairman
of the committee.
Following the conclusion of our hearings I promptly scheduled
executive sessions for consideration of the bill and we met as
promptly as possible both morning and afternoon and the committee
reported the bill to the House.
Yesterday I went before the Rules Committee as chairman of the
committee to present the facts to the Rules Committee and attempt
to obtain a rule so that the bill would be considered by the House.
I have done these things because I felt it is my responsibility to
do so as chairman of the committee.
Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, I was opposed to this bill when I
introduced it, and having heard all the witnesses and all the
testimony, I am still opposed to it. For that reason I have asked
the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Friedel] to handle the bill in
Committee of the Whole, so that I would
be free to express my opposition to it. . . .
Mr. Chairman, this concludes the presentation I desire to make
on the bill. At this time I request the gentleman from Maryland
[Mr. Friedel], the ranking majority member on the Interstate and
Foreign Commerce Committee, to take charge of managing the bill on
the floor.
Parliamentarian's Note: The chairman of each committee has
responsibility of reporting or causing to be reported any measure
approved by his committee and taking or causing to be taken steps to
have the matter considered and voted upon in the House, regardless of
his personal opposition to the measure.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See Rule XI clause 2(l)(1)(A), House Rules and Manual Sec. 713a
(1995).
For an occasion where the chairman of a committee, also the
senior manager at conference, called up and managed the
conference report, to which he was opposed, see Sec. 24.4,
supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 10257]]
Effect of Opposition of Committee Chairman
Sec. 26.8 The Committee of the Whole having adopted certain amendments
to a bill, the chairman of the committee from which the measure was
reported expressed his objections, relinquished control of the bill
and subsequently offered a motion that the Committee rise with the
recommendation to strike the enacting clause.
On July 5, 1956,(1) the Committee of the Whole had
adopted certain amendments to H.R. 7535,
to authorize federal assistance to states and local communities in
financing an expanded program of school construction. Graham A. Barden,
of North Carolina, who was controlling consideration of the bill as the
chairman of the reporting committee--the Committee on Education and
Labor--made the following statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 102 Cong. Rec. 11849, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I have a brief statement I should like to make to
the House.
For 22 years I have done my best to be sincere and frank with
the membership of this House. I propose to continue that, both in
attitude and in practice.
I have very definitely reached the conclusion that the American
people do not want this legislation in its present form. Certain
things have happened to the bill that made it very, very obnoxious
and objectionable to the people I represent.
I never have claimed to be an expert when advocating something
that I was sincerely and conscientiously for. I have always felt I
would be a complete flop in trying to advocate something I did not
believe in and did not advocate. This bill is objectionable to me.
It has so many bad features and so many things have been given
priority over the consideration of the objective that we set out to
accomplish that I must say, in all frankness, to the House I cannot
continue in the position here of directing this bill. I feel that
someone who can be fairer to the bill in its present shape than I,
should handle the bill. I would have to be a much better actor than
I now am to proceed in the position of handling this piece of
legislation which I cannot support and do not want to pass. For
that reason, I want the House to understand my very definite
position in the matter. So, with that, I think the House will
understand my position and those in a position on the committee to
handle the bill will have my cooperation to a certain extent, but
no one need to expect any assistance from me or any encouragement
for the bill.
Mr. Barden later offered a motion that the Committee of the
[[Page 10258]]
Whole rise and report the bill back to the House with the
recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken, which was defeated
(the bill itself was later defeated).(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Id. at pp. 11868, 11869.
For an occasion where a senior conference manager, also
chairman of a committee, managed a conference report to which
he was opposed, see Sec. 24.4, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Duty of Committee Chairman To Report Bill
Sec. 26.9 The provision of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946
(later adopted as part of the rules of the House) providing that it
shall be the duty of the chairman of each committee to report or
cause to be reported promptly any measure approved by his committee
or to take or cause to be taken necessary steps to bring a matter
to a vote, is sufficient authority to call up a bill on Calendar
Wednesday.
On Feb. 22, 1950,(3) John Lesinski, of Michigan,
Chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor, called up a bill
under the Calendar Wednesday procedure. Mr. Tom Pickett, of Texas, made
the point of order that Mr. Lesinski was not entitled to recognition
for that purpose, not having been expressly authorized by the committee
to call up the bill under that procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 96 Cong. Rec. 2161, 2162, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Tex-as, overruled the point of order,
saying:
The Chair is prepared to rule.
The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Lesinski] has already stated
that the committee did give him this authority. The present
occupant of the chair has read the minutes of the committee and
thinks the gentleman from Michigan is correct.
Also the latest rule on this matter is section 133, paragraph
(c), of the Legislative Reorganization Act, and there is very good
reason for this rule because in times past the chairmen of
committees have been known to carry bills around in their pockets
for quite a while and not present them.
The rule is as follows:
It shall be the duty of the chairman of each such committee
to report or cause to be reported promptly to the Senate or
House of Representatives, as the case may be, any measure
approved by his committee and to take or cause to be taken
steps to bring the matter to a vote.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. The statute cited was later adopted as part of the standing rules;
see Rule XI clause 2(l)(1)(A), House Rules and Manual Sec. 713a
(1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conference Reports
Sec. 26.10 Under a former practice, a conference report was
[[Page 10259]]
called up by the chairman of one committee, who controlled one-half
hour on one title of the bill, and then yielded to the chairman of
another committee to control one-half hour on the other title and
to move the previous question.
On May 13, 1970,(5) Mr. Harley O. Staggers, of West
Virginia, called up a conference report on H.R. 14465, the Airport and
Airway Development and Revenue Acts of 1970. The managers on the part
of the House had been appointed from two House committees, since title
1 of the bill dealt with airport authorizations, within the
jurisdiction of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, and
title 2 dealt with raising revenue for airport construction, within the
jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 116 Cong. Rec. 15291-97, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce had reported the
bill in the House, and Mr. Staggers, Chairman of that committee,
therefore called up the conference report for consideration. He
controlled one-half hour of debate on title 1, within the jurisdiction
of his committee. He then yielded to Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas,
Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, to control one-half hour
of debate on title 2 of the bill. Mr. Mills moved the previous question
on the report.
Parliamentarian's Note: Under the present Rule XXVIII, clause 2(a),
debate on a conference report is equally divided between the majority
and the minority parties (see Sec. 26.12, infra).
Sec. 26.11 A conference report was filed and called up by a junior
member of the conference committee, where the senior manager at the
conference (who was also
the chairman of the legislative committee involved) was temporarily
absent and unable to be present on the floor.
On Dec. 23, 1969,(6) Speaker John W. McCormack, of
Massachusetts, recognized Mr. Thomas L. Ashley, of Ohio, a junior
member of the conference committee on H.R. 4293, to provide for
continuation of authority for regulation of exports, to file the
conference report and to call it up. The senior member of the
conference committee, Wright Patman, of Texas, also Chairman of
[[Page 10260]]
the Committee on Banking and Currency, which had jurisdiction over the
subject matter of the bill, was unavoidably absent from the floor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 115 Cong. Rec. 40982-84, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 26.12 One hour of debate, equally divided between the majority and
minority parties, is permitted on a conference report; and where
conferees have been appointed from two committees of the House, the
Speaker recognizes one of the minority members (not necessarily a
member of the same committee as the Member controlling the majority
time) to control 30 minutes of debate.
On Jan. 19, 1972,(7) Wayne L. Hays, of Ohio, Chairman of
the Committee on House Administration, called up a conference report on
S. 382, the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1972. Conferees on the
part of the House had been appointed from two House committees with
jurisdiction over the bill, the Committee on House Administration and
the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 118 Cong. Rec. 319, 320, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, recognized Mr. Hays for 30
minutes of debate to control time for the majority. He recognized
William L. Springer, of Illinois, ranking minority member of the
Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, to control 30 minutes of
debate for the minority.
Parliamentarian's Note: Mr. Springer controlled the minority time
although he had resigned as a conferee on the bill, and even though Mr.
Samuel L. Devine, of Ohio, ranking minority member of the Committee on
House Administration and a conferee on the bill was on the floor and
participated in debate. Under normal practice, the Members controlling
the time for debate on a conference report are among those who served
as House managers in conference.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. For division of debate on a conference report, see Rule XXVIII
clause 2(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 912a (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
District of Columbia Business
Sec. 26.13 During consideration of District of Columbia business in
Committee of the Whole, the Chair alternates in recognizing between
those for and against the pending legislation, giving preference to
members of the Committee on the District of Columbia.
On Apr. 11, 1932,(9) Chairman Thomas L. Blanton, of
Texas, an
[[Page 10261]]
swered a parliamentary inquiry on recognition in the Committee of the
Whole during general debate on a District of Columbia bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 75 Cong. Rec. 7990, 72d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [William H.] Stafford [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, when
the Committee on the District of Columbia has the call and the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union is
considering legislation, is it necessary, in gaining recognition,
that a Member has to be in opposition to the bill or is any Member
whatsoever entitled to one hour's time for general debate?
The Chairman: From the Chair's experience, gained through
having been a member of this committee for over 10 years, he will
state that where a bill is called up for general debate on District
day in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union,
and the chairman of the committee has yielded the floor, a member
of the committee opposed to the bill is entitled to recognition
over any other member opposed to the bill, and it was the duty of
the Chair to ascertain whether there were any members of the
committee opposed to the bill who would be entitled to prior
recognition. The Chair, having ascertained there were no members of
the committee opposed to the bill, took pleasure, under the
direction of the gentleman from Wisconsin, in recognizing the
gentleman from Mississippi.
Committee Amendments
Sec. 26.14 In recognizing members of the committee reporting a bill,
the Chair generally recognizes a member in fa-vor of a committee
amendment prior to recognizing a member thereof who is opposed.
On Jan. 30, 1957,(10) House Joint Resolution 1311, to
authorize the President to cooperate with nations of the Middle East,
was being considered in the Committee of the Whole pursuant to a
resolution permitting only committee amendments (Committee on Foreign
Affairs). A committee amendment was offered, and Mr. Wayne L. Hays, of
Ohio, a member of the committee, rose to seek recognition for debate in
opposition to the amendment. A point of order having been made against
that procedure, Chairman Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, extended
recognition to Mr. Frank M. Coffin, of Maine, a member of the committee
who authorized and supported the amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 103 Cong. Rec. 1311, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 26.15 Where a privileged resolution is reported by the Committee
on Rules, with committee amendments, the amendments are reported
and may be acted upon before the Member managing the resolution is
recognized for debate thereon.
[[Page 10262]]
On Aug. 19, 1964,(11) the Committee on Rules reported
House Resolution 845, providing for the consideration of H.R. 11926,
limiting the jurisdiction of federal courts in apportionment cases,
which bill had not been reported by the committee to which referred.
Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, directed the Clerk, after
the reading of the resolution, to read the committee amendments. The
amendments were then agreed to and the Speaker recognized Mr. Howard W.
Smith, of Virginia, the manager of the resolution, for one hour of
debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 110 Cong. Rec. 20213, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: This is the normal procedure in the case of
technical or perfecting amendments to a resolution considered under the
hour rule. Alternatively, the proponent of the resolution may proceed
in debate while an amendment thereto is pending. This procedure is
followed where the amendment is controversial or is in the nature of a
substitute.
Sec. 26.16 When a bill is being considered under a closed rule
permitting only committee amendments, only two five-minute speeches
are in order, one in support of the committee amendment and one in
opposition, and the Chair gives preference in recognition to
members of the committee reporting the bill.
On May 18, 1960,(12) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 5, the Foreign Investment Tax Act of 1960, reported by
the Committee on Ways and Means, pursuant to the provisions of House
Resolution 468, permitting only amendments offered at the direction of
said committee. Chairman William H. Natcher, of Kentucky, stated in
response to a parliamentary inquiry that only five minutes for and five
minutes against the bill were in order, and that committee members had
pri-or rights to debate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 106 Cong. Rec. 10576, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Cleveland M.] Bailey [of West Virginia]: I rise in
opposition to the amendment, and I oppose the legislation in
general.
Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Bailey: On what ground may I get recognition for the
purpose of opposing the legislation?
The Chairman: The Chair recognized the gentleman from Louisiana
[Mr. Boggs] for 5 minutes in support of
[[Page 10263]]
the committee amendment, so the gentleman from Louisiana would have
to yield to the distinguished gentleman from West Virginia.
Mr. Bailey: At the expiration of the 5 minutes allowed the
gentleman from Louisiana, may I be recognized to discuss the
amendment?
The Chairman: If no other member of the committee rises in
opposition to the amendment, the Chair will recognize the
gentleman.
Sec. 26.17 The time for debate having been fixed by motion on
amendments to a committee amendment in the nature of a substitute,
the Chair may by unanimous consent recognize the same committee
member in opposition to each amendment offered where no other
member of the committee seeks such recognition.
On Feb. 8, 1950,(13) Chairman Chet Holifield, of
California, answered a parliamentary inquiry after the Committee of the
Whole had agreed to a motion limiting debate on amendments to a
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 96 Cong. Rec. 1691, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: Under what precedent or
ruling is the Chair recognizing a certain member of the committee
for 1 minute in opposition to each amendment being offered? That
was not included in the motion. Had it been included in the motion,
it would have been subject to a point of order.
The Chairman: The Chair is trying to be fair in the conduct of
the committee, and the only gentleman that has arisen on the
opposite side has been the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Murray].
There was no point of order raised at the time that I announced
that I would recognize the committee for 1 minute in rebuttal to
each amendment.
Mr. Case of South Dakota: But the gentleman from South Dakota
got up at the time the Chair proposed to recognize the gentleman
from Tennessee a second time. Obviously, when the committee avails
itself of the opportunity to make a motion to limit debate it, in a
sense, is closing debate, and unless it does seek to limit time and
is successful in so doing, in principle it forfeits that courtesy.
The Members who have proposed amendments here have been waiting all
afternoon to be heard, and if the committee adopted the procedure
of seeking to close debate on 20 minutes' notice, with 10
amendments pending, it would seem as a matter of courtesy that the
committee should restrain itself to one member of the committee who
might have been on his feet, but to recognize one gentleman a
succession of times seems entirely out of keeping with the spirit
of closing debate.
The Chairman: The Chairman, in the list of names, also read the
name of the committee. If the Chair was so inclined, the Chair
could recognize two Members for 5 minutes each on amendments, on
each side, and that would preclude the others from having
[[Page 10264]]
any voice in the amendments that are pending, or in the debate.
Mr. Case of South Dakota: That, of course, is true, the Chair
could do that. But, ordinarily, under the precedents always
followed in the House, when time is closed on amendments, the time
is divided among those who are seeking to offer amendments, and
unless the motion specifically reserves time to the committee, it
has been the precedent to divide the time among those who are
seeking to offer amendments.
The Chairman: The Chair feels that the committee is entitled to
a rebuttal on any amendment that is offered, and has so announced,
and there was no point of order made at the time. The Chair
sustains its present position.
Priorities Under the Five-minute Rule
Sec. 26.18 Recognition of Members to offer amendments under the five-
minute rule in the Committee of the Whole is within the discretion
of the Chair, and he may extend preference to members of the
committee which reported the bill according to seniority.
On July 21, 1949,(14) Chairman Eugene J. Keogh, of New
York, answered a parliamentary inquiry on the order of recognition for
amendments under the five-minute rule:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 95 Cong. Rec. 9936, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [James P.] Sutton [of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
Mr. H. Carl Andersen [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. H. Carl Andersen: Mr. Chairman, is it not the custom during
debate under the 5-minute rule for the Chair in recognizing Members
to alternate from side to side? At least I suggest to the Chair
that that would be the fair procedure. The Chair has recognized
three Democrats in a row.
The Chairman: The Chair will say to the gentleman that the
matter of recognition of members of the committee is within the
discretion of the Chair. The Chair has undertaken to follow as
closely as possible the seniority of those Members.
Mr. [Clifford R.] Hope [of Kansas]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Hope: For the information of the Chair, the gentleman from
Wisconsin, who has been seeking recognition, has been a Member of
the House for 10 years, and the gentleman from Tennessee is a
Member whose service began only this year.
The Chairman: The Chair would refer the gentleman to the
official list of the members of the committee, which the Chair has
before him.
The Clerk will report the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Tennessee.
[[Page 10265]]
Sec. 26.19 Recognition under the five-minute rule in the Committee of
the Whole is within the discretion of the Chair, and the Chair is
not required in every instance to recognize members of the
legislative committee reporting the bill in order of their
seniority.
On Oct. 2, 1969,(15) the Committee of the Whole was
considering under the five-minute rule H.R. 14000, military procurement
authorization. Chairman Daniel D. Rostenkowski, of Illinois, recognized
Mr. Charles H. Wilson, of California, a member of the Committee on
Armed Services which had reported the bill, to offer an amendment. Mr.
Lucien N. Nedzi, of Michigan, inquired whether members of the committee
were not supposed to be recognized in the order of their seniority. The
Chairman responded ``That is a matter for the Chair's discretion'' and
proceeded to recognize Mr. Wilson for his amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 115 Cong. Rec. 28101, 28102, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 26.20 During amendment of
a bill in Committee of the Whole, the Chairman first recognizes
members of the committee reporting the bill, if on their feet
seeking recognition.
On June 29, 1939,(16) Chairman Jere Cooper, of
Tennessee, ruled that although a Member had been recognized to offer an
amendment, the Chairman would in his discretion first recognize members
of the committee reporting the bill, if on their feet seeking
recognition:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 84 Cong. Rec. 8311, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Harold] Knutson [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I have an
amendment at the Clerk's desk which I would like to offer at this
time.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Knutson: Strike out all of section
1 and insert the following--
Mr. [Hamilton] Fish [Jr., of New York] (interrupting the
reading of the amendment): Mr. Chairman, would it be in order for
the committee members to be recognized first to offer amendments?
Mr. Knutson: I have already been recognized.
The Chairman: If there is any member of the committee seeking
recognition, he is entitled to recognition.
Mr. Fish: Mr. Chairman, I would like to be recognized.
Mr. Knutson: I already have the floor, and have been
recognized.
Mr. H. Carl Andersen [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, the
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Knutson] has already been recognized.
The Chairman: Recognition is in the discretion of the Chair,
and the Chair will recognize members of the committee first. Does
the acting chairman of the committee seek recognition?
[[Page 10266]]
Mr. [Sol] Bloom [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I would like to
ask whether the committee amendments to section 1 have been agreed
to?
The Chairman: The only one the Chair knows about is the one
appearing in the print of the bill, and that has been agreed to.
Mr. Bloom: In line 16, there is a committee amendment.
Mr. Knutson: Mr. Chairman, I was recognized by the Chair.
The Chairman: The Chair feels that inasmuch as members of the
committee were not on their feet and the gentleman from Minnesota
had been recognized, the gentleman is entitled to recognition.
Sec. 26.21 In recognizing members of the committee reporting a bill to
offer amendments in the Committee of the Whole, the Chairman has
discretion whether to first recognize a minority or majority
member.
On June 4, 1948,(17) while the Committee of the Whole
was considering H.R. 6801, the foreign aid appropriation bill, for
amendment, Chairman W. Sterling Cole, of New York, recognized Everett
M. Dirksen, of Illinois (a majority member) to offer an amendment. Mr.
Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, objected that the minority was entitled
to recognition to move to amend the bill. The Chairman responded:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 94 Cong. Rec. 7189, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the rules of the House, any member of the committee may
offer an amendment, and it is in the discretion of the Chair as to
which member shall be recognized.
Sec. 26.22 A member of the committee in charge of a bill is entitled to
close debate on an amendment under consideration in the Committee
of the Whole where the debate has been limited and equally divided
among that Member and other Members.
On May 22, 1956,(18) Chairman Jere Cooper, of Tennessee,
ruled that the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, manager of
the pending bill, H.R. 11319, was entitled to close debate on a pending
amendment (where a request had been agreed to to limit debate on the
amendment to 20 minutes, divided and controlled by that Member and
three others):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 102 Cong. Rec. 8741, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: Under the unanimous-consent agreement, the Chair
recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. Cole].
Mr. [W. Sterling] Cole: Mr. Chairman, I understood that I was
to have 5 minutes to close the debate on this amendment.
[[Page 10267]]
The Chairman: The Chair was not of that understanding. It is
the understanding of the Chair that the gentleman from New York
[Mr. Taber] would have 5 minutes to close the debate.
Mr. Cole: The request was that the gentleman from New York will
close the debate. I also qualify under that characterization, being
in support of the amendment; and, under the rules of the House, it
is my understanding that I would be recognized to close the debate.
The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman from New York
that a member of the committee is entitled to close the debate if
he so desires.
Does the gentleman from New York [Mr. Taber] desire to be
recognized to close the debate?
Mr. [John] Taber: I desire to close.
The Chairman: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York
[Mr. Cole].
Reservation of Time for Committee
Sec. 26.23 Where the Committee of the Whole fixes the time for debate
on all amendments to a pending amendment in the nature of a
substitute, the Chair in counting those seeking recognition may
without objection allot a portion of the time on each amendment to
the committee reporting the bill.
On Feb. 8, 1950,(19) the Committee of the Whole fixed
time for
debate on amendments to a committee amendment in the nature
of a substitute. Chairman Chet Holifield, of California, then
indicated, in response to a parliamentary inquiry, that the Chair would
recognize a committee member in opposition to each amendment offered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 96 Cong. Rec. 1691, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Control of Time by Unanimous Consent
Sec. 26.24 Under the five-minute rule, control of the time for debate
may be allotted by unanimous consent but not by motion.
On May 11, 1949,(20) during five-minute debate in the
Committee of the Whole, Mr. Brent Spence, of Kentucky, moved to limit
five-minute debate on a pending section and amendments thereto, and to
allocate the remaining time. Chairman Albert A. Gore, of Tennessee,
sustained a point of order against the motion, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 95 Cong. Rec. 6055, 6056, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Spence: Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on section 1
and all amendments thereto conclude at 3:30
[[Page 10268]]
and that the time be equally divided among those Members who asked
for time and that the last 5 minutes be assigned to the committee.
Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman . . . the
Committee of the Whole cannot allot time that way. That is in the
discretion of the House of Representatives and not the committee.
It must be by unanimous consent.
The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.
Sec. 26.25 By unanimous consent, the Committee of the Whole provided
for two hours of debate on a pending amendment (thereby abrogating
the five-minute rule) and vested control of such time in the
chairman and ranking minority member of the committee that had
reported the bill.
On July 8, 1965,(1) the Committee of the Whole was
considering the Civil Rights Act of 1965, H.R. 6400. Mr. William M.
McCulloch, of Ohio, offered an amendment, and the Committee agreed to
the following unanimous-consent request allocating the time for debate
on the amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 111 Cong. Rec. 16036-38, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that all debate on the so-called McCulloch
substitute and all amendments thereto be limited to 2 hours, and
that such time be equally divided and controlled by myself and the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. McCulloch].
Parliamentarian's Note: Where a unanimous-consent agreement for
control of time for debate on an amendment has been fixed, the
proponent is first recognized for debate.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Where the time for and control of debate on an amendment has been
fixed by unanimous consent, the motion that the Committee rise
with the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken is
in order and privileged, and the Member so moving and the
Members rising in opposition are entitled to recognition for
five minutes. Time on the motion is not taken from the time
remaining under the unanimous-consent limitation unless the
limitation is to a time certain or unless the limitation has
the effect of closing further debate on the bill (as with an
amendment
in the nature of a substitute being
considered as an original bill). See
111 Cong. Rec. 16227, 16228, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., July 9,
1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 26.26 The Committee of the Whole, by unanimous consent, limited
debate to 30 minutes on a pending motion to strike and provided
that the time should be divided equally between the managers of the
bill, who would in turn yield time to both
[[Page 10269]]
proponents and opponents of the motion.
On Aug. 4, 1966,(3) while the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 14765, the Civil Rights Act of 1966, the Committee
agreed to a unanimous-consent request on the time and control of debate
on motion to strike:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 112 Cong. Rec. 18207, 18208, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Carl] Albert [of Oklahoma]: The unanimous-consent request
is that when the Committee resumes consideration of the bill, H.R.
14765, after the recess tonight the first order of business shall
be after 30 minutes of debate a vote on the Moore amendment to
strike out title IV and, in the event that amendment is defeated,
the Committee shall then continue the consideration of title IV.
Mr. [John Bell] Williams [of Mississippi]: Do I understand that
the gentleman dropped that portion in which he provided for a
division of time equally between the proponents and opponents?
Mr. Albert: No. That is included. Fifteen minutes shall be
under the control of the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Rodino] and
15 minutes under the control of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.
McCulloch]. I think it is well understood that they will yield the
time to both proponents and opponents of the Moore amendment.
Mr. Williams: By gentleman's agreement?
Mr. Albert: Yes.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation.
The Chairman: (4) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Oklahoma?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
Hour Rule Limitations
Sec. 26.27 Although the chairman and ranking minority member of a
committee or subcommittee may be given control of more than one
hour of the time for general debate, they are still limited in
their own presentations by the hour rule and may proceed for a
longer time only by unanimous consent.
On July 29, 1969,(5) the House agreed to a unanimous-
consent request by Mr. Daniel J. Flood, of Pennsylvania, that the House
resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole for the consideration of
H.R. 13111, Labor and HEW appropriations, and that general debate be
limited to three hours, to be equally divided and controlled by Mr.
Flood, Chairman of the Subcommittee on HEW of the Committee on
Appropriations and by Mr. Robert H. Michel, of Illinois, the ranking
minority member of that subcommittee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 115 Cong. Rec. 21174-78, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Flood commenced debate, and Chairman Chet Holifield, of
[[Page 10270]]
California, later advised him that he himself had consumed one hour.
By unanimous consent, at the request of Mr. William H. Natcher, of
Kentucky, Mr. Flood was allowed to continue for 10 additional minutes.
Yielding Time by Committee Managers
Sec. 26.28 Where debate on a bill is under control of the chairman and
ranking minority member of a committee, they may yield as many
times as they desire to whomever they desire.
On July 11, 1946,(6) Chairman William M. Whittington, of
Mississippi, answered a parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 92 Cong. Rec. 8694, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miss [Jessie] Sumner of Illinois: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary
inquiry?
The Chairman: The gentlewoman will state it.
Miss Sumner of Illinois: The gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Hays]
and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Patman] have spoken two or three
times on this bill during general debate. Is that permissible under
the rules of the House?
The Chairman: The time is within the control of the chairman
and the ranking minority member of the committee.
Miss Sumner of Illinois: May the same person speak two or three
times in general debate on the same bill?
The Chairman: General debate on this bill has been fixed at 16
hours, the time equally divided between the chairman and the
ranking minority member of the committee. They may yield once,
twice, or as many times as they desire to whom they desire.
General Debate Time
Sec. 26.29 The chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, in control
of one-half the time for general debate on a civil rights bill,
yielded one-half of that time to another majority member of his
committee.
On Jan. 21, 1964,(7) the House adopted House Resolution
616, providing for consideration of H.R. 7152, the Civil Rights Act of
1963, and providing that 10 hours of general debate thereon be divided
and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on the Judiciary. When the House resolved itself into the
Committee of the Whole for the consideration of the bill, Emanuel
Celler, of New York, the Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary,
made the following statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 110 Cong. Rec. 1516, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Chairman, at the outset may I say that I shall yield one-
half of my
[[Page 10271]]
time, namely, 2\1/2\ hours, to the distinguished gentleman from
Louisiana [Mr. Willis].
Sec. 26.30 Where a bill is considered pursuant to a resolution which
gives control of part of the general debate to the chairman of the
committee reporting the bill, he may delegate control of that time
to another; but such delegation is not effective unless
communicated to the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole.
On Jan. 31, 1964,(8) the Committee of the Whole was
conducting general debate on H.R. 7152, the Civil Rights Act of 1963.
The resolution providing for the consideration of the bill provided
that general debate be divided
and controlled by the chairman
and ranking minority member of
the Committee on the Judiciary. Emanuel Celler, of New York, the
Chairman of the committee, was absent, and the following colloquy and
point of order transpired:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 110 Cong. Rec. 1538, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Peter W.] Rodino [Jr., of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. [Basil L.] Whitener [of North Carolina]: If the gentleman
will get me more time, I will be glad to yield to the gentleman.
Mr. Rodino: I will give the gentleman 1 extra minute.
Mr. Whitener: I yield to the gentleman, but please do not take
more than 1 minute.
The Chairman: (9) The Chair has to inform the
gentleman from North Carolina that the gentleman from New Jersey
does not have control of the time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Whitener: Then, Mr. Chairman, I must respectfully decline
to yield to the gentleman. . . .
Mr. [Byron G.] Rogers of Colorado: Mr. Chairman, a point of
order.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state the point of order.
Mr. Rogers of Colorado: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New
Jersey is now in charge of the time in the absence of the chairman,
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Celler].
The Chairman: The Chair was not informed that the gentleman
from New York is absent nor is the Chair informed that the
gentleman from New Jersey is now in charge of the time.
The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized.
Mr. Whitener: I thank the Chairman. . . .
The Chairman: The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Rodino: Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 minutes, and I wish
to state I am acting for the chairman of the Committee on the
Judiciary who asked me to take charge of the time for him in his
absence.
The Chairman: The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized.
Sec. 26.31 During general debate in Committee of the Whole of
[[Page 10272]]
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,(10) during consideration of the Voting
Rights Act extension (H.R. 6219) in the Committee of the Whole, the
following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 121 Cong. Rec. 16285, 16286, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The time of the gentleman has
expired.
Mr. [Henry B.] Gonzalez [of Tex-as]: Mr. Chairman, I would ask
unanimous consent to continue for an additional 5 minutes.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that the
gentleman from California (Mr. Edwards) has
control of the time. Does the gentleman from California wish to
yield additional time to the gentleman from Texas? . . .
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The time of the gentleman has
expired.
Mr. Gonzalez: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I be
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman will suspend. The Chair
must advise the gentleman that under the rule that request is not
in order.
--Reserving Time To Close
Sec. 26.32 Where, under a special rule, general debate is divided and
controlled by two committees, the Chair may permit the chairman of
the primary committee involved to reserve a portion of his allotted
time to close general debate, while recognizing the chairman of the
other committee to utilize his time.
During consideration of the Intergovernmental Emergency Assistance
Act (H.R. 10481) in the Committee of the Whole on Dec. 2,
1975,(11) the proceedings described above occurred as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 121 Cong. Rec. 38141, 38166, 38174, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: (12) Pursuant to the rule, general
debate will continue for not to exceed 3 hours, 2 hours to be
equally divided and controlled between the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Banking, Currency and Housing,
and 1 hour to be equally divided and controlled between the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and
Means.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. James G. O'Hara (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the rule, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Ashley, chairman
of the Committee on Banking, Currency, and Housing] will be
recognized for 1 hour; the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr.
McKinney) will be recognized for 1 hour; the gentleman from Oregon
(Mr.
[[Page 10273]]
Ullman) will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Schneebeli) will be recognized for 30 minutes. .
. .
Mr. [Thomas L.] Ashley [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I have no
further requests for time and I reserve the balance of my time.
The Chairman: Under the rule, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
Ullman) is recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Conable) is recognized for 30 minutes.
[Mr. [Al] Ullman [of Oregon] addressed the Committee.]
Mr. Ashley: Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes to close
debate.
Disciplinary Resolution
Sec. 26.33 After the chairman of a special committee to investigate the
right of a Member-elect to be sworn was recognized for one hour on
a resolution relating thereto, he obtained an additional hour by
unanimous consent, and then yielded one-half of his time, for
debate only, to the ranking minority member of the special
committee; the Speaker declared that both the chairman and the
ranking minority member controlled the further allocation of time.
On Mar. 1, 1967,(13) Emanuel Celler, of New York,
Chairman of the select committee, appointed pursuant to House
Resolution 1 of the 90th Congress to investigate the right of Member-
elect Adam C. Powell, of New York, to be sworn, called up House
Resolution 278 relating thereto. Mr. Celler, after being recognized by
Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, for one hour, requested
that the time be extended for one additional hour, which was agreed to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 113 Cong. Rec. 4997, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Celler then yielded one-half of his time, for debate only, to
Mr. Arch A. Moore, Jr., of West
Virginia, the ranking minority member of the special committee. Both
were declared by the Speaker to be in control of the allocation of
time.
Under Suspension--Management of House Bill With Senate Amendments
Sec. 26.34 The Speaker normally recognizes the chairman of the
committee or subcommittee with jurisdiction over the subject matter
of a House bill to move to suspend the rules and agree to a
resolution taking the bill with Senate amendments from the
Speaker's table and agreeing to the Senate amendments.
[[Page 10274]]
On Aug. 27, 1962,(14) Speaker John W. McCormack, of
Massachusetts, recognized Oren Harris, of Arkansas, Chairman of the
Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, to move to suspend the
rules and agree to House Resolution 769:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 108 Cong. Rec. 17671, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution
the bill H.R. 11040, with the Senate amendments thereto, be, and
the same is hereby taken from the Speaker's table, to the end that
the Senate amendment be, and the same is hereby, agreed to.
Parliamentarian's Note: H.R. 11040, the Communications Satellite
Act of 1962, was within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Interstate
and Foreign Commerce.
Sec. 26.35 The Speaker normally recognizes the chairman of the
committee or subcommittee with jurisdiction to move to suspend the
rules and agree to a resolution taking a House bill with Senate
amendments from the Speaker's table, disagreeing to
Senate amendments, and requesting a conference.
On Oct. 1, 1962,(15) Speaker John W. McCormack, of
Massachusetts, recognized Thomas J. Murray, of Tennessee, Chairman of
the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, to suspend the rules
and agree to House Resolution 818:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 108 Cong. Rec. 21528, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution
the bill H.R. 7927, with the Senate amendment thereto, be, and the
same hereby is, taken from the Speaker's table, to the end that the
Senate amendment be, and the same hereby is, disagreed to and a
conference is requested with the Senate upon the disagreeing votes
of the two Houses thereon.
Parliamentarian's Note: H.R. 7927, the Postal Rate and Postal Pay
Act of 1962, was within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Post
Office and Civil Service.
--Member Opposed to Motion
Sec. 26.36 Under clause 2 of Rule XXVII,(16) a Member
opposed to a motion to suspend the rules is entitled to control 20
minutes of debate in opposi
[[Page 10275]]
tion to the motion; ordinarily, the ranking minority member of the
reporting committee controls the 20 minutes of debate unless he is
challenged at the time the allocation is made and does not qualify
as being opposed to the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. House Rules and Manual Sec. 907 (1995). The provision providing for
forty minutes of debate on a motion to suspend the rules was
formerly contained in clause 3. Former clause 2 of Rule XXVII,
requiring certain motions to suspend the rules to be seconded
by a majority of tellers if demand was made, was repealed by H.
Res. 5, 102d Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 3, 1991.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During consideration of the Equal Access Act (H.R. 5345) in the
House on May 15, 1984,(17) the following proceedings
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 130 Cong. Rec. 12214, 12215, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Carl D.] Perkins [of Kentucky]: Mr. Speaker, I move to
suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5345) to provide that no
Federal educational funds may be obligated or expended to any State
or local educational agency which discriminates against any
meetings of students in public secondary schools who wish to meet
voluntarily for religious purposes.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 5345
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this
Act may be cited as the ``Equal Access Act''. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (18) . . . The gentleman
from Kentucky (Mr. Perkins) will be recognized for 20 minutes and
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. William F. Goodling, ranking
minority member of Committee on Education and Labor] will be
recognized for 20 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Wyche Fowler, Jr. (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Perkins).
Mr. Perkins: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes. . . .
Mr. [Hamilton] Fish [Jr., of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Fish: Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to this bill. Do I have a
right to the full 20 minutes on our side?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will advise the gentleman
from New York that his objection is not timely. The gentleman is
too late. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) controls
the time.
Mr. [Gary L.] Ackerman [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, does the
gentleman from Pennsylvania oppose this bill? . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that any
gentleman had the opportunity at the appropriate time to make the
appropriate challenge. The Chair has ruled that the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) controls the time and is recognized for
20 minutes.
Unanimous-consent Requests To Dispose of Senate Amendments
Sec. 26.37 The Speaker, in response to a parliamentary
inquiry, indicated that only
the chairman of the committee having jurisdiction of the subject
matter of a bill, amended by the Senate and on the Speaker's table,
would be recognized to ask unani
[[Page 10276]]
mous consent to take it from the table, disagree to the amendment
and ask for a conference.
On Sept. 1, 1960,(19) Mr. Charles A. Halleck, of
Indiana, raised a parliamentary inquiry on the disposition of a House
bill with a Senate amendment which had been returned to the House and
was on the Speaker's table. Mr. Halleck inquired whether it would be in
order to submit
a unanimous-consent request to take the bill from the table, disagree
to the Senate amendment, and send the bill to conference. Speaker Sam
Rayburn, of Texas, responded that such a request could only be made by
the chairman of the committee with jurisdiction over the bill [Harold
D. Cooley, of North Carolina].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 106 Cong. Rec. 18920, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 26.38 The Speaker may decline to recognize a Member for a
unanimous-consent request to take a bill from the Speaker's table
and concur in certain Senate amendments, where such a request is
made without the authorization of the chairman of the reporting
committee.
On July 31, 1969,(20) Mr. Hale Boggs, of Louisiana,
asked unanimous consent to take the bill H.R. 9951 from the Speaker's
table and to concur in the Senate amendments thereto. Speaker John W.
McCormack, of Massachusetts, refused recognition for that purpose:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 115 Cong. Rec. 21691, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: The Chair will state that at this time the Chair
does not recognize the gentleman from Louisiana for that purpose.
The chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means is at present
appearing before the Committee on Rules seeking a rule and Members
have been told that there would be no further business tonight.
The Chair does not want to enter into an argument with any
Member, particularly the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana
whom I admire very much. But the Chair has stated that the Chair
does not recognize the gentleman for that purpose.
Calendar Wednesday
Sec. 26.39 A Member managing a bill on Calendar Wednesday must be
authorized and directed to call it up by the committee with
jurisdiction.
On Feb. 24, 1937,(1) Speaker Pro Tempore William J.
Driver, of Arkansas, responded to a parliamentary inquiry during the
Calendar Wednesday call of committees:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 81 Cong. Rec. 1562, 1563, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Earl C.] Michener [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, where a bill
has
[[Page 10277]]
been reported favorably by a committee, and the chairman of the
committee is authorized to call the bill up on Calendar Wednesday,
when the chairman absents himself from the floor, and when other
members of the committee are present, is it proper for one of the
other members to call up the bill?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state to the gentleman
that under the rules only the chairman or the member designated by
the committee is authorized to call up a bill.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. See also 92 Cong. Rec. 8590, 79th Cong. 2d Sess., July 10, 1946;
and 87 Cong. Rec. 5047, 77th Cong. 1st Sess., June 11, 1941.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 26.40 On Calendar Wednesday, debate on bills considered in the
Committee of the Whole is limited to two hours, one hour controlled
by the Member in charge of the bill and one hour by the ranking
minority member of the committee who is opposed to the bill.
On Apr. 14, 1937,(3) Chairman J. Mark Wilcox, of
Florida, stated in response to a parliamentary inquiry that debate on a
bill (called up under the Calendar Wednesday procedure) in the
Committee of the Whole would be limited to two hours, one hour to be
controlled by the chairman of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce, and one hour to be controlled by the ranking minority
committee member opposed to the bill. The Chairman indicated he would
recognize in opposition Mr. Pehr G. Holmes, of Massachusetts, who
assured the Chairman that he was the most senior minority member of the
Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce who was opposed to the
bill.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 81 Cong. Rec. 3456, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
4. See also 92 Cong. Rec. 8590, 79th Cong. 2d Sess., July 10, 1946.
Rule XXIV clause 7, House Rules and Manual Sec. 897 (1995)
governs the consideration of bills called up by committees
under the Calendar Wednesday procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Veto
Sec. 26.41 Debate on the question of overriding a Presidential veto is
normally controlled by the chairman of the committee which had
reported the bill to the House.
On Sept. 7, 1978,(5) the Speaker announced the
unfinished business of the House, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 124 Cong. Rec. 28343, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: (6) The unfinished business is the
further consideration of the veto message of the President on the
bill H.R. 10929, to authorize appro
[[Page 10278]]
priations for fiscal year 1979 for procurement of aircraft,
missiles, naval vessels, tracked combat vehicles, torpedoes, and
other weapons and for research, development, test and evaluation
for the Armed Forces, to prescribe the authorized personnel
strength for each active duty component and the Selected Reserve of
each Reserve component of the Armed Forces and for civilian
personnel of the Department of Defense, to authorize the military
training student loads, to authorize appropriations for civil
defense, and for other purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question is: Will the House on reconsideration pass the
bill, the objections of the President to the contrary
notwithstanding?
The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Price) is recognized for 1
hour.
Mr. [Melvin] Price [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself
such time as I may require.
Parliamentarian's Note: Although the Speaker and Majority Leader
supported the veto, Chairman Price who opposed the veto was recognized
to control the debate, as is the normal practice. For an instance where
the Majority Leader was recognized to control the debate on overriding
the President's veto of an appropriations bill, see Sec. 26.42, infra.
Sec. 26.42 While the Speaker normally recognizes the chairman of the
committee or subcommittee which reported the bill to control the
debate on a veto message on that bill, the Speaker on one occasion
recognized the Majority Leader to control debate on the question of
overriding the President's veto of an appropriation bill.
On Aug. 16, 1972,(7) the Speaker brought up for
consideration a veto message from the President, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 118 Cong. Rec. 28415, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker laid before the House the following veto message
from the President of the United States:
To the House of Representatives:
Today, I must return without my approval H.R. 15417, the
appropriations bill for the Department of Labor, the Department
of Health, Education and Welfare and certain related agencies.
. . .
The Speaker: (8) The question is, Will the House, on
reconsideration, pass the bill, the objections of the President to
the contrary notwithstanding?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana [the majority
leader].
Mr. [Hale] Boggs [of Louisiana]: Mr. Speaker, I shall say only
a few words and then move the previous question.
Amendments
Sec. 26.43 The proponent of an amendment may be recognized to control
the time in opposition to a substitute
[[Page 10279]]
offered therefor, but a member of the committee reporting the bill
has priority of
recognition to control such time.
On May 4, 1983,(9) during consideration of House Joint
Resolution 13 (nuclear weapons freeze) in the Committee of the Whole,
the Chair responded to a parliamentary inquiry regarding priority of
recognition for debate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 129 Cong. Rec. 11074, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Norman D.] Dicks [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment as a substitute for the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Dicks as a substitute for the
amendment offered by Mr. Levitas: In view of the matter
proposed to be inserted, insert the following: ``with
negotiators proceeding immediately to pursuing reductions.''. .
. .
Mr. [Elliott H.] Levitas [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I have a
parliamentary inquiry. . . .
My parliamentary inquiry is twofold, Mr. Chairman.
The first is that under the rule if I am opposed to the
amendment being offered as a substitute for my amendment, can I be
recognized in opposition thereto?
My second inquiry is: Is the substitute open for amendment?
The Chairman: (10) The answer to the second question
is the substitute is open for amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is appropriate under the rules to offer an amendment. In
terms of whom the Chair recognizes in opposition, the Chair would
be inclined to recognize a member of the committee, if a member of
the committee seeks recognition in opposition to the amendment.
If a committee member does not seek recognition for that
purpose the Chair would be inclined to recognize the gentleman.
Sec. 26.44 Where a special rule governing consideration of
a bill in Committee of the Whole provides that debate on each
amendment be equally divided between the proponent and a Member
opposed thereto, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole will
recognize the chairman of the committee managing the bill to
control the time in opposition if he states he is opposed, and the
Chair cannot at a later time question his qualifications to speak
in opposition.
On May 4, 1983,(11) the Committee of the Whole had under
consideration House Joint Resolution 13, calling for a freeze and
reduction in nuclear weapons, pursuant to a special rule agreed to on
Mar. 16 (12) and a special rule
[[Page 10280]]
providing for additional procedures for consideration (including the
equal division of debate time) agreed to on May 4.(13) Mr.
Clement J. Zablocki, of Wisconsin, Chairman of the Committee on Foreign
Affairs, was recognized in opposition to an amendment. Mr. Zablocki
discussed the amendment as it had been modified by unanimous consent:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 129 Cong. Rec. 11066, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
12. H. Res. 138, 129 Cong. Rec. 5666, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
13. H. Res. 179, 129 Cong. Rec. 11037, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Zablocki: Mr. Chairman, in order that we can continue the
debate in proper order, and with an understanding of the amendment,
as modified by unanimous consent, I ask that the Clerk re-read the
amendment to the amendment.
The Chairman: The clerk will report the amendment, as modified.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 5, line 8, immediately before the period, insert ``,
with such reductions to be achieved within a reasonable period
of time as determined by negotiations.''
Mr. Zablocki: . . . I must say at the very outset, as the
amendment has been offered, I have no problems with the amendment.
But I am concerned [that] in the explanation of your amendment you
go further and it does cause some concern whether you intend your
amendment to be so interpreted.
So, Mr. Chairman, I would hope that in the remaining 13 minutes
of my time in opposition, technically in opposition, to the
amendment we could have a clarifying dialog with the gentleman from
Georgia.
Mr. [James A.] Courter [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: (14) The gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Zablocki) has the time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Leon E. Panetta (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Courter: Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield to me for
the purpose of making a parliamentary inquiry?
Mr. Zablocki: I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey for the
purpose of making a parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. Courter: My parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman, is as
follows:
It is my understanding that the proponent of the amendment, the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Levitas) is recognized for 15 minutes,
and then someone could be recognized if they, in fact, oppose it.
The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Zablocki) rose initially
indicating that he was against the amendment, was recognized for 15
minutes, and during his monolog has indicated that, in fact, he is
not opposed to it. Should he be recognized for the balance of his
time?
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair cannot question the
gentleman's qualifications. The Chair did ask the question if he
rose in opposition to the amendment, and the Chairman so stated.
Therefore, he controls the time.
Unreported Joint Resolution
Sec. 26.45 Where an unreported joint resolution was being
[[Page 10281]]
considered under a special ``modified closed'' rule in Committee of
the Whole permitting no general debate and the consideration of
only two amendments in the nature of a substitute with
debate thereon divided between a proponent and an opponent, the
proponents (or the designee of a proponent) of the amendments were
permitted to open and close debate pursuant to clause 6 of Rule
XIV, since there was no ``manager'' of the joint resolution.
The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on
Apr. 24, 1985,(15) during consideration of House Joint
Resolution 247 (to promote U.S. assistance in Central America):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 131 Cong. Rec. 9206, 9231, 9232, 9253, 9254, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: (16) No amendments are in order except
the following amendments, which shall be considered as having been
read, shall be considered only in the following order, and shall
not be subject to amendment: First, the amendment in the nature of
a substitute printed in the Congressional Record of April 22, 1985,
by, and if offered by, Representative Hamilton of Indiana; and said
amendment shall be debatable for not to exceed 2 hours, to be
equally divided and controlled by Representative Hamilton and a
member opposed thereto; and second, the amendment in the nature of
a substitute printed in the Congressional Record of April 22, 1985,
by, and if offered by, Representative Michel or his designee, and
said amendment shall be debatable for not to exceed 2 hours, to be
equally divided and controlled by Representative Michel or his
designee and a Member opposed thereto. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, pursuant to
the rule, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute. . . .
The Chairman: Pursuant to House Resolution 136, the amendment
is considered as having been read.
The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Michel) will be recognized for
1 hour, and a Member opposed will be recognized for 1 hour. . . .
Mr. Michel: Mr. Chairman, I should like to designate the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Broomfield) to make the allocation of
time on our side of the aisle.
The Chairman: The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Broomfield) is
designated to control the time for the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Michel). . . .
The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Broomfield) has 7 minutes
remaining, and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Barnes) has 6\1/4\
minutes remaining.
Mr. [Michael D.] Barnes [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, we have
three very brief speakers.
Mr. [William S.] Broomfield [of Michigan]: If the gentleman
would go ahead with those, we will wind up with one, our final
speaker, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Michel). . . .
The Chairman: The time of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Barnes) has expired. . . .
[[Page 10282]]
Mr. Broomfield: Mr. Chairman, I would like at this time now to
yield the balance of our time to the minority leader, the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Michel).
Parliamentarian's Note: Ordinarily in Committee of the Whole under
the five-minute rule notwithstanding clause 6 of Rule XIV (which
permits the proposer of a proposition to close debate), the manager of
the bill under the precedents is given the right to close debate on an
amendment. But in the above instance, there was no manager of the bill
under the special rule.
Sec. 26.46 Where a special rule adopted by the House limits debate on
an amendment to be controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and
prohibits amendments thereto, the Chair may in his discretion
recognize the manager of the bill if opposed and there is no
requirement for recognition of the minority party.
The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on
June 18, 1986,(17) during consideration of H.R. 4868 (Anti-
Apartheid Act of 1986):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 132 Cong. Rec. 14275, 14276, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: (18) Under the rule, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Dellums) will be recognized for 30 minutes,
and a Member opposed to the amendment will be recognized for 30
minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Bob Traxler (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Will those gentlemen who are opposed to the Dellums amendment
kindly stand so the Chair can designate?
Is the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Bonker) opposed to the
amendment?
Mr. [Don] Bonker [of Washington]: I advise the Chair that I
oppose the amendment.
The Chairman: Then the Chair will recognize the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Bonker) for 30 minutes in opposition to the Dellums
amendment.
Does the gentleman from Washington wish to yield any of his
time or share any of his time?
Mr. Bonker: Mr. Chairman, I would yield half the allotted time,
15 minutes, to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Siljander).
The Chairman: The time in opposition will be equally divided
between the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Bonker) and the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Siljander). . . .
Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, do I
understand that the process that has just taken place has given the
minority side one-quarter of the time.
The Chairman: The Chair would counsel the gentleman from
Pennsylvania in regard to his inquiry that the rule provides that a
Member will be recognized in opposition. The gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Bonker) was recognized in opposition, and he shared
his time with your side.
Mr. Walker: In other words, the minority, though, was not
recognized for
[[Page 10283]]
the purposes of opposition. Is that correct?
The Chairman: The Chair would state that the procedures of the
House are governed by its rules, but more importantly in this
instance, by the rule adopted by the House as reported from the
Committee.
Motions To Instruct
Sec. 26.47 Under Rule XXVIII, clause 1(b), debate on any motion to
instruct conferees is equally divided between majority and minority
parties or among them and an opponent; but where the previous
question is rejected on a motion to instruct, a separate hour of
debate on any amendment to the motion is fully controlled by the
proponent of the amendment under the hour rule (Rule XIV, clause
2), as the manager of the original motion loses the floor.
The following proceedings occurred in the House on Oct. 3,
1989,(19) during consideration of H.R. 3026 (District of
Columbia appropriations for fiscal year 1990):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 135 Cong. Rec. 22859, 22862, 22863, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Julian C.] Dixon [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R.
3026) making appropriations for the government of the District of
Columbia and other activities chargeable in whole or in part
against the revenues of said District for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 1990, and for other purposes, with Senate amendments
thereto, disagree to the Senate amendments, and agree to the
conference asked by the Senate.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (20) Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from California?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. William J. Hughes (N.J.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
Mr. [Bill] Green [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion
to instruct.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Green moves that the managers on the part of the House,
at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on
the bill H.R. 3026, be instructed to agree to the amendment of
the Senate numbered 3.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from New York [Mr.
Green] is recognized for 30 minutes in support his motion. . . .
Mr. Green: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the
motion to instruct. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on ordering the
previous question.
[The previous question was rejected.]
Mr. Dixon: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry. . . .
I understand now that the gentleman from California [Mr.
Dannemeyer] intends to offer an amendment to the motion offered by
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Green].
[[Page 10284]]
My question is: Under the offering will I receive part of the
time?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would state to the gentleman
from California [Mr. Dixon] that 1 hour would be allotted to the
gentleman from California [Mr. Dannemeyer]. He would have to yield
time to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon]. . . .
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Dannemeyer to the motion to
instruct: At the end of the pending motion, strike the period,
insert a semicolon, and add the following language: ``;
Provided further that the conferees be instructed to agree to
the provisions contained in Senate amendment numbered 22.''
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from California [Mr.
Dannemeyer] is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. [William E.] Dannemeyer [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I
yield one-half of the time to the gentleman from California [Mr.
Dixon], for purposes of debate only.
Parliamentarian's Note: The control of debate in the above instance
is to be distinguished from debate on motions in the House to dispose
of amendments in disagreement. In the latter case, although the manager
of the original motion might lose the floor upon defeat of his motion,
debate on a subsequent motion is nevertheless divided under Rule
XXVIII, clause 2(b). It is only debate on amendments to such motions,
when pending, that is not divided.
Time Divided Three Ways
Sec. 26.48 Pursuant to clause 2(b) of Rule XXVIII, debate on
a motion to dispose of an amendment reported from conference in
disagreement is equally divided between the majority and minority
parties, unless the minority Member favors the motion, in which
event one third of the time is allocated to a Member opposed.
The following exchange occurred in the House on Aug. 1,
1985,(1) during consideration of the conference report on
Senate Concurrent Resolution 32 (the first concurrent resolution on the
budget for fiscal year 1986):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 131 Cong. Rec. 22638, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: (2) Under the rules, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Gray) will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta) will be recognized for 30 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Barney] Frank [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. Frank: Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta)
opposed to the bill?
Mr. [Delbert L.] Latta [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I am not opposed
to the bill.
[[Page 10285]]
Mr. Frank: Mr. Speaker, I believe then that under rule XXVIII,
a Member in opposition to the bill is entitled to 20 minutes.
The Speaker: The gentleman is correct. Under the rule, the
gentleman is entitled to one-third of the time.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gray) will be recognized
for 20 minutes, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta) will be
recognized for 20 minutes, and the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Frank) will be recognized for 20 minutes.
Sec. 26.49 Pursuant to clause 2(a) of Rule XXVIII, where the floor
managers for the majority and minority parties on a conference
report are both supporters thereof, a Member opposed may be
recognized for one third of the debate time and it is within the
discretion of the Chair as to which Member is recognized in
opposition; such recognition does not depend upon party
affiliation, and the time in opposition may be divided by unanimous
consent or yielded by the Member recognized.
The following proceedings occurred in the House on Dec. 11,
1985,(3) during consideration of the conference report on
House Joint Resolution 372 (the public debt limit increase):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 131 Cong. Rec. 36069, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Dan] Rostenkowski [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
the order of the House of Tuesday, December 10, 1985, I call up the
conference report on the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 372),
increasing the statutory limit on the public debt.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (4) Pursuant to the order
of the House of Tuesday, December 10, 1985, the conference report
is considered as having been read. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Lawrence J. Smith (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rostenkowski) will be
recognized for 30 minutes and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr.
Duncan) will be recognized for 30 minutes.
Mr. [David R.] Obey [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. Obey: Mr. Speaker, did I hear the Speaker say that the time
would be divided between the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Rostenkowski) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan)?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman heard correctly.
Mr. Obey: Mr. Speaker, [is the gentleman] from Tennessee
opposed to the legislation?
Mr. [John J.] Duncan [of Tennessee]: Mr. Speaker, I am not
opposed to the legislation.
[[Page 10286]]
Mr. Obey: Mr. Speaker, that being the case, I ask under rule
XXVIII, since the rules provide that those in opposition be
entitled to 20 minutes, I would ask that I be assigned that 20-
minute time block.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair advises that the gentleman
is correct, and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rostenkowski) will
be recognized for 20 minutes, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr.
Duncan) will be recognized for 20 minutes, and the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) will be recognized for 20 minutes.
Mr. Duncan: I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his inquiry.
Mr. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, did I understand there is to be
additional time assigned to those who oppose the conference report?
If I understand correctly, we have some people on our side.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey) is opposed, and he will control the 20 minutes time.
Mr. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Crane is also opposed. We would
expect equal time, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Crane is on the committee, and
he would expect equal time.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would advise that the
gentleman from Wisconsin is also on the conference committee.
Mr. Duncan: No, Mr. Speaker, he is not on the Committee on Ways
and Means. Mr. Crane is.
We would expect, and I am for the proposal, and he is in
opposition.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Under the rule, 60 minutes is
allotted: 20 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois, 20 minutes to
the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), and 20 minutes to one
Member opposed, in this case the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey).
Mr. [Philip M.] Crane [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Crane: Mr. Speaker, I am on the committee; I rose,
registered my objection, and I do not know whether that was heard
in the din of the crowd here tonight, but I would at least ask the
Speaker to permit a division of that time. I am opposed to the
bill.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will advise that the
gentleman from Wisconsin was on his feet and was recognized, in the
Chair's discretion and was granted the 20 minutes of the 60.
Mr. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, under the rules of the House, I think
that the gentleman would be entitled to half of that; otherwise, I
think everyone wants to be fair; that I would ask unanimous consent
that he be granted that.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would advise that the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) can yield whatever time that he
may desire.
Mr. Duncan: Would Mr. Obey yield half of that to our side?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Tennessee poses a
question to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
The gentleman from Wisconsin has the 20 minutes; the gentleman
from Tennessee wishes to know if he would grant half of that to the
minority.
[[Page 10287]]
Mr. Obey: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the rule requires that
those who are opposed grant the time to the opposition party. I
will certainly make certain that people are recognized, but I would
appreciate it if they could come to me and let me know that they
want to speak.
Mr. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Crane
have the same amount of time that the majority has and that he may
control that time.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from Tennessee?
Mr. Obey: I object, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Objection is heard.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Rostenkowski).
Sec. 26.50 Pursuant to clause 2(a) of Rule XXVIII, it is within the
discretion of the Speaker as to which Member is recognized to
control 20 minutes of debate in opposition to a conference report
(where the minority manager is not opposed), and such recognition
does not depend on party affiliation.
On Dec. 16, 1985,(5) after the conference report on
House Joint Resolution 456 (making further continuing appropriations
for fiscal 1986) was called up in the House, the Speaker Pro Tempore
allocated time for debate in support and in opposition, as indicated
below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 131 Cong. Rec. 36716, 36717, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to the order of the House of today, I call up the conference report
on the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 456) making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 1986, and for other purposes,
and ask for its immediate consideration. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (6) This conference report
is being considered pursuant to the unanimous consent request
granted earlier today, which the Clerk will read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Dale E. Kildee (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Whitten asked unanimous consent that it shall be in
order, any rule of the House to the contrary notwithstanding,
at any time on Monday, December 16, or any day thereafter, to
consider the conference report and amendments in disagreement
and motions to dispose of said amendments on House Joint
Resolution 456 subject to the availability of said conference
report and motions to dispose of amendments in disagreement for
at least 1 hour, that all points of order be waived against the
conference report and amendments in disagreement and motions to
dispose of said amendments, and that said conference report and
amendments in disagreement be considered as having been read
when called up for consideration. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr.
Whitten) will be recognized for 30 minutes and the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Conte) will be recognized for 30 minutes.
[[Page 10288]]
Mr. [Barney] Frank [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I ask for
20 minutes recognition in opposition because the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Conte) is for the bill. . . .
Mr. Speaker, since the gentleman from Massachusetts is for the
bill, under the rule I ask for the 20 minutes to be allotted to a
Member in opposition, when both the chairman and the ranking
minority Member are in support of the bill.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman has that right.
The time will be divided in this fashion: The gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Whitten) will be recognized for 20 minutes; the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Conte) will be recognized for 20
minutes; and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) will be
recognized for 20 minutes.
Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, the minority has just been effectively
frozen out of controlling any of the time, when I was seeking
recognition to take the 20 minutes. The Chair has denied, then, the
minority the opportunity to control our portion of the time.
Can the Chair explain why Members on this side were not
recognized? I, too, am opposed to the bill and should have been
entitled to the 20 minutes.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that recognition
of one Member who is opposed is in the Speaker's discretion, and
the Speaker tries always to be fair.
The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) may yield time as
he
wishes. . . .
The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Conte), the minority
side, will
be recognized for 20 minutes; the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), who is opposed, will be
recognized for 20 minutes; and the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr.
Whitten) will be recognized for 20 minutes.
The procedure under which we are proceeding was agreed upon
earlier today, and the Chair will be guided by the will of the
House, which was stated earlier today.
Sec. 26.51 Recognition of one Member to control twenty minutes of
debate in opposition to a conference report under Rule XXVIII,
clause 2(a), does not depend upon party affiliation and is within
the discretion of the Chair, and the time in opposition may be
divided by unanimous consent or yielded by the Member recognized.
On Dec. 11, 1985,(7) it was demonstrated that, where the
floor managers for the majority and minority parties on a conference
report are both supporters thereof, a Member opposed may be recognized
for one third of the debate time, and it is within the discretion of
the Chair as to which Member is recognized in opposi
[[Page 10289]]
tion. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 131 Cong. Rec. 36069, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Dan] Rostenkowski [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
the order of the House of Tuesday, December 10, 1985, I call up the
conference report on the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 372),
increasing the statutory limit on the public debt.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (8) Pursuant to the order
of the House of Tuesday, December 10, 1985, the conference report
is considered as having been read. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Lawrence J. Smith (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Rostenkowski] will be
recognized for 30 minutes and the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr.
Duncan] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
Mr. [David R.] Obey [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry. . . .
Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman from Tennessee opposed to the
legislation?
Mr. [John J.] Duncan [of Tennessee]: Mr. Speaker, I am not
opposed to the legislation.
Mr. Obey: Mr. Speaker, that being the case, I ask under rule
XXVIII, since the rules provide that those in opposition be
entitled to 20 minutes, I would ask that I be assigned that 20-
minute time block.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair advises that the gentleman
is correct, and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Rostenkowski] will
be recognized for 20 minutes, the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr.
Duncan] will be recognized for 20 minutes, and the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] will be recognized for 20 minutes. . . .
Mr. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, did I understand there is to be
additional time assigned to those who oppose the conference report?
If I understand correctly, we have some people on our side.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
Obey] is opposed, and he will control the 20 minutes time.
Mr. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Crane is also opposed. We would
expect equal time, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Crane is on the [Committee on
Ways and Means] and he would expect equal time. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Under the rule, 60 minutes is
allotted: 20 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois, 20 minutes to
the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan], and 20 minutes to one
Member opposed, in this case the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
Obey]. . . .
Mr. [Philip M.] Crane [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I am on the
committee . . . I would at least ask the Speaker to permit a
division of that time. I am opposed to the bill.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will advise that the
gentleman from Wisconsin was on his feet and was recognized, in the
Chair's discretion and was granted the 20 minutes of the 60.
Mr. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, under the rules of the House, I think
that the gentleman would be entitled to half of that; otherwise, I
think everyone wants to be fair; that I would ask unanimous consent
that he be granted that.
[[Page 10290]]
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would advise that the
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] can yield whatever time that he
may desire.
Mr. Duncan: Would Mr. Obey yield half of that to our side?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: . . . The gentleman from Wisconsin has
the 20 minutes; the gentleman from Tennessee wishes to know if he
would grant half of that to the minority.
Mr. Obey: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the rule requires that
those who are opposed grant the time to the opposition party. I
will certainly make certain that people are recognized, but I would
appreciate it if they could come to me and let me know that they
want to speak.
Mr. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Crane
have the same amount of time that the majority has and that he may
control that time.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from Tennessee?
Mr. Obey: I object, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Objection is heard.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
Rostenkowski].
Sec. 26.52 Pursuant to Rule XXVIII, clause 2(a), it is within the
discretion of the Speaker as to which Member is recognized to
control 20 minutes of debate in opposition to a conference report
(where the minority manager is not opposed to the report), and such
recognition does not depend on party affiliation.
On Dec. 16, 1985,(9) after the conference report on
House Joint Resolution 456 (continuing appropriations for fiscal year
1986)
was called up for consideration in
the House, the Chair exercised
his discretion in announcing the Members to be recognized to control
debate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 131 Cong. Rec. 26716, 36717, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Jamie] L. Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to the order of the House of today, I call up the conference report
on the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 456) making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 1986, and for other purposes,
and ask for its immediate consideration. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (10) The gentleman from
Mississippi [Mr. Whitten] will be recognized for 30 minutes and the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Conte] will be recognized for 30
minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Dale E. Kildee (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Barney] Frank [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, is the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Conte] opposed to the bill?
Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: No. I signed the
conference report.
Mr. Frank: Mr. Speaker, I ask for 20 minutes recognition in
opposition because the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Conte] is
for the bill. . . .
[[Page 10291]]
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman has that right.
The time will be divided in this fashion: The gentleman from
Mississippi [Mr. Whitten] will be recognized for 20 minutes; the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Conte] will be recognized for 20
minutes; and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] will be
recognized for 20 minutes. . . .
Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: . . . Can the Chair
explain why Members on this side were not recognized? I, too, am
opposed to the bill and should haved been entitled to the 20
minutes.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that recognition
of one Member who is opposed is in the Speaker's discretion, and
the Speaker tries always to be fair.
The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] may yield time as
he
wishes.
Sec. 26.53 Pursuant to Rule XXVIII, clause 2(a), a Member who is
opposed to a conference report may obtain one-third of the debate
thereon if both the majority and minority managers oppose the
conference report, but not if the minority manager states he or she
is opposed to the conference report.
On Oct. 15, 1986,(11) preceding consideration of the
conference report on S. 2638 (Department of Defense authorization for
fiscal 1987) in the House, the Chair announced the division of time for
debate thereon:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 132 Cong. Rec. 31515, 31516, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (12) Pursuant to House
Resolution 591, the conference report is considered as having been
read. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Kenneth J. Gray (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mrs. [Patricia] Schroeder [of Colorado]: Mr. Speaker, I rise to
make a point of order.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentlewoman from Colorado will
state her point of order.
Mrs. Schroeder: Mr. Speaker, un-der the rule my understanding
is that if neither of the gentlemen are opposed to the bill, and as
I am opposed to the bill, I am entitled to one-third of the time.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to demand 20 minutes of the time.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is the gentleman from Alabama opposed
to the bill?
Mr. [William L.] Dickinson [of Alabama]: Mr. Speaker, I
reluctantly oppose it. I do oppose it.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman opposes the bill;
therefore the gentleman is entitled to the time.
The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Aspin] will be recognized for
30 minutes, and the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Dickinson] will be
recognized for 30 minutes.
Sec. 26.54 While recognition of one Member to control one-third of the
debate time in opposition to a conference
[[Page 10292]]
report pursuant to Rule XXVIII, clause 2(a), does not depend on
party affiliation and is within the discretion of the Speaker, the
Speaker will give priority in recognition to a conferee seeking to
control that time.
On Dec. 21, 1987,(13) prior to the filing of the
conference report on House Joint Resolution 395 (making continuing
appropriations) in the House, the Speaker responded to a parliamentary
inquiry regarding division of debate time on the report:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 133 Cong. Rec. 37093, 37516, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Bill] Frenzel [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry. . . .
[D]oes the rule provide that 20 minutes will be allotted to an
opponent to the conference report?
The Speaker: (14) If someone is opposed, and the
managers are not opposed, then that member could be entitled to 20
minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Frenzel: Mr. Speaker, I am opposed and I make such a
demand. . . .
Mr. [Mike] Lowry of Washington: On that right under the House
rules for a third of the time, a member of the committee, the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Mrazek] was going to request the
opposition time, [while] the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota
[Mr. Frenzel] is not a member of the committee. We would hope that
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Mrazek], a member of the
committee, would be awarded under the rules of the House that right
for a third of the time. . . .
After the conference report was called up for consideration, the
following exchange occurred:
Mr. Frenzel: Mr. Speaker, I renew my previous request.
Mr. [Robert J.] Mrazek [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I am in
opposition to the resolution, and I would also request 20 minutes
of time in opposition to the resolution. . . .
The Speaker: Then the two gentlemen seeking recognition, the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Mrazek] and the gentleman from
Minnesota [Mr. Frenzel], both are opposed to the conference report?
Mr. Mrazek: That is correct.
Mr. Frenzel: I am opposed.
The Speaker: The gentleman from New York [Mr. Mrazek] as a
conferee on the conference report would have priority and the Chair
will declare that the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Whitten] will
be recognized for 20 minutes, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Conte] will be recognized for 20 minutes, and the gentleman from
New York [Mr. Mrazek] will be recognized for 20 minutes.
Sec. 26.55 The Chair will not allocate control of debate time on a
conference report until the report has been, first, filed and
called up for consideration.
Prior to the filing of the conference report on House Joint Res
[[Page 10293]]
olution 395 (continuing appropriations for fiscal year 1988) in the
House on Dec. 21, 1987,(15) the Speaker responded to a
parliamentary inquiry regarding division of debate time thereon:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 133 Cong. Rec. 37095, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Bill] Frenzel [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry. . . .
[D]oes the rule provide that 20 minutes will be allotted to an
opponent to the conference report?
The Speaker: (16) If someone is opposed, and the
managers are not opposed, then that Member could be entitled to 20
minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Frenzel: Mr. Speaker, I am opposed and I make such a
demand.
The Speaker: The conference report, the Chair would advise the
gentleman, has not yet been filed. If the gentleman will withhold
his request, the conference report will be filed and called up
first and the gentleman's rights will be protected.
Sec. 26.56 Control of debate time on a conference report can be re-
allocated by unanimous consent.
The following proceedings occurred in the House on Dec. 21,
1987,(17) subsequent to the filing of the conference report
on House Joint Resolution 395 (continuing appropriations for fiscal
year 1988):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 133 Cong. Rec. 37094, 37516, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi] submitted the . . .
conference report on the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 395) making
further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 1988, and for other purposes. . . .
Mr. [Bill] Frenzel [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, I renew my
previous request [for 20 minutes of time].
Mr. [Robert J.] Mrazek [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I am in
opposition to the resolution, and I would also request 20 minutes
of time in opposition to the resolution. . . .
The Speaker: (18) The gentleman from New York [Mr.
Mrazek] as a conferee on the conference report would have priority
and the Chair will declare that the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr.
Whitten] will be recognized for 20 minutes, the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Conte] will be recognized for 20 minutes, and
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Mrazek] will be recognized for 20
minutes. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [William E.] Dannemeyer [of California]: Mr. Speaker, there
are two sides, one for, and one against. Under the ruling of the
Chair, those who are for it have 30 minutes and those opposed have
20 minutes.
My question is, Is that fair?
The Speaker: The Chair will respond that this is what the rule
provides. . . .
There will be 20 minutes on the part of the majority, 20
minutes on the part of the minority, and 20 minutes on the
[[Page 10294]]
part of the designated individual Member who has qualified on the
ground that he opposes the conference report.
Mr. Dannemeyer: Mr. Speaker, may I make a unanimous-consent
request?
The Speaker: The gentleman may state it.
Mr. Dannemeyer: Mr. Speaker, I make a unanimous-consent request
that the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Whitten] be given 15
minutes, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Conte] be given 15
minutes, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Frenzel] be given 15
minutes, and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Mrazek] be given 15
minutes.
The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from California?
Mr. [Sam M.] Gibbons [of Florida]: I object, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: Objection is heard.
Sec. 26.57 Where debate on a conference report is controlled by three
Members pursuant to Rule XXVIII, clause 2(a), the right to close
debate belongs to the majority manager calling up the conference
report, preceded by the minority manager; thus, under Rule XXVIII,
clause 2, the right to close debate is accorded in the reverse or-
der of recognition for opening that debate, and does not depend
upon the amount of time reserved by any of those Members for their
concluding remarks.
On Aug. 4, 1989,(19) during consideration of the
conference report on H.R. 1278 (Financial Institutions Reform Act of
1989) in the House, the Speaker announced the remaining time for debate
on the report and also stated the order of recognition to close debate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 135 Cong. Rec. 19294, 19295, 19301, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: (20) The gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Gonzalez] will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. Wylie] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Thomas S. Foley (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Dan] Rostenkowski [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I rise in
opposition to the report and seek time, pursuant to House rule
XXVIII.
Mr. [Chalmers P.] Wylie [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I am not
opposed to the conference report.
Mr. [Henry B.] Gonzalez [of Tex-as]: Mr. Speaker, I do not
oppose the conference report.
The Speaker: Neither manager is opposed to the conference
report. Therefore, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gonzalez] will be
recognized for 20 minutes, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Wylie] will
be recognized for 20 minutes, and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
Rostenkowski] will be recognized for 20 minutes. . . .
The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gonzalez] has 10\1/2\ minutes
remaining, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Wylie] has 9\1/2\ minutes
remaining, and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Rostenkowski] has
13 minutes remaining.
[[Page 10295]]
Mr. Rostenkowski: Mr. Speaker, if my arithmetic is correct, the
opponents have as much time as we do.
I reserve the balance of my time.
The Speaker: The order in which the Members may close will be
the gentleman from Illinois first, the gentleman from Ohio second,
and the gentleman from Texas last. . . .
The Chair will inform the Members and the managers that each
has the right to reserve one speech each for the closing.
The gentleman from Texas, if he wishes, can reserve all that
time at this time and make one speech of 10\1/2\ minutes, or he can
reserve any part of it until the end of the debate.
If the gentleman from Ohio wishes to do that, he may reserve
all of his time to immediately precede the gentleman from Texas. At
that point, the gentleman from Illinois would have to expend all of
his time in one statement.
The right of the gentleman from Texas will be preserved to end
the debate with any amount of time the gentleman wishes.
Sec. 26.58 Where pursuant to Rule XXVIII, clause 2(b), time for debate
on a motion to dispose of an amendment in disagreement is divided
equally among the majority and minority managers (both of whom
favor its adoption) and a Member opposed, the manager of the motion
may not move the previous question until the other Members have
consumed or yielded back all of their time.
On Oct. 3, 1989,(1) the House had under consideration a
motion to dispose of an amendment in disagreement. Time for debate on
the motion was divided equally among the majority and minority
managers, and a Member opposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 135 Cong. Rec. 22835, 22836, 22842, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
(Proceedings relating to H.R. 2788, Interior and Related
Agencies Appropriations for 1990.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Madam Speaker, I offer a
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Yates moves that the House recede from its disagreement
to the amendment of the Senate numbered 153 and concur therein
with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of
the matter proposed by said amendment, insert the following:
``: ``Provided, That--
A. None of the funds authorized to be appropriated for the
National Endowment for the Arts or the National Endowment for
the Humanities may be used to promote . . . materials which in
the judgment of the National Endowment for the Arts or the
National Endowment for the Humanities may be considered obscene
. . . .''
Mr. [Dana] Rohrabacher [of California]: Madam Speaker, I would
ask to be recognized in opposition to the motion for 20 minutes.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (2) The Chair will inquire
is the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] opposed to the motion?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Patricia Schroeder (Colo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Ralph] Regula [of Ohio]: No, I am not, Madam Speaker.
[[Page 10296]]
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Then the gentleman from California
[Mr. Rohrabacher], who is opposed to the motion, would be entitled
to 20 minutes.
The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula], then, would have 20
minutes,
the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] would have 20
minutes, and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] would have 20
minutes on the motion offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
Yates]. . . .
Mr. Yates: . . . Madam Speaker, I move the previous question.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Illinois moves the
previous question on this motion. Without objection, the previous
question is ordered.
All those in favor of the gentleman's motion will say ``aye,''
those opposed say ``no.'' The gentleman's amendment is hereby
agreed to.
The Clerk will designate the next amendment in disagreement. .
. .
Mr. Rohrabacher: Madam Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
. . .
Did I not have 1 minute of debate left?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman's motion for the
previous question was not in order unless the gentleman from
California yielded back his time.
[The Chair vacated the order for the previous question and the
adoption of the motion.]
Sec. 26.59 Pursuant to Rule XXVIII, clause 2, a Member opposed to a
conference report may control one-third
of the debate time thereon where both the majority and minority
party managers are in favor of the conference
report, but a Member opposed may control one-half the time only by
unanimous consent.
On Sept. 25, 1986,(3) during consideration of the
conference report on H.R. 3838 (the Tax Reform Act of 1986), the
following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 132 Cong. Rec. 26202, 26203, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Dan] Rostenkowski [of Illinois]: Madam Speaker, pursuant
to the order of the House of September 9, 1986, I call up the
conference report on the bill (H.R. 3838), to reform the Internal
Revenue laws of the United States. . . .
Mr. [William R.] Archer [Jr., of Texas]: Madam Speaker, under
clause 2, rule XXVIII, I demand one-third of the debate time as the
leader of the opposition to the bill.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (4) The gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Archer] will be recognized for 1 hour, the gentleman
from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan] will be recognized for 1 hour and the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Rostenkowski] will be recognized for 1
hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Cathy Long (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Archer: Madam Speaker, I have a unanimous-consent request.
Inasmuch as I understand all of the time that is going to be used
by both the majority and minority, their 2 hours, will be assigned
only to those Members who are for the bill, and inasmuch as
[[Page 10297]]
it is a far simpler task timewise to make the arguments for the
bill than to make the arguments against the bill, I ask unanimous
consent that the opposition be granted an additional hour so as to
equalize the time for and against the bill, in the name of
fairness.
Mr. [Gerald D.] Kleczka [of Wisconsin]: Madam Speaker, I
object.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Objection is heard.
Mr. Archer: Madam Speaker, I have another unanimous-consent
request. That request is that if the time allotted today on the
agenda is not extended, both the majority and the minority code 15
minutes to the opposition of their time so that once again the time
would be equalized within the 3-hour period.
Mr. Kleczka: Madam Speaker, I object.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Objection is heard.
Sec. 26.60 Where control of time for debate on a motion to dispose of
disagreement on a Senate amendment is allotted among more than two
Members, the Chair recognizes each to close his time in the reverse
order of the original allocation.
See the proceedings of Nov. 21, 1989,(5) relating to a
motion to dispose of disagreement on a Senate amendment to the Medicare
Catastrophic Coverage Repeal Act of 1989.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. See 135 Cong. Rec. 30809, 30814, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 26.61 While a Member by
offering a preferential motion to dispose of a Senate amendment in
disagreement cannot thereby gain separate debate time thereon, he
may by rising in opposition to the original motion control one-
third of the debate thereon under Rule XXVIII, clause 2(b), where
both the major-ity and minority party floor managers are in favor
of the original motion.
During consideration of the conference report on House Joint
Resolution 738 (continuing appropriations) in the House on Oct. 15,
1986,(6) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 132 Cong. Rec. 32116, 32117, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (7) The Clerk will
designate the next amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Marty Russo (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Senate amendment No. 60: Page 61, line 19, strike the
following language:
Sec. 143. None of the funds appropriated by this Act or any
other Act shall be used for the processing of any application
for a certificate of label approval for imported distilled
spirits, malt beverages, or wine
[[Page 10298]]
under section 205(e) of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act,
unless each application is accompanied by appropriate
documentation.
Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Whitten moves that the House insist on its disagreement
to the amendment of the Senate numbered 60.
Mr. [Mike] Lowry of Washington: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Lowry of Washington moves that the House recede from
its disagreement to Senate amendment No. 60 and concur therein.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman form Mississippi [Mr.
Whitten] will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. Regula] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
Mr. Lowry of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary
inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. Lowry of Washington: Mr. Speaker, my point of parliamentary
inquiry would be on the division of time, on which point I would
request the customary one-third if both managers of the bill are of
the opposite position from mine.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.
Regula] in favor of the motion?
Mr. [Ralph] Regula [of Ohio]: Yes, I am, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Washington [Mr.
Lowry] qualifies and is entitled to 20 minutes.
The gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Whitten] will be recognized
for 20 minutes; the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] will be
recognized for 20 minutes; and the gentleman from Washington [Mr.
Lowry] will be recognized for 20 minutes.
Sec. 26.62 Pursuant to Rule XXVIII, clause 2, recognition to control
one-third of debate time in opposition to a conference report where
both the majority and minority managers are in favor of the report
does not depend upon party affiliation, but is accorded to the
senior member of the reporting committee in opposition regardless
of party affiliation.
On Oct. 15, 1986,(8) after the conference report on S.
1200 (Immigration Reform and Control Act) was called up for
consideration in the House, the following exchange occurred regarding
division of the time for debate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 132 Cong. Rec. 31630, 31631, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Peter W.] Rodino [Jr., of New Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, I call
up the conference report on the Senate bill (S. 1200) to amend the
Immigration and Nationality Act to effectively control unauthorized
immigration to the United States and for other purposes. . . .
[[Page 10299]]
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (9) The gentleman from New
Jersey [Mr. Rodino] will be recognized for 30 minutes, the
gentleman from California [Mr. Lungren] will be recognized for 30
minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Kenneth J. Gray (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Don] Edwards of California: Mr. Speaker, I rise in
opposition to the bill.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is the gentleman from California [Mr.
Edwards] opposed to the conference report?
Mr. Edwards of California: I am opposed to the conference
report, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr.
Rodino] opposed to the conference report?
Mr. Rodino: No, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Under the rules, the gentleman from
California [Mr. Edwards], the senior member of the originally
reporting committee, is entitled to 20 minutes.
Mr. [F. James] Sensenbrenner [Jr., of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker,
I rise to a point of order. I believe that the member of the
minority would have preference to control the 20 minutes in
opposition to the conference report under the precedents of the
House and rule XXVIII, clause 2(b).
I am opposed to the conference report, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would state to the
distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin under a ruling this year
recognition goes to the opposition on the issue but not necessarily
the minority party in the House; and under the rules the Chair is
constrained to recognize the senior member of the Judiciary
Committee.
CHAPTER 29
Consideration and Debate
D. CONTROL AND DISTRIBUTION OF TIME FOR DEBATE
Sec. 27. Designation of Managers
The Members designated to control debate on a bill are normally
chosen (formally or informally) by the committee reporting
it.(10) However, managers are sometimes designated by
special rule from the Committee on Rules,(11) or by the
Chair if the proposition is not being considered pursuant to special
rule, although the Chair seeks assurance that the matter has been
cleared with the committee.(12) If the special rule does not
specifically designate the Members in control, or if the designated
managers are absent and have not designated other Members to manage the
measure, the Chair may in his discretion recognize a committee member
to control debate.(13) Management of a
[[Page 10300]]
bill may also be fixed by unanimous consent.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See Sec. Sec. 27.1, 27.2, infra.
11. See Sec. 28, infra. The reporting committee, in applying to the
Committee on Rules for a special order, will often indicate the
managers of general debate.
12. See Sec. Sec. 24.35-24.39, supra, for the Chair's designation of
Members to control debate on an appropriation bill.
13. See Sec. Sec. 27.6, 27.7, infra.
14. See Sec. Sec. 27.3, 27.4, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If control of a measure is taken away from the committee majority,
the Chair recognizes someone opposed, preferably a ranking minority
member of the committee, to control the time.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See, for example, Sec. 27.5, infra, for management of a discharged
bill. -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designation of Member by Committee
Sec. 27.1 Where the chairman or member of a committee has been
designated and authorized by the committee to call up a bill, no
other Member may take such action.
On Feb. 24, 1937,(16) Speaker Pro Tempore William J.
Driver, of Arkansas, answered a parliamentary inquiry preceding the
call of committees on Calendar Wednesday:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 81 Cong. Rec. 1562, 1563, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Earl C.] Michener [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Michener: Mr. Speaker, where a bill has been reported
favorably by a committee, and the chairman of the committee is
authorized to call the bill up on Calendar Wednesday, when the
chairman absents himself from the floor, and when other members of
the committee are present, is it proper for one of the other
members to call up the bill?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state to the gentleman
that under the rules only the chairman or the member designated by
the Committee is authorized to call up a bill.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. See also Sec. 26.9, supra (authority of committee chairman to call
up business on Calendar Wednesday).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 27.2 Only a member of the Committee on Rules designated by it to
call up a special rule from the committee may be recognized for
that purpose, unless the rule has been on the calendar for seven
legislative days without action.
On June 6, 1940,(18) Mr. Hamilton Fish, Jr., of New
York, sought recognition to call up for consideration a resolution from
the Committee on Rules providing for the consideration of a bill.
Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, inquired whether Mr. Fish had
been authorized to call up the resolution and Mr. Fish stated he had
not. He asserted that calling up such a resolution was ``the privilege
of any member of the Rules Committee.'' The
[[Page 10301]]
Speaker declined to recognize Mr. Fish for that purpose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 86 Cong. Rec. 7706, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: The Chair cannot recognize the gentleman from New
York to call up the resolution unless the record shows he was
authorized to do so by the Rules Committee. The Chair would be
authorized to recognize the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Colmer]
to call up the rule in the event the resolution offered by the
gentleman from New York, which was the unfinished business, is not
called up.
Mr. Fish: Will the Chair permit me to read this rule?
The Speaker: The Chair would be glad to hear the gentleman.
Mr. Fish: Rule XI reads as follows:
It shall always be in order to call up for consideration a
report from the Committee on Rules (except it shall not be
called up for consideration on the same day it is presented to
the House, unless so determined by a vote of not less than two-
thirds of the Members voting).
I submit, according to that rule and the reading of that rule,
Mr. Speaker, that any member of the Rules Committee can call up the
rule, but it would require the membership of the House to act upon
it by a two-thirds vote in order to obtain consideration.
The Speaker: The precedents are all to the effect that only a
Member authorized by the Rules Committee can call up a rule, unless
the rule has been on the calendar for 7 legislative days without
action.
Mr. Fish: Of course, there is nothing to that effect in the
reading of the rule.
The Speaker: The Chair is relying upon the precedents in such
instances.
Designation by Unanimous Consent
Sec. 27.3 The Committee of the Whole may agree by unanimous consent
that debate on an amendment be limited to a certain amount of time,
to be divided and controlled by certain majority and minority
Members.
On May 26, 1966,(19) the Committee of the Whole agreed
to a unanimous-consent request for the limit and control of time on an
amendment to H.R. 13712, the Fair Labor Standards Amendments of 1966:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 112 Cong. Rec. 11608, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Adam C.] Powell [of New York]: I renew my request so that
there will be no misunderstanding. I ask unanimous consent that the
debate on this amendment be limited to 60 minutes, 30 minutes on
each side. The gentleman now in the well has control of the time on
his side. If the unanimous-consent request is approved, the
gentleman from Pennsylvania will have control of the time on this
side.
Parliamentarian's Note: The agreement proposed by Mr. Powell
divided control between the proponent of the amendment and the
subcommittee chairman handling the bill.
On May 10, 1966,(20) the Committee of the Whole agreed
to
[[Page 10302]]
a unanimous-consent request regarding the time for and control of
debate on an amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Id. at p. 10232.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Carl] Albert [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, for the purpose
of clarification, would it be in order for the gentleman from
Tennessee to ask unanimous consent that debate on this amendment be
confined to 20 minutes on each side, the 20 minutes on this side to
be controlled by the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Evins] and the
20 minutes on the Republican side by the gentleman from North
Carolina [Mr. Jonas]?
Mr. [Joseph L.] Evins: Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished
majority leader for the suggestion and now make the unanimous-
consent request accordingly.
The Chairman: (1) Without objection, it is so
ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
Mr. Evins of Tennessee: Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from California [Mr. Cohelan].
Sec. 27.4 Where all time for debate on an amendment and all amendments
thereto is limited and, by unanimous consent, placed in control of
the proponent of the amendment and of the chairman of the committee
(in opposition), the Chair first recognizes the proponent of the
amendment.
On July 9, 1965,(2) the unfinished business in the
Committee of the Whole was H.R. 6400, the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Chairman Richard Bolling, of Missouri, made the following statement on
the order of recognition, the committee having limited and divided, on
the prior day, time for debate on a pending amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 111 Cong. Rec. 16207, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When the Committee rose on yesterday, there was pending the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. McCulloch] as a
substitute for the committee amendment.
It was agreed that all time for debate on the so-called
McCulloch substitute and all amendments thereto would be limited to
2 hours, such time to be equally divided and controlled by the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Celler] and the gentleman from Ohio
[Mr. McCulloch]. Under the unanimous-consent agreement, the Chair
recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. McCulloch] in support of
his amendment.
Parliamentarian's Note: The time limitation and the agreement on
control of time abrogated the five-minute rule. Under the agreement,
the two Members controlling debate could yield for debate or for
amendments.
Manager of Discharged Bill
Sec. 27.5 Where a motion to discharge a committee has been agreed to,
the proponents of that motion are entitled to prior recognition for
the purpose of managing the bill.
[[Page 10303]]
On June 14, 1932,(3) Speaker Pro Tempore Henry T.
Rainey, of Illinois, answered a parliamentary inquiry on the order of
recognition on a bill discharged from committee. The proceedings were
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 75 Cong. Rec. 12911, 72d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Charles R.] Crisp [of Georgia]: The House yesterday
discharged the Committee on Rules from the consideration of a
resolution making it a special order to consider the adjuster-
service compensation bill. The House then adopted the resolution
which makes it today in order as a special order to consider that
bill. The House having voted in favor of the proponents of the
legislation and the Ways and Means Committee having made an adverse
report on it, the effect of the vote of the House is to turn down
the Ways and Means Committee and place control of that legislation
in the hands of its friends. Under these circumstances and under
the parliamentary rules and procedure of the House, are not the
friends of the legislation entitled to have charge of the bill when
we go into Committee of the Whole to consider it and to have the
management of the measure on the floor?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The proponents and the friends of the
bill will, of course, have charge of it from now on.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Consideration of bills on which a motion to discharge has prevailed
is governed by Rule XXVII clause 3, House Rules and Manual
Sec. 908 (1995).
The Speaker may recognize any Member who signed a discharge
petition to offer the discharge motion (see Sec. 9.51, supra),
and points of order as to who should control the discharged
bill should be made when the question of consideration is
moved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: The discharged and adopted special rule
read as follows:
House Resolution 220
Resolved, That upon the day succeeding the adoption of this
resolution a special order be, and is hereby, created by the House
of Representatives for the consideration of H.R. 7726,
notwithstanding the adverse report on said bill. That on said day
the Speaker shall recognize the Representative from the first
district of Texas, Wright Patman, to call up H.R. 7726, a bill to
provide for the immediate payment to veterans of the face value of
their adjusted-service certificates, as a special order of
business, and to move that the House resolve itself into the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the
consideration of the said H.R. 7726. After general debate, which
shall be confined to the bill and shall continue not to exceed four
hours, to be equally divided and controlled by the Member of the
House requesting a rule for the considering of the said H.R. 7726
and a Member of the House who is opposed to the said H.R. 7726, to
be designated by the Speaker, the bill shall be read for amendment
under the 5-minute rule. At the conclusion of the reading of the
bill for amendment the committee
[[Page 10304]]
shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as
may have been adopted, and the previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and the amendments thereto to
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit. The special order shall be a continuing order until the
bill is finally disposed of.
Manager of Conference Report
Sec. 27.6 Recognition for calling up a conference report is within the
discretion of the Chair, and the Speaker may recognize a junior
member of the conference committee to manage a report when the
senior House conferee is unable to be present on the floor.
On Dec. 23, 1969,(5) Speaker John W. McCormack, of
Massachusetts, recognized Mr. Thomas L. Ashley, of Ohio, a junior
member of the conference committee on H.R. 4293, to provide for
continuation of authority for regulation of exports, to file the
conference report and to call it up. The senior member of the
conference committee, Wright Patman, of Texas, also Chairman of the
Committee on Banking and Currency with jurisdiction over the subject
matter of the bill,
was unavoidably absent from the floor.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 115 Cong. Rec. 40982-84, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
6. Parliamentarian's Note: The manager of a conference report is
normally the senior member of the conference committee and the
chairman of the legislative committee or subcommittee with
jurisdiction over the subject matter of the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 27.7 The Speaker recognized the ranking majority member of a
committee, and not the chairman thereof, also a conferee, to call
up a conference report, when the chairman was opposed to the
measure under consideration.
On July 17, 1967,(7) Speaker John W. McCormack, of
Massachusetts, recognized Mr. Samuel N. Friedel, of Maryland, ranking
majority member of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, to
call up a conference report on Senate Joint Resolution 81, providing
for the settlement of a railway labor dispute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 113 Cong. Rec. 19032, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: Harley O. Staggers, of West Virginia,
Chairman of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce and a
conferee on the bill, was not recognized to call up the report because
he was opposed to the bill. Mr. Staggers did not manage
[[Page 10305]]
consideration of the joint resolution in the House but had turned
control over to Mr. Friedel.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. See Mr. Staggers' statement at 113 Cong. Rec. 15822, 15823, 90th
Cong. 1st Sess., June 14, 1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAPTER 29
Consideration and Debate
D. CONTROL AND DISTRIBUTION OF TIME FOR DEBATE
Sec. 28. Effect of Special Rule
Special rules or resolutions reported by the Committee on Rules
making in order the consideration of a measure, frequently designate
the Members to control debate. A typical special rule provides that
debate be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking
minority member of the reporting committee. If the special rule does
not so provide, the Chair may in his discretion recognize a Member to
control the time.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. See Sec. 28.5, infra. Where the manager designated in a special
order is absent, the Chair may recognize another Member to
control debate (see Sec. Sec. 28.7, 28.8, infra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Special rules may divide control among two or more committees
(10) and may provide that only committee amendments may be
offered, thereby limiting opportunity for five-minute
debate.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See Sec. 28.14, infra.
11. See Sec. Sec. 77.19, 77.21, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By special rule, general debate may be equally divided between two
committees jointly reporting the bill.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See, for example, H. Res. 1182, 122 Cong. Rec. 14376, 14377, 94th
Cong. 2d Sess., May 19, 1976.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forms
Form of special rule fixing control of time for debate.
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution the
Speaker shall recognize Representative Abraham J. Multer, or
Representative Carlton R. Sickles, or Representative Charles
McC. Mathias, Junior, or Representative Frank J. Horton to move
that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the
bill (H.R. 4644). . . . After general debate, which shall be
confined to the bill and continue not to exceed five hours, to
be equally
divided and controlled by one of
the aforementioned Members and a Member who is opposed to said
bill to be designated by the Speaker, the bill shall be read
for amendment under the five-minute rule by titles instead of
by sections. . . .(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 111 Cong. Rec. 25185, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 27, 1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Form of special rule fixing control of time for debate in the
reporting committee and in a designated Member of the House.
H. Res. 657
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for
the consideration of the bill (H.R. 10710). . . . After general
debate, which shall be confined to the bill and shall continue
not to exceed seven hours, six hours to be equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Ways and Means, and one hour to be controlled by
Representative John H. Dent, of Pennsylvania, the bill shall be
con
[[Page 10306]]
sidered as having been read for amendment. . . .(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 119 Cong. Rec. 40489, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 10, 1973.
Form of special rule fixing control of part of the time for
debate in the reporting committee and part of the time in the
control of another committee.
H. Res. 485
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for
the consideration of the bill (H.R. 10660). . . . After general
debate, which shall be confined to the bill, and shall continue
not to exceed 5 hours, 3 hours to be equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Public Works, and 2 hours to be equally divided
and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of
the Committee on Ways and Means, the bill shall be read for
amendment under the 5-minute rule. . . .(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 102 Cong. Rec. 7110, 84th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 26, 1956. See also
115 Cong. Rec. 33308, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 6, 1969; and
107 Cong. Rec. 7378, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., May 4, 1961.
Form of special rule fixing control of time for debate in
members of joint committee.
H. Res. 214
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for
the consideration of the bill (H.R. 5645). . . . After general
debate, which shall be confined to the bill and continue not to
exceed 1 hour, to be equally divided and controlled by the vice
chairman and ranking House minority member of the Joint
Committee on Atomic Energy, the bill shall be read for
amendment under the 5-minute rule. . . .(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 101 Cong. Rec. 5119, 84th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 26, 1955.
Form of special rule fixing control of time for debate on a
motion to suspend the rules.
H. Res. 302
Resolved, That the time for debate on a motion to suspend
the rules and pass House Concurrent Resolution 25 shall be
extended to 4 hours, such time to be equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Foreign Affairs; and said motion to suspend the
rules shall be the continuing order of business of the House
until finally disposed of.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 89 Cong. Rec. 7646, 78th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 20, 1943. A rule
providing extraordinary procedures for a motion to suspend the
rules is extremely rare.
Form of special rule dividing control of time for debate among
chairman and ranking minority member of standing committee and
chairman of special committee.
H. Res. 465
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for
the consideration of H.R. 9195, a bill to amend the National
Labor Relations Act, and all points of order against said bill
are hereby waived.
[[Page 10307]]
That after general debate, which shall be confined to the bill
and continue not to exceed 4 hours, 1 hour to be controlled by
the chairman of the Committee on Labor, 1 hour to be controlled
by the ranking minority member of the Committee on Labor and 2
hours to be controlled by the chairman of the Special Committee
to Investigate the National Labor Relations Board, the bill
shall be read. . . .(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 86 Cong. Rec. 7506, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., June 4, 1940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross References
Importance of special rules to consideration generally, see Sec. 2,
supra.
Special rules and the order of business, see Ch. 21,
supra. -------------------
Special Rule as Governing Control of Time for General Debate--Time for
Debate Is Obtained From Member Controlling Time
Sec. 28.1 The House, through its adoption of a special rule, and not
the Committee of the Whole, controls the distribution of time for
general debate in Committee of the Whole; thus, during general
debate in Committee of the Whole of a bill being considered under a
special rule providing that the time be controlled by the chairman
and ranking minority member of the committee reporting the bill,
additional time must be yielded by the members controlling the time
and may not be obtained by unanimous consent.
On June 2, 1975,(19) during consideration of the Voting
Rights Act extension (H.R. 6219) in the Committee of the Whole, the
following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 121 Cong. Rec. 16285, 16286, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The time of the gentleman has
expired.
Mr. [Henry B.] Gonzalez [of Tex-as]: Mr. Chairman, I would ask
unanimous consent to continue for an additional 5 minutes.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that the
gentleman from California (Mr. Edwards) has
control of the time. Does the gentleman from California wish to
yield additional time to the gentleman from Texas? . . .
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The time of the gentleman has
expired.
Mr. Gonzalez: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I be
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman will suspend. The Chair
must advise the gentleman that under the rule that request is not
in order.
Sec. 28.2 When debate is pursuant to a special order controlled by
designated Members, another Member may speak only if yielded to,
and may
[[Page 10308]]
not request unanimous consent for time for debate.
On Oct. 14, 1978,(20) the following exchange occurred in
the Committee of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 124 Cong. Rec. 38378, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (1) The time of the
gentleman from Texas has expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Charles Wilson of Texas: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent to proceed for additional seconds.
Mr. Phillip Burton [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I object.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ashley)
has control of the time.
Mr. [Thomas L.] Ashley [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I yield 30
additional seconds to the gentleman from Texas.
Designated Member (Chairman) Opens Debate
Sec. 28.3 Where the House resolves into the Committee of the Whole to
consider a bill pursuant to a resolution designating a committee
chairman and its ranking minority member to control debate, the
committee chairman is recognized to open debate in the Committee of
the Whole.
On Apr. 26, 1955,(2) the House adopted House Resolution
214 for the consideration of a bill in the Committee of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 101 Cong. Rec. 5119, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration
of the bill (H.R. 5645) to authorize the Atomic Energy Commission
to construct a modern office building in or near the District of
Columbia to serve as its principal office, and all points of order
against said bill are hereby waived. After general debate, which
shall be confined to the bill and continue not to exceed 1 hour, to
be equally divided and controlled by the vice chairman and ranking
House minority member of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, the
bill shall be read for amendment under the 5-minute rule. At the
conclusion of the consideration of the bill for amendment, the
committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such
amendments as may have been adopted and the previous question shall
be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit.
Carl T. Durham, of North Carolina, the committee vice chairman
designated in the resolution, moved that the House resolve itself into
the Committee of the Whole to consider the bill. When the Committee of
the Whole commenced sitting, Mr. Durham was immediately recognized to
open debate.
[[Page 10309]]
Bill Made in Order Is Not Necessarily Unfinished Business
Sec. 28.4 Where the House adjourns for the day after having adopted a
resolution making in order the consideration of a bill and
designating its manager, that bill is not automatically the
unfinished business the next day, but must be called up by the
designated Member.
On July 19, 1939,(3) after the House had adopted a
resolution from the Committee on Rules making in order the
consideration of a bill, Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama,
answered a parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 84 Cong. Rec. 9541, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Claude V.] Parsons [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Parsons: Mr. Speaker, the House having adopted the rule, is
not this bill the unfinished business of the House on tomorrow?
The Speaker: Not necessarily. The rule adopted by the House
makes the bill in order for consideration, but it is not
necessarily the unfinished business. It can only come up, after the
adoption of the rule, by being called up by the gentleman in charge
of the bill.
Control Where Special Rule Does Not Identify Manager
Sec. 28.5 Where a resolution provides that general debate on a bill be
``equally divided and controlled by the majority and minority
members'' of a committee, instead of specifying, as is usual
practice, that control of debate be exercised by designated members
of the committee, the Speaker may recognize any member of the
committee to call up the bill and control the time.
On Sept. 26, 1966,(4) the House adopted House Resolution
923, making in order the consideration of H.R. 1511, the Economic
Opportunity Amendments for 1966. The resolution provided that eight
hours of general debate would be ``equally divided and controlled by
the majority and minority members of the Committee on Education and
Labor,'' without specifying, as such resolutions usually do, that
debate be controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 112 Cong. Rec. 23762, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following the adoption of the resolution, Speaker John W.
McCormack, of Massachusetts, recognized Adam C. Powell, of New
[[Page 10310]]
York, Chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor, to move that
the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole for the
consideration of the bill.
In the Committee of the Whole, Chairman Jack Brooks, of Texas, made
the following decision on recognition for control of general debate:
Under the rule, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Powell] will
be recognized for 4 hours to control the time for the majority, and
the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Ayres] is recognized for 4 hours to
control the time for the minority.
No Manager Under Special Rule--Proponents of Amendments Opened and
Closed Debate
Sec. 28.6 Where an unreported joint resolution was being considered
under a special ``modified closed'' rule in Committee of the Whole
permitting no general debate and the consideration of only two
amendments in the nature of a substitute with
debate thereon divided between a proponent and an opponent, the
proponents (or the designee of a proponent) of the amendments were
permitted to open and close debate pursuant to clause 6 of Rule
XIV, since there was no ``manager'' of the joint resolution.
The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on
Apr. 24, 1985,(5) during consideration of House Joint
Resolution 247 (to promote U.S. assistance in Central America):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 131 Cong. Rec. 9206, 9231, 9232, 9253, 9254, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: (6) No amendments are in order except
the following amendments, which shall be considered as having been
read, shall be considered only in the following order, and shall
not be subject to amendment: First, the amendment in the nature of
a substitute printed in the Congressional Record of April 22, 1985,
by, and if offered by, Representative Hamilton of Indiana; and said
amendment shall be debatable for not to exceed 2 hours, to be
equally divided and controlled by Representative Hamilton and a
member opposed thereto; and second, the amendment in the nature of
a substitute printed in the Congressional Record of April 22, 1985,
by, and if offered by, Representative Michel or his designee, and
said amendment shall be debatable for not to exceed 2 hours, to be
equally divided and controlled by Representative Michel or his
designee and a Member opposed thereto. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, pursuant to
the rule, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute. . . .
The Chairman: Pursuant to House Resolution 136, the amendment
is considered as having been read.
[[Page 10311]]
The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Michel) will be recognized for
1 hour, and a Member opposed will be recognized for 1 hour. . . .
Mr. Michel: Mr. Chairman, I should like to designate the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Broomfield) to make the allocation of
time on our side of the aisle.
The Chairman: The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Broomfield) is
designated to control the time for the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Michel). . . .
The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Broomfield) has 7 minutes
remaining, and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Barnes) has 6\1/4\
minutes remaining.
Mr. [Michael D.] Barnes [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, we have
three very brief speakers.
Mr. [William S.] Broomfield [of Michigan]: If the gentleman
would go ahead with those, we will wind up with one, our final
speaker, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Michel). . . .
The Chairman: The time of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Barnes) has expired. . . .
Mr. Broomfield: Mr. Chairman, I would like at this time now to
yield the balance of our time to the minority leader, the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Michel).
Parliamentarian's Note: Ordinarily in Committee of the Whole under
the five-minute rule notwithstanding clause 6 of Rule XIV (which
permits the proposer of a proposition to close debate), the manager of
the bill under the precedents is given the right to close debate on an
amendment. But in the above instance, there was no manager of the bill
under the special rule.
Effect of Absence or Death of Designated Manager
Sec. 28.7 Where the chairman of a committee and its ranking minority
member, named in a resolution to control debate on a bill, are
absent and have failed to designate oth-er Members to control the
time, the Speaker or Chairman may recognize the next ranking
majority and minority members for control of such debate.
On July 23, 1942,(7) the House adopted a resolution from
the Committee on Rules providing for debate on a bill to be divided
between the chairman and the ranking minority member of the reporting
committee, the Committee on Election of the President, Vice President,
and Representatives
in Congress. The chairman and ranking minority member both being
absent, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled, in response to a
parliamentary inquiry, that the Chair would recognize the next ranking
majority member
[[Page 10312]]
and the next ranking minority member to control debate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 88 Cong. Rec. 6542-46, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John E.] Rankin of Mississippi: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Rankin of Mississippi: Mr. Speaker, we have been unable to
find a man in the House on either side who was present when this
bill was voted out. A majority of the members of the committee who
are here are opposed to the bill. We feel that the time ought to be
divided not between the Members who are for the bill but know
nothing about it any more than the rest of us, but between the
members of the committee who are for the bill and the members of
the committee who are opposed to the bill. I would like to have the
Chair's ruling on that proposition.
The Speaker: The Chair thinks the Chair has a rather wide range
of latitude here. The Chair could hold and some future Speaker
might hold that since the chairman and ranking minority member of
the committee are not here there could be no general debate because
there was nobody here to control it, but the present occupant of
the chair is not going to rule in such a restricted way.
The Chair is going to recognize the next ranking majority
member and the next ranking minority member when the House goes
into the Committee of the Whole.
When the House had resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole,
Chairman Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, responded as follows to a similar
inquiry:
Mr. Rankin of Mississippi: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary
inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Rankin of Mississippi: Mr. Chairman, there is not a member
of the committee present who was present when this bill was voted
out. A majority of the members of the committee who are present are
opposed to this bill.
The Chairman: The Chair will say in response to the
parliamentary inquiry, that the Speaker held only a few moments ago
that the ranking majority Member, acting as chairman of the
committee, and the ranking minority Member present, would have
control of the time under the rule that has been adopted for the
consideration of the bill.
Sec. 28.8 Where a Member designated in a resolution to call up a bill
was deceased, the Speaker recognized another Member in favor of the
bill.
On Oct. 13, 1942,(8) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas,
ruled on a point of order that he had improperly recognized a Member to
call up a bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 88 Cong. Rec. 8080, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: If no Member wishes to be heard on the point of
order the Chair is ready to rule.
A matter not exactly on all fours with this, but similar to it,
was ruled on a few weeks ago. On that occasion both the chairman
and the ranking mi
[[Page 10313]]
nority member of the committee were absent. A point of order was
made against consideration of the bill because of that fact.
In ruling on the point of order at that time the Chair made the
following statement:
The Chair thinks the Chair has rather a wide range of
latitude here. The Chair could hold, and some future Speaker
might hold, that since the chairman and the ranking minority
member of the committee are not here there could be no general
debate because there was nobody here to control it; but the
present occupant of the Chair is not going to rule in such a
restricted way.
The Chair is going to recognize the next ranking majority
member and the next ranking minority member when the House goes
into the Committee of the Whole.
We have here even a stronger case than that. The absence of a
living Member may be his or her fault; the absence of a dead signer
of this petition is not his fault.
There is a rule followed by the chancery courts which might
well be followed here. It is that equity never allows a trust to
fail for want of a trustee. Applying that rule to the instant case,
the Chair holds that the consideration of this legislation will not
be permitted to fail for want of a manager. After all, an act of
God ought not, in all good conscience, deprive this House of the
right to consider legislation; especially so, since this House has
by its vote on the motion to discharge expressed its intent.
The Chair will recognize some Member other than Mr. Geyer to
call up the bill on tomorrow; for, if the Chair were to hold that
only Mr. Geyer could have called up this motion, Mr. Geyer being
absent not through any act of his own but through an act of God,
the Chair would be making such a restricted ruling that now and in
the future it might prevent the House of Representatives from
working its will.
The Chair overrules the point of order made by the gentleman
from Alabama.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. See the similar rulings of Speaker Rayburn, on the same bill at 88
Cong. Rec. 8066, 8120, 77th Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 12, 1942.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delegation of Authority by Designated Manager
Sec. 28.9 Where the Member, designated by special rule to be in control
of the time for general debate in the Committee of the Whole, is
absent from the Chamber, he may designate another Member to control
the time in his absence, but the Chair must be informed of this
delegation of authority.
On Jan. 31, 1964,(10) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 7152, the Civil Rights Act of 1963, and conducting
general debate thereon. The resolution providing for the consideration
of the bill provided that general debate be divided and controlled by
the chairman and rank
[[Page 10314]]
ing minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. Emanuel Celler,
of New York, the Chairman of that committee, was absent, prompting the
following colloquy:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 110 Cong. Rec. 1538, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Peter W.] Rodino [Jr., of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. [Basil L.] Whitener [of North Carolina]: If the gentleman
will get me more time, I will be glad to yield to the gentleman.
Mr. Rodino: I will give the gentleman 1 extra minute.
Mr. Whitener: I yield to the gentleman, but please do not take
more than 1 minute.
The Chairman: (11) The Chair has to inform the
gentleman from North Carolina that the gentleman from New Jersey
does not have control of the time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Whitener: Then, Mr. Chairman, I must respectfully decline
to yield to the gentleman. . . .
Mr. [Byron G.] Rogers of Colorado: Mr. Chairman, a point of
order.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state the point of order.
Mr. Rogers of Colorado: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New
Jersey is now in charge of the time in the absence of the chairman,
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Celler].
The Chairman: The Chair was not informed that the gentleman
from New York is absent nor is the Chair informed that the
gentleman from New Jersey is now in charge of the time.
The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized.
Mr. Whitener: I thank the Chairman. . . .
The Chairman: The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Rodino: Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 minutes, and I wish
to state I am acting for the chairman of the Committee on the
Judiciary who asked me to take charge of the time for him in his
absence.
The Chairman: The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized.
Committee Chairman To Designate Members To Control Two Extra Hours of
General Debate; Scope of Debate
Sec. 28.10 Where a special rule provided for the chairman
of the Committee on International Relations to designate Members to
equally divide and control two extra hours of general debate on
a bill in Committee of the Whole, the chairman of
said committee informed the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole
of his designation of himself, another Member of the majority party
and two Members of the minority party to control one-half hour
each; and the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole advised that
such debate was not required by the rule to be confined to any
particular issue, but to the bill as a whole.
[[Page 10315]]
On July 31, 1978,(12) Mr. Clement J. Zablocki, of
Wisconsin, the Chairman of the Committee on International Relations,
made a statement as to the division of control of time for debate
pursuant to a special rule providing for two extra hours of debate on
H.R. 12514, foreign aid authorizations for fiscal 1979. The intent
behind requesting the extra hours had been to afford debate directed at
the Turkish arms embargo issue, but the rule properly omitted any
reference to the scope of debate, other than the requirement that all
general debate be confined to the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 124 Cong. Rec. 23456, 23457, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Zablocki: Mr. Chairman, under the rule, it is my
understanding that the 1 hour for general debate on the entire
bill, that that hour is equally divided between myself and the
ranking minority member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Broomfield).
Then the 2 hours that the rule provides for the Greek-Turkey-
Cyprus is-sue, that there be 1 hour in support of lifting the
embargo and 1 hour in opposition, and that the hour in support
would be divided between myself and the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Broomfield), and those in opposition to lifting the embargo
would be managed by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Fascell) and
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Derwinski).
The Chairman: (13) The Chair will respond to the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Zablocki) that the Chair has been
informed that the gentleman from Wisconsin has designated the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Fascell) for 1 hour, and also the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Derwinski) for 1 hour. The rule, of
course, does not confine any such debate to the embargo issue
alone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Don Fuqua (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extending Control to Additional Members Not Designated in Special Rule
Sec. 28.11 Where a resolution provided for the time for and control of
debate on a bill, the Members in control obtained unanimous consent
that a part of the time be controlled by a third Member.
On May 14, 1948,(14) the House was about to resolve
itself into the Committee of the Whole for the consideration of a bill
to be considered pursuant to the provisions of House Resolution 582,
fixing five hours of debate to be divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Un-American
Activities. Charles A. Halleck, of Indiana, the Chairman of the
committee, and Mr. John S. Wood, of Georgia, the ranking minority
member of the committee, made
[[Page 10316]]
unanimous-consent requests to permit control of part of the time by a
third Member:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 94 Cong. Rec. 5847, 5848, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Halleck: Mr. Speaker, after consultation with the members
of the Committee on Un-American Activities, I ask unanimous consent
that of the 2\1/2\ hours to be allocated on this side of the aisle,
a total of 45 minutes may be allocated by the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Marcantonio] with the last 30 minutes of the over-all
time reserved to the committee.
The Speaker: (15) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Indiana?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
Mr. Wood: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield 45
minutes of the time allotted to me to the gentleman from New York
[Mr. Marcantonio] in behalf of the opposition to this measure,
reserving the last 20 minutes of the time allotted to me.
The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Georgia?
There was no objection.
Sec. 28.12 Where a resolution provided that debate should be controlled
by the chairman and ranking minority member of a committee,
unanimous consent was granted the minority member to yield one-half
his time to the control of a third Member.
On Nov. 12, 1941,(16) the House adopted House Resolution
334, providing for the consideration in the House of Senate amendments
to a House bill, and providing that debate be limited to eight hours,
to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. Following the
conclusion of the debate controlled by the chairman of the committee,
Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, recognized Mr. Hamilton Fish, Jr., of
New York, the ranking minority member, for four hours on the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 87 Cong. Rec. 8763-70, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Fish made the following unanimous-consent request, which was
agreed to by the House:
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that one-half the time
allotted to me, or 2 hours, be placed under the control of the
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Richards].
Bill Within Jurisdiction of Two or More Committees
Sec. 28.13 Special rules often provide for control of debate time; as
an example, a resolution provided for an open rule for
consideration of the authorization (civilian) for the Energy
Research and Development Administration, for fiscal 1978, reported
from three committees (the initial and two sequential committees),
with general debate to
[[Page 10317]]
be divided and controlled by those three committees.
House Resolution 657, in the 95th Congress,(17) provided
for consideration of H.R. 6796, the authorization for fiscal 1978 for
the Energy Research and Development Administration nonnuclear programs.
The resolution provided in part that general debate be divided and
controlled by three reporting committees; that the amendment in the
nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Science and
Technology be read as an original bill for amendment by titles instead
of by sections; and that certain points of order be waived against such
amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 123 Cong. Rec. 28365, 28366, 95th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 9, 1977.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 657
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for
the consideration of the bill (H.R. 6796) to authorize
appropriations to the Energy Research and Development
Administration in accordance with section 261 of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, section 305 of the Energy Reorganization
Act of 1974, and section 16 of the Federal Nonnuclear Energy
Research and Development Act of 1974, and for
other purposes. After general debate, which shall be confined
to the bill and shall continue not to exceed three hours, two
hours to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Science and
Technology, one-half hour to be equally divided and controlled
by
the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Armed Services, and one-half hour to be equally divided and
controlled by
the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
International Relations, the bill shall be read for amendment
under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider
the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the
Committee on Science and Technology now printed in italic in
the bill as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under
the five-minute rule, said substitute shall be read for
amendment by titles instead of by sections, and all points of
order against said substitute for failure to comply with the
provisions of clause 7, rule XVI, clause 5, rule XXI, and
section 401 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (Public Law
93-344) are hereby waived. It shall be in order to consider en
bloc the amendments recommended by the Committee on Armed
Services to title I of said substitute. At the conclusion of
the consideration of the bill for amendment, the Committee
shall rise and report the bill to the House with such
amendments as may have been adopted, and any Member may demand
a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the
Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee
amendment in the nature of
a substitute. The previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage
without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with
or without instructions.
[[Page 10318]]
Sec. 28.14 Where a bill falls within the jurisdiction of two
committees, the bill may be considered pursuant to a special rule
providing for general debate to be divided between and controlled
by those committees.
On Nov. 6, 1969,(18) Mr. Ray J. Madden, of Indiana,
called up by the direction of the Committee on Rules and the House
adopted House Resolution 610, providing for consideration of a bill
with general debate divided between two House committees:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 115 Cong. Rec. 33260-62, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 610
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration
of the bill (H.R. 14465) to provide for the expansion and
improvement of the Nation's airport and airway system, for the
imposition of airport and airway user charges, and for other
purposes. After general debate, which shall be confined to the bill
and shall continue not to exceed four hours, two hours to be
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, and two
hours to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means, title I
of the bill shall be read for amendment under the five-minute rule.
After the House had resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole
to consider the bill, Chairman Omar T. Burleson, of Texas, made a
statement on control of the time for general debate:
Pursuant to the rule, general debate shall continue not to
exceed 4 hours, 2 hours to be equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on
Interstate and Foreign Commerce and 2 hours to be equally divided
and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member on the
Committee on Ways and Means.
Under the rule, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Staggers)
will be recognized for 1 hour and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Springer) will be recognized for 1 hour, controlling the time for
general debate on behalf of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr.
Staggers).
After the conclusion of the two hours of debate controlled by the
Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, the Chairman made the
following statement on control of the remaining debate:
There being no further requests for time on title I, under the
rule, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Mills) will be recognized
for 1 hour, and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Byrnes) will be
recognized for 1 hour, controlling the time for general debate for
the Committee on Ways and Means.
[[Page 10319]]
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr.
Mills).(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Id. at p. 33283.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: H.R. 14465 was reported by the Committee on
Interstate and Foreign Commerce, title I of the bill concerning
aviation facilities. The hearings and mark-up of title II, the Airport
and Airway Revenue Act, were the work product of the Committee on Ways
and Means. Title I was open to amendment, but title II was subject only
to amendment by the Committee on Ways and Means.
--Rotating Recognition
Sec. 28.15 Where a special rule
divided the control of time
for general debate four ways among the chairmen and ranking
minority members of two committees, the Chairman of the Committee
of
the Whole indicated that she would rotate recognition to permit
each Member to utilize a portion of his time and then to yield
remaining portions to other Members.
During consideration of H.R. 11656 (to provide that meetings
of government agencies shall be open to the public) in the Committee of
the Whole on July 28, 1976,(20) Chairman Yvonne B. Burke, of
California, made the following statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 122 Cong. Rec. 24179, 24180, 24182, 24186, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: Pursuant to the rule, general debate will
continue not to exceed 2 hours, 1 hour to be equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Government Operations, and 1 hour to be equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member
of the Committee on the Judiciary.
Under the rule, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Abzug), the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Horton), the gentleman from Alabama
(Mr. Flowers), and the gentleman from California (Mr. Moorhead),
will each be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Abzug).
Ms. [Bella S.] Abzug [of New York]: Madam Chairman, I yield
myself such time as I may consume. . . .
Mr. [Frank] Horton [of New York]: Madam Chairman, I yield
myself such time as I may consume. . . .
Madam Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. McCloskey).
The Chairman: If there is no objection, the Chair would like to
recognize the gentleman from California (Mr. Moorhead) . . . and
then come back to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Horton).
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr.
Moorhead) for 30 minutes.
Mr. [Carlos J.] Moorhead of California: Madam Chairman, I yield
myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Horton: Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
[[Page 10320]]
Mr. Moorhead of California: I yield to the gentleman from New
York.
Mr. Horton: Madam Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state the parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. Horton: Madam Chairman, is it the intention of the Chair to
rotate?
The Chairman: Yes, that is the intention of the Chair.
Mr. Horton: Would the gentleman from California (Mr. Moorhead)
then have 30 minutes before I come back to my time?
The Chairman: The gentleman will probably use a portion of that
30 minutes himself. We will then come back to the gentlewoman from
New York (Ms. Abzug) and to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Horton).
Mr. Horton: Madam Chairman, I thank the Chair.
--Sequentially Reporting Committees
Sec. 28.16 Where a special rule
divides control of debate among a primary reporting committee and
six sequentially reporting committees in a designated order, the
Chair allocated time only between the chairman and ranking minority
member of each committee in the order listed if and when present on
the floor, and permitted only the primary committee to reserve a
portion of time to close general debate.
During consideration of the Small Business Innovation Development
Act (H.R. 4326) in the Committee of the Whole on June 17,
1982,(1) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 128 Cong. Rec. 13991, 14011, 14015, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Chairman: (2) Pursuant to the rule, the first
reading of the bill is dispensed with.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. William M. Brodhead (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The gentleman from New York, Mr. LaFalce, will be recognized
for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. McDade,
will be recognized for 30 minutes [both representing the primary
committee, the Committee on Small Business], and the following
Members [representing six committees which had reported the bill
sequentially] for 15 minutes each:
The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. McDonald;
The gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Dickinson;
The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Dingell; . . .
The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Robinson.
The Chair will attempt to reach the committees engaging in
general debate in the order listed, but will at the same time
attempt to accommodate Members who cannot be present when called. .
. .
Mr. [Edward F.] Weber of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I have an inquiry.
In the absence of the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Dickinson), will
the Chair recognize me to control the time which would have been
allocated to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Dickinson)?
[[Page 10321]]
The Chairman: No; the time belongs to the Armed Services
Committee minority.
The Chair will recognize the gentleman from Alabama (Mr.
Dickinson) if and when the gentleman is able to be here; but the
Chair will recognize Members as indicated in the order in which
they are on the list, the order which the Chair read. . . .
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell)
for 15 minutes on behalf of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. .
. .
All time allocated to the gentleman from Illinois has expired.
The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) has 2\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I would like
to reserve my time.
The Chairman: Under the precedents the gentleman will have to
use his time at this point or yield it back.
Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I will yield to my dear friend from
California for 1 minute, and then I will use the balance.
Before I do so, may I inquire of our good friends on the Small
Business Committee----
The Chairman: As the primary managers of the bill, that
committee was able to reserve time and has reserved time under the
precedents.
Mr. Dingell: To continue my inquiry, am I not able to reserve
time also?
The Chairman: The Small Business Committee is the primary
manager of the bill, and for that reason the Chair has accorded
them the privilege of reserving their time and has not agreed to
accord that privilege to any of the other committees.
Mr. Dingell: Is that in the rule, that forecloses the other
committees?
The Chairman: Under the precedents they have the right to close
debate.
Sec. 28.17 The Chairman has allocated time for general debate in
Committee of the Whole pursuant to a special rule dividing time
among chairmen and ranking minority members of six committees, with
the Members recognized in the order listed in the special rule.
On May 15, 1986,(3) the House agreed to a special rule,
as follows, for consideration of H.R. 4800, the Omnibus Trade Bill of
1986:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 132 Cong. Rec. 10954, 10955, 10963, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 456
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of Rule XXIII,
declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R.
4800) to enhance the competitiveness of American industry; and for
other purposes, and the first reading of the bill shall be
dispensed with. All points of order against the consideration of
the bill are hereby waived. After general debate, which shall be
confined to the bill and shall continue not to exceed three and
one-half hours, with one hour to be equally
[[Page 10322]]
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member
of the Committee on Ways and Means, with 30 minutes to be equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member
of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, with 30 minutes to be equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member
of the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs, with 30
minutes to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and Labor,
with 30 minutes to be equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Agriculture, and with 30 minutes to be equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Energy and Commerce, the bill shall be considered as
having been read for amendment under the five-minute rule. . . .
The Chairman (4) on May 20, 1986,(5)
allocated time for general debate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Anthony C. Beilenson (Calif.).
5. 132 Cong. Rec. 11373, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: Pursuant to the rule, the first reading of the
bill is dispensed with.
Under the rule, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rostenkowski)
will be recognized for 30 minutes; the gentleman from Tennessee
(Mr. Duncan) will be recognized for 30 minutes; the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Bonker) will be recognized for 15 minutes; the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Roth) will be recognized for 15
minutes; the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. St Germain) will be
recognized for 15 minutes; the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Wylie) will
be recognized for 15 minutes; the gentleman from California (Mr.
Hawkins) will be recognized for 15 minutes; the gentleman from
Vermont (Mr. Jeffords) will be recognized for 15 minutes, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. de la Garza) will be recognized for 15
minutes; the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Roberts) will be recognized
for 15 minutes; the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) will be
recognized for 15 minutes; and the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Lent) will be recognized for 15 minutes.
The Chairman recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Gibbons) on behalf of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Rostenkowski).
--Where Special Rule Does Not Specify Order of Recognition
Sec. 28.18 Where a special rule provides separate control of general
debate time among the chairmen and ranking minority members of two
committees, but does not specify the order of recognition, the
Chair may in his discretion either alternate recognition among the
four Members or permit the primary committee to first utilize most
of its time and then permit the manager of the bill to close
general debate
[[Page 10323]]
after the sequential committee uses its time.
During consideration of the Fair Practices in Automotive Products
Act (H.R. 5133) in the Committee of the Whole on Dec. 10,
1982,(6) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 128 Cong. Rec. 29982, 29984, 29985, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [James J.] Florio [of New Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, I move that
the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R.
5133) to establish domestic content requirements for motor vehicles
sold in the United States, and for other purposes.
The Speaker: (7) The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Florio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of
the bill, H.R. 5133, with Mr. Panetta in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Chairman: (8) Pursuant to the rule, the first
reading of the bill is dispensed with.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Leon E. Panetta (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the rule, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Florio) will
be recognized for 30 minutes, the gentleman from North Carolina
(Mr. Broyhill) will be recognized for 30 minutes, the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Gibbons) will be recognized for 30 minutes, and
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Frenzel) will be recognized for
30 minutes.
Mr. [James T.] Broyhill [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I
have a parliamentary inquiry. . . .
I wish to inquire as to whether the time will run concurrently
or whether one committee goes first and the second committee
follows.
The Chairman: The Chair would interpret the rule to allow each
of the respective Members to allot their time respectively without
any kind of a pattern, so it could be done interchangeably. . . .
The Chair would advise the Members that although the time could
be used interchangeably that it is the will of those controlling
the time that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Florio) and the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Broyhill) use their time first
and then the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gibbons) and the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Frenzel).
Mr. Florio: On that point, Mr. Chairman, it would be my hope to
reserve some time to be in a position to take part in the
concluding portion of the 2 hours' debate.
The Chairman: The gentleman is free to do that. . . .
Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, am I correct
in my understanding that the rule provides that the time may be
used alternatively by the several persons who control this time?
The Chairman: The rule does permit that, the Chair would advise
the gentleman, but it does not provide for any necessary order.
Mr. Dingell: And as the Chair advises, there is no necessary
order. It
[[Page 10324]]
can be used interchangeably, and so forth.
The Chairman: That is correct.
--Time for General Debate Allocated to Primary Committee Was
Reallocated by Unanimous Consent
Sec. 28.19 By unanimous consent in the Committee of the Whole, general
debate which had been allocated only to the primary committee
pursuant to a special rule adopted by the House was reallocated to
the chairmen and ranking minority members of three committees to
which the bill had been sequentially referred, to permit them to
yield portions of time.
During consideration of the Water Resources Conservation Act (H.R.
6) in the Committee of the Whole on Nov. 5, 1985,(9) the
following proceedings occurred:
9. 131 Cong. Rec. 30462, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: (10) Pursuant to the rule, the first
reading of the bill is dispensed with.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Frederick C. Boucher (Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the rule, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Howard) will
be recognized for 1 hour and 45 minutes and the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Stangland) will be recognized for 1 hour and 45
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Howard).
Mr. [James J.] Howard [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I yield 30
minutes of my time to the chairman of the Committee on Merchant
Marine and Fisheries, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones)
or his designee, and I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to
yield that time as he wishes.
The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New Jersey?
There was no objection.
Mr. Howard: Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 minutes of my time to the
chairman of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Udall) or his designee, and I ask
unanimous consent that he be allowed to yield that time as he
wishes.
The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New Jersey?
There was no objection.
Mr. Howard: Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 minutes to the chairman of
the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Rostenkowski) or his designee, and I ask unanimous consent that he
be allowed to yield that time as he wishes.
The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New Jersey?
There was no objection.
Effect of Modified Closed Rule Permitting Amendment in Nature of
Substitute and Substitute Therefor, With Separate Hour of Debate on
Each Substitute
Sec. 28.20 Where a ``modified closed'' rule permitted only
[[Page 10325]]
one amendment in the nature of a substitute and one substitute
therefor, and divided a separate hour of debate on each substitute
between the same two Members, the Chair permitted the total time to
be accumulated and consumed before putting the question on the
substitute.
The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on
June 10, 1982,(11) during consideration of the first
concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1983 (H. Con. Res.
352):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 128 Cong. Rec. 13387, 13390, 13395, 13399, 13409, 97th Cong. 2d
Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: (12) All time for general debate has
expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Anthony C. Beilenson (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XXIII, the concurrent resolution
is considered as having been read for amendment and open for
amendment at any point.
The concurrent resolution is as follows:
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That--
TITLE I--REVISION OF THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET FOR THE UNITED
STATES GOVERNMENT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1982 . . .
Mr. [Delbert L.] Latta [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The Chairman: Pursuant to the provisions of House Resolution
496, the amendment in the nature of a substitute is considered as
having been read. . . .
Under the rule, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Jones) will be
recognized for 30 minutes and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta)
will be recognized for 30 minutes. . . .
Mr. [James R.] Jones of Oklahoma: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment as a substitute for the amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
The Chairman: Pursuant to the provision of House Resolution
496, the amendment in the nature of a substitute is considered as
having been read. . . .
Pursuant to the provisions of House Resolution 496, the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Jones) will be recognized for 30
minutes and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta) will be recognized
for 30 minutes. . . .
Mr. Jones of Oklahoma: Mr. Chairman, in order to resolve the
technicalities, I will use 30 minutes on the Jones substitute
first, and the remaining 30 minutes on the Latta substitute. I
think we have agreed to alternate back and forth the total hour we
have. . . .
Mr. [Ralph] Regula [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Regula: What is the situation at the moment? Have we
completed with the first hour, that is, in effect, the debate on
the Jones substitute?
The Chairman: In effect, the Chair has. The Chair believes, and
it has been treating the time as a fungible
[[Page 10326]]
commodity. The total time has been allocated as to both amendments.
In effect, the gentleman from Ohio has remaining to himself to
yield, 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Oklahoma has 29 minutes
remaining.
Parliamentarian's Note: Mr. Jones, Chairman of the Budget
Committee, was permitted to close debate.
Special Rule Prohibiting Amendments to Amendment--Time Consumed Under
Reservation of Objection to Unanimous-consent Request To Offer
Amendment
Sec. 28.21 Where the Committee of the Whole is considering an amendment
under a ``modified closed'' rule permitting only one amendment and
no amendments thereto, and equally dividing the debate time on the
amendment, time consumed under a reservation of objection to a
unanimous-consent request to offer an amendment to the pending
amendment comes out of the time controlled by the Member yielding
for that request.
During consideration of House Joint Resolution 413 (further
continuing appropriations for fiscal 1984) in the Committee of the
Whole on Nov. 10, 1983,(13) the following proceedings
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 129 Cong. Rec. 32120, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I yield
2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon).
Mr. [Gerald B.] Solomon [of New York]: . . . Mr. Chairman, in
just a moment I will be asking unanimous consent to offer an
amendment which will reduce the amount of economic aid that we give
to Zimbabwe by $30 million. . . .
Mr. [Thomas J.] Huckaby [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, reserving
the right to object, is it my understanding that there is $75
million that is earmarked for Zimbabwe in the Wright amendment, and
that Zimbabwe is also the country that has consistently supported
the Cuban troops in Angola?
The Chairman Pro Tempore: (14) The Chair would
inform the Members that the debate on the reservation will have to
come out of allotted time which is controlled by the gentleman from
Massachusetts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Wyche Fowler, Jr. (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expiration of Time on Amendment Did Not Preclude Amendment to Amendment
and Debate Thereon
Sec. 28.22 Where a special rule governing consideration of a bill in
Committee of the Whole limits debate on each amendment or on each
[[Page 10327]]
amendment thereto to a specific amount of time, equally divided and
controlled, the expiration of time on an amendment does not
preclude the offering of an amendment thereto, debatable under such
time limitation.
On May 4, 1983,(15) the Committee of the Whole had under
consideration House Joint Resolution 13, calling for a freeze and
reduction in nuclear weapons. House Joint Resolution 13 was being
considered pursuant to a special rule agreed to on Mar.
16,(16) and a special rule providing for additional
procedures for consideration, agreed to on May 4.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 129 Cong. Rec. 11086, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
16. H. Res. 138, 129 Cong. Rec. 5666, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
17. H. Res. 179, 129 Cong. Rec. 11037, 98th Cong. 1st Sess. (including
the division of time as described above).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Stephen J.] Solarz [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment to the amendment. . . .
The Chairman: (18) The Clerk will report the
amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Solarz to the amendment offered by
Mr. Hunter: In the section proposed to be added to the
resolution by the Hunter amendment, strike out all that follows
``prevent'' through ``crews'' and insert in lieu thereof
``safety-related improvements in strategic bombers''.
Mr. [Robert E.] Badham [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I have a
point of order.
Mr. Chairman, it occurs to me that all time for the proponents
and all time for the opponents of the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), has been used up.
Is it not true, under the rule, that we must now vote on that
amendment?
The Chairman: No. The Chair will advise the gentleman from
California (Mr. Badham), that it is true that all time relative to
the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr.
Hunter), for and against, has expired, but under the rule another
amendment can be offered, and is being offered, and 15 minutes are
allocated to the proponent of the amendment and 15 minutes are
allocated to an opponent of the amendment.
Speaker and Minority Leader Permitted To Speak by Unanimous Consent
Where Special Rule Prohibited Pro Forma Amendments
Sec. 28.23 Where a special rule prohibited the offering of pro forma
amendments for the purpose of debate in Committee of the Whole, the
Speaker and Minority Leader were nevertheless permitted, by
unanimous consent, to speak for five minutes each
[[Page 10328]]
near the conclusion of the amendment process in Committee of the
Whole.
On May 4, 1983,(19) the Committee of the Whole had under
consideration House Joint Resolution 13, calling for a freeze and
reduction in nuclear weapons. House Joint Resolution 13 was being
considered pursuant to a special rule agreed to on Mar.
16,(20) and a special rule providing for additional
procedures for consideration, including a prohibition on pro forma
amendments offered for the purpose of debate, agreed to on May
4.(1) The following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 129 Cong. Rec. 11094, 11095, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
20. H. Res. 138, 129 Cong. Rec. 5666, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
1. H. Res. 179, 129 Cong. Rec. 11037, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [William S.] Broomfield [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, after
consultation with the leadership on both sides, and with my friend,
the gentleman from Wisconsin, Chairman Zablocki, we have agreed
upon a procedure in a spirit of bipartisanship to expedite
consideration of this legislation to which we have devoted more
than 45 hours of debate, and I would say historic debate. . . .
The agreement is that we will go directly to final passage. I
will not offer a substitute. I will offer a straight motion to
recommit. Then we can go to final passage. . . .
Mr. [James C.] Wright [Jr., of Texas]: . . . It is my
understanding that the mutual agreement encompasses the proposition
that those committee amendments of a technical nature will be
accepted, and that there will be no debate on those or any other
substance, and since a motion to recommit without instructions is
not debatable in the full House, we must have an agreement that
encompasses permitting 10 minutes, 5 minutes to each side, 5
minutes for the minority leader, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Michel), and the concluding 5 minutes for the Speaker. Those would
be the only speeches remaining. . . .
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the minority leader,
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Michel), may be permitted, after
the adoption of the committee amendments, 5 minutes, and that then
the Speaker may be permitted 5 minutes to conclude the entire
debate.
The Chairman: (2) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Texas?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection. . . .
The Chairman: The Clerk will report the remaining committee
amendment to the preamble.
The Clerk read as follows: . . .
The committee amendment to the preamble was agreed to.
The Chairman: Under the previous unanimous-consent agreement,
the Chair will now recognize the distinguished minority leader for
5 minutes.
Parliamentarian's Note: Mr. Broomfield had indicated that he would
not offer his amendment in
[[Page 10329]]
the nature of a substitute for the preamble and resolution, which was
subject to two hours of consideration for amendment after disposition
of amendments to the preamble under a two-hour limit.
Priority of Recognition in Opposition to Amendment Accorded to Minority
Member of Reporting Committee
Sec. 28.24 Where a special rule limited debate time on amendments to be
controlled by a proponent and opponent, the Chair accorded priority
of recognition in opposition to an amendment to
a minority Member of one
of the reporting committees over a majority Member not on any
reporting committee.
The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on
Apr. 29, 1987,(3) during consideration of the Trade Reform
Act of 1987 (H.R. 3):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 133 Cong. Rec. 10488, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Claude] Pepper [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Chairman: (4) The Clerk will designate the
amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Anthony C. Beilenson (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Pepper: On page 278, after line
23, add the following section:
Sec. 199. The USTR shall request that all relevant agencies
prepare appropriate recommendations for improving the
enforcement of restrictions on importation of articles from
Cuba. . . .
Mr. [William V.] Alexander [of
Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, would the Chair state how the time will be
divided on the amendment that has been read?
The Chairman: The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Pepper] will be
entitled to 15 minutes and a Member in opposition will be entitled
to 15 minutes.
Mr. Alexander: Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the amendment, and
I would request that that time be assigned to me, if some Member of
the committee is not opposed.
The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman from Arkansas
if there is someone else on the committee who seeks time in
opposition, the Chair would designate that person in opposition.
Does the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Frenzel] seek time in
opposition?
Mr. [Bill] Frenzel [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I am opposed
to the amendment, and I also seek time in opposition.
The Chairman: The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Frenzel] will
have 15 minutes in opposition.
Manager of Bill Recognized in Opposition to Amendment
Sec. 28.25 Where a special rule limits debate on designated amendments
and allocates time between the proponent and an opponent, the man
[[Page 10330]]
ager of the bill will be recognized to control debate in opposition
to the amendment if he qualifies as opposed.
On Dec. 1, 1982,(5) during consideration of H.R. 6995
(Federal Trade Commission Authorization Act) in the Committee of the
Whole, the Chair responded to an inquiry regarding debate, as indicated
below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 128 Cong. Rec. 28235, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [James T.] Broyhill [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I
have a parliamentary inquiry with respect to the procedure followed
here.
It is my understanding that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Florio) [the manager of the bill] will control the time in
opposition to the Luken amendment; is that correct?
The Chairman: (6) If the gentleman is opposed to the
amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [James J.] Florio [of New Jersey]: I am, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Florio) will
therefore be recognized to control the time in opposition to the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio.
Sec. 28.26 Where a special rule adopted by the House limits debate on
an amendment to be controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and
prohibits amendments thereto, the Chair may in his discretion
recognize the manager of the bill if opposed and there is no
requirement for recognition of the minority party.
The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on
June 18, 1986,(7) during consideration of H.R. 4868 (Anti-
Apartheid Act of 1986):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 132 Cong. Rec. 14275, 14276, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: (8) Under the rule, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Dellums) will be recognized for 30 minutes, and a
Member opposed to the amendment will be recognized for 30 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Bob Traxler (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Will those gentlemen who are opposed to the Dellums amendment
kindly stand so the Chair can designate?
Is the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Bonker) opposed to the
amendment?
Mr. [Don] Bonker [of Washington]: I advise the Chair that I
oppose the amendment.
The Chairman: Then the Chair will recognize the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Bonker) for 30 minutes in opposition to the Dellums
amendment.
Does the gentleman from Washington wish to yield any of his
time or share any of his time?
Mr. Bonker: Mr. Chairman, I would yield half the allotted time,
15 minutes, to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Siljander).
The Chairman: The time in opposition will be equally divided
between
[[Page 10331]]
the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Bonker) and the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Siljander). . . .
Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, do I
understand that the process that has just taken place has given the
minority side one-quarter of the time.
The Chairman: The Chair would counsel the gentleman from
Pennsylvania in regard to his inquiry that the rule provides that a
Member will be recognized in opposition. The gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Bonker) was recognized in opposition, and he shared
his time with your side.
Mr. Walker: In other words, the minority, though, was not
recognized for the purposes of opposition. Is that correct?
The Chairman: The Chair would state that the procedures of the
House are governed by its rules, but more importantly in this
instance, by the rule adopted by the House as reported from the
Committee.
--If Manager States Opposition, Chair Does Not Later Question
Qualification To Speak in Opposition
Sec. 28.27 Where a special rule governing consideration of a bill in
Committee of the Whole provides that debate on each amendment be
equally divided between the proponent and a Member opposed thereto,
the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole will recognize the
chairman of the committee managing the bill to control the time in
opposition if he states he is opposed, and the Chair cannot at a
later time question his qualifications to speak in opposition.
On May 4, 1983,(9) the Committee of the Whole had under
consideration House Joint Resolution 13, calling for a freeze and
reduction in nuclear weapons, pursuant to a special rule agreed to on
Mar. 16 (10) and a special rule providing for additional
procedures for consideration (including the equal division of debate
time) agreed to on May 4.(11) Mr. Clement J. Zablocki, of
Wisconsin, Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, was recognized
in opposition to an amendment. Mr. Zablocki discussed the amendment as
it had been modified by unanimous consent:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 129 Cong. Rec. 11066, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
10. H. Res. 138, 129 Cong. Rec. 5666, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
11. H. Res. 179, 129 Cong. Rec. 11037, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Zablocki: Mr. Chairman, in order that we can continue the
debate in proper order, and with an understanding of the amendment,
as modified by unanimous consent, I ask that the Clerk re-read the
amendment to the amendment.
The Chairman: The Clerk will report the amendment, as modified.
[[Page 10332]]
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 5, line 8, immediately before the period, insert ``,
with such reductions to be achieved within a reasonable period
of time as determined by negotiations.''
Mr. Zablocki: . . . I must say at the very outset, as the
amendment has been offered, I have no problems with the amendment.
But I am concerned [that] in the explanation of your amendment you
go further and it does cause some concern whether you intend your
amendment to be so interpreted.
So, Mr. Chairman, I would hope that in the remaining 13 minutes
of my time in opposition, technically in opposition, to the
amendment we could have a clarifying dialog with the gentleman from
Georgia.
Mr. [James A.] Courter [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: (12) The gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Zablocki) has the time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Leon E. Panetta (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Courter: Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield to me for
the purpose of making a parliamentary inquiry?
Mr. Zablocki: I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey for the
purpose of making a parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. Courter: My parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman, is as
follows:
It is my understanding that the proponent of the amendment, the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Levitas) is recognized for 15 minutes,
and then someone could be recognized if they, in fact, oppose it.
The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Zablocki) rose initially
indicating that he was against the amendment, was recognized for 15
minutes, and during his monolog has indicated that, in fact, he is
not opposed to it. Should he be recognized for the balance of his
time?
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair cannot question the
gentleman's qualifications. The Chair did ask the question if he
rose in opposition to the amendment, and the Chairman so stated.
Therefore, he controls the time.
Effect Where Member Recognized in Opposition Yields Back All Time
Sec. 28.28 Where debate on an amendment has been limited and equally
divided between the proponent and a Member opposed, and the Chair
has recognized the only Member seeking recognition in opposition to
the amendment, no objection lies against that Member subsequently
yielding back all the time in opposition.
On May 4, 1983,(13) the Committee of the Whole had under
consideration House Joint Resolution 13, calling for a freeze and
reduction in nuclear weapons. House Joint Resolution 13 was being
considered pursuant to a special rule agreed to on Mar.
[[Page 10333]]
16,(14) and a special rule providing for additional
procedures for consideration, agreed to on May 4.(15) Mr.
William S. Broomfield, of Michigan, rose in opposition (16)
to an amendment (17) offered by Mr. Henry J. Hyde, of
Illinois, to a substitute amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 129 Cong. Rec. 11077, 11078, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
14. H. Res. 138, 129 Cong. Rec. 5666, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
15. H. Res. 179, 129 Cong. Rec. 11037, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
16. 129 Cong. Rec. 11078, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
17. Id. at p. 11077.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Broomfield: Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The Chairman: (18) The gentleman is recognized for
15 minutes in opposition to the amendment, for purposes of debate
only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Broomfield: Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. Hyde: Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time and
request a vote.
Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, we have
15 minutes in order to oppose the amendment?
The Chairman: No one stood up on that side of the aisle, and
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Broomfield) represented to the
Chair that he opposed the amendment and was recognized for 15
minutes in opposition, and he yielded back the balance of his time,
as did the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde). . . .
Mr. [Les] AuCoin [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, I have a
parliamentary inquiry. . . .
Mr. Chairman, my inquiry is this: This side, which opposes the
amendment, has been foreclosed an opportunity, not on this
amendment but on the previous amendment, to have 15 minutes in
opposition to the amendment because a Member on that side who voted
against an amendment that was hostile to the exact amendment said
he was opposed to it.
My parliamentary inquiry is, Mr. Chairman, is that in order?
The Chairman: As the Chair previously explained, no one on the
majority side of the aisle rose in opposition to that amendment.
The Chair looked to the other side of the aisle and the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Broomfield) rose, represented that he was in
opposition to the amendment and was recognized.
Parliamentarian's Note: Had another Member also been seeking to
control time in opposition at the time the first Member was recognized
and yielded back, the Chair would have allocated the time to that
Member so that it could have been utilized.
Yielding Repeatedly to Same Member
Sec. 28.29 Where a special rule provides for the control of time in
debate on a bill, the Member in charge may yield time to the same
Member
on two or more occasions
notwithstanding Rule XIV, clause 6.
[[Page 10334]]
On Mar. 23, 1933,(19) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 3342, the District of Columbia beer bill, pursuant to
the terms of a special rule dividing control of time for general debate
between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
the District of Columbia. Chairman Marvin Jones,
of Texas, ruled as follows on
the application of the prohibition against speaking twice to a bill
being considered under a special order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 77 Cong. Rec. 822, 73d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Edward W.] Goss [of Connecticut]: Mr. Chairman, I am
making a point of order.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Goss: Section 6, Rule XIV, states that no Member shall
speak more than once to the same question without leave of the
House. Does this apply to debate under a special rule where the
time is in the control of both sides?
The Chairman: The rule under which this bill is considered
states that the time shall be equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on the
District of Columbia. This, being a special rule, would, in so far
as it is in conflict with, suspend the other rules of the House,
and the gentleman can be recognized if he is yielded time in the
regular way.
Time Yielded Is Utilized or Yielded Back--Reservation of Yielded Time
as Requiring Unanimous Consent
Sec. 28.30 Where a special rule adopted by the House divides control of
general debate in Committee of the Whole between the chairman and
ranking minority member of the committee reporting the bill, time
yielded to third Members must be utilized or yielded back and may
only be reserved for allocation by such third Member by unanimous
consent.
During consideration of the Olympic Coin Act (S. 1230) in the
Committee of the Whole on May 20, 1982,(20) the following
proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 128 Cong. Rec. 10766, 10767, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: (1) Pursuant to the rule, the first
reading of the bill is dispensed with.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Elliott H. Levitas (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the rule, the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. St
Germain) will be recognized for 1 hour, and the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Wylie) will be recognized for 1 hour.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. St
Germain).
Mr. [Fernand J.] St Germain [of Rhode Island]: Mr. Chairman, I
yield one-half hour to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Annunzio).
. . .
[[Page 10335]]
The Chairman: The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Annunzio) has
consumed 12 minutes.
The Chair would inquire of the gentleman from Rhode Island,
would he be amenable to yielding further at a later time to the
gentleman from Illinois?
Mr. St Germain: I yielded the gentleman 30 minutes under our
agreement.
The gentleman from Illinois may proceed and have his other
speakers speak. . . .
The Chairman: The Chair would observe from a procedural point
of view that the gentleman has been yielded 30 minutes which he may
use now or yield back as he so desires.
Mr. [Frank] Annunzio [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve the
balance of my time.
The Chairman: The gentleman is not able to reserve the balance
of the time yielded to him by the gentleman from Rhode Island
unless the gentleman from Rhode Island agrees to yield further at a
later time.
Mr. [Chalmers P.] Wylie [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry. . . .
What I had intended to do was yield 20 minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Paul), who takes a similar position as the
gentleman from Illinois. I understand the gentleman from Illinois'
position and my parliamentary inquiry is, may I yield 30 minutes of
my time, which I had agreed to do, to the gentleman from Texas at
this time and allow the gentleman from Illinois to use his 30
minutes in exchange with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul)?
The Chairman: The Chair in response would advise the gentleman
from Ohio that while he may yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Paul), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) may use that
time but may not reserve portions of that time for subsequent
yielding except by unanimous consent. . . .
Does the gentleman from Illinois ask unanimous consent to be
able to yield portions of the remaining 18 minutes he has available
to him at subsequent times during the course of the general debate?
Mr. Annunzio: Yes.
The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Illinois?
There was no objection.
Motions Permitted by Special Rule
Sec. 28.31 A special rule agreed to by the House for consideration of a
bill permitted motions by the chairman of the committee reporting
the bill to limit debate, including allocation of time under the
limitation, and to consider the remainder of the bill or any titles
thereof read and open to amendment.
On Dec. 9, 1981,(2) Mr. Anthony C. Beilenson, of
California, called up House Resolution 291 (providing for consideration
of H.R. 3566, international security and
[[Page 10336]]
development assistance authorizations for fiscal 1982 and 1983) in the
House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 127 Cong. Rec. 30193, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Beilenson: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 291 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 291
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for
the consideration of the bill (H.R. 3566) to authorize
appropriations for the fiscal years 1982 and 1983 for
international security and development assistance and for the
Peace Corps, and for other purposes, the first reading of the
bill shall be dispensed with . . . . After general debate,
which shall be confined to the bill and shall continue not to
exceed one hour, to be equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Foreign Affairs, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the five-minute rule by titles instead of by sections,
and each title shall be considered as having been read. It
shall be in order at any time while the bill is being
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule for the
chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs to move to limit
debate on the pending portion of the bill and to provide in
said motion for the allocation of time under the limitation on
the pending portion of the bill, or on amendments, or on
amendments to amendments, thereto. It shall also be in order at
any time while the bill is being considered for amendment under
the five-minute rule for the chairman of the Committee on
Foreign Affairs to move that the remainder of the bill, or any
title thereof, be considered as having been read and open to
amendment. At the conclusion of the consideration of the bill
for amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the bill to
the House with such amendments as may have been adopted, and
the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
bill and amendments thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit.
Control of Debate on Resolutions Relating to Committee Structure
Sec. 28.32 On one occasion, debate on a resolution reported from the
Committee on Rules amending the rules of the House to make
permanent the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct was placed
in the control of the latter committee pursuant to a special rule.
On Apr. 3, 1968,(3) Mr. Richard Bolling, of Missouri,
called up in the House by direction of the Committee on Rules House
Resolution 1119, making in order in the Committee of the Whole the
consideration of House Resolution 1099, also reported from the
Committee on Rules, which resolution amended the Rules of the House to
make permanent the Com
[[Page 10337]]
mittee on Standards of Official Conduct. House Resolution 1119 provided
that there be two hours of debate on House Resolution 1099 to be
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 114 Cong. Rec. 8776, 8777, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. H. Allen Smith, of California, a member of the Committee on
Rules, explained the resolution as follows:
The resolution could have come to the floor of the House
without a rule, which would have limited debate to 1 hour, 30
minutes on each side, and a vote would then be taken up or down on
the resolution.
But the Rules Committee felt the members of the committee
should have an opportunity to be heard, with the result that we
have reported a separate resolution providing for 2 hours of
general debate, 1 hour on each side, and the resolution will be
open for amendment. Had we just reported the resolution, it would
be tantamount to a closed rule under which amendments could not be
offered. The Rules Committee does not like to report closed rules
as a general practice, and does so only in a few instances, usually
on tax bills.
Amendments will probably be offered. . . .
Debate on Confirmation of Vice President-designate Divided Three Ways
Sec. 28.33 House debate on the confirmation of Vice President-designate
Rockefeller was limited to 6 hours and was equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on the Judiciary (both of whom favored the nomination),
and Robert W. Kastenmeier, of Wisconsin (a majority member of the
Judiciary Committee who opposed the nomination).
For discussion of House Resolution 1519, providing for the
consideration of the resolution confirming Nelson A. Rockefeller as
Vice President, see Sec. 25.17, supra.
Five Conference Reports Considered En Bloc
Sec. 28.34 Pursuant to a special rule providing for four hours of
debate on five conference reports considered en bloc in the House,
equally divided between the majority and minority, with one hour to
be confined to debate on one
of the five reports (Natural
Gas Policy), the Speaker recognized the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Ad Hoc Committee on Energy for one-half hour
each for the first hour, to be confined to debate on the natural
gas conference report, and then recognized
[[Page 10338]]
them for one and one-half hour each on the remaining reports.
On Oct. 14, 1978,(4) the following proceedings occurred
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 124 Cong. Rec. 38349, 38350, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Thomas L.] Ashley [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
House Resolution 1434, I call up the conference reports on the
bills [H.R. 4018, Public Utility Rates; H.R. 5037, Energy
Conservation; H.R. 5146, Coal Conversion; H.R. 5289, Natural Gas
Policy; and H.R. 5263, Energy Tax]. . . .
The Clerk read the titles of the bills.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (5) Pursuant to House
Resolution 1434, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ashley) will be
recognized for 2 hours and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Anderson) will be recognized for 2 hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair will recognize the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ashley)
and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Anderson) for 30 minutes to
debate the conference report on H.R. 5289. . . .
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: May I . . . inquire of
the Chair whether the first hour of debate is to be directed to the
natural gas conference report and not to the other four conference
reports?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct.
Mr. Bauman: Only to the natural gas conference report?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct.
Mr. Bauman: Would it be out of order to discuss the other parts
during that time?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would like to advise the
gentleman that the Chair would have to rule as points along that
line are brought to the attention of the Chair.
Mr. Bauman: I thank the Speaker.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would like to advise the
gentleman that the resolution provides the first hour of which
shall be confined solely to the conference report on the bill H.R.
5289.
CHAPTER 29
Consideration and Debate
D. CONTROL AND DISTRIBUTION OF TIME FOR DEBATE
Sec. 29. Yielding Time
Where the Member with the floor desires to allow another Member to
speak during the former's own time, he yields, and the time yielded is
taken out of his time.(6) Yielding is discretionary with the
Member in control. And a Member yielded time may speak as many times as
yielded to, despite the prohibition against speaking more than once to
the same subject.(7) The Mem
[[Page 10339]]
ber yielding time should stand to protect his right to the
floor,(8) and the Member who seeks yielded time should
address the Chair and request the permission of the Member
speaking.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. See Sec. Sec. 29.5-29.7, infra.
Where a Member who is yielded time does not consume it, the
remaining time reverts to the Member who yielded it (see
Sec. 29.16, infra).
If the Member with the floor yields the ``balance'' of his
time in the House without moving the previous question, he
loses the floor (see Sec. Sec. 29.9, 29.10, infra).
7. See Sec. 29.4, infra.
The Member in control is not required to consume or yield
all the time he possesses (see Sec. 29.13, infra).
8. See Sec. 29.8, infra.
9. See Sec. Sec. 29.1, 29.2, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Member with the floor generally yields for debate only, since in
yielding for a motion or amendment he may lose the
floor.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. A Member always loses the floor in yielding for an amendment (see
Sec. Sec. 30.7-30.10, infra), unless control of debate on
amendments has been placed by unanimous consent in managers, in
which case a manager may yield for an amendment without losing
control (see Sec. 30.26, infra).
A motion or amendment may not be made by a Member unless
the Member with the floor yields for that purpose (see
Sec. Sec. 29.20-29.22, infra). If a Member yields for the
motion to adjourn (or the motion that the Committee of the
Whole rise), he may resume when the subject matter is again
resumed (see 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 5009-5013. For
general discussion of proceedings in the Committee of the
Whole, see Ch. 19, supra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The principle that a Member may not, in time yielded for debate,
make a motion or offer an amendment is based on the reasoning that if
amendments or motions were allowed in time yielded for debate, control
would shift and the Chair would be deprived of his power of
recognition.
A Member yielded time in debate cannot allocate and control that
time, except by unanimous consent.(11) A Member yielded a
specific amount of time for debate may not in turn yield a specific
amount of time for debate to another Member, although he may yield for
questions and statements.(12) A Member recognized under the
five-minute rule may not yield to another to offer an amendment,
although he may yield to another for debate while remaining on his
feet.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See Sec. Sec. 31.21, 31.22, 31.27, infra.
12. See Sec. Sec. 31.19, 31.20, 31.27, infra, for restrictions on
yielding yielded time.
13. See Sec. Sec. 31.10, 31.11, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although not required to do so by standing rule, majority Members
controlling all the time under the hour rule, frequently yield one-half
the time to the minority in order that full debate may
occur.(14) Under that special procedure, the minority
manager may yield specific amounts of time to other Members without
remaining on his feet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See, for example, Sec. Sec. 29.15, 29.30, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross References
Allocation and use of yielded time, see Sec. 31, infra.
[[Page 10340]]
Interruptions in debate, see Sec. 42, infra.
Losing control generally, see Sec. 33, infra.
Power of Chair over recognition, see Sec. 9, supra.
Yielding of time by committee managers, see Sec. 26, supra.
Yielding of time by manager of proposition, see Sec. 24, supra.
Yielding of time under limitation on five-minute debate, see Sec. 22,
supra. -------------------
Seeking Yielded Time
Sec. 29.1 A Member desiring the Member with the floor to yield to him
should address the Chair for the permission of the Member speaking.
On June 29, 1956,(15) Chairman Francis E. Walter, of
Pennsylvania, sustained a point of order that a Member desiring to
interrupt another in debate, by asking him to yield, should properly
address the Chair for the permission of the Member speaking:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 102 Cong. Rec. 11455, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Ralph W.] Gwinn [of New York]: We had no exact testimony
on the point before our committee.
Mr. [Cleveland M.] Bailey [of West Virginia]: Will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. Gwinn: I would like to answer the question of the
distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania first.
Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, a point of
order.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: The point of order is that a Member
who seeks recognition must first address the Chair rather than
inquire of the Member whether he will yield or not.
The Chairman: The point of order is sustained. The practice
which has grown up here is not a good one. When a request is made
for a Member to yield, the request should be made to the Chair, and
the Chair in turn submits the request to the speaker having the
floor.
--Recognition by Chair
Sec. 29.2 Members are not entitled to the floor until recognized by the
Chair even though they may have been yielded time by the Member in
charge of the time.
On Feb. 28, 1931,(16) Speaker Nicholas Longworth, of
Ohio, recognized Mr. Thomas A. Jenkins, of Ohio, to move to suspend the
rules and pass a bill. Mr. John J. O'Connor, of New York, objected that
he had already been recognized for 30 minutes on a special rule which
had been called up and read but not debated. The Speaker stated that
Mr. O'Connor had not been recognized by the Chair for debate and had no
right to
the floor. (Mr. O'Connor had been
[[Page 10341]]
yielded time by the Member in charge of the special rule who had not
been recognized for debate by the Speaker.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 74 Cong. Rec. 6675-77, 71st Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: It is no longer the practice to entertain
motions to suspend the rules while other business is pending before the
House.
Speaking From Floor During Yielded Time
Sec. 29.3 In propounding a question in debate to a Member speaking from
the well of
the House, a Member should speak from a microphone at the majority
or minority tables.
On Mar. 7, 1957,(17) Chairman Brooks Hays, of Arkansas,
sustained a point of order that a Member seeking to ask a question of a
Member with the floor and in the well should not seek to propound his
question from the well:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 103 Cong. Rec. 3268, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. August H. Andersen [of Minnesota]: I will yield for a
question, but I refuse to yield for a speech.
Mr. [George N.] Christopher [of Missouri]: I would like to ask
a question.
Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, a point of
order.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Hoffman: I ask that the well be cleared.
The Chairman: The gentleman from Michigan makes a point of
order that the well should be cleared. The gentleman will step back
to the seats to ask his question.
Mr. Christopher: I want to ask a question about the 51 million
acre base.
Mr. Hoffman: Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order.
The Chairman: The gentleman from Missouri will suspend. We want
to comply strictly with the rules. The gentleman will stand back
out of the well, please, while the question is propounded.
Yielding Repeatedly to Same Members
Sec. 29.4 Members may speak in debate on a bill as many times as they
are yielded time by those in control of the debate.
On July 11, 1946,(18) Chairman William M. Whittington,
of Mississippi, answered a parliamentary inquiry as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 92 Cong. Rec. 8694, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miss [Jessie] Sumner of Illinois: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary
inquiry?
The Chairman: The gentlewoman will state it.
Miss Sumner of Illinois: The gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Hays]
and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Patman] have spoken two or three
times
[[Page 10342]]
on this bill during general debate. Is that permissible under the
rules of the House?
The Chairman: The time is within the control of the chairman
and the ranking minority member of the committee.
Miss Sumner of Illinois: May the same person speak two or three
times in general debate on the same bill?
The Chairman: General debate on this bill has been fixed at 16
hours,
the time equally divided between the chairman and the ranking
minority member of the committee. They may yield, once, twice, or
as many times as they desire to whom they desire.
Yielded Time Charged to Member With Floor
Sec. 29.5 Yielded time is taken out of the time of the Member with the
floor, except for points of order.
On Apr. 8, 1937,(19) Mr. Arthur H. Greenwood, of
Indiana, had the floor, having called up by direction of the Committee
on Rules a privileged resolution. Mr. Carl E. Mapes, of Michigan, asked
Mr. Greenwood to yield for the propounding of a parliamentary inquiry,
thereby raising a question as to how such time should be charged:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 81 Cong. Rec. 3283, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Mapes: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield so that I may
submit a parliamentary inquiry, not to be taken out of the
gentleman's time?
Mr. Greenwood: I yield for that purpose.
The Speaker: (20) If the gentleman yields, it comes
out of his time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Greenwood: Then I prefer to make my statement. I will not
yield for that purpose at this time.
The Speaker: The Chair will state to the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Mapes] that the only exception where interruptions
are not taken out of the time of the speaker is on points of
order.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. For interruptions of the Member with the floor, see Sec. 32, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 29.6 During consideration of a bill under the five-minute rule, a
Member who has the floor may yield to another for a unanimous-
consent request or a motion to limit debate, but the time consumed
thereby comes out of the time of the Member holding the floor.
On June 11, 1968,(2) Mr. Daniel J. Flood, of
Pennsylvania, was recognized on a pro forma amendment under the five-
minute rule in the Committee of the Whole. He then yielded to Mr.
George
H. Mahon, of Texas, who asked unanimous consent that all debate on the
pending amendment and
[[Page 10343]]
the substitute amendments thereto close at 5:30. Chairman James G.
O'Hara, of Michigan, stated, in response to a parliamentary inquiry by
Mr. Flood, that the time consumed by the unanimous-consent request came
out of his (Mr. Flood's) time, since he had yielded for the purpose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 114 Cong. Rec. 16699, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 1, 1972,(3) Chairman Robert N. Giaimo, of
Connecticut, stated that time for interruptions, for which a Member
with the floor under the five-minute rule had yielded, would be taken
out of his time:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 118 Cong. Rec. 19476, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [William V.] Chappell [Jr., of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I
offer an amendment. . . .
Mr. [Harley O.] Staggers [of West Virginia]: Mr. Chairman,
would the gentleman yield to me?
Mr. Chappell: I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
Mr. Staggers: I have asked the gentleman from Florida to yield
to me in order to ascertain if we could set a limit of debate on
this amendment.
Having heard the amendment read, it is a very simple amendment,
and it can be read again if needed.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all
debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 10
minutes.
The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from West Virginia?
Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I object.
The Chairman: Objection is heard.
Mr. Staggers: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all
debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 15
minutes.
The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from West Virginia?
Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary
inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. Gross: Mr. Chairman, is this coming out of the gentleman's
time?
The Chairman: The Chair will state that that is correct.
Sec. 29.7 If a Member yields for
a parliamentary inquiry, the time consumed by the inquiry and the
reply is taken out of his time.
On May 26, 1960,(4) while Mr. Donald R. Matthews, of
Florida, had the floor, the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 106 Cong. Rec. 11267, 11268, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Matthews: Mr. Chairman, the poet, Robert Frost, in his poem
``Road Not Taken,'' starts out with these lines----
Mr. [Cleveland M.] Bailey [of West Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: (5) Does the gentleman from Florida
yield for a parliamentary inquiry?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 10344]]
Mr. Matthews: Will it be taken out of my time?
The Chairman: It will be taken out of the gentleman's time.
Mr. Matthews: I regret I cannot yield to my beloved
colleague.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. See also 113 Cong. Rec. 19033, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., July 17, 1967;
113 Cong. Rec. 4997, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 1, 1967; 111
Cong. Rec. 16836, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., July 25, 1965; and 81
Cong. Rec. 3283-90, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 8, 1937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Yielding Time Should Stand
Sec. 29.8 A Member recognized in support of an amendment may yield to
another for a question or statement, but
he must remain standing in order to protect his rights to the
floor.
On Mar. 12, 1964,(7) Chairman Chet Holifield, of
California, stated a Member recognized on an amendment who yields to
another should remain standing:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 110 Cong. Rec. 5100, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Thomas J.] Murray [of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, I will
explain the amendment, I hope to the satisfaction of all.
Mr. [Thomas B.] Curtis [of Missouri]: I wish to say, if the
gentleman will yield further, that this is about 30 pages. Without
copies available I believe possibly a recess will be in order.
Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of
order. The gentleman from Tennessee had the floor, and I have not
heard him yield to any Member lately. He is not standing.
The Chairman: The gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Murray] has
been recognized by the Chair. We hope the gentleman from Tennessee
will maintain his position standing, if he wishes to obtain the
attention of the Chamber.
Mr. Murray: I thank the Chairman. I shall do so.
Effect of Yielding Back Balance of Time on Motion Without Moving
Previous Question
Sec. 29.9 If a Member recognized to control one hour on a motion yields
back the balance thereof without moving the previous question,
another Member may be recognized for one hour.
On Oct. 10, 1940,(8) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, laid
before the House a veto message from the President. Mr. Samuel
Dickstein, of New York, moved that the message and the bill be referred
to a House committee. He was recognized for one hour by the Speaker,
delivered some remarks, and then stated ``I yield back the balance of
my time.'' Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, asked for recognition in
opposition to the motion, and the Speaker in
[[Page 10345]]
quired of Mr. Dickstein whether he yielded. When Mr. Dickstein stated
that he had yielded the floor, Mr. Rankin was recognized for one hour.
Mr. Dickstein then objected that he had not meant
to surrender the floor, but the Speaker stated that he had
affirmatively done so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 86 Cong. Rec. 13522-24, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 29.10 A Member having yielded the floor without moving the
previous question after making a motion, another Member seeking
recognition is recognized for one hour.
On July 5, 1945,(9) Mr. Malcolm C. Tarver, of Georgia,
offered a motion to correct the permanent Record, in order to
accurately reflect a colloquy between himself and Mr. John E. Rankin,
of Mississippi. Mr. Tarver discussed his motion and then yielded the
floor without moving the previous question. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of
Texas, recognized Mr. Rankin for one hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 91 Cong. Rec. 7221-25, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effect on Time Already Yielded Where Member in Control Loses Floor
Sec. 29.11 A Member in control of the time under the hour rule may
yield a portion of his time to another Member, but if he loses the
floor (by yielding for an amendment), the time yielded to the other
Member is also lost.
On Nov. 29, 1967,(10) Mr. William R. Anderson, of
Tennessee, called up by direction of the Committee on Rules House
Resolution 960, a privileged resolution authorizing travel by members
of the Committee on Education and Labor, for investigatory purposes; as
is customary on a Rules Committee resolution, he yielded 30 minutes to
the minority (Mr. H. Allen Smith, of California). Mr. Anderson then
yielded to Mr. Durward G. Hall, of Missouri, to offer an amendment,
thereby surrendering control of the resolution to Mr. Hall. When
Speaker Pro Tempore Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, stated that the question
was on the resolution, a parliamentary inquiry was raised:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 113 Cong. Rec. 34136-38, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [H. Allen] Smith of California: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state the
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. Smith of California: I was yielded 30 minutes a while ago
by the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Anderson]. Do I not have that
time?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: When the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr.
[[Page 10346]]
Anderson] yielded to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Hall] for the
purpose of offering an amendment, he surrendered all his time, and
the Chair so informed the gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. Smith of California: If the gentleman has agreed to yield
30 minutes to me, I lose it?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: When the gentleman yielded for the
purpose of amendment.
Yielding Is Discretionary
Sec. 29.12 Where debate on a bill is under control of the chairman and
ranking minority member of a committee, they may yield as many
times
as they desire to whomever they desire.
On July 11, 1946,(11) Chairman William M. Whittington,
of Mississippi, answered a parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 92 Cong. Rec. 8694, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miss [Jessie] Sumner of Illinois: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary
inquiry?
The Chairman: The gentlewoman will state it.
Miss Sumner of Illinois: The gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Hays]
and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Patman] have spoken two or three
times on this bill during general debate. Is that permissible under
the rules of the House?
The Chairman: The time is within the control of the chairman
and the ranking minority member of the committee.
Miss Sumner of Illinois: May the same person speak two or three
times in general debate on the same bill?
The Chairman: General debate on this bill has been fixed at 16
hours,
the time equally divided between the chairman and the ranking
minority member of the committee. They may yield, once, twice, or
as many times as they desire to whom they desire.
Sec. 29.13 Where the House by unanimous consent fixed the time for and
control of debate, it was held that the Members in control were not
required to use or to yield all their available time.
On Mar. 11, 1941,(12) the House was considering House
Resolution 131 under the terms of a unanimous-consent request providing
two hours of debate in the House, dividing control of debate between
Mr. Sol Bloom, of New York, and Mr. Hamilton Fish, Jr., of New York,
and providing that at the conclusion of such debate the previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the adoption of
the resolution. After debate, Mr. Bloom asked for a vote on the
resolution prior to the expiration of the two hours' time, and Mr.
Martin J. Kennedy, of New York,
objected on the ground that
[[Page 10347]]
the unanimous-consent agreement was not being complied with in that two
hours of debate had not been consumed and Mr. Bloom had refused to
yield further time. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 87 Cong. Rec. 2177, 2178, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: The unanimous-consent request agreed to yesterday
left control of the time in the hands of the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Bloom] and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Fish]. At any
time those gentlemen do not desire to yield further time,
compliance with the request has been had.
Sec. 29.14 A Member calling up a resolution providing for the order of
business under the ``21-day rule,'' in effect in
the 89th Congress, was recognized for one hour and could yield time
as he saw fit, and was not bound by the custom of the Committee on
Rules to yield one-half the time to the opposition.
On Sept. 13, 1965,(13) Mr. Adam C. Powell, of New York,
called up, pursuant to the provisions of Rule XI clause 23, House
Resolution 478, providing for the consideration of H.R. 9460, which had
been pending before the Committee on Rules for more than 21 calendar
days without having been reported by the committee. Mr. Howard W.
Smith, of Virginia, made a point of order against the manner in which
debate was being conducted on the resolution, claiming that under the
usual procedure one hour of debate in the House was in order, to be
equally divided between the majority and minority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 111 Cong. Rec. 23618, 23619, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, ruled as follows:
The Chair will state that the control of time in the present
parliamentary situation rests with the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Powell].
The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Smith] has referred to the
action taken on the last resolution. That was a
matter within the judgment of the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Patman]. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Powell] has control of
the 1 hour and he can dispose of that time as his judgment
dictates.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See also 111 Cong. Rec. 18076, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., July 26, 1965.
The 21-day rule was deleted from the rules by H. Res. 7,
90th Cong. 1st Sess. (1967).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motion To Instruct Conferees: Former Practice
Sec. 29.15 A Member offering a motion to instruct conferees, and in
control of the one hour for debate, yielded control of one-half his
time to the opposition.
[[Page 10348]]
On Aug. 8, 1961,(15) the House agreed to a resolution
taking from the Speaker's table a House bill with a Senate amendment,
disagreeing to the amendment and requesting a conference with the
Senate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 107 Cong. Rec. 14947-49, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. James E. Van Zandt, of Pennsylvania, offered a motion to
instruct conferees, and Speaker Pro Tempore Carl Albert, of Oklahoma,
advised him that he was entitled to one hour of debate on his motion.
Mr. Van Zandt then stated:
Under these circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleague
the gentleman from California [Mr. Holifield] 30 minutes and yield
myself 13 minutes.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See also 108 Cong. Rec. 18029, 18035, 18036, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.,
Aug. 29, 1962.
The Member in control under the hour rule may yield in his
discretion for debate. See 97 Cong. Rec. 5435-45, 82d Cong. 1st
Sess., May 17, 1951; and 95 Cong. Rec. 11139-45, 81st Cong. 1st
Sess., Aug. 9, 1949.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: Debate time on any motion to instruct
conferees is now divided between the majority and minority parties. If
both are supporters of the motion, one-third of the hour can be
demanded by a Member opposed to the motion. See H. Res. 5, 101st
Congress, Jan. 3, 1989. See Sec. 26, supra, for further discussion.
Reversion of Unused Yielded Time
Sec. 29.16 Where a Member in control of a specific amount of time for
debate in the House yields part or all of his remaining time to
another Member, and the latter does not consume such time, the
unused time reverts to the Member who yielded.
On Sept. 19, 1966,(17) Mr. Adam C. Powell, of New York,
moved to suspend the rules and pass a bill. He used part of the 20
minutes available to him under the rules and then yielded the
``balance'' of his time to Mr. James G. O'Hara, of Michigan. Mr. O'Hara
delivered a short address and Mr. Powell then yielded time to Mr. John
H. Dent, of Pennsylvania. Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, made a point of
order that Mr. Powell had lost control of the floor and Speaker John W.
McCormack, of Massachusetts, overruled the point of order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 112 Cong. Rec. 22933, 22934, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Powell] yielded his remaining time to
the gentleman from
[[Page 10349]]
Michigan [Mr. O'Hara] and that he therefore cannot yield time.
The Speaker: The gentleman from Michigan consumed 3 minutes.
Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New York yielded the
remainder of his time to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. O'Hara].
Mr. Powell: Mr. Speaker, may I be heard?
The Speaker: The Chair will state, when that is done on either
side, when a Member does not consume the remainder of the time,
control of the remaining time reverts to the Member who has charge
of the time.
Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. Gross: When the Member in charge of time yields the
remainder of his time to another Member, Mr. Speaker, I would not
know how he would then be able to yield time to any other Member.
The Speaker: The Chair will rule that when the gentleman in
control of time yields the remainder of his time to another Member,
and the other Member does not use up all the time, then the
remainder of the time comes back under the control of the Member
who originally had control of the time.
On Feb. 8, 1972,(18) the House was considering House
Resolution 164, creating a select committee. Mr. Ray J. Madden, of
Indiana, was in control of the time under the hour rule. He yielded 10
minutes to Mr. Cornelius E. Gallagher, of New Jersey; Speaker Carl
Albert, of Oklahoma, ruled that Mr. Gallagher could not reserve any
part of that time, and that any part of the 10 minutes not used by him
reverted to Mr. Madden:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 118 Cong. Rec. 3181-3200, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Madden: Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Gallagher).
Mr. Gallagher: Mr. Speaker, may I take 5 minutes now and
reserve 5 minutes to the end of the debate since it is my bill?
The Speaker: The gentleman may do that. Without objection, it
is so ordered.
Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the
right to object, and I hate to object, but is it in order to have a
unanimous-consent request at a time like this when the time is
controlled by the members of the Committee on Rules to bring the
bill on the floor?
Mr. Gallagher: I asked for the time to close the debate since
there will be objections, and I would like to respond to those
objections. It was my understanding that I would have the time at
the conclusion of debate.
Mr. Hall: Mr. Speaker, I submit this is between the gentleman
and the man handling the rule, and therefore I must object.
The Speaker: The Chair will notify the gentleman when 5 minutes
are up. . . .
The Speaker: The gentleman from New Jersey has consumed 5
minutes.
Mr. Gallagher: Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
[[Page 10350]]
The Speaker: The Chair must advise the gentleman that the time
is under the control of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Madden) and
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta).
Mr. Gallagher: Mr. Speaker, I was granted 10 minutes and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman cannot reserve the
balance of 5 minutes.
Mr. Gallagher: I am not speaking under the 5-minute rule.
Mr. Gross: It does not make any difference. . . .
The Speaker: The gentleman from Indiana has control of the time
and the Chair has so advised the gentleman from New Jersey of that
fact.
If the gentleman from Indiana desires to yield further time at
this time he can do so.
Yielding for Reading of Paper
Sec. 29.17 A Member having the floor may yield to another to read a
paper without losing the right to the floor.
On Apr. 25, 1947,(19) Mr. John J. Rooney, of New York,
had the floor under the five-minute rule in the Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Rooney yielded to Mrs. Helen Gahagan Douglas, of California, to
read a statement made by the Secretary of the Interior. Mr. Clare E.
Hoffman, of Michigan, made the point of order that Mr. Rooney had
yielded and lost the floor. Chairman Earl C. Michener, of Michigan,
overruled the point of order and stated that Mr. Rooney still had the
floor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 93 Cong. Rec. 4086, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Having Special Order Yielded to Member Having Next Special Order
Sec. 29.18 A Member having a special order was permitted, by unanimous
consent, to relinquish part of his time to the Member having the
next special order.
On July 11, 1966,(1) Mr. Wright Patman, of Texas, had
scheduled a special order to address the House, with a special order to
follow by Mr. Thomas B. Curtis, of Missouri. By unanimous consent, Mr.
Patman relinquished the floor for five minutes to Mr. Curtis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 112 Cong. Rec. 14988, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Use of Time Yielded for Debate Only
Sec. 29.19 A Member may not
be recognized to offer an amendment in time yielded for debate
only.
On Feb. 2, 1955,(2) Mr. Ray J. Madden, of Indiana,
called up at the direction of the Committee on
[[Page 10351]]
Rules House Resolution 63, authorizing the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs to inspect the Veterans' Administration. Mr. Madden yielded
three minutes' time for debate to Mrs. Edith Nourse Rogers, of
Massachusetts. Mrs. Rogers indicated she wished to offer an amendment
to prohibit the Committee on Veterans' Affairs from investigating any
matter under investigation by another committee of the House. Mr.
Madden stated that he did not yield for the purpose of having such an
amendment offered. Speaker Pro Tempore Robert C. Byrd, of West
Virginia, ruled that Mrs. Rogers did not have the right to offer an
amendment in time yielded her for debate only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 101 Cong. Rec. 1076-79, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 29.20 When a motion to recede from and concur in a Senate
amendment is pending, an amendment to the motion may not be offered
in time yielded for debate.
On July 11, 1968,(3) Mrs. Julia Butler Hansen, of
Washington, offered a motion to recede and concur in a Senate amendment
following adoption of a conference report on H.R. 17354, the Department
of the Interior appropriations for fiscal 1969. At his request, Mrs.
Hansen yielded for debate to Mr. Charles R. Jonas, of North Carolina,
who then attempted to offer an amendment to the motion. However, Mrs.
Hansen refused to yield for that motion saying she had yielded only for
the purpose of debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 114 Cong. Rec. 20683, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 29.21 A Member may not in time yielded him for general debate move
that the Committee of the Whole rise, nor may he yield to another
for such motion.
On Feb. 22, 1950,(4) Mr. Howard W. Smith, of Virginia,
moved, in time yielded him in the Committee of the Whole by Mr. Adam C.
Powell, of New York, for general debate, that the Committee rise.
Chairman Francis E. Walter, of Pennsylvania, ruled that that motion was
not in order, since Mr. Powell had control of the time and since he had
not yielded time to Mr. Smith for the making of the motion.
Subsequently, Mr. Hugo S. Sims, Jr., of South Carolina, in time yielded
for debate by Mr. Powell, yielded to Mr. Smith who again moved that the
Committee rise, stating he had ``some time of my own.'' The Chairman
ruled that the motion was not in order, since Mr. Sims was yielded time
[[Page 10352]]
for general debate and could not yield to Mr. Smith for the making of
the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 96 Cong. Rec. 2178, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On appeal, the Chairman's ruling was sustained.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. See also 113 Cong. Rec. 14121, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., May 25, 1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: When the House has vested control of
general debate in the Committee of the Whole in the chairman and
ranking minority member of the committee reporting a bill, their
control of general debate may not be abrogated by another Member moving
that the Committee rise--unless they yield for that purpose.
--Parliamentary Inquiries in Time Yielded for Debate
Sec. 29.22 Where a Member controlling the time for debate yields to
another for debate, the latter may, during the time so yielded,
propound a parliamentary inquiry.
On July 17, 1967,(6) Speaker John W. McCormack, of
Massachusetts, ruled that a Member yielded time for debate could within
that time propound a parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 113 Cong. Rec. 19033, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Samuel N.] Friedel [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I yield 5
minutes to the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Adams].
The Speaker: The gentleman from Washington is recognized.
Mr. [Brock] Adams: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. Friedel: Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman
for the purpose of debate.
Mr. Adams: Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the gentleman
controlling the time whether I may also make a parliamentary
inquiry?
The Speaker: The Chair will state that if the gentleman wants
to make a parliamentary inquiry, it is within his time. A
parliamentary inquiry will take up the time of the gentleman.
Yielding for Parliamentary Inquiry
Sec. 29.23 A Member may not be taken from the floor by a parliamentary
inquiry, but he may yield for that purpose.
On Oct. 8, 1968,(7) Mr. Ray J. Madden, of Indiana,
called up by direction of the Committee on Rules a resolution providing
an order of business. Mr. Madden was recognized for one hour, and Mr.
Gerald R. Ford, of Michigan, attempted to raise a parliamentary
inquiry. Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, indicated that
Mr. Madden could not be taken off the floor by an inquiry made without
his consent,
[[Page 10353]]
but that he could yield for that purpose:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 114 Cong. Rec. 30217, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Gerald R. Ford: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: Does the gentleman from Indiana yield to the
gentleman from Michigan?
Mr. Gerald R. Ford: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. Madden: I do not yield.
The Speaker: The Chair is asking the gentleman from Indiana if
he yields to the gentleman from Michigan for the purpose of making
a parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. Madden: No.
Mr. Gerald R. Ford: Mr. Speaker, I demand the right to make a
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. Madden: I yield.
Mr. Gerald R. Ford: Mr. Speaker, I make a demand of personal
privilege.
The Speaker: Just a minute. The gentleman from Indiana has
yielded to the gentleman from Michigan for the purpose of making a
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. Gerald R. Ford: I appreciate the delayed recognition by the
gentleman from Indiana.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. See also 111 Cong. Rec. 17931, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., July 22, 1965;
and 106 Cong. Rec. 11267, 11268, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., May 26,
1960.
Where a Member yields to another for a parliamentary
inquiry, the time consumed by the inquiry is charged against
the yielding Member (see Sec. Sec. 29.5, 29.7, supra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 29.24 A Member may not be interrupted by another Member for a
parliamentary inquiry without his consent and if the Member who has
the floor refuses to yield and demands regular order the Chair will
not recognize another Member to propound a parliamentary inquiry.
On July 8, 1975,(9) the proceedings described above
occurred in the Committee of the Whole, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 121 Cong. Rec. 21628, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Dingell to the amendment in the
nature
of a substitute offered by Mr. Hebert: . . .
Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment about which my
colleagues have received communications in the last few days from
the Sierra Club and from other nationwide conservation
organizations. . . .
Mr. [Don] Young of Alaska: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of
order to the germaneness of this amendment.
Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I do not yield for the point of
order. The point of order is too late.
The Chairman: (10) The Chair rules that the point of
order is too late.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Young of Alaska: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary
inquiry.
[[Page 10354]]
Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, may we have the regular order. . . .
The Chairman: The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) refuses
to yield.
Mr. Young of Alaska: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary
inquiry.
The Chairman: That could only be made before the gentleman from
Michigan was recognized with respect to his amendment. . . .
Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I ask for the regular order.
The Chairman: The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) refuses
to yield.
Under regular order, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell)
is recognized.
Time Yielded for Unanimous-consent Request; Debate Un-der Reservation
of Objection
Sec. 29.25 Where the Committee of the Whole is considering an amendment
under a ``modified closed'' rule permitting only one amendment and
no amendments thereto, and equally dividing the debate time on the
amendment, time consumed under a reservation of objection to a
unanimous-consent request to offer an amendment to the pending
amendment comes out of the time controlled by the Member yielding
for that request.
During consideration of House Joint Resolution 413 (further
continuing appropriations for fiscal 1984) in the Committee of the
Whole on Nov. 10, 1983,(11) the following proceedings
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 129 Cong. Rec. 32120, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I yield
2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon).
Mr. [Gerald B.] Solomon [of New York]: . . . Mr. Chairman, in
just a moment I will be asking unanimous consent to offer an
amendment which will reduce the amount of economic aid that we give
to Zimbabwe by $30 million. . . .
Mr. [Thomas J.] Huckaby [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, reserving
the right to object, is it my understanding that there is $75
million that is earmarked for Zimbabwe in the Wright amendment, and
that Zimbabwe is also the country that has consistently supported
the Cuban troops in Angola?
The Chairman Pro Tempore: (12) The Chair would
inform the Members that the debate on the reservation will have to
come out of allotted time which is controlled by the gentleman from
Massachusetts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Wyche Fowler, Jr. (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interruption for Point of Order
Sec. 29.26 A Member having the floor may not be interrupted by another
Member raising a parliamentary inquiry unless he yields for that
purpose, but the Chair must permit an interruption to rule on any
[[Page 10355]]
point of order raised during debate.
On Dec. 18, 1987,(13) during consideration of a
privileged resolution (H. Res. 335, disciplining a Member) in the
House, the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 133 Cong. Rec. 36266, 36271, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Julian C.] Dixon [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I call up a
privileged resolution (H. Res. 335) in the matter of Representative
Austin J. Murphy, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 335
Resolved, That the House of Representatives adopt the
report by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct dated
December 16, 1987, in the matter of Representative Austin J.
Murphy of Pennsylvania. . . .
Mr. [Newt] Gingrich [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, I commend the
committee for its report and its recommendation. . . .
This committee's earlier report on the gentleman from Rhode
Island should be reexamined with this new yardstick. The
committee's letter on the gentlewoman from Ohio should be
scrutinized with this new yardstick. The admission of $24,000 in
election law violations by the gentleman from California should be
held up to this new yardstick.
Finally, the numerous allegations about the Speaker must be----
Mr. [Tommy F.] Robinson [of Arkansas]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (14) The gentleman will
state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Dave McCurdy (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I thought we were here today to hear
a very serious charge against one of our colleagues from
Pennsylvania, not from California or other States.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Will the gentleman suspend? Does the
gentleman from Georgia yield?
Mr. Gingrich: No, I do not yield, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his point of
order.
Mr. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is that we are
here to consider the committee's report against our colleague
Austin Murphy and not against other Members today that the charges
have not been substantiated or presented to the committee.
Mr. Gingrich: Would the Chair----
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Will the gentleman suspend?
The [gentleman] will yield on the point of order.
On the debate currently ongoing, there can be references made
to other cases reported by the committee, not by individual or by
name. The gentleman from Georgia, as the Chair understands, has not
mentioned other individuals and the gentleman from Arkansas----
Mr. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, he has, too.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman may compare disciplinary
actions reported by the committee and should confine his remarks to
the matters before the House.
[[Page 10356]]
One Recognized for Parliamentary Inquiry May Not Yield
Sec. 29.27 Recognition for a parliamentary inquiry is within the
discretion of the Chair, and a Member so recognized may not yield
to other Members.
On Mar. 16, 1988,(15) the following proceedings occurred
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 134 Cong. Rec. 4084, 4085, 100th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Judd] Gregg [of New Hampshire]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry. . . .
Mr. Speaker, I was just in my office viewing the proceedings
here, and during one of the proceedings, when the gentleman from
California [Mr. Dornan] was addressing the House, it was drawn to
my attention that the Speaker requested that Mr. Dornan's
microphone be turned off, upon which Mr. Dornan's microphone was
turned off.
Mr. Speaker, my inquiry of the Chair is: Under what rule does
the Speaker decide to gag opposite Members of the House? . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (16) The Chair is referring
to Mr. Dornan. He requested permission of the Chair to proceed for
1 minute, and that permission was granted by the House. Mr. Dornan
grossly exceeded the limits and abused the privilege far in excess
of 1 minute, and the Chair proceeded to
restore order and decorum to the House. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Gary L. Ackerman (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Gregg: . . . I have not heard the Chair respond to my
inquiry which is what ruling is the Chair referring to which allows
him to turn off the microphone of a Member who has the floor?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Clause 2 of rule I.
Mr. Gregg: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that that rule be read. I
would ask that that rule be read, Mr. Speaker. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: It reads, 2. He shall preserve order
and decorum, and, in case of disturbance or disorderly conduct in
the galleries, or in the lobby, may cause the same to be cleared. .
. .
Mr. Gregg: My parliamentary inquiry is that I want to know how
the Chair can specifically turn off the microphone and what rule
the Chair does it under, because the Chair has not answered that
question.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair has responded to the
parliamentary inquiry of the gentleman from New Hampshire.
Mr. Gregg: Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time, and yield to the
gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Martin]. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair advises that a Member may
not yield time to another Member under a parliamentary inquiry.
Yielding Blocks of Time--Further Yielding by Member to Whom Time
Yielded
Sec. 29.28 A Member yielded time by the manager of a proposition in the
House may yield a block of time to another Member by unanimous
consent only.
[[Page 10357]]
During consideration of the conference report on the Energy
Security Act (S. 932) in the House on June 26, 1980,(17) the
following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 126 Cong. Rec. 16889, 16897, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (18) Pursuant to House
Resolution 728 and the rules of the House, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Moorhead) will be recognized for 2 hours, and the
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. McKinney) will be recognized for 2
hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Bruce F. Vento (Minn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Moorhead). . . .
Mr. [Thomas S.] Foley [of Washington]: Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that I may be permitted to yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Perkins).
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from Washington?
Mr. [William S.] Moorhead of Pennsylvania: Reserving the right
to object, Mr. Speaker, at this time I intended to yield a block of
20 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Foley) for the
purpose of yielding, debating, reserving his time, and yielding
back his time.
Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Foley)?
There was no objection.
Parliamentarian's Note: An exception to this principle is during
debate on special orders from the Committee on Rules, where the manager
normally yields 30 minutes to the minority member, who in turn is
permitted to yield blocks of time to other Members without remaining on
his feet. And where time is divided by the House rules, each Member can
yield blocks of time.
Sec. 29.29 A Member recognized in opposition to a motion to discharge a
committee may not yield his time for debate to another to be
yielded by the other Member.
On June 11, 1945,(19) Mr. Vito Marcantonio, of New York,
called up the motion to discharge the Committee on Rules from the
further consideration of House Resolution 139, providing for the
consideration of H.R. 7, the antipoll tax bill. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of
Texas, stated that Mr. Marcantonio would be recognized for 10 minutes
in favor of the motion and that Mr. Edward E. Cox, of Georgia, would be
recognized for 10 minutes in opposition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 91 Cong. Rec. 5892-96, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Cox yielded to Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, who inquired
whether he could be yielded the balance of Mr. Cox's time, with the
privilege of yielding to
[[Page 10358]]
others. Mr. Cox yielded Mr. Rankin the balance of his time, but Speaker
Rayburn stated that Mr. Cox and not Mr. Rankin would control the
distribution of the time.
Sec. 29.30 The Member in charge of time for debate yielded one-half the
time to a minority Member who was permitted, by unanimous consent,
to further yield that time.
On Mar. 12, 1963,(20) Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York,
asked unanimous consent for the consideration of H.R. 4374, to bestow
citizenship on Sir Winston Churchill. Speaker John W. McCormack, of
Massachusetts, stated, in response to a parliamentary inquiry by Mr. H.
R. Gross, of Iowa, that Mr. Celler was entitled to one hour of debate,
to be yielded as he desired. The House then agreed to the following
unanimous-consent request stated by Mr. Celler:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 109 Cong. Rec. 3993, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield 30 minutes to the
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Poff], and that he may yield such time
as he desires.
Parliamentarian's Note: Richard H. Poff was a minority Member of
the House.
Five-minute Debate--Yielding Time Allocated Under Limitation on Debate
Sec. 29.31 A limitation on time for debate on a pending amendment and
all amendments thereto in effect abrogates the five-minute rule and
the Chair, at his discretion, may allocate time to all Members
desiring to speak, whether or not they have previously spoken on
the amendment; Members to whom time has been allocated may by
unanimous consent yield their time to another Member.
On Oct. 1, 1975,(1) during consideration of the
Department of Defense appropriation bill (H.R. 9861) in the Committee
of the Whole, the proceedings described above occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 121 Cong. Rec. 31074, 31075, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I move to
strike the requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I had misjudged before the desire of the House at
an earlier time to try to limit debate to 30 minutes. I want to be
sure that no one is denied the opportunity to speak. I ask
unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment and all
amendments thereto conclude in 15 minutes.
The Chairman: (2) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Texas?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 10359]]
There was no objection. . . .
Mr. [Burt L.] Talcott [of California]: Mr. Chairman, may I
inquire whether or not the Members who have already spoken on this
amendment may speak again during limited time?
The Chairman: When time is limited, Members are permitted to
speak again under the allocation of time.
Mr. Talcott: And they can yield their time to other Members?
The Chairman: That is a unanimous-consent request. . . .
Mr. [Barry] Goldwater [Jr., of California]: . . . I ask
unanimous consent that the time be extended another 15 minutes.
The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
Mr. [Andrew J.] Hinshaw [of California]: Mr. Chairman,
reserving the right to object, if we were to accede to the
unanimous-consent request, would that open the door for additional
Members to stand up to seek additional time?
The Chairman: The Chair has already announced his allocation of
time.
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
CHAPTER 29
Consideration and Debate
D. CONTROL AND DISTRIBUTION OF TIME FOR DEBATE
Sec. 32. Interruption of Member With the Floor
A Member with the floor may not be interrupted, without his
consent, for ordinary motions, inquiries, or questions of
privilege.(17) He may be interrupted by a point of order but
is entitled to the floor when the point of order is disposed
of,(18) unless the point of order is directed towards the
failure of the Member with the floor to observe the rules of debate, in
which case the Member may be called to order and required to take his
seat.(19) Messages and conference reports have interrupted
Members in debate, usually by the request of the Chair that the Member
speaking suspend his remarks.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. See Sec. Sec. 32.4-32.7, 32.14, infra.
18. See Sec. Sec. 32.11-32.13, infra.
19. See Sec. Sec. 33.1, 33.2, infra.
20. See Sec. 32.18, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Member who seeks to interrupt another in debate, by requesting
him to yield, should address the Chair and through the Chair gain the
consent of the Member with the floor.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. See Sec. 32.1, infra. Unauthorized interruptions may be stricken
from the Congressional Record (see Sec. 32.3, infra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross References
Disorderly interruptions in debate, see Sec. 42, infra.
Points of order interrupting consideration and debate, see Ch. 31,
infra.
Quorum calls interrupting consideration and debate, see Ch. 20, supra.
Reception of messages, see Ch. 32, infra.
Yielding for interruptions, see Sec. Sec. 29-31, supra.
[[Page 10411]]
-------------------Seeking Permission To
Interrupt
Sec. 32.1 A Member desiring to
interrupt another in debate should address the Chair for the
permission of the Member speaking.
On June 29, 1956,(2) Chairman Francis E. Walter, of
Pennsylvania, sustained a point of order that a Member desiring to
interrupt another in debate, by asking him to yield, should properly
address the Chair for the permission of the Member speaking:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 102 Cong. Rec. 11455, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Ralph W.] Gwinn [of New York]: We had no exact testimony
on the point before our committee.
Mr. [Cleveland M.] Bailey [of West Virginia]: Will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. Gwinn: I would like to answer the question of the
distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania first.
Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, a point of
order.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: The point of order is that a Member
who seeks recognition must first address the Chair rather than
inquire of the Member whether he will yield or not.
The Chairman: The point of order is sustained. The practice
which has grown up here is not a good one. When a request is made
for a Member to yield, the request should be made to the Chair and
the Chair in turn submits the request to the speaker having the
floor.
Sec. 32.2 A Member may interrupt another Member in debate only if the
Member who has the floor yields for that purpose.
On Oct. 14, 1978,(3) the following exchange occurred in
the Committee of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 124 Cong. Rec. 38378, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Phillip Burton [of California]: Mr. Speaker, a point of
order. Would the gentleman talk a little more slowly so we could
absorb these very simple questions he is asking?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (4) The gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Ashley) has the time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Phillip Burton: Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman have
another copy of these questions and answers?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Charles
Wilson) has the floor.
Mr. Charles Wilson of Texas: Mr. Speaker, I do not yield.
Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. Charles Wilson of Texas: I yield to the gentleman from
Michigan.
--When Remarks of Member Interrupting May Be Stricken; Charging Time
Sec. 32.3 Where a Member interrupts another Member dur
[[Page 10412]]
ing debate without being yielded to and without making a point of
order, the time consumed by his remarks will not be charged against
the debate time of the Member controlling the floor and his remarks
will not be printed in the Record.
On Feb. 7, 1985,(5) the House had under consideration
House Resolution 52, directing the prima facie seating of a Member-
elect, who had been denied seating pending a committee report on the
question of the final right to the seat in the 99th Congress. A motion
was made to refer the resolution:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 131 Cong. Rec. 2220, 2229, 2231, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [James C.] Wright [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
motion to refer.
The Speaker: (6) The Clerk will report the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Wright moves to refer the resolution to the Committee
on House Administration.
The Speaker: The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wright] is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. Wright: Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only I yield 30
minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Frenzel] or his
designees, and pending that I yield myself such time as I may
consume. . . .
Mr. [Bill] Frenzel [of Minnesota]: Now, Mr. Speaker, there is
not time to do everything. First let us talk about the 5,000
invalidated votes that Republicans stole; 96 percent of the
invalidated votes in the recount were done by a recount commission
appointed with 2-to-1 Democrats, by a Democrat judge, hardly a
Republican shenanigan. . . .
This is a blockbuster vote. This is murder. This is a rape of a
system. The issue is the ultimate abuse of representative
government. We have an elected, certified Member. . . .
[Mr. Wright interjected remarks at this point.]
Mr. Frenzel: Mr. Speaker, I did not yield to the gentleman. Was
he making a point of order?
The Speaker: The Chair would probably understand, as does the
gentleman, what the gentleman from Texas was doing. He was
questioning whether the words should be taken down or not. But no
point of order was made.
The gentleman from Minnesota will continue.
Mr. Frenzel: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Speaker if I might get
an appropriate amount of time extra, as the gentleman from Texas
did?
The Speaker: The gentleman will continue.
Mr. Frenzel: I thank the Speaker. If I may continue.
The Speaker: The remarks of the gentleman from Texas are not
taken out of the time of the gentleman from Minnesota. . . .
Mr. Frenzel: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
[[Page 10413]]
Mr. Frenzel: Mr. Speaker, my inquiry is will the Speaker
protect my request to strike the intrusion into my discussion by
the distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Wright], under Deschler's Precedents, and this is volume 8, section
24.65, which says that--
A Member desiring to interrupt another in debate should
address the Chair for permission. If the Member having the
floor declines to yield, he may strike from the record.
The Speaker: As to the remarks
of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wright], which were not a point of
order in view of the fact that the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr.
Frenzel] had the time and did not yield to the gentleman from Texas
[Mr. Wright], the remarks of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wright]
will not be printed in the Record.
Similarly, the question of the effect of remarks interjected into
debate by one not properly recognized arose on Apr. 19,
1937,(7) on which date Speaker William B. Bankhead, of
Alabama, answered a parliamentary inquiry on the requirement that
Members seeking to interrupt a Member with the floor obtain recognition
from the Chair and obtain consent of the Member with the floor:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 81 Cong. Rec. 3588, 3589, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Edward W.] Curley [of New York]: Last Thursday, April 15,
during the discussion of the antilynching bill, I submitted two
questions to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Wadsworth]. Upon
reading the Congressional Record the following day I found they
were omitted. . . .
What I wish to know Mr. Speaker, is whether or not I can have
the permanent Record corrected so as to include the two questions
and the offside remark that went with them?
The Speaker: Will the gentleman from New York allow the Chair
to ask him a question before ruling on the gentleman's inquiry?
Mr. Curley: Certainly.
The Speaker: Did the gentleman from New York address the Chair
and ask whether or not the gentleman from New York [Mr. Wadsworth],
then occupying the floor, would yield?
Mr. Curley: I did, Mr. Speaker. I think the gentleman from New
York [Mr. O'Connor] was presiding on both occasions.
The Speaker: Did the gentleman from New York [Mr. Wadsworth]
yield?
Mr. Curley: The gentleman from New York [Mr. Wadsworth] did not
yield, and so stated. But not long thereafter the gentleman from
New York [Mr. Gavagan] asked the same questions, received the same
reply, that the gentleman from New York [Mr. Wadsworth] did not
yield; yet the questions and remarks of the gentleman from New York
[Mr. Gavagan] are incorporated in the Congressional Record.
The Speaker: This is a rather important inquiry that the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Curley] has submitted. It has not been
raised, so far as the Chair recalls, during the present session of
Congress. In order that the rights of Members may be
[[Page 10414]]
protected, and that the Members may know what the rules and
precedents are with respect to this proposition, the Chair will
read from section 3466, volume 8, of Cannon's Precedents of the
House of Representatives, the following statement:
The Speaker may order stricken from the notes of the
reporters remarks made by Members who have not been recognized
and to whom the Member having the floor has declined to yield.
. . .
The Chair may say that in conformity with this precedent, and
what the Chair conceives to be sound procedure, the rule should be
reiterated that when a Member is occupying the floor and a Member
after addressing the Chair and asking the Member then occupying the
floor if he will yield for a question or for an interruption, and
the gentleman then speaking declines to yield, it is not proper for
a Member nevertheless to interject into the Record some remarks
which he desires to make.
Speaker Bankhead also answered a parliamentary inquiry on the right
of Members, when revising the Congressional Record, to delete from
their remarks statements interposed by other Members not yielded time:
Mr. [Cassius C.] Dowell [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary
inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Dowell: When a Member has the floor and declines to yield,
and no one is recognized to propound a parliamentary inquiry or
direct an inquiry to the gentleman having the floor, and the other
Member, not being recognized by the Chair, makes some statement,
has not the Member who has the floor the right to leave those
injected remarks out of the record?
The Speaker: Under the decision referred to by the Chair,
undoubtedly the Member interrupted would have the right to strike
those remarks from the Record.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. If a Member with the floor declines to yield for a statement or
question but then responds to such an interruption, he may not
in his revision of remarks delete the interpolation. See 81
Cong. Rec. 3669, 3670, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 20, 1937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interruption by Motions--To Close Debate
Sec. 32.4 A Member having the floor in debate on his amendment may not
be interrupted without his consent by a motion to close debate.
On Aug. 21, 1940,(9) Mr. John C. Schafer, of Wisconsin,
offered an amendment under the five-minute rule in the Committee of the
Whole and was recognized
for five minutes. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 86 Cong. Rec. 10698, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: (10) The gentleman from Wisconsin is
recognized for 5 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Abe Murdock (Utah).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Schafer of Wisconsin: Mr. Chairman----
[[Page 10415]]
Mr. [Henry B.] Steagall [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that all debate on this section and all
amendments thereto close in 5 minutes.
Mr. [Jesse P.] Wolcott [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I object.
Mr. Steagall: Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on this
section----
Mr. Schafer of Wisconsin: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Schafer of Wisconsin: Mr. Chairman, I did not yield to the
gentleman from Alabama to submit a unanimous-consent request or to
make a motion. I have some rights here under the rules of the
House. I demand the regular order, and that is that I be permitted
to continue without interruption.
The Chairman: The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes, but
there is a motion before the House.
Mr. Schafer of Wisconsin: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of
order against that motion. I did not yield for the gentleman to
make a motion. I had the floor. The gentleman did not ask me to
yield and I did not yield. I have some rights under the rules of
the House and I ask that they be respected by the gentleman who has
interrupted even though he is chairman of the important committee
in charge of the pending legislation.
The Chairman: The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5
minutes.
--To Rise
Sec. 32.5 In the Committee of the Whole, a Member may not be
interrupted by a motion to rise while he has the floor, unless he
yields for that purpose.
On Mar. 12, 1964,(11) Chairman Chet Holifield, of
California, stated in response to a parliamentary inquiry that unless
the Member with the floor yielded for that purpose, another Member
could not move that the Committee rise:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 110 Cong. Rec. 5101, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: Does the gentleman yield for a parliamentary
inquiry?
Mr. [Robert J.] Corbett [of Pennsylvania]: I yield to the
gentleman.
The Chairman: The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. [August E.] Johansen [of Michigan]: Would a motion that the
Committee rise be in order at this time?
The Chairman: If the gentleman from Pennsylvania yields for
that purpose.
Mr. Corbett: Mr. Chairman, I cannot yield further.
--To Adjourn
Sec. 32.6 A Member holding the floor may not be interrupted by a motion
to adjourn unless he yields for the motion.
On Apr. 24, 1956,(12) Mr. Carl Vinson, of Georgia, was
speaking under a special-order agreement.
[[Page 10416]]
Mr. Wayne L. Hays, of Ohio, moved that the House adjourn after Mr.
William M. Colmer, of Mississippi, had made a point of no quorum.
Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 102 Cong. Rec. 6891, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the gentleman from Georgia retains the floor, that motion is
not in order.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. For an occasion where a Member recognized for one hour on a special
order was interrupted, with his consent, for a motion to
suspend the rules made by another Member, see Sec. 73.19,
infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: This principle does not hold true if a
point of order of no quorum is made during debate and the Chair
announces that a quorum is not present; Rule XV, clause 6, has been
amended, however, to prohibit points of order of no quorum during
debate only.
Parliamentary Inquiries
Sec. 32.7 A Member may not be taken from the floor for a parliamentary
inquiry.
On May 26, 1960,(14) Mr. Donald R. Matthews, of Florida,
had the floor in the Committee of the Whole and Mr. Cleveland M.
Bailey, of West Virginia, attempted
to state a parliamentary inquiry. Chairman Aime J. Forand, of Rhode
Island, ruled that Mr. Matthews could not be interrupted by Mr. Bailey
for a parliamentary inquiry without his consent.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 106 Cong. Rec. 11267, 11268, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
15. See also 114 Cong. Rec. 30217, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 8, 1968;
and 110 Cong. Rec. 1998, 88th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 5, 1964.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 32.8 A Member may not be interrupted by another Member for a
parliamentary inquiry without his consent and if the Member who has
the floor refuses to yield and demands regular order the Chair will
not recognize another Member to propound a parliamentary inquiry.
On July 8, 1975,(16) the proceedings described above
occurred in the Committee of the Whole, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 121 Cong. Rec. 21628, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Dingell to the amendment in the
nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Hebert: . . .
Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment about which my
colleagues have received communications in the last few days from
the Sierra Club and from other nationwide conservation
organizations. . . .
[[Page 10417]]
Mr. [Don] Young of Alaska: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of
order to the germaneness of this amendment.
Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I do not yield for the point of
order. The point of order is too late.
The Chairman: (17) The Chair rules that the point of
order is too late.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Young of Alaska: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, may we have the regular order. . . .
The Chairman: The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) refuses
to yield.
Mr. Young of Alaska: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary
inquiry.
The Chairman: That could only be made before the gentleman from
Michigan was recognized with respect to his amendment. . . .
Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I ask for the regular order.
The Chairman: The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) refuses
to yield.
Under regular order, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell)
is recognized.
Sec. 32.9 A Member may not interrupt another Member in debate by a
parliamentary inquiry unless the Member having the floor yields for
that purpose.
The following exchange occurred in the House on Feb. 25, 1985:
(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 131 Cong. Rec. 3344, 3346, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (19) Under a previous order
of the House, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich) is
recognized for 60 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Sam B. Hall, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Newt] Gingrich [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, I am going to
insert in the Record today and read into the Record several
editorials, one from the Atlanta Journal and Constitution
yesterday, Sunday, February 24, and one this morning from the Wall
Street Journal. . . .
Ms. [Mary Rose] Oakar [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, parliamentary
inquiry. . . .
Mr. Gingrich: Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman has not asked me to
yield, and I was in fact making an inquiry myself to the Chair. I
was asking the Chair to rule in this sort of setting if one is
reporting to the House on the written opinion of a columnist in
which the columnist has said very strong things, is it appropriate
for the House to be informed of this and, if so, what is the
correct procedure?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The ruling of the Chair is that the
gentleman should not read into the Record things which would
clearly be outside the rules of this House. . . .(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. For discussion of the prohibition against reading in debate of
press accounts which are personally critical of a sitting
Member, see Sec. 83, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Oakar: I am going to ask my own parliamentary inquiry. . .
.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Will the gentleman yield to the
gentlewoman for a parliamentary inquiry?
Mr. Gingrich: Not at the present moment. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Let the gentleman continue with his
parliamentary inquiry.
[[Page 10418]]
Mr. Gingrich: I might tell the gentlewoman that since this is a
special order that she cannot get the floor unless I yield it to
her.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will make the rulings. . . .
The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich) is recognized.
--Parliamentary Inquiry and Point of Order
Sec. 32.10 A Member having the floor may not be interrupted by another
Member raising a parliamentary inquiry unless he yields for that
purpose, but the Chair must permit an interruption to rule on any
point of order raised during debate.
On Dec. 18, 1987,(1) during consideration of a
privileged resolution (H. Res. 335, disciplining a Member) in the
House, the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 133 Cong. Rec. 36266, 36271, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Julian C.] Dixon [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I call up a
privileged resolution (H. Res. 335) in the matter of Representative
Austin J. Murphy, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 335
Resolved, That the House of Representatives adopt the
report by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct dated
December 16, 1987, in the matter of Representative Austin J.
Murphy of Pennsylvania. . . .
Mr. [Newt] Gingrich [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, I commend the
committee for its report and its recommendation. . . .
This committee's earlier report on the gentleman from Rhode
Island should be reexamined with this new yardstick. The
committee's letter on the gentlewoman from Ohio should be
scrutinized with this new yardstick. The admission of $24,000 in
election law violations by the gentleman from California should be
held up to this new yardstick.
Finally, the numerous allegations about the Speaker must be----
Mr. [Tommy F.] Robinson [of Arkansas]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (2) The gentleman will
state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Dave McCurdy (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I thought we were here today to hear
a very serious charge against one of our colleagues from
Pennsylvania, not from California or other States.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Will the gentleman suspend? Does the
gentleman from Georgia yield?
Mr. Gingrich: No, I do not yield, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his point of
order.
Mr. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is that we are
here to consider the committee's report against our colleague
Austin Murphy and not
[[Page 10419]]
against other Members today that the charges have not been
substantiated or presented to the committee.
Mr. Gingrich: Would the Chair----
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Will the gentleman suspend?
The [gentleman] will yield on the point of order.
On the debate currently ongoing, there can be references made
to other cases reported by the committee, not by individual or by
name. The gentleman from Georgia, as the Chair understands, has not
mentioned other individuals and the gentleman from Arkansas----
Mr. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, he has, too.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman may compare disciplinary
actions reported by the committee and should confine his remarks to
the matters before the House.
Point of Order and Call of the House
Sec. 32.11 A Member stating a question of privilege may be interrupted
by a point of order relating thereto.
On June 30, 1939,(3) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan,
was in the process of stating a point of personal privilege based on an
insertion in the Congressional Record. Mr. Hoffman was interrupted by
several points of order on the grounds that a question of privilege was
not stated and on the grounds that Mr. Hoffman was not confining his
remarks to the question of privilege. Mr. Hoffman objected to the
interruptions and stated that he did not yield for a point of order.
Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, ruled that a Member making a
point of order was entitled to recognition while the question of
privilege was being stated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 84 Cong. Rec. 8468, 8469, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Special Order Interrupted by Call of the House; Member Regains Floor
After Motion To Dispense With Proceedings
Sec. 32.12 When a Member holding the floor under a special order is
interrupted by a call of the House, he is again entitled to the
floor when a motion to dispense with further proceedings under the
call has been agreed to.
On June 4, 1963,(4) two special-order speeches were
scheduled, the first by Mr. Clark MacGregor, of Minnesota. Mr.
MacGregor was repeatedly interrupted by quorum calls which demonstrated
a quorum as being present. Mr. MacGregor retained the right to the
floor pending each quorum call,
[[Page 10420]]
and he resumed after a motion to dispense with further proceedings
under a call had been agreed to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 109 Cong. Rec. 10151-65, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point of No Quorum
Sec. 32.13 A point of no quorum is a privileged matter and is in order
at any time, even when a Member has the floor in debate.
On May 4, 1949,(5) in the Committee of the Whole,
Chairman Henry M. Jackson, of Washington, ruled that a motion to
adjourn was not in order and that the motion that the Committee rise
could not be made unless the Member with the floor yielded for that
purpose. Mr. Donald W. Nicholson, of Massachusetts, then made the point
of order that a quorum was not present. Mr. Monroe M. Redden, of North
Carolina, objected that Mr. Nicholson was out of order since he had not
asked the Member with the floor [Mr. Miller] to yield for that purpose.
Chairman Jackson ruled:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 95 Cong. Rec. 5616, 5617, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair will state that a point of order based on no quorum
is a privileged matter and is in order at any time.
On July 12, 1949,(6) in the Committee of the Whole, Mr.
William R. Poage, of Texas, who had the floor, declined to yield to Mr.
Wayne L. Hays, of Ohio. Mr. Hays then made the point of order that a
quorum was not present. Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, objected
that Mr. Poage had not yielded for that purpose, but Chairman Charles
M. Price, of
Illinois, overruled the point of order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Id. at p. 9312.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Rankin: Mr. Chairman, a point of order: A Member has no
right to interrupt the speaker to make a point of no quorum.
The Chairman: A point of no quorum may be made at any time.
Mr. Rankin: The gentleman from Texas did not yield for that
point.
The Chairman: The point of no quorum is in order at any time.
Question of Personal Privilege
Sec. 32.14 A Member may not be deprived of the floor by another raising
a question of personal privilege.
On July 5, 1945,(7) Mr. Malcolm C. Tarver, of Georgia,
offered a motion to correct the Record, in order to accurately record a
colloquy occurring between himself and Mr. John E. Rankin, of
Mississippi. Mr. Rankin sought recognition to be heard in opposition to
the motion, but Speaker Sam
[[Page 10421]]
Rayburn, of Texas, ruled that Mr. Tarver had the floor. Mr. Rankin then
attempted to raise a question of personal privilege. The Speaker ruled:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 91 Cong. Rec. 7221-25, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The gentleman cannot take the gentleman from Georgia off the
floor by a question of personal privilege. The only way he could do
it would be by a point of order that a quorum is not present.
Sec. 32.15 A question of personal privilege cannot take another Member
from the floor.
The following proceedings occurred in the House on Sept. 29, 1983:
(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 129 Cong. Rec. 26508, 26509, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I hope that
within the next few minutes I can maintain my balance. I have
really become so nauseated by the drivel I have heard from the
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Alexander). He leaves out one
important component about what contributes to deficits. Blaming the
President for deficits is just unconscionable.
No President, Republican or Democrat, whatever, can spend one
dime
unless this Congress first appropriates. . . .
I am serving my 27th year in this Congress, always as a member
of the minority party, and I will tell the Members that I have been
down in this well supporting amendments to cut funding, and I will
stack that record of mine up against that of the gentleman from
Arkansas and any other Member who spoke on the Democratic side
tonight. . . .
Mr. [Bill] Alexander [of Arkansas]: Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. Michel: I will accord the gentleman the same courtesy he
gave me. I will wait until the end of my remarks.
Mr. Alexander: Well, the gentleman mentioned my name. I assert
a point of personal privilege.
Mr. Michel: I know. And the gentleman referred to my name, too,
so we will just accord him the same courtesy.
Mr. Alexander: Mr. Speaker----
Mr. Michel: I refuse to yield, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I assert a point of personal
privilege. The gentleman used my name, and I would like to assert a
point of personal privilege.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (9) The gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Lott) controls the time and cannot be taken from
the floor by a point of personal privilege.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Trent] Lott [of Mississippi]: I do not yield, Mr. Speaker.
I yielded to the gentleman from Illinois.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The time is that of the gentleman from
Mississippi.
Mr. Lott: And I continue to yield to the gentleman from
Illinois.
Mr. Michel: The Democratic Presidential contender, Ernest
Hollings, said it best, I think: ``Every time a special interest
appeared, we responded.''
Interruption To Reserve Objection
Sec. 32.16 Where a Member has been recognized for one hour
[[Page 10422]]
of debate, and makes a unanimous-consent request, any time consumed
by a Member who reserves the right to object to that request is not
charged to the Member who has been recognized for an hour.
On Apr. 15, 1970, Mr. Louis C. Wyman, of New Hampshire, was
recognized for one hour of debate for a special-order speech. As he
began his remarks, he asked unanimous consent to revise and extend his
remarks and include extraneous matter. Mr. Phillip Burton, of
California, reserved the right to object and made several remarks on
the pending resolution. In response to a parliamentary inquiry, Speaker
John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, ruled that Mr. Wyman still had one
hour of debate available on his unanimous-consent request and that the
time consumed by Mr. Burton would not be charged to Mr. Wyman's
hour.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 116 Cong. Rec. 11917, 11918, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perfecting Amendment May Not Be Offered While Member Debating Motion To
Strike
Sec. 32.17 While a motion to strike a pending portion of a bill will be
held in abeyance until perfecting amendments to that portion are
disposed of, a Member who has been recognized to debate his motion
to strike may not be deprived of the floor by another Member who
seeks to offer a perfecting amendment, but the perfecting amendment
may be offered and voted on before the question is put on the
motion to strike.
During consideration of H.R. 10024 (Depository Institutions
Amendments of 1975) in the Committee of the Whole on Oct. 31,
1975,(11) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 121 Cong. Rec. 34564, 34565, 34566, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John H.] Rousselot [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Rousselot: Beginning on page 10,
line 18, strike all that follows through page 188, line 10.
Mr. [Fernand J.] St Germain [of Rhode Island]: Mr. Chairman, I
have a parliamentary inquiry. . . .
I believe that under the rules of the House since this
amendment involves a motion to strike the title, that perfecting
amendments that are at the desk take precedence over such a motion
to strike a title. Is that not correct?
[[Page 10423]]
The Chairman: (12) That is true, if any are offered.
. . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Spark M. Matsunaga (Ha.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John J.] Moakley [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I might
state that I was standing when the Chairman recognized the
gentleman from California (Mr. Rousselot), and I have a perfecting
amendment at the desk.
The Chairman: The Chair will state that the amendment offered
by the gentleman from California, Mr. Rousselot, is pending now,
and that the gentleman from California has been recognized. The
gentleman may offer his perfecting amendment after the gentleman
from California has completed his five minutes in support of his
amendment to strike.
Messages and Conference Reports
Sec. 32.18 Both the reception of
a message from the Senate
and the consideration of a
conference report are highly privileged matters and may interrupt
the consideration of a bill, even though the previous question has
been ordered thereon.
On May 3, 1961,(13) the Committee of the Whole rose and
reported back to the House H.R. 6441, to amend the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, stated that
pursuant to the rule the previous question was ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 107 Cong. Rec. 7172, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker then interrupted the further consideration of the bill
to receive a message from
the Senate that the Senate had agreed to a conference report on H.R.
3935 (to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act), and to recognize Mr. Adam
C. Powell, of New York, to call up the conference report on H.R. 3935.
Parliamentarian's Note: When a Member with the floor suspends
temporarily for the reception of a message or conference report or
other pressing legislative business, the time consumed by the
interruption is not charged to his time. See, for example, Sec. 73.19,
infra, where a Member occupying the floor for a ``special order
speech'' suspended for a motion to suspend the rules and consumed the
remainder of his time following adoption of the motion.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. The Speaker may request the Member with the floor to suspend for
the reception of a message [see House Rules and Manual Sec. 561
(1995)]. The presentation and consideration of a conference
report is highly privileged [see Rule XXVIII clause 1(a) and
comments thereto, House Rules and Manual Sec. 909 (1995)], and
takes precedence over the operation of the previous question on
another measure.
[[Page 10424]]
CHAPTER 29
Consideration and Debate
D. CONTROL AND DISTRIBUTION OF TIME FOR DEBATE
Sec. 33. Losing or Surrendering Control
A Member in control of time may voluntarily surrender the floor by
simply so stating,(15) by withdrawing the measure he is
managing,(16) or by yielding for the offering of a motion or
an amendment.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See Sec. Sec. 33.10, 33.11, infra.
16. See Sec. 33.3, infra.
Withdrawal of bills, see Ch. 24, supra.
17. See Sec. 30, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Member loses the floor, without the right to resume, if he yields
for an amendment,(18) if he is ruled out of order for
disorderly language and is not permitted by the House to proceed in
order,(19) or if he yields the floor without moving the
previous question.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See Sec. Sec. 33.4-33.6, 33.8, infra.
19. See Sec. 33.1, infra.
20. See Sec. Sec. 29.9, 29.10, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Member may lose the floor if he yields for an ordinary motion,
but he does not lose the floor if
he yields for the motion to adjourn (1) or that the
Committee of the Whole rise, and he does not lose the floor, when
managing
a conference report and amendments in disagreement, if a preferential
motion is offered.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. See Sec. 30.17, supra.
2. See Sec. 17.38, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross References
Use of previous question, see Ch. 23, supra.
Yielding for amendments, see Sec. 30, supra.
Yielding for motions, see Sec. 30,
supra. -------------------
Member Called to Order for Unparliamentary Words
Sec. 33.1 A Member called to or-der for words spoken in de-bate is
required to take his seat, and where the words are held
unparliamentary, he may not proceed without the consent of the
House.
On Oct. 31, 1963,(3) Mr. Edgar Franklin Foreman, of
Texas, was called to order for referring to another Member of the House
as a ``pinko.'' Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, ruled that
``to characterize any Member of the House as a `pinko' is in violation
of the rules.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 109 Cong. Rec. 20742, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Objection was then made to unanimous-consent requests to explain
the remarks objected to and to allow Mr. Foreman to proceed in order:
Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, I desire to
propound a parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
[[Page 10425]]
Mr. Halleck: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the ruling of the
Chair was that the use of the word ``pinko'' involves a violation
of the rules of the House.
The Speaker: That is correct.
Mr. Halleck: Under those circumstances may not the gentleman
from Texas be permitted to continue with the balance of his
statement?
The Speaker: Only by permission of the House.
Mr. Halleck: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Foreman] be permitted to continue with
the balance of his statement.
The Speaker: In order?
Mr. Halleck: Yes, sir.
The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Indiana?
Mr. [John J.] Rooney [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I object.
Mr. [Bruce R.] Alger [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary
inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Alger: I do not know the accuracy of Jefferson's Manual in
this respect, but it says--and I am reading from the manual:
Disorderly words are not to be noticed till the Member has
finished his speech.
The Speaker: The Chair will state that in accordance with the
custom and under the rules the demand may be made to take down the
words during a speech.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. For discussion of the requirement that a Member called to order
must take his seat, see Sec. Sec. 49 et seq., infra. A Member
whose words are demanded to be taken down may retain the floor
by obtaining unanimous consent for the withdrawal of the words
(see Sec. 51, infra) or by permission of the House (see
Sec. 52, infra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Irrelevant Remarks
Sec. 33.2 Where a rule provides that debate in the Committee of the
Whole shall be confined to the bill, a Member must confine his
remarks to the bill and if he continues to talk to other matters
after repeated points of order, the Chair will request that he take
his seat.
On Mar. 29, 1944,(5) the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union was considering H.R. 4257, to expatriate or
exclude certain persons for evading military service. (The House had
adopted H. Res. 482 providing for the consideration of the bill in
Committee of the Whole, general debate to be ``confined to the bill.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 90 Cong. Rec. 3263, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, requested unanimous consent to
speak out of order, and Mr. Noah M. Mason, of Illinois, objected to the
request on the ground that ``under the rule adopted by the House,
debate on this bill is to be restricted to the bill.''
[[Page 10426]]
Mr. Celler was then called to order twice for speaking on a subject
irrelevant to the bill, such as the conduct of certain other nations in
relation to the American war effort. When Mr. Celler continued to speak
out of order, the following exchange took place (Chairman James
Domengeaux [La.], presiding):
Mr. [Adolph J.] Sabath [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a
point of order.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state the point of order.
Mr. Sabath: The gentleman is not speaking to the bill. He has
been admonished several times, he has refused, and I am obliged to
make the point of order myself, though I regret it.
The Chairman: The point of order is sustained and the gentleman
is again requested to confine himself to the bill.
Mr. Mason: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry. How many
times do we have to call the gentleman to order and try to get him
to confine his remarks to the bill before the privilege of the
House is withdrawn?
The Chairman: This will be the last time. If the gentleman does
not proceed in order, he will be requested to take his
seat.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Special orders may provide that general debate in the Committee of
the Whole be confined to the bill. See generally, for the
requirement that debate be confined to the subject matter,
Sec. Sec. 35 et seq., infra. Rule XIV clause 1, House Rules and
Manual Sec. 749 (1995) requires that a Member confine himself
to the subject under debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Withdrawal of Pending Resolution
Sec. 33.3 The manager of a resolution providing for a special rule,
pending when a recess had been declared to await the copy of an
engrossed bill, retained the floor, but then withdrew the special
rule from consideration.
On Apr. 8, 1964,(7) the House was considering House
Resolution 665, offered by Mr. Richard Bolling, of Missouri, from the
Committee on Rules, providing for taking a bill from the Speaker's
table and agreeing to Senate amendments thereto. Before a vote was had
on the resolution, Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts,
declared a recess pending the receipt of an engrossed bill, H.R. 10222,
the Food Stamp Act of 1964. When the House reconvened, the Speaker
announced that the unfinished business was the reading of the latter
bill. Mr. Oliver P. Bolton, of Ohio, made a parliamentary inquiry as to
the status of the resolution pending at the recess and the Speaker,
without responding
[[Page 10427]]
to the inquiry, recognized Mr. Bolling, the manager of the resolution,
who then withdrew the resolution from consideration.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 110 Cong. Rec. 7302-04, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
8. Where a Member consumes part of the hour on a resolution he has
offered and then withdraws it, he may be entitled to a full
hour when he again offers the resolution (see Sec. 24.8,
supra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yielding for Amendment
Sec. 33.4 A Member controlling time for debate in the House who yields
to another Member to offer an amendment loses the floor and the
right to move the previous question.
On Mar. 13, 1939,(9) Mr. Howard W. Smith, of Virginia,
offered at the direction of the Committee on Rules House Resolution
113, authorizing a committee investigation. When the previous question
was rejected, Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, ruled that Mr.
Carl E. Mapes, of Michigan, opposed to the resolution, was entitled to
recognition for one hour. Mr. Mapes inquired whether he could yield to
another Member to offer an amendment and the Speaker responded that if
he yielded for an amendment, he would lose control of the floor (and of
the right to move the previous question).(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 84 Cong. Rec. 2663-73, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
10. See also 102 Cong. Rec. 6264, 6265, 84th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 12,
1956.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 33.5 Where the Member in charge of a resolution under the hour
rule yields to another for the purpose of offering an amendment, he
loses control of the floor and the sponsor of the amendment is
given control.
On Mar. 27, 1945,(11) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas,
stated in response to a parliamentary inquiry that since the chairman
of the Committee on Rules, Mr. Edward E. Cox, of Georgia, controlling
debate on House Resolution 195, creating a select committee, yielded
for an amendment to the resolution, he lost the floor and the sponsor
of the amendment, Mr. Clinton P. Anderson, of New Mexico, gained
control for one hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 91 Cong. Rec. 2861, 2862, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 33.6 The Member controlling the time for debate on his motion to
instruct House managers at a conference loses the floor if he
yields for an amendment.
On Feb. 8, 1965,(12) Mr. Robert H. Michel, of Illinois,
was in con
[[Page 10428]]
trol of time for debate on a motion to instruct House managers at a
conference, which motion he had offered. Mr. Michel yielded for five
minutes to Mr. Odin Langen, of Minnesota. Mr. Langen then attempted to
offer an amendment. Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts,
inquired whether Mr. Michel yielded for that purpose and Mr. Michel
stated that he would yield for the amendment. The Speaker advised Mr.
Michel:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 111 Cong. Rec. 2099, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair will state that the gentleman from Illinois will lose
the floor when he yields for that purpose.
Mr. Michel declined to yield for the offering of the amendment.
Sec. 33.7 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,(13) the following proceedings
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 123 Cong. Rec. 28130-32, 95th Cong. 1st Sess. For current practice
regarding control of debate on conference reports and related
matters under Rule XXVIII, see, e.g. Sec. 34.15, infra; and
see, generally, Sec. 17, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 10429]]
Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the amendment to
the motion.
The previous question was ordered.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (14) 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 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.
--Yielding for Amendment to Amendment
Sec. 33.8 A Member controlling time for debate in the House on his
amendment loses control of the floor if he yields for the purpose
of having another amendment offered.
On Mar. 13, 1939,(15) Mr. Howard W. Smith, of Virginia,
of the Committee on Rules called up House Resolution 113, authorizing
the Committee on the District of Columbia to investigate the milk
industry in the District. Mr. Smith moved the previous question and it
was rejected. Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, recognized Mr.
Carl E. Mapes, of Michigan, to control one hour of debate in opposition
to the resolution. In response to numerous parliamentary inquiries, the
Speaker stated that Mr. Mapes could not accept an amendment to the
amendment he proposed, or yield to another Member to offer an
amendment, without losing control of the floor and losing the right to
move the previous question on the resolution and on his amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 84 Cong. Rec. 2663-73, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 33.9 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 recog
[[Page 10430]]
nized for one hour and may move the previous question on the
amendments and on the measure itself.
On Dec. 6, 1977,(16) the House had under consideration
House Joint Resolution 662 (continuing appropriations for fiscal 1978)
when the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 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: (17) The gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Mahon) is recognized for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 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 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.
[[Page 10431]]
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.
Chairman of Committee Surrendered Control Where He Opposed Bill
Sec. 33.10 On one occasion, the chairman of a committee, acting at the
President's request, introduced a bill, presided over the hearings
in committee, reported the bill, applied to the Committee on Rules
for a special rule, and moved that the House resolve itself into
the Committee of the Whole; when recognized to control one-half of
the debate in the Committee, he then announced his opposition to
the measure and surrendered management of the bill to the ranking
majority member of the committee.
On June 14, 1967,(18) Harley O. Staggers, of West
Virginia, Chairman of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,
moved that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole for
the consideration of House Joint Resolution 559, providing for the
settlement of a railroad labor dispute. The House had adopted House
Resolution 511, making in order the consideration of the bill and
providing that general debate be controlled by the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 113 Cong. Rec. 15822, 15823, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Committee of the Whole, Chairman Wilbur D. Mills, of
Arkansas, recognized Mr. Staggers to control one-half the time on the
bill. Mr. Staggers made the following statement:
Mr. Chairman, I am here today in a most unusual position. I was
requested by the President to introduce the bill we have before us
today, and because of my responsibilities as chairman of the
committee, I introduced the bill. If the House was to be given an
opportunity to work its will on this legislation, it was necessary
that hearings begin promptly and continue as expeditiously as
possible, and I think the record will bear me out, that the
hearings before our committee have been prompt, they have not been
delayed in any respect.
[[Page 10432]]
In fact we interrupted consideration of a very important piece
of health legislation in order to take up this bill. We have heard
every witness who wanted to be heard on the legislation. I did this
because I felt it to be my responsibility to the House as chairman
of the committee.
Following the conclusion of our hearings I promptly scheduled
executive sessions for consideration of the bill and we met as
promptly as possible both morning and afternoon and the committee
reported the bill to the House.
Yesterday I went before the Rules Committee as chairman of the
committee to present the facts to the Rules Committee and attempt
to obtain a rule so that the bill would be considered by the House.
I have done these things because I felt it is my responsibility to
do so as chairman of the committee.
Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, I was opposed to this bill when I
introduced it, and having heard all the witnesses and all the
testimony, I am still opposed to it. For that reason I have asked
the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Friedel] to handle the bill in
Committee of the Whole, so that I would
be free to express my opposition to it. . . .
Mr. Chairman, this concludes the presentation I desire to make
on the bill. At this time I request the gentleman from Maryland
[Mr. Friedel], the ranking majority member on the Interstate and
Foreign Commerce Committee, to take charge of managing the bill on
the floor.
Parliamentarian's Note: The chairman of a committee has the
responsibility of reporting or causing to be reported any measure
approved by his committee and taking or causing to be taken steps to
have the matter considered and voted upon in the House, regardless of
his personal opposition to the measure.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See Rule XI clause 2(l)(1)(A), House Rules and Manual Sec. 713a
(1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Chairman of Committee Opposed Bill as Amended
Sec. 33.11 The Committee of the Whole having adopted certain amendments
to a bill, the chairman of the committee from which the measure was
reported expressed his objections, relinquished control of the bill
and subsequently offered a motion that the Committee rise and
report the bill to the House with the recommendation that the
enacting clause be stricken.
On July 5, 1956,(20) the Committee of the Whole had
adopted certain amendments to H.R. 7535, to authorize federal
assistance to states and local communities in financing an expanded
program of school construction. Graham A. Barden, of North Carolina,
who
[[Page 10433]]
was controlling consideration of the bill as the chairman of the
reporting committee (Education and Labor), then made the following
statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 102 Cong. Rec. 11849, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word. . . .
I have very definitely reached the conclusion that the American
people do not want this legislation in its present form. Certain
things have happened to the bill that make it very, very obnoxious
and objectionable to the people I represent.
I never have claimed to be an expert when advocating something
that I was sincerely and conscientiously for. I have always felt I
would be a complete flop in trying to advocate something I did not
believe in and did not advocate. This bill is objectionable to me.
It has so many bad features and so many things have been given
priority over the consideration of the objective that we set out to
accomplish that I must say, in all frankness, to the House I cannot
continue in the position here of directing this bill. I feel that
someone who can be fairer to the bill in its present shape than I,
should handle the bill. I would have to be a much better actor than
I now am to proceed in the position of handling this piece of
legislation which I cannot support and do not want to pass. For
that reason, I want the House to understand my very definite
position in the matter. So, with that, I think the House will
understand my position and those in a position on the committee to
handle the bill will have my cooperation to a certain extent, but
no one need to expect any assistance from me or any encouragement
for the bill.
Mr. Barden later offered a motion that the Committee rise and
report the bill to the House with the recommendation that the enacting
clause be stricken, which was defeated (the bill itself was later also
defeated).(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Id. at pp. 11868, 11869.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Offering Preferential Motion Does Not Gain Control of Time
Sec. 33.12 The time for debate on an amendment reported from conference
in disagreement is equally divided between the majority and
minority parties under Rule XXVIII clause 2(b), and a Member
offering a preferential motion does not thereby gain control of
time for debate; nor can the Member who has offered the
preferential motion move the previous question during time yielded
to him for debate, since that would deprive the Members in charge
of control of the time for debate.
On Dec. 4, 1975,(2) an example of the proposition
described above occurred in the House during consideration of the
conference report on H.R. 8069 (the Department of
[[Page 10434]]
Health, Education, and Welfare and related agencies appropriation
bill):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 121 Cong. Rec. 38714, 38716, 38717, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Daniel J.] Flood [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Flood moves that the House recede from its disagreement
to the amendment of the Senate numbered 72 and concur therein
with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the matter inserted
by said amendment, insert the following:
``Sec. 209. None of the funds contained in this Act shall
be used to
require, directly or indirectly, the transportation of any
student to a school other than the school which is nearest or
next nearest the student's home. . . .
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Bauman moves that the House recede from its
disagreement to Senate amendment No. 72 and concur therein.
The Speaker: (3) The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Flood).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, may I inquire, who has the right to
the time under the motion?
The Speaker: The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Flood) has 30
minutes, and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Michel) has 30
minutes. The time is controlled by the committee leadership on each
side, and they are not taken from the floor by a preferential
motion. . . .
Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I yield such
time as he may consume to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman).
Mr. Bauman: The gentleman from Maryland has made his case and
if the gentleman would like to concur in the stand taken by the
majority party in favor of busing he can do that. I do not concur.
Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the motion.
Mr. Flood: Mr. Speaker, I demand the question be divided.
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.
The Speaker: The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Flood) has
the floor and the Chair is trying to let the gentleman be heard.
Mr. Flood: Mr. Speaker, I demand a division.
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I have not yielded. My time has not
expired.
The Speaker: The gentleman has time for debate only.
Mr. Bauman: No; Mr. Speaker, it was not yielded for debate
only.
The Speaker: The gentleman from Maryland has 15 seconds.
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.
The Speaker: The gentleman was yielded to for debate only. The
gentleman from Illinois had no authority under clause 2, rule
XXVIII to yield for any other purpose but debate.
Parliamentarian's Note: Debate on a motion that the House recede
from its disagreement to a Senate amendment and concur is under the
hour rule. In the above instance, the motion to recede and concur was
divided.(4) If the mo
[[Page 10435]]
tion is so divided, the hour rule applies to each motion
separately.(5) Thus, technically, the Bauman motion to
concur could have been debated under the hour rule, since the request
for division of the question was made prior to the ordering of the
previous question. Control of the time, however, would have remained
with the majority and minority under the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 121 Cong. Rec. 38717, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
5. See 86 Cong. Rec. 5889, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., May 9, 1940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether or not the division demand was made before or after the
ordering of the previous question on the motion to recede and concur,
the preferential motion offered by Mr. Flood to concur with an
amendment could have been debated under the hour rule equally divided,
since it was a separate motion not affected by ordering the previous
question on the motion to recede and concur.
Had the Bauman motion to concur been rejected, the motion to concur
with another amendment would have been in order, and preferential to a
motion to insist on disagreement.
Sec. 33.13 Time for debate on motions to dispose of amendments in
disagreement is equally divided, under Rule XXVIII clause 2(b),
between the majority and minority party; and if a minority Member
has been designated by his party to control time, another minority
Member who offers a preferential motion does not thereby gain
control of the time given to the minority.
On May 14, 1975,(6) during consideration of the
conference report on H.R. 4881 (7) in the House, the
following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 121 Cong. Rec. 14385, 14386, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
7. The Emergency Employment Appropriations for fiscal year 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: (8) The Clerk will report the next
amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Senate amendment No. 61: Page 41, line 9, insert:
``Federal Railroad Administration
``rail transportation improvement and employment
``For payment of financial assistance to assist railroads
by providing funds for repairing, rehabilitating, and improving
railroad roadbeds and facilities, $700,000,000. . . .
Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Mahon moves that the House insist on its disagreement
to the amendment of the Senate numbered 61.
[[Page 10436]]
preferential motion offered by mr. conte
Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I offer
a preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Conte moves that the House recede from its disagreement
to Senate amendment Number 61 and concur therein with an
amendment, as follows: In lieu of the matter proposed to be
inserted by the Senate, insert the following:
``CHAPTER VIII
``Department of Transportation
``federal railroad administration
``For payment of financial assistance to assist railroads
by providing funds for repairing, rehabilitating, and improving
railroad roadbeds and facilities, $200,000,000. . . .
Mr. [E. G.] Shuster [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Shuster: Mr. Speaker, how is the time divided?
The Speaker: The time is divided equally between the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Mahon), who has 30 minutes, and the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Michel) who has 30 minutes or such small fraction
thereof as he may decide to use.
Sec. 33.14 The offering of a preferential motion cannot deprive the
Member making an original motion (to dispose of a Senate amendment)
of control of the floor for debate, and the Chair will recognize
the Member controlling the floor when a preferential motion is
offered.
During consideration of the foreign assistance appropriation bill
(H.R. 7797) in the House on Oct. 18, 1977,(9) the following
motions were offered:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 123 Cong. Rec. 34112, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Clarence D.] Long of Maryland: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Long of Maryland moves that the House recede from its
disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 74 and
concur therein with an amendment, as follows: Restore the
matter stricken by said amendment, amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 503C. Of the funds appropriated or made available
pursuant to this Act, not more than $18,100,000 shall be used
for military assistance, not more than $1,850,000 shall be used
for foreign military credit sales, and not more than $700,000
shall be used for international military education and training
to the Government of the Philippines.''. . .
Mr. [C. W.] Young of Florida: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Young of Florida moves that the House recede from its
disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 74 and
concur therein.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (10) The Chair recognizes
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Long).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 10437]]
Parliamentarian's Note: Although during the above proceedings Mr.
Young moved the previous question on his preferential motion,
ordinarily the maker of a preferential motion should not be permitted
to move the previous question thereon, since he does not gain the floor
for any purpose other than to offer the motion. The manager of the bill
should be the one recognized to move the previous question on the
motion.
Although, as in the above instance, the minority Member controlling
half the time on a motion on an amendment in disagreement may make a
preferential motion during his time for debate, the more usual practice
is that the preferential motion be made either before or after the hour
of debate on the initial motion.
Sec. 33.15 The motion to recede and concur in a Senate amendment
reported back from conference in disagreement takes precedence over
a motion to insist on disagreement thereto, but the proponent of
the preferential motion does not thereby gain control of the time
for debate.
During consideration of the conference report on H.R. 14238 (the
legislative branch appropriations for fiscal year 1977) in the House on
Sept. 22, 1976,(11) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 122 Cong. Rec. 31899, 31900, 31902, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: (12) The Clerk will report the next
amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Senate amendment No. 56: Page 35, line 1 insert:
restoration of west central front of capitol
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Architect
of the Capitol, under the direction of the Senate and House
Office Building Commissions acting jointly, is directed to
restore the West Central Front of the United States Capitol
(without change of location or change of the present
architectural appearance thereof), $25,000,000. . . .
Mr. [George E.] Shipley [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Shipley moves that the House insist on its disagreement
to the amendment of the Senate numbered 56.
Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
preferential motion to recede and concur in the Senate amendment
No. 56 to the legislative appropriation conference report.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Stratton moves that the House recede from its
disagreement to the amendment of the Senate number 56 and
concur therein.
[[Page 10438]]
Mr. Stratton: Mr. Speaker, will the distinguished gentleman
from Illinois, the chairman, yield me 5 minutes.
Mr. Shipley: I yield the gentleman from New York 5 minutes. . .
.
Mr. Stratton: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Yates) wishes to offer a substitute motion to recede and concur
with an amendment striking the cost plus fixed fee contract.
Is it in order for that motion to be offered if I withdraw my
motion?
The Speaker: The Chair will state that the gentleman may offer
his motion if the gentleman from New York (Mr. Stratton) withdraws
his preferential motion. . . .
Mr. Stratton: . . . Would a motion to recede and concur with an
amendment be a preferential motion?
The Speaker: It would be preferential over a motion to insist
on disagreement. . . .
Mr. Stratton: . . . I withdraw my motion. . . .
Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
preferential motion.
The Speaker: The Clerk will report the preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Yates moves on amendment 56 to recede and concur with
the Senate on amendment No. 56 with an amendment as follows: On
page 35, line 11, strike out the words ``including cost-plus-
fixed-fee contracts''. . . .
Mr. Shipley: Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Yates).
Sec. 33.16 Although the motion to concur in a Senate amendment takes
precedence over the motion to disagree where the stage of
disagreement has been reached, the Member offering the preferential
motion does not thereby gain control of the time for debate, which
remains in the control of the manager of the bill under the hour
rule.
On Nov. 29, 1977,(13) the following proceedings occurred
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 123 Cong. Rec. 38033, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Daniel J.] Flood [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I move to
take from the Speaker's desk the bill (H.R. 7555) making
appropriations for the Departments of Labor, and Health, Education,
and Welfare, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 1978, and for other purposes, with the amendment of
the Senate to the amendment of the House to the amendment of the
Senate No. 82, and disagree thereto.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Clerk read the Senate amendment to the House amendment to
the Senate amendment No. 82, as follows:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the
amendment of the House to the amendment of the Senate numbered
82, insert the following:
Sec. 209. None of the funds contained in this Act shall be
used to perform abortions: . . .
Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
preferential motion.
[[Page 10439]]
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Mahon moves that the House concur in the amendment of
the Senate to the amendment of the House to the amendment of
the Senate numbered 82. . . .
The Speaker: (14) The gentleman from Pennsylvania is
recognized for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: Debate on a motion to dispose of a Senate
amendment which has not been reported from conference in disagreement
but which is otherwise before the House, the stage of disagreement
having been reached, is under the control of the manager of the bill
under the hour rule and is not divided between the majority and
minority parties under clause 2(b) of Rule XXVIII.
Member in Control of General Debate Loses Control Only if Time Is
Yielded Back
Sec. 33.17 A Member controlling time for general debate in Committee of
the Whole loses the right to consume such time only if it is
yielded back, and not pursuant to any informal agreement on
management of time that may be reached by the managers of the bill.
During consideration of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of
1982 (H.R. 7357) in the Committee of the Whole on Dec. 16,
1982,(15) the following exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 128 Cong. Rec. 31809, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: (16) For what purpose does the
gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) rise?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [George] Miller of California: For the purpose of
clarification, Mr. Chairman. It was my understanding under the
agreement reached earlier today, that if you did not use your full
allotment of your time in these 2 hours, you would lose it, and
that tomorrow we would have 3 hours of debate, an hour remaining
for Education and Labor, an hour remaining for Judiciary, and an
hour for Agriculture.
The Chairman: The Chair advises the gentleman from California
that the only way you would lose your time, you would have to yield
it back.
Parliamentarian's Note: If a case arose where no Member controlling
general debate sought recognition to consume time or to move that the
Committee rise, the Chair could, after requesting the managers whether
they sought time, direct the Clerk to read the bill for amendment under
the five-minute rule.
Time Yielded Back by One to Whom Time Was Yielded Reverts to Member in
Control
Sec. 33.18 Debate time yielded back by a Member to whom
[[Page 10440]]
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,(17) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 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: (18) . . . The Chair
recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Alexander).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 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 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 Il
[[Page 10441]]
linois--the Chair understood the gentleman from Illinois to yield
back the balance of his time.
--Member to Whom Time Was Yielded May Not Reserve a Portion
Sec. 33.19 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,(19) during consideration of House Resolution 164
(creating a select committee on privacy, human values, and democratic
institutions):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 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 un-known . . . .
Resolved, That there is hereby created a select committee
to be known as the Select Committee on Privacy, Human Values,
and Democratic In-stitutions. . . .
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?
The Speaker: (20) The gentleman may do that. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 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.
[[Page 10442]]
Under Trade Act: Member Controlling Time in Opposition May Not Be
Compelled To Use Less Than Time Allotted
Sec. 33.20 Debate on an implementing revenue bill must
be equally divided and controlled among those favoring and those
opposing the bill under section 151(f)(2) of the Trade Act of 1974,
and unanimous consent is required
to divide the time between
the chairman and ranking
minority member of the
committee if both favor the
bill; in the absence of such
a unanimous-consent agreement, a Member opposed to the bill is
entitled to control 10 hours of debate in opposition, with priority
of recognition to opposing members of the Committee on Ways and
Means; and the Member recognized to control the time in opposition
may not be compelled to use less than that amount of time unless
the Committee rises and the House limits further debate in the
Committee of the Whole.
During consideration of the Trade Agreement Act of 1979 (H.R. 4537)
in the House on July 10, 1979,(1) the following proceedings
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 125 Cong. Rec. 17812, 17813, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Al] Ullman [of Oregon]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Section
151(f) of Public Law 93-618, the Trade Act of 1974, I move that the
House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 4537) to
approve and implement the trade agreements negotiated under the
Trade Act of 1974, and for other purposes, and pending that motion,
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that general debate on the
bill be equally divided and controlled between the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Conable) and myself. . . .
The Speaker: (2) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Ullman)?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the
right to object. . . .
I take this reservation for the purpose of propounding a
parliamentary inquiry to the Chair.
The rule, section 151, before consideration says:
Debate in the House of Representatives on an implementing
bill or approval resolution shall be limited to not more than
20 hours which shall be divided equally between those favoring
and those opposing the bill or resolution. . . .
My query to the Chair as a part of my reservation is, if the
unanimous-consent request of the chairman is granted can the
chairman then move
[[Page 10443]]
to terminate debate at any time during the course of debate before
the 20 hours have expired?
The Speaker: Reading the statute a motion further to limit the
debate shall not be debatable, and that would be made in the House,
either now or later, and not in the Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Ashbrook: Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to
object, if the gentleman from Ohio were to be recognized as
opposing the bill, does the gentleman have the absolute right to
the 10 hours regardless of the time that would be taken on the
other side?
The Speaker: Unless all general debate were further limited by
the House a member of the Committee on Ways and Means who is
opposed to the bill could seek to control the 10 hours of time. The
gentleman would be entitled to the 10 hours unless a request came
from a member of the Committee on Ways and Means who would be in
opposition. . . .
Mr. Ashbrook: I thank the Speaker.
I ask this for a very specific purpose. Further reserving the
right to object, it is my understanding then that the gentleman
from Oregon could not foreclose debate as long as whoever controls
the opposition time still has part of the 10 hours remaining. Is
that correct, under the statute providing for consideration of this
trade bill? . . .
The Speaker: Not unless the committee rose and the House
limited all debate.
A motion to limit general debate would not be entertained in
the Committee of the Whole and the Chair cannot foresee something
of that nature happening.
Effect of Rejection of Previous Question on Motion To Instruct
Conferees
Sec. 33.21 Under Rule XXVIII, clause 1(b), debate on any motion to
instruct conferees is equally divided between majority and minority
parties or among them and an opponent; but where the previous
question is rejected on a motion to instruct, a separate hour of
debate on any amendment to the motion is fully controlled by the
proponent of the amendment under the hour rule (Rule XIV, clause
2), as the manager of the original motion loses the floor.
The following proceedings occurred in the House on Oct. 3,
1989,(3) during consideration of H.R. 3026 (District of
Columbia appropriations for fiscal year 1990):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 135 Cong. Rec. 22859, 22862, 22863, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
For further discussion of Rule XXVIII, see Sec. 26, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Julian C.] Dixon [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R.
3026) making appropriations for the government of the District of
Columbia and other activities chargeable in whole or in part
against the revenues of said District
[[Page 10444]]
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1990, and for other
purposes, with Senate amendments thereto, disagree to the Senate
amendments, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (4) Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from California?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. William J. Hughes (N.J.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
Mr. [Bill] Green [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion
to instruct.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Green moves that the managers on the part of the House,
at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on
the bill H.R. 3026, be instructed to agree to the amendment of
the Senate numbered 3.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from New York [Mr.
Green] is recognized for 30 minutes in support his motion. . . .
Mr. Green: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the
motion to instruct. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on ordering the
previous question.
[The previous question was rejected.]
Mr. Dixon: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry. . . .
I understand now that the gentleman from California [Mr.
Dannemeyer] intends to offer an amendment to the motion offered by
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Green].
My question is: Under the offering will I receive part of the
time?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would state to the gentleman
from California [Mr. Dixon] that 1 hour would be allotted to the
gentleman from California [Mr. Dannemeyer]. He would have to yield
time to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon]. . . .
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Dannemeyer to the motion to
instruct: At the end of the pending motion, strike the period,
insert a semicolon, and add the following language: ``;
Provided further that the conferees be instructed to agree to
the provisions contained in Senate amendment numbered 22.''
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from California [Mr.
Dannemeyer] is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. [William E.] Dannemeyer [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I
yield one-half of the time to the gentleman from California [Mr.
Dixon], for purposes of debate only.
Parliamentarian's Note: The control of debate in the above instance
is to be distinguished from debate on motions in the House to dispose
of amendments in disagreement. In the latter case, although the manager
of the original motion might lose the floor upon defeat of his motion,
debate on a subsequent motion is nevertheless divided under Rule
XXVIII, clause 2(b). It is only debate on amendments to such motions,
when pending, that is not divided.
[[Page 10445]]
Member in Control Must Remain Standing--Member Inadvertently Seated
Himself
Sec. 33.22 While a Member controlling the floor in debate must remain
standing, a Member who inadvertently seats himself and then
immediately stands again before the Chair recognizes another Member
may be permitted to retain control of the floor.
On Oct. 19, 1977,(5) the following proceedings occurred
in
the Committee of the Whole during consideration of the Energy
Transportation Security Act of 1977 (H.R. 1037):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 123 Cong. Rec. 34220, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [George E.] Danielson [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I make
the point of order that the gentleman from California (Mr.
McCloskey) seated himself and thereby yielded back the balance of
his time.
The Chairman: (6) The Chair adopts a commonsense
interpretation of the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Morris K. Udall (Ariz.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Danielson: Mr. Chairman, I ask for regular order.
The Chairman: The gentleman from California (Mr. McCloskey) was
back up on his feet almost immediately and indicated that he wanted
to continue his colloquy with the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Murphy).
Does the gentleman from California (Mr. McCloskey) desire to
yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Murphy)?
Mr. [Paul N.] McCloskey [Jr., of California]: Mr. Chairman, I
desire to yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Murphy).
CHAPTER 29
Consideration and Debate
D. CONTROL AND DISTRIBUTION OF TIME FOR DEBATE
Sec. 34. Control Passing to Opposition
As noted earlier, when an essential motion made by the Member in
charge of the bill is decided adversely, the right to prior recognition
passes to the Member leading the opposition to the motion. Under this
principle the control of the measure passes to the opposition when the
House disagrees to the recommendation of the committee reporting the
bill or when the motion for the previous question on the measure is
rejected.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. House Rules and Manual Sec. 755 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The opposing side also gains control of some time, but not of the
pending proposition, where the rules or an agreement provides that on a
certain question or motion a fixed amount of debate be conducted,
equally divided between those favoring and those opposing the
question.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. See, for example, Sec. 30.6, supra (where opposition recognized for
five minutes on motion to recommit, offeror of motion still
retains control and right to yield for amendment).
See Sec. Sec. 25.3-25.6, supra, for division of time
required by rule and Sec. 25.2, supra, for division of time
directed by statute.
The principles of recognition of the opposing side are
generally covered in Sec. Sec. 8-23, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 10446]]
Cross References
Motion to discharge and management of discharged bill or resolution,
see Ch. 18, supra.
Prior right to recognition of opposition after rejection of essential
motion, see Sec. 15, supra.
Priority of recognition for opposing debate to committee member, see
Sec. 13, supra.
Right of opposition to demand second on motion to suspend the rules,
see Ch. 21, supra.
Right of opposition to move to recommit, see Ch. 23,
supra. -------------------
Effect of Rejection of Essential Motion, Generally
Sec. 34.1 When an essential motion made by the Member in charge of a
bill is decided adversely, control passes to the Member leading the
opposition to the motion.
On June 2, 1930,(9) the House was considering the
passage of a vetoed bill originating in the Senate. A motion to
postpone consideration of the bill had been made by the chairman of the
committee managing the bill and had been rejected. Mr. John N. Garner,
of Texas, stated a parliamentary inquiry whether that motion was not an
essential motion whose defeat required recognition to pass to the
minority. Speaker Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, discussed the principle
raised and ruled that the motion to postpone consideration was not an
essential motion within the meaning of the rule.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 72 Cong. Rec. 9913, 9914, 71st Cong. 2d Sess.
10. For the general requirement that recognition pass to the opposition
after the rejection of an essential motion made by the Member
in charge of a proposition, see Sec. 15, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defeat of Motion To Table Resolution
Sec. 34.2 Where a Member calling up a resolution in the House uses part
of his hour of
debate and then offers a motion to table the resolution
which is defeated, the Chair
normally recognizes another Member for an hour of debate; but where
no other Member seeks recognition, the Chair may recognize the
Member who called up the resolution to control the remainder of his
hour of debate.
[[Page 10447]]
On June 15, 1979,(11) proceedings in the House related
to House Resolution 291, a resolution of inquiry directing the
President to provide Members of the House with information on the
energy situation:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 125 Cong. Rec. 15027, 15029, 15030, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, I call up the
resolution (H. Res. 291), a resolution of inquiry directing the
President to provide Members of the House with information on the
energy situation, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 291
Resolved, That the President, to the extent possible, is
directed to furnish to the House of Representatives, not later
than fifteen days following the adoption of this resolution,
full and complete information on the following:
(1) the existence and percentage
of shortages of crude oil and refined petroleum products within
the United States and administrative regions; . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (12) The gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Dingell) is recognized for 1 hour. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. John Brademas (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Dingell: Mr. Speaker, at this time I move to table the
resolution of inquiry now before the House.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the motion to table
offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced
that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, on that
I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas
4, nays 338, not voting 92, as follows. . . .
So the motion to table was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).
Mr. Dingell: Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time
remains?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state to the gentleman
that he has 48 minutes remaining.
Mr. Dingell: Mr. Speaker, I will, then, at this time yield 24
minutes to my distinguished friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Devine), for purposes of debate only.
Rejection of Previous Question
Sec. 34.3 If the previous question is voted down on a resolution before
the House, control of the measure passes to the opponents of the
resolution, and the Chair then recognizes a Member of the minority
party, if opposed.
On July 20, 1939,(13) Mr. Howard W. Smith, of Virginia,
man
[[Page 10448]]
aging a resolution to authorize an investigation, moved the previous
question on the resolution. Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama,
answered parliamentary inquiries as to control of the resolution should
the previous question be rejected:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 84 Cong. Rec. 9591, 9592, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: If the previous question
is voted down, will that open up the resolution to amendment?
The Speaker: Undoubtedly.
Mr. Smith of Virginia: A further parliamentary inquiry, Mr.
Speaker.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Smith of Virginia: If I understand the situation correctly,
if the previous question is voted down, the control of the measure
would pass to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Keller]; and the
resolution would not be open to amendment generally, but only to
such amendments as the gentleman from Illinois might yield for. Is
my understanding correct, Mr. Speaker?
The Speaker: If the previous question is voted down, it would
not necessarily pass to the gentleman from Illinois; it would pass
to the opponents of the resolution. Of course, a representative of
the minority would have the first right of recognition.
Sec. 34.4 In response to parliamentary inquiries the Speaker advised
that if the previous question on a privileged resolution reported
by the Committee on Rules were voted down, the Chair would
recognize the Member who appeared to be leading the opposition.
On Oct. 19, 1966,(14) Mr. Claude D. Pepper, of Florida,
called up by direction of the Committee on Rules House Resolution 1013,
establishing a Select Committee on Standards and Conduct. Mr. Pepper
was recognized for one hour and offered a committee amendment to the
resolution, which amendment was agreed to. Speaker John W. McCormack,
of Massachusetts, then answered a series of parliamentary inquiries as
to the procedure to be followed should Mr. Pepper move the previous
question and should the motion be defeated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 112 Cong. Rec. 27725, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, if the previous
question is refused, is it true that then amendments may be offered
and further debate may be had on the resolution?
The Speaker: If the previous question is defeated, then the
resolution is open to further consideration and action and debate.
. . .
Mr. [Cornelius E.] Gallagher [of New Jersey]: If the previous
question is voted down we will have the option to reopen debate,
the resolution will be open for amendment, or it can be tabled. Is
that the situation as the Chair understands it?
The Speaker: If the previous question is voted down on the
resolution,
[[Page 10449]]
the time will be in control of some Member in opposition to it, and
it would be open to amendment or to a motion to table.
Sec. 34.5 Where the motion for the previous question on a resolution
(reported from the Rules Committee) is rejected, the Chair
recognizes the Member who led the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer an amendment and is recognized for one
hour.
During consideration of House Resolution 312, waiving points of
order and providing special procedures during consideration of H.R.
4390 (the legislative branch appropriations for fiscal year 1980) on
June 13, 1979,(15) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 125 Cong. Rec. 14650, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: (16) The question is on ordering the
previous question. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, on that I
demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The question was taken; and there were--yeas 126, nays 292, not
voting 16, as follows: . . .
[Mr. Delbert L. Latta, of Ohio, who had led the opposition to
the previous question was recognized.]
Mr. Latta: Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr.
Latta: Strike all after the resolving clause and insert in lieu
thereof the following: . . .
The Speaker: The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta) is recognized
for 1 hour.
Mr. Latta: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Sec. 34.6 Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to
the Member leading the fight against the previous question, who may
offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time for
debate thereon.
On May 29, 1980,(17) during consideration of House
Resolution 682 (providing for consideration of H.R. 7428, public debt
limit extension), the following proceedings occurred in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 126 Cong. Rec. 12667, 12668, 12672, 12677, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Richard] Bolling [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, by direction
of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 682, and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 682
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order
[[Page 10450]]
to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of
the bill (H.R. 7428) to extend the present public debt limit
through June 30, 1980. . . .
The Speaker: (18) The gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Bolling) is recognized for 1 hour. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question is on ordering the previous question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the noes
appeared to have it. . . .
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas
74, nays 312, not voting 47, as follows:
So the previous question was not ordered. . . .
The Speaker: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. Bauman).
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I offer an
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr.
Bauman: Strike out all after the resolving clause and insert in
lieu thereof the following: . . .
A point of order against the amendment based on the germaneness
rule was sustained.
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Bauman moves to refer House Resolution 682 to the
Committee on Rules.
The Speaker: The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman) is
recognized for 1 hour. . . .
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the
motion.
The previous question was ordered.
The Speaker: The question is on the privileged motion offered
by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman).
The preferential motion was agreed to.
Parliamentarian's Note: Upon the rejection of the previous question
on a special rule from the Committee on Rules, motions un-der Rule XVI,
clause 4, to refer or to postpone are in order, as well as motions to
amend and to lay on the table.
Sec. 34.7 Where the House rejects the previous question, the Member who
led the opposition thereto is entitled to one hour of debate and is
entitled to close debate where he has yielded half of his time to
another Member.
The following proceedings occurred in the House on June 25,
1981,(19) during consideration of House Resolution 169
(providing for consideration of H.R. 3982, Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1981):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 127 Cong. Rec. 14065, 14078, 14079, 14081, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Richard] Bolling [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, by direction
of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 169 and ask
for its immediate consideration.
[[Page 10451]]
The Clerk read the resolution as follows:
H. Res. 169
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to move, any rule of the House to the
contrary notwithstanding, that the House resolve itself into
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for
the consideration of the bill (H.R. 3982) to provide for
reconciliation pursuant to section 301 of the first concurrent
resolution on the budget for the fiscal year 1982. . . .
The Speaker: (20) The gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Bolling) is recognized for 1 hour. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After debate, Mr. Bolling moved the previous question on the
resolution.
The Speaker: The question is on ordering the previous question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. [Delbert L.] Latta [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand
the yeas and nays.
[The previous question was rejected.]
Mr. Latta: Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr.
Latta: Strike all after the resolving clause and insert in lieu
thereof the following: . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (1) The gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Latta) is recognized for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Latta: Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield to
my good friend, the Speaker of the House. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Let the Chair inquire of the gentleman
from Ohio, did he . . . yield 30 minutes of the hour to the
Speaker?
Mr. Latta: Right. . . .
Mr. [Thomas P.] O'Neill [Jr., of Massachusetts]: I reserve my
right until such time as the gentleman wants to move the previous
question.
Mr. Latta: We have the right under the rules of procedure to
close debate.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct.
Mr. Latta: We have the right to close debate on this issue.
Mr. O'Neill: I have no requests for time on this side.
--Prior to Adoption of the Rules
Sec. 34.8 Recognition to offer an amendment to a resolution called up
prior to the adoption of rules passes to a Member leading the
opposition to the resolution if the previous question is rejected.
On Jan. 10, 1967,(2) at the convening of the 90th
Congress and before the adoption of standing rules, Mr. Morris K.
Udall, of Arizona, called up a resolution (H. Res. 1), authorizing the
Speaker to administer the oath of office to challenged Member-elect
Adam C.
[[Page 10452]]
Powell, of New York, and referring the question of his final right to a
seat to a select committee. Pending debate on the resolution, Speaker
John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, answered parliamentary inquiries
on the procedure to be followed:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 113 Cong. Rec. 14, 15, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Joe D.] Waggonner [Jr., of Louisiana]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry. . . .
Mr. Speaker, if the previous question is voted down would,
then, under the rules of the House, amendments or substitutes be in
order to the resolution offered by the gentleman from Arizona [Mr.
Udall]?
The Speaker: The Chair will state to the gentleman from
Louisiana [Mr. Waggonner] that any germane amendment may be in
order to that particular amendment.
Mr. Waggonner: Mr. Speaker, one further parliamentary inquiry.
. . .
Mr. Speaker, under the rules of the House would the option or
priority or a subsequent amendment or a substitute motion lie with
the minority?
The Speaker: . . . [T]he usual procedure of the Chair has been
to the effect that the Member who led the fight against the
resolution will be recognized.
Rejection of Conference Report
Sec. 34.9 Where a conference report was rejected and the manager of the
report did not seek further recognition, the Speaker recognized a
minority member of the committee with jurisdiction of the bill to
move to concur in the Senate amendment with an amendment.
On Dec. 10, 1969,(3) Mr. Wright Patman, of Texas,
manager of a conference report, moved the previous question and the
House rejected the conference report. When Mr. Patman did not seek
further recognition, Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts,
recognized Garry E. Brown, of Michigan, a minority member of the
Committee on Banking and Currency which had reported the bill, to offer
a motion to concur in the Senate amendment with an amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 115 Cong. Rec. 38102-06, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 34.10 Where a conference report on a House bill with a Senate
amendment is rejected, the Chair directs the Clerk to report the
Senate amendment; and if the manager of the report does not seek
recognition to offer a motion to dispose of the Senate amendment
the Chair recognizes the Member who had led the opposition to the
conference report to offer a motion to dispose of the amendment.
[[Page 10453]]
On Sept. 16, 1977,(4) during proceedings relating to the
consideration of the conference report on H.R. 5262 (international
financial institutions), called up by Mr. Henry S. Reuss, of Wisconsin,
the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 123 Cong. Rec. 29597, 29599, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
So the conference report was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. [Tom] Harkin [of Iowa]: Madam Speaker, I offer a
preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Harkin moves that the House recede from its
disagreement to the amendment of the Senate to the text of the
bill (H.R. 5262) to provide for increased participation by the
United States in the International Bank for Reconstruction and
Development, the International Development Association, the
International Finance Corporation, the Asian Development Bank
and the Asian Development Funds, and for other purposes, and
agree to the same with an amendment as follows:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate
amendment insert the following: . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (5) The gentleman from Iowa
(Mr. Harkin) will be recognized for 30 minutes in support of his
motion, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stanton) will be
recognized for 30 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Barbara Jordan (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Harkin).
Rejection of Motion To Dispose of Senate Amendment--Recognition To
Offer Successor Motion
Sec. 34.11 Where a motion is made by the Member in charge of a
conference report to recede and concur in a Senate amendment with
an amendment and the motion is defeated, recognition for a motion
to further insist on disagreement passes to a Member opposed.
On June 26, 1942,(6) Malcolm C. Tarver, of Georgia, the
Member in charge of a bill reported from conference with amendments in
disagreement, moved that the House recede and concur with an amendment
in a Senate amendment in disagreement. The motion was rejected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 88 Cong. Rec. 5637, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, a Member opposed to the Senate
amendment, then arose to make the motion to further insist on
disagreement to the Senate amendment, at the same time that Mr. Tarver
arose to make the same motion. After the question of recognition was
discussed, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, recognized Mr. Cannon to make
the motion:
[[Page 10454]]
Mr. Tarver: Mr. Speaker, I desire to submit a parliamentary
inquiry. It was my purpose to offer a motion as I have done in
connection with the same subject matter on previous occasions. I
had risen for the purpose of offering a motion to further insist
upon the disagreement of the House to Senate amendments Nos. 90 and
91. I wish to inquire whether or not I am privileged, as chairman
of the House conferees, to offer that motion?
Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, my motion is to further
insist.
Mr. Tarver: Mr. Speaker, I was on my feet before the gentleman
from Missouri rushed over between me and the microphone and offered
his motion.
Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, it is a long-established
rule of procedure that when a vital motion made by the Member in
charge of a bill is defeated, the right to prior recognition passes
to the opposition. That is the position in which the gentleman
finds himself. He has made a major motion. The motion has been
defeated. Therefore the right of recognition passes to the
opposition, and I ask to be recognized to move to further insist. .
. .
The Speaker: The Chair is of the opinion that the gentleman
from Missouri has been properly recognized to offer a motion. The
gentleman will state his motion.
Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House
further insist on its disagreement to the Senate amendments.
The motion was agreed to.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Id. at pp. 5642, 5643.
The opposition has control only to offer a motion related
to the pending amendment in disagreement; control over the
conference report and the remaining amendments in disagreement
remains with the manager (see Sec. 17.38, supra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 34.12 Where the House rejects a motion by the manager of a bill to
dispose of a Senate amendment remaining in disagreement,
recognition to offer another motion is accorded to a Member who led
the opposition to the rejected motion.
On Sept. 30, 1976,(8) 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, the
Speaker having ruled out the conference report on a point of order and
directed the Clerk to report the Senate amendments remaining in
disagreement for disposition by motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 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: . . .
[[Page 10455]]
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. [Frank] Horton [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I would like to
ask what the allocation of time is on this particular motion.
The Speaker: (9) The Chair will state that the rule
provides, of course, for 30 minutes on a side under consideration
of a conference report but the practice has been followed, if the
Chair recalls correctly, of allotting 30 minutes to a side on a
motion when a conference report is ruled out on a point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under that procedure, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brooks)
will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair would inquire who will be handling the matter on the
minority side?
Mr. Horton: Mr. Speaker, I will be handling time on this side.
The Speaker: And the gentleman from New York (Mr. Horton) will
be recognized for 30 minutes for debate only.
The motion was rejected.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 122 Cong. Rec. 34092, 94th Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 30, 1976.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Horton: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Horton moves that the House recede and concur in the
Senate amendment to H.R. 13367, with an amendment as follows:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate
amendment insert the following: . . .
Sec. 34.13 Upon rejection of a motion offered by the manager of a
conference report on an amendment in disagreement, recognition
passes to a Member opposed to offer another motion.
During consideration of H.R. 9375 (supplemental appropriations) in
the House on Dec. 6, 1977,(11) the following proceedings
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 123 Cong. Rec. 38421, 38431, 38432, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (12) The Clerk will report
the next amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Lucien N. Nedzi (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Senate amendment No. 43: Page 20, after line 10, insert:
Appropriations provided under this heading in the Department of
Defense Appropriation Act, 1977, are rescinded in the amount of
$462,000,000.
Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Mahon moves that the House recede from its disagreement
to the amendment of the Senate numbered 43 and concur therein.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Mahon)
and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Cederberg) will each be
recognized for 30 minutes.
[[Page 10456]]
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Mahon). . .
.
Mr. Mahon: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the
motion.
The previous question was ordered.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the motion offered
by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Mahon).
The question was taken; and the Speaker Pro Tempore announced
that the noes appeared to have it. . . .
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas
166, nays 191, answered ``present'' 3, not voting 74, as follows: .
. .
So the motion was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. [B. F.] Sikes [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Sikes moves that the House insist on its disagreement
to Senate Amendment No. 43.
--Debate on Successor Motion
Sec. 34.14 Under clause 2(b) of Rule XXVIII, the time allotted for
debate on an original motion to dispose of
disagreement on a Senate amendment is divided equally between
majority and minority parties (except that if both floor managers
support the motion then one-third of the time may be claimed by an
opponent); and where the original motion to dispose of the Senate
amendment in disagreement is rejected, the time for debate on a
successor motion is also governed by clause 2(b) of Rule XXVIII and
may be equally divided.
On Aug. 6, 1993,(13) the House had under consideration
Senate amendments in disagreement to H.R. 2493 (Agriculture
appropriations for 1994):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 139 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 103d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (14) The Clerk will
designate the next amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Romano L. Mazzoli (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Senate amendment No. 164: Page 81, after line 12, insert:
Sec. 730. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise
made available by this Act shall be used by the Secretary of
Agriculture to provide a total amount of payments to a person
to support the price of honey under section 207 of the
Agricultural Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 1446h) and section 405A of
such Act (7 U.S.C. 1425a) in excess of $50,000 in the 1994 crop
year.
motion offered by mr. skeen
Mr. [Joe] Skeen [of New Mexico]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Motion offered by Mr. Skeen:
Mr. Skeen moves that the House recede and concur in the
amendment
[[Page 10457]]
of the Senate numbered 164 with an amendment as follows: In the
matter proposed to be inserted by the amendment, add the
following: ``The GAO shall conduct a study and report to
Congress on the effectiveness of the program.''
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from New Mexico [Mr.
Skeen] is recognized for 30 minutes.
Mr. [Harris W.] Fawell [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. Fawell: First of all, the motion that the gentleman from
New Mexico offered was read so fast I did not understand just what
it was. But I rise in opposition.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: If the gentleman is opposed to the
motion offered by the gentleman from New Mexico, the gentleman [Mr.
Fawell] is entitled to 20 minutes to debate the issue. . . .
Mr. Fawell: . . . Assuming that this particular motion fails,
can the Chair advise me where we will be then?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Another Member will be recognized for
another motion on this amendment in disagreement. . . .
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
New Mexico [Mr. Skeen]. . . .
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were yeas
140, nays 274, not voting 19, as follows: . . .
So the House refused to recede and concur in the amendment of
the Senate numbered 164 with an amendment. . . .
Mr. Fawell: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Fawell moves that the House recede and concur in the
amendment of the Senate numbered 164 with an amendment as
follows: In the matter proposed to be inserted by the
amendment, strike ``$50,000'' and insert ``$0''.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
Fawell] will be recognized for 30 minutes in support of his motion,
and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] will be recognized for
30 minutes in opposition.
Under a former practice, if the initial motion to dispose of the
amendment in disagreement was rejected, the time for debate on a
subsequent motion was under the hour rule and entirely within the
control of the Member of the opposition recognized to make the motion.
Thus, on July 19, 1977,(15) during consideration of the
conference report on H.R. 7554 (Housing and Urban Development and
independent agencies appropriation bill for fiscal 1978) in the House,
it was demonstrated that, where a motion to dispose of an amendment
reported from conference in disagreement, offered by the manager of the
conference report, is rejected, the Speaker recognizes a Member leading
the
[[Page 10458]]
opposition to offer another motion to dispose of the amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 123 Cong. Rec. 23668, 23669, 23678, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (16) The Clerk will report
the next amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Norman Y. Mineta (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Senate amendment No. 24: Page 17, line 11, strike out
``$2,943,600,- 000'' and insert ``$3,013,000,000''.
Mr. [Edward P.] Boland [of Massachusetts] [manager of the
conference report]: 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 24 and
concur therein with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the
sum proposed by said amendment insert ``$2,995,300,000''.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Boland) is recognized for 30 minutes and the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Coughlin) is recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Boland).
Mr. Boland: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume. . . .
Mr. [Don] Fuqua [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition
to amendment No. 24. . . .
[After debate, the motion was rejected.]
Mr. Fuqua: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Fuqua moves that the House recede from its disagreement
to the amendment of the Senate numbered 24 and concur therein.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Fuqua)
is recognized for 60 minutes. . . .
Mr. Fuqua: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the
motion.
The previous question was ordered.
The motion was agreed to.
Sec. 34.15 Division of time for debate provided in clause 2(b) of Rule
XXVIII between the majority and minority party on an amendment
reported from conference in disagreement applies to a second motion
to dispose of the Senate amendment upon defeat of the first, and
where the second motion is offered by a minority Member, the Chair
may allocate one-half of the time to him and one-half to a majority
Member later to be designated, notwithstanding earlier control of
time by the manager of the conference report and the ranking
minority member on the initial motion.
During consideration of the supplemental appropriations and
rescission bill for fiscal year 1980 (H.R. 7542) in the House on July
2, 1980,(17) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 126 Cong. Rec. 18357, 18359, 18360, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 10459]]
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (18) The question is on the
motion offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Long), to concur
with the Senate amendment numbered 95.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Paul Simon (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The motion was rejected.
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Bauman moves to recede and concur in the amendment of
the Senate (No. 95) with an amendment as follows: In lieu of
the matter stricken and inserted by said amendment insert the
following:
CHAPTER VI
FOREIGN OPERATIONS
Funds Appropriated to the President
international disaster assistance
For an additional amount to carry out the provisions of
Section 491 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended,
$43,000,000 to remain available until expended. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Maryland is
recognized. . . .
Mr. [Clarence D.] Long of Maryland: Mr. Speaker, I have a
preferential motion.
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I have been recognized, I believe. . .
.
Mr. Long of Maryland: Mr. Speaker, I was on my feet for a
preferential motion.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: On this motion the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Bauman) has the time. . . .
Mr. [Thomas P.] O'Neill [Jr., of Massachusetts]: . . . I offer
a preferential motion that is at the desk.
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I did not yield to the gentleman to
offer a motion.
Mr. O'Neill: I was recognized.
Mr. Bauman: Well, I did not yield for that purpose, Mr.
Speaker. I control the time, do I not?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Bauman) has 30 minutes, the majority side has 30 minutes. . . .
Mr. Bauman: My parliamentary inquiry is that the Chair stated a
moment ago that the time on a preferential motion to concur with an
amendment is divided between the majority and the minority. Is it
not controlled by the maker of the motion? Only amendments in
disagreement are divided.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The practice of the House is clearly
on a motion of this type after an initial motion has been rejected
on an amendment reported from conference in disagreement that the
time is divided between the majority and the minority parties.
[[Page 10461]]
CHAPTER 29
Consideration and Debate
E. RELEVANCY IN DEBATE
Sec. 35. Debate in the House
The House rules provide in Rule XIV clause 1 that in addressing the
House a Member ``shall confine himself to the question under debate,
avoiding personality.'' (19) The rule is neither intended
nor enforced to prevent free and open debate in the House at the
appropriate time, but is designed to expedite proceedings when a
specific proposition is before the House for action. Although the
Speaker or the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may on his own
initiative call a Member to order for indulging in irrelevant
debate,(20) the Chair generally awaits a point of order
before ruling on the issue.(1) If a Member persists in
irrelevant debate after being cautioned by the Chair to proceed in
order, the House may proceed under clause 4 of Rule XIV, requiring that
the Member take his seat and not proceed further without the consent of
the House.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 749 (1995). For discussion of the
rule against indulging in personalities in debate, see Sec. 60,
infra.
20. For occasions where the Speaker has called Members to order on his
own initiative for failing to confine themselves to a question
of privilege, see Sec. 36.5, infra; 8 Cannon's Precedents
Sec. 2481. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5043 (footnote) indicates
that in the early practice of the House of Representatives, the
Speaker routinely called Members to order for speaking beside
the question.
1. See, for example, Sec. Sec. 35.1 and 35.11, infra; 5 Hinds'
Precedents Sec. Sec. 5043-5048.
2. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2534.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The rule of relevancy of debate in the House is a rule of common
sense and flexibility, and Members must be permitted some latitude to
discuss issues related to the pending proposition.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. See the Speaker's statement at Sec. 35.1, infra. Early practice
took a very strict construction of the rule; see 5 Hinds'
Precedents Sec. Sec. 5043-5048.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Member may be authorized by the House (or Committee of the Whole)
to discuss matters unrelated to the pending proposition by requesting
unanimous consent ``to speak out of order.'' (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. See Sec. 35.7, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where a special rule from the Committee on Rules is pending, to
provide for the consideration of a bill, debate in the House thereon
should be confined to the merits and provisions of the resolution and
should not extend to a general and complete discussion of the measure
whose consideration is provided for in the resolution, since such
debate should transpire
[[Page 10462]]
during the consideration of the measure itself. But the nature and
importance of a special order requires that debate be allowed on the
general purposes and necessity for consideration of the measure
provided for, as well as discussion of past proceedings on other bills
to demonstrate the reasons for the drafting of the resolution in
question.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. See Sec. Sec. 35.1-35.5, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It has always been held, and generally quite strictly, that in the
House the Member must confine himself to the subject under
debate.(6) Debate on a motion to amend must be confined to
the amendment, and may neither include the general merits of the
bill,(7) nor range to the merits of a proposition not
included in the underlying resolution.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. See 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 5043, 5048; 6 Cannon's Precedents
Sec. 576; and 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 2481, 2534.
7. See 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 5049, 5051.
8. See Sec. 35.21, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Member raising a question of privilege, either of the House or of
the Member, must confine himself to the question
presented,(9) and may not generally refer to pending
legislation.(10) Where the question of privilege is based
upon criticism of the Member's statements or actions with respect to a
certain legislative proposal, he may refer to that proposal in order to
justify his motivations and to answer the criticism
raised.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. See Sec. 36.1, infra (personal privilege) and Sec. 36.5, infra
(privilege of the House). For earlier precedents, see 6
Cannon's Precedents Sec. 576; 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2481.
10. See Sec. 36.3, infra.
11. See Sec. 36.2, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where a proposition is not pending in the House, Members may
express themselves on any subject (which is otherwise appropriate under
the rules of the House) by requesting unanimous consent to address the
House or by inserting remarks in the Record.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. For one-minute and special-order speeches, see Sec. 73,
infra. -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Relevancy During General Debate
Sec. 35.1 Debate in the House is confined to the subject under
consideration, but the Speaker has indicated that the rule of
relevancy is applied with tolerance and latitude.
On Dec. 10, 1963,(13) Mr. Byron G. Rogers, of Colorado,
raised a
[[Page 10463]]
point of order against the remarks of Mr. William H. Avery, of Kansas.
Mr. Rogers observed that the House was at that time considering a
special rule on the indigent defendants bill, whereas Mr. Avery was
talking about the civil rights bill. Speaker John W. McCormack, of
Massachusetts, ruled as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 109 Cong. Rec. 23968, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair takes a lenient attitude toward debate in the House.
If the gentleman from Kansas feels that there is anything involved
in this bill that might be connected with legislation concerning
civil rights, the Chair feels that the gentleman, who is conversant
with the rules, is proceeding and will proceed in order.
Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, then asked unanimous consent that Mr.
Avery have permission to speak out of order and the House so ordered.
Debate on Special Order
Sec. 35.2 Debate on a resolution reported by the Committee on Rules and
providing for the consideration of a bill is generally limited to
the merits of such resolution.
On June 22, 1937, House Resolution 227 was offered by the Committee
on Rules to provide a special rule for consideration in the Committee
of the Whole of a bill relating to the tenure of certain federal judges
(H.R. 2271).(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 81 Cong. Rec. 6157, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Leon Sacks, of Pennsylvania, who was yielded time, rose:
Mr. Speaker, there are no words I can utter to defend that
great Governor of Pennsylvania, George H. Earle, which would
explain his humane qualities and true democratic principles more
than his own action. Does the gentleman from Michigan prefer the
action of the President of his own party at Anacostia, or would he
prefer the orderly prevention of bloodshed in Johnstown?
Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, sustained a point of order
that Mr. Sacks was not proceeding in order, since the matter under
debate was the resolution reported from the Committee on Rules for the
consideration of the bill and because Mr. Sacks' remarks were not
directed to the merits of that procedure:
The Speaker: . . . The Chair will state the rule and its proper
interpretation.
Rule XIV provides as follows:
When any Member desires to speak or deliver any matter to
the House, he shall . . . confine himself to the question under
debate, avoiding personality.
The matter now under debate is the resolution reported out of
the Committee on Rules for the consideration of a bill from the
Committee on the Judiciary. The gentleman from Pennsylvania will
kindly proceed in order under the rule.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Id. at p. 6162.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 10464]]
Sec. 35.3 In debate on a special rule, the terms of which restrict
general debate upon a bill to a specified time, it is in order to
show by way of illustration from past experience the need for
limiting general debate on the bill, but such discussion may not be
broadened to include a reply to a speech made at some other time in
general debate.
On June 20, 1935, while the House was considering a special rule
(H. Res. 266) for consideration of a deficiency appropriation bill
(H.R. 8554) in the Committee of the Whole, several points of order were
made that Mr. Byron B. Harlan, of Ohio, was indulging in general debate
rather than specific debate on the special rule.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 79 Cong. Rec. 9783, 9784, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, ruled that Mr. Harlan must
confine himself to the resolution before the House and not discuss
extraneous matters. After some intervening debate, the Speaker asked
Mr. Harlan to suspend his debate for a comment from the Chair:
. . . It has always been the custom heretofore in discussing
resolutions making in order matters of legislation for Members to
be rather liberal in their discussions and not necessarily to
confine themselves to the pending resolution.
The Chair thinks that discussion on these rules should not be
too narrowly restricted. Of course, under the precedents, a Member
must confine himself to the subject of debate when objection is
raised. The pending resolution is one which undertakes to limit
general debate upon the deficiency bill to 2 hours and to confine
the debate to the bill itself. The Chair thinks it is entirely too
narrow a construction to undertake to hold a Member, in discussing
the resolution either pro or con, to the simple question of whether
or not the rule should be adopted, and that it is entirely
legitimate discussion for a Member who is undertaking to uphold the
rule and to justify confining debate to the bill to cite as
illustrations what has occurred in previous discussions. The Chair
does not think a Member, in using such illustrations, is justified
in answering a speech that has been made upon a previous occasion.
However, the Chair repeats that the Chair does think it is
perfectly legitimate for a Member who is undertaking to justify the
rule to refer to experiences on previous occasions where the debate
was not limited to the bill, and the Chair hopes that the gentleman
from Ohio will proceed in order.
Debate on Special Order for Consideration of Bill
Sec. 35.4 While under clause 1 of Rule XIV, debate in the House is
confined to the question under debate, debate on a special rule re
[[Page 10465]]
ported from the Committee on Rules providing for the consideration
of a bill may range to the merits of the bill proposed to be
considered.
On Sept. 26, 1989,(17) during consideration of House
Resolution 245 (providing for consideration of H.R. 3299, the Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989) in the House, the following
proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 135 Cong. Rec. 21530, 21532, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Butler] Derrick [of South Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, by
direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 245
and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 245
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. 3299) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to
section 5 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for the
fiscal year 1990. . . .
Mr. [James A.] Traficant [Jr., of Ohio]: . . . Now, in this
package that we are discussing today, there is a capital gains cut
proposal being bandied around. Here are the statistics I have, and
if I am wrong, I would be glad to be corrected. If you are a family
of four and you earn $25,000 your tax break will be $15.
Mr. [Clifford B.] Stearns [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
point of parliamentary inquiry. . . .
My question, Mr. Speaker, is this: Is this debate relative to
the rule?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (18) The House is presently
debating the resolution from the Committee on Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Richard J. Durbin (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Stearns: And, Mr. Speaker, this particular debate by this
distinguished gentleman is relevant to the rule?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The debate on the rule can go beyond
the language of the resolution and the rule proposed to the merits
of the legislation which will be considered by the rule.
Sec. 35.5 Debate on a special rule reported from the Committee on Rules
authorizing the Speaker to entertain motions to suspend the rules
on the current calendar day should be confined to that proposal;
while it is permissible during debate on such rule to discuss the
priority of business and the importance of bills that would not be
scheduled for consideration under the rule, it is not permissible
to discuss the substance of such bills on the merits.
On Sept. 27, 1990,(19) the House was considering a
resolution (20)
[[Page 10466]]
permitting motions to suspend the rules on that calendar day. A bill
that would not be scheduled for consideration under the proposed rule
was discussed:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 136 Cong. Rec. 26226, 101st Cong. 2d Sess.
20. H. Res. 479.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: . . . I am sure the
chairman of the Judiciary Committee is speaking from the standpoint
of this caucus when he says that he has a tough crime bill, but one
of our concerns was that, for instance, in that bill that someone
who blew up an airplane that contained 300 people would not be
eligible for the death penalty. That would not be an option allowed
to the jury under Federal law in the bill that
he brought forward to us. We regard that as maybe being not quite
tough enough.
There are concerns [about] the business of applying racial
quotas to a death penalty consideration that is in the gentleman's
bill. There are many people who feel that racial quota portion
will, in fact, negate the ability of juries to deal meaningfully
with death penalty decisions. . . .
I simply would say that we have to have a rule on the House
floor that allows us to get real votes on some of these meaningful
issues. . . .
Mr. [James A.] Hayes of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, I thought that
we were discussing the rule on the suspensions. Now we have got
into discussing the content of the crime bill. I think it is
completely out of order.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (1) The gentleman is
correct. The debate should proceed on the matter before the House,
and that is the rule proposed by the gentleman from Massachusetts
on the suspensions. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Terry L. Bruce (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Bill] McCollum [of Florida]: . . . I totally agree with
the gentleman. The issue is this rule. The issue is on the question
of the consideration of all these suspensions today, instead of
considering the crime bill, instead of considering something that
could have been out here much earlier than it is apparently going
to be, not the substance of the work of the gentleman from Texas. .
. .
Mr. [Craig A.] Washington [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker I raise a
point of order that the gentleman is not discussing the matter up
for discussion on the floor.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will advise the Members,
that in the Chair's opinion discussing the priority of business is
probably within the confines of the resolution called up by the
gentleman from Massachusetts, but when debate ranges into the
merits of the relative bills not yet before the House, the Chair
would admonish the Members that that probably goes beyond the
resolution offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Role of Chair in Enforcing Relevancy
Sec. 35.6 The Chair does not take the initiative to enforce the rule of
relevance in debate but does enforce the rule when a point of order
based thereon is made.
On Sept. 27, 1990,(2) during consideration of a special
rule author
[[Page 10467]]
izing the Speaker to entertain motions to suspend the rules on that
calendar day, substantive issues relating to bills that would not be
scheduled for consideration under the rule were discussed during debate
on the rule.(3) The Chair indicated that the rule of
relevance in debate is enforced ``where that point of order is made:''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 136 Cong. Rec. 26226, 26227, 101st Cong. 2d Sess.
3. For further discussion of the proceedings, see Sec. 35.5, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Bill] McCollum [of Florida]: . . . The issue is on the
question of the consideration of all these suspensions today,
instead of considering the crime bill, instead of considering
something that could have been out here much earlier than it is
apparently going to be. . . .
Mr. [Craig A.] Washington [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I raise a
point of order that the gentleman is not discussing the matter up
for discussion on the floor. . . .
Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry. . . .
Mr. Speaker, since we are suspending all of the rules of the
House at the Speaker's discretion under this bill, is it not
appropriate to discuss matters that the Speaker might decide to
suspend the rules on this day? . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (4) . . . [O]nce the House
gets into debating the content of the legislation that might be
brought before the House, the Chair would admonish Members they
have gone beyond the confines of the motion made by the gentleman
from Massachusetts. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Terry L. Bruce (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Walker: . . . [I]n discussing suspending all of the rules
of the House . . . for the rest of this day, it seems to us there
are matters of content involved. Is the Chair suggesting we cannot
discuss matters of content of things that might be suspended under
the rules?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would admonish the Members
that they are not allowed to discuss the merits of matters not
pending before the House where that point of order is made. The
pending business before the House is the resolution offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts, to adopt the rule reported by the
Committee on Rules.
That is what is before the House.
Pro Forma Amendment
Sec. 35.7 Where a Member was addressing the House on a motion to strike
out the last word and consent was granted to him to proceed for an
additional time, the Speaker held that he must confine his remarks
to the bill under consideration where objection was made,
notwithstanding that in his original time he had not been
proceeding in order.
On June 15, 1935,(5) Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas,
arose to
[[Page 10468]]
state a parliamentary inquiry where the House was considering a bill by
unanimous consent in the House as in the Committee of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 79 Cong. Rec. 9383, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where a Member is speaking on the floor, out of order, under a
motion to strike out the last word, and it is clearly apparent to
every person present that his speech is out of order, and another
Member . . . from Mississippi [Mr. Rankin] . . . asks that he be
permitted to proceed for 15 minutes so that he may have time to
examine his records, when it is generally understood that the whole
speech is out of order, and the unanimous consent for such 15
additional minutes is granted by the House, is the Member precluded
from so using his 15 minutes? I submit that it was generally
understood that the extra 15 minutes granted by the House were to
be used out of order.
Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, ruled as follows:
The Chair will state to the gentleman from Mississippi, that
the gentleman, of course, is familiar with the rules, and knows how
consent may be obtained to speak out of order. The gentleman from
Mississippi did not submit his request in that form. The gentleman
made reference to some records that the gentleman from New
Hampshire was searching for at the time. Consent was given to
proceed for 15 minutes. When a Member of the House exercises his
privilege and makes the point of order that the gentleman is
proceeding out of order when consent has not been given, there is
no alternative and the Chair must rule that the point of order is
well taken and ask the gentleman speaking to confine himself to the
matter before the House.
Parliamentarian's Note: The Speaker had previously advised that in
order to obtain permission to deliver remarks unrelated to the pending
question, a Member must specifically request unanimous consent to
``speak out of order.''
During Morning Hour Call of Committees
Sec. 35.8 Debate in the House during the morning hour call of
committees must be confined to the pending matter under
consideration.
On June 12, 1933,(6) during the morning hour call of
committees, the Committee on the Judiciary was called and Mr. Gordon
Browning, of Tennessee, called up a bill to establish a Tennessee
judicial district. Mr. Edward W. Goss, of Connecticut, raised a
parliamentary inquiry: ``Do I understand this time is allotted for
general debate, or is the debate confined to the bill, under the
rule?'' Speaker Henry T. Rainey, of Illinois, ruled that ``In the
House, de
[[Page 10469]]
bate must be confined to the bill under consideration.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 77 Cong. Rec. 5816, 73d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Debate on Impeachment Charges
Sec. 35.9 In presenting impeachment charges a Member is not confined to
a bare statement of the charges but may supplement them with
argumentative statements.
On May 7, 1935,(7) Mr. Everett M. Dirksen, of Illinois,
rose in order to prefer charges of impeachment against Federal Judge
Samuel Alschuler. During Mr. Dirksen's address, in which he stated his
personal opinion of the judge in question and of other federal judges,
Mr. Hatton W. Sumners, of Texas, arose to state:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 79 Cong. Rec. 7081, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not familiar with the precedents, but I have the
impression that in preferring charges of impeachment, argumentative
statements should be avoided as much as possible. If I am wrong in
that statement with reference to what the precedents and custom
have established, I of course withdraw the
observation.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Id. at p. 7085.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Dirksen stated that he had no desire to violate the precedents
but stated that there were two additional pages of explanatory matter
which he desired either to state to the House or to insert into the
Record to elaborate the statement of specific charges that had been
made. Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, ruled:
The Chair thinks it is entirely up to the gentleman from
Illinois so far as the propriety of his statement is
concerned.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, on Jan. 14, 1936, Mr. Robert A. Green, of Florida, arose
to present impeachment charges against Federal Judge Halsted L.
Ritter.(10) Mr. Carl E. Mapes, of Michigan, rose to state a
point of order that Mr. Green was presenting argumentative and personal
statements, after Mr. Green had delivered the following remarks:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 80 Cong. Rec. 404, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
. . . I am vitally interested in this investigation for two
important reasons: First, from a careful study of the evidence I am
convinced that Judge Ritter is an ignorant, unjust, tyrannical, and
corrupt judge; that a majority of the people in his district have
the same convictions that I have; that confidence in him and his
court is lacking; that his usefulness as a judge of the southern
district of Florida has long since come to an end. Second, a large
portion of the district over which Judge Ritter presides is in my
congressional district, and my people demand and feel that they are
entitled to a judge learned in the law and one who has dignity,
honor, and integrity.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Id. at pp. 405, 406.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 10470]]
Speaker Byrns ruled that Mr. Green was entitled to one hour's
debate on the charges and that he could use all or any portion of the
hour as he saw fit, including a general discussion of the charges.
Sec. 35.10 In debating articles of impeachment a Member may refer to
the political, social, and family background of the accused.
On Mar. 2, 1936, Mr. Hatton W. Sumners, of Texas, called up for
consideration House Resolution 422 presenting articles of impeachment
against Federal Judge Ritter.(12) Extensive debate ensued on
the resolution, and Mr. Louis Ludlow, of Indiana, arose to present
himself as a ``character witness'' on behalf of Judge Ritter. He began
to discuss the family background of the accused and the ``outstanding
character and personality'' of the accused's father.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 80 Cong. Rec. 3066, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Malcolm C. Tarver, of Georgia, arose to state the point of
order that Mr. Ludlow was ``endeavoring to read into the Record a
statement with regard to the progenitors of the gentleman against whom
these impeachment proceedings are pending.'' Mr. Tarver stated that
such matters were not properly to be considered by the House and should
not be discussed.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Id. at pp. 3069, 3070.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, ruled that within the four
and one-half hours of debate provided for on the resolution, Members
could address themselves to any subject relating to the articles of
impeachment and the accused.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Id. at p. 3069.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electing Member to Committee
Sec. 35.11 During debate on the election of a Member to a standing
committee, it is beyond the scope of permissible debate to indulge
in personal attacks against the nominated Member or to address the
possible future agenda of the committee, but should relate to the
qualifications of the Member to serve on the committee.
On July 10, 1995,(15) the House had under consideration
a resolution to elect a Member to a standing committee:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 141 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John A.] Boehner [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of
the Republican Conference, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res.
183) and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
[[Page 10471]]
H. Res. 183
Resolved, that the following named Member be, and he is
hereby, elected to the following standing committee of the
House of Representatives:
Committee on Ways and Means: Mr. Laughlin of Texas, to rank
following Mr. Portman of Ohio. . . .
Mr. Boehner: . . . Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Republican
Conference, I am pleased to welcome the gentleman from Texas, Mr.
Greg Laughlin, to our party. Mr. Laughlin saw fit several weeks ago
to change parties here in the House of Representatives, and we are
glad to have him on our side of the aisle.
As a result, about a week and a half ago, the Republican
conference did
in fact vote by unanimous vote to place the gentleman from Texas
[Mr. Laughlin] on the Committee on Ways and Means. To my colleagues
on the other side of the aisle who appear to have some chagrin over
the fact we are placing Mr. Laughlin on the Committee on Ways and
Means, I would point out that today Republicans hold about 58
percent of the seats on the Committee on Ways and Means. It has
been since 1923 that the majority party has had less than 60
percent of the votes on the Committee on Ways and Means.
Historically, that percentage has been a 60 to 40 split between the
majority and minority on the Committee on Ways and Means. . . .
Mr. [Richard A.] Gephardt [of Missouri]: . . . Mr. Speaker, I
would like to respond to the case that the distinguished gentleman
from Ohio has made on behalf of the Republican side. I would like
to respond to both what is happening here procedurally and what is
happening substantively.
First, the procedure: The gentleman is correct in saying that
in past Congresses there has been a desire on the part of the
majority party on certain key committees to have a larger ratio
than the ratio represented by the members of the House. Many times
in the past, we have had 60 percent, as Democrats on the Committee
on Ways and Means and on the Committee on Rules. But I would point
out that in all of those times, the ratio that the Democrats
represented in the House was higher than the 53 percent that the
Republicans now represent as part of the House. . . .
Let me talk about the substance. What I think is really going
on here is an attempt, as was pointed out in the Washington Times
on Friday, June 30, 1995, to add a Republican member of senior
status to shield freshman Republicans from having to vote for deep,
deep cuts in Medicare.
I quote, ``Mr. Laughlin likely will provide support for
potentially unpopular reductions in Medicare benefits, should GOP
leaders give three committee freshmen, all of whom won with less
than 51 percent of the vote, permission to vote `no.' ''
My colleagues, what is about to happen in Medicare are the
largest changes to Medicare in the history of the program. If the
hints we are reading in the weekend press are right, we are talking
about huge increases in the premiums for Medicare recipients. If
that is what is going on here, a stacking of the committee in order
to make sure those cuts go through, then this is substantively
wrong. If Members on your side of the aisle believe in these kinds
of changes in Medicare, everybody should vote for it. Why should we
[[Page 10472]]
be shielding Members from voting for these kinds of cuts?
Finally, let me tell you what I really think is going on here.
In reading the comments of leaders on the Republican side for some
time now, not just lately, I think there is an effort here to make
Medicare a voluntary program. I think there is an effort to get rid
of Medicare. I think that is what is really at stake. . . .
Mr. Boehner: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry. . . .
Mr. Speaker, is it my understanding that the debate on this
issue should be confined to the resolution that is on the floor of
the House?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (16) The rules and
precedents of the House would indicate that debate on the matter
should relate to the matter before the House. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Robert S. Walker (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [David E.] Bonior [of Michigan]: . . . Mr. Speaker, let us
not kid ourselves this evening. This debate is about one simple
thing. And while we may talk about representation on the committee,
which, in fact, I believe has been skewed, this debate is about
Medicare. It is about whether or not we should cut Medicare to
provide tax cuts for the wealthiest people in our society. It is
about whether or not we should double Medicare premiums to give a
tax break to the wealthiest corporations in America. . . .
Mr. Boehner: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order that the
gentleman is not speaking to the relevant issue at hand. I make a
point of order that the gentleman in the well, the minority whip,
is not talking to the relevant issue at hand that is in the debate
today. The issue is the seating of the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Laughlin] on the Committee on Ways and Means. The gentleman
proceeded, as others before him have, to talk about the issue of
Medicare, which is not the subject of debate. As I understand the
rules of the House, the gentleman should be required to speak to
the issue that is on the floor.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman makes a point of order
that engaging in debate should be on the topic before the House.
The gentleman in the well is reminded that the debate topic before
the House is the resolution with regard to membership on the
committee and debate should be confined to that subject matter.
Mr. Bonior: Mr. Speaker, I would say to the Members that the
members who serve on that committee will determine that fate of
literally 40 million Americans on Medicare. There is no way you can
divide or divorce the issue of who sits on that committee and the
issue of what tax breaks are given, what tax breaks are taken away,
what Medicare benefits are given, what Medicare benefits are taken
away, what Medicaid benefits are given, what Medicaid benefits are
taken away. They are bound together. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is requested by the
Chair to proceed in order.
Mr. Bonior: As this Washington Times article points out, ``Mr.
Laughlin will provide support for potentially unpopular reductions
in Medicare benefits, should the GOP leaders give three committee
freshmen, all of whom won with less than 51 percent of vote, per
[[Page 10473]]
mission to vote no.'' Which raises the question, what will Mr.
Laughlin do on this committee? Will he cover for these three
freshmen? It is an interesting question. Mr. Laughlin ought to tell
the American people. He ought to tell the people of the district
what are his intentions with respect to Medicare, if he is going to
serve as a member of this committee.
point of order
Mr. Boehner: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his point of
order.
Mr. Boehner: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order that the
gentleman in the well is questioning the motives of the gentleman
that is in question on the resolution appointing him to the
committee.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman at this point has not
named any member of the Committee on Ways and Means. The gentleman
is reminded, however, that he has an obligation to the rules of the
House to proceed in order. . . .
Mr. Bonior: Mr. Speaker, I would like to pose a question to the
Speaker then. The question is this, how does the Speaker intend to
separate those who serve on the committee from the jurisdiction
which they have on that committee? What is the dividing line? Would
the Chair give a ruling to this Member on where the dividing line
is?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The resolution before the House is on
the election of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Laughlin] to the
committee. The subject matter before the House is not what he plans
to do once he joins the committee. The gentleman will confine
himself to the issue before the House. . . .
Mr. [John D.] Hayworth [Jr., of Arizona]: . . . Mr. Speaker, it
is absolutely fascinating to listen to the guardians of the old
order, the new minority, espouse a form of institutional amnesia. I
may not have been here in previous Congresses, but thanks to C-SPAN
and thanks to the history books, we can take a look and we can see
what happened time and again in this Chamber. Debate was shut up.
People were stifled. We had a decision that existed that was
egregious.
point of order
Mr. Bonior: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. The gentleman is not
talking about the resolution and he is off the issue.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Arizona [Mr.
Hayworth] must confine himself to the subject matter of the
resolution before the House. . . .
Mr. [Bill] Paxon [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, when the Democrats
give a big tax liberal a seat on the Committee on Ways and Means,
they call it good government. However, when Republicans give a
smaller tax, smaller government conservative a seat on the
Committee on Ways and Means, the Democrats say something is wrong
with that. The truth is today's debate has nothing to do at all
with selling out or with Medicare or anything else. It has to do
with sour grapes.
For years the Democrats' liberal leadership has used
conservatives. They have promised them seats on important
committees, like the Com
[[Page 10474]]
mittee on Ways and Means, but when it came time to deliver, it was
not done.
point of order
Mr. [Barney] Frank of Massachusetts: Point of order, Mr.
Speaker. My point of order is that unless the Speaker has taken the
words of the gentleman from Michigan to heart, that violates the
subject of the Speaker's previous instructions, Mr. Speaker. It is
off the point of the issue of appointing the gentleman from Texas
[Mr. Laughlin].
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from New York [Mr.
Paxon] is reminded he must proceed in order.
Mr. Paxon: Mr. Speaker, the truth about this whole committee's
assignment brouhaha brought up by our friends across the aisle is
that the liberal leadership wants conservative bodies in their
caucus but does not want to deliver for them on this House floor.
Now they are angry that the gentleman from Texas, Greg Laughlin,
the gentleman from Georgia, Nathan Deal, Richard Shelby, Senator
Campbell, and about 100 State and local Democrats have switched
parties. That is what this debate is about here.
point of order
Mr. Frank of Massachusetts: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. This
clearly violates the spirit of the Speaker's previous instructions.
I would like to be clear that unless we are going to have one test
of rules for this party and another set of rules for the other,
that clearly violates what the gentleman stated to the gentleman
from Michigan [Mr. Bonior].
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair had reminded Members on both
sides of the aisle when the question has been raised that they are
to proceed in order. The Chair would continue to say to both sides
of the aisle in fairness that they must proceed in order on the
resolution. The subject matter under discussion is the election of
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Laughlin] on the Committee on Ways
and Means. That should be the subject of the discussion on the
floor.
Resignation From Committee
Sec. 35.12 In response to parliamentary inquiries, the Speaker
indicated that the question of whether a Member should be relieved
from committee service was debatable only within narrow limits and
that the Chair would take the initiative in enforcing that
restriction.
On June 16, 1975,(17) after the Speaker (18)
laid before the House a letter of resignation from the chairman of the
Select Committee on Intelligence, the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 121 Cong. Rec. 19054, 19056, 19059, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
18. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker laid before the House the [resignation of Mr.
Lucien N. Nedzi, of Michigan] from the House Select Committee on
Intelligence. . . .
The Speaker: The question is, shall the resignation be
accepted?
[[Page 10475]]
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Nedzi). .
. .
Mr. Nedzi: . . . Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 minutes to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. O'Hara).
Mr. [James G.] O'Hara [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, before
proceeding, I wonder if I could address to the Chair a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman may state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. O'Hara: Mr. Speaker, I have looked at the precedents and I
am somewhat uncertain as to the proper scope of the debate on such
a question. I would hope that the Chair could enlighten this
gentleman and the House.
The Speaker: . . . The Chair will state that rule XIV, clause
1, requires that a Member confine himself to the question under
debate in the House, avoiding personalities. On January 29, 1855,
as cited in section 4510 of volume 4, Hinds' Precedents, Speaker
Boyd held that the request of a Member that he be excused from
committee service was debatable only within very narrow limits.
The Chair trusts that debate on the pending question will be
confined within the spirit of that ruling and the Chair will
further state that he will strictly enforce the rule as to the
relevancy of debate. . . .
Mr. [Garry] Brown of Michigan: . . . Under the germaneness test
that the Speaker recited at the commencement of this discussion did
the Speaker contemplate that on his own volition and initiative
that he would raise the question of germaneness; or must that
question of germaneness be raised by someone on the floor? . . .
Does the Speaker [intend] to question the germaneness when in
his mind it appears to be nongermane?
The Speaker: The Chair has so stated, and the Chair so intends.
Disciplinary Resolution
Sec. 35.13 Debate on a resolution reprimanding a Member is confined to
the official conduct of that Member and may not extend to the
conduct or criminal convictions of other Members or former Members.
During consideration of House Resolution 1414 in the House on Oct.
13, 1978,(19) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 124 Cong. Rec. 36976-81, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John J.] Flynt [Jr., of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, I call up a
privileged resolution (H. Res. 1414) and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution as follows:
H. Res. 1414
Resolved, That the House of Representatives adopt the
report by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct dated
October 6, 1978, in the matter of Representative Charles H.
Wilson of California.
The Speaker: (20) The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Flynt) for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Flynt: . . . Mr. Speaker, in early 1977 . . . the House
directed the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to . . .
conduct a ``full and
[[Page 10476]]
complete inquiry and investigation to determine whether Members of
the House of Representatives . . . accepted anything of value . . .
from the Government of the Republic of Korea or representatives
thereof.''. . .
This violation charged against my colleague and my friend,
Charles H. Wilson of California, is that he acted
in a manner that did not reflect creditably on the House of
Representatives, in that he made a statement in writing to the
committee in response to a questionnaire, whether he had received
anything of value over $100 from Tongsun Park.
When Mr. Wilson responded, he said that he had not.
Subsequently, he told the committee . . . that he had previously
received a wedding gift, on the occasion of his marriage in the
Republic of Korea, from Tongsun Park. . . .
Mr. Charles H. Wilson of California: . . . I have already
informed the House of my decision not to contest the committee's
recommendation that acceptance of its report shall constitute a
reprimand. . . .
My decision was extraordinarily difficult for several reasons.
My action may be considered by some as an admission of guilt. This
is not the case. I assure you that I now believe, as I have
throughout, that I am innocent. I freely admit that my wife and I
received a cash wedding present from Tongsun Park. But there was
nothing improper in this. The committee itself has found that the
receipt of that present violates no statute or rule of this House.
. . .
Mr. [Bruce F.] Caputo [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I respect the
right of everyone to feel differently about this matter; but some
of us went to Korea to hear Tongsun Park. I do not know if you had
a chance to read his testimony. I gather a lot of you did not. He
testified that he made $850,000 in payments to some 34 Members of
the House and the Senate. A lot of them are no longer Members of
the House. Some of them are Members of the Senate. That is why all
are not here today facing charges.
Second, a former Member of the House was indicted and
convicted. Let me read to you from his conviction:
It was further part of said conspiracy that Tongsun Park,
with knowledge and under the direction of the Korean Central
Intelligence Agency, would corruptly provide money to various
Members of the Congress and the Senate.
Mr. [B. F.] Sisk [of California]: Mr. Speaker, a point of
order.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state the point of order.
Mr. Sisk: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order that the
gentleman is not speaking on the subject under consideration. At
the present time we are hearing a situation in connection with our
colleague from California (Mr. Charles H. Wilson). We are not
discussing the whole Korean episode from start to finish.
I think the gentleman is talking out of line in connection with
something he is raising. I do not think he is in order.
The Speaker: The gentleman will speak on the subject matter
before us, which is House Resolution 1414, concerning Mr. Charles
H. Wilson of California.
Sec. 35.14 No point of order lies, during debate on a discipli
[[Page 10477]]
nary resolution (of censure) reported from the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct, against discussion of evidence
allegedly not presented before the Committee, as the Chair can only
rule on the basis of relevancy in debate, and not on the
admissibility of evidence which is related to the charges on which
censure is based.
On May 29, 1980,(1) the following proceedings occurred
in the House during consideration of
a privileged resolution reported from the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct (censuring Charles H. Wilson):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 126 Cong. Rec. 12661, 12662, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Floyd] Spence [of South Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, I yield 5
minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas).
(Mr. Thomas asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. [William M.] Thomas [of California]: . . . In addition to
the sources the committee chairman mentioned located in the
committee report, I have recently been able to obtain a candidate's
campaign statement from the secretary of state of California, a
statement that was required to be filed for primary elections and
for general and special elections. I have before me this statement:
I, Charles H. Wilson, hereby state that at the general
election held on the 3rd day of November, 1970, I was a
candidate for election to the office of: United States House of
Representatives, and that all moneys paid, loaned, contributed,
or otherwise furnished to me, directly or indirectly, . . .
were, . . . as follows: . . .
Mr. [William D.] Ford of Michigan: . . . [A] point of order,
Mr. Speaker. . . .
Mr. Speaker, I believe all we are supposed to be examining here
is the record that was developed by the committee. I did not object
when the gentleman from Wyoming (Mr. Cheney) brought in matters
that were not in the record, but now the gentleman is going outside
the action of the committee and presenting to this body evidence
that was not presented before the committee, evidence that was
apparently obtained by him independent of the committee's
recommendation.
It is my assumption that Mr. Wilson has to defend against the
record that was sent here by the committee. Now, if we have to
defend against anything that anyone else wants to bring in, that is
another matter.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (2) The Chair does not
believe that the gentleman is stating a point of order
specifically. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Robert A. Roe (N.J.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Ford of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is against
the gentleman's introducing evidence here that was not introduced
before the committee.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would rule on the
gentleman's point of order by saying that the only test of the
debate on the issues is the
[[Page 10478]]
relevancy of the matter presented. . . .
Mr. [William L.] Clay [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
point of order.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his point of
order.
Mr. Clay: Mr. Speaker, is it correct that we are supposedly
deliberating on charges against one, Charles H. Wilson, that took
place in 1971 and 1972? And, if so, what bearing on that does a
record from 1970 have?
That is the record the gentleman is quoting from, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Thomas: Mr. Speaker, may I answer that question?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Yes, the gentleman is recognized.
Mr. Thomas: Mr. Speaker, the loan of $10,000 was made July 31,
1970. It was stated in the committee that that loan was
reimbursement for campaign expenses. I am quoting from a November
1970 document filed with the secretary of state of California which
indicates no moneys whatsoever were expended on the basis of that
loan. . . .
Mr. Speaker, the dollar amounts indicate in fact in the primary
and in the general election there was a campaign surplus. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: If the Chair may address the point of
order, as far as the Chair is concerned, the Chair observes that
the dialog that is taking place in the colloquy relates to the
subject matter that is before the House, and the Chair thinks that
it may unfold as the gentleman in the well is presenting it. The
Chair sees no valid reason for a point of order at this point.
Mr. Clay: Mr. Speaker, if I may proceed with my point of order,
this committee has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars for
investigators and attorneys. They spent 18 months investigating
this case and did not present this at the hearing or at the trial
of Charles H. Wilson.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will suspend.
The Chair observes that this is a very vitally important
matter. The Chair feels that there are 350 to 400 pages in this
committee report alone, plus all kinds of other background data.
The Chair does not feel that it has the prerogative of judging
specifically other than general relevancy.
The Chair overrules the point of order, and the gentleman in
the well will proceed.
Sec. 35.15 Debate on a resolution recommending a disciplinary sanction
against a Member may not exceed the scope of the conduct of the
accused Member.
On Dec. 18, 1987,(3) during consideration of a
privileged resolution (H. Res. 335, disciplining a Member) in the
House, the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 133 Cong. Rec. 36266, 36271, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Julian C.] Dixon [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I call up a
privileged resolution (H. Res. 335) in the matter of Representative
Austin J. Murphy, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
[[Page 10479]]
H. Res. 335
Resolved, That the House of Representatives adopt the
report by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct dated
December 16, 1987, in the matter of Representative Austin J.
Murphy of Pennsylvania. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (4) The gentleman from
California [Mr. Dixon] is recognized for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Doug McCurdy (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Newt] Gingrich [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, I commend the
committee for its report and its recommendation. Given the facts, a
reprimand is a reasonable recommendation and I will vote ``yes''
but I sympathize with the plight of Mr. Murphy. We must be careful
not to make a scapegoat of the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
This committee's earlier report on the gentleman from Rhode
Island should be reexamined with this new yardstick. The
committee's letter on the gentlewoman from Ohio should be
scrutinized with this new yardstick. The admission of $24,000 in
election law violations by the gentleman from California should be
held up to this new yardstick.
Finally, the numerous allegations about the Speaker must be----
Mr. [Tommy F.] Robinson [of Arkansas]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry. . . .
I thought we were here today to hear a very serious charge
against one of our colleagues from Pennsylvania, not from
California or other States.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Will the gentleman suspend? Does the
gentleman from Georgia yield?
Mr. Gingrich: No, I do not yield, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his point of
order.
Mr. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is that we are
here to consider the committee's report against our colleague
Austin Murphy and not against other Members today that the charges
have not been substantiated or presented to the committee.
Mr. Gingrich: Would the Chair----
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Will the gentleman suspend?
The [gentleman] will yield on the point of order.
On the debate currently ongoing, there can be references made
to other cases reported by the committee, not by individual or by
name. The gentleman from Georgia, as the Chair understands, has not
mentioned other individuals and the gentleman from Arkansas----
Mr. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, he has, too.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman may compare disciplinary
actions reported by the committee and should confine his remarks to
the matters before the House.
Mr. Robinson: I have a further parliamentary inquiry, Mr.
Speaker. To my knowledge, these charges are not before the
committee.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Georgia will
proceed in order.
Sec. 35.16 Debate on a motion to postpone, whether when first offered
or when reconsid
[[Page 10480]]
ered, must be confined to the advisability of postponement and may
not go to the merits of the main proposition.
During consideration of House Resolution 660 (in the matter of
Representative Charles H. Wilson) in the House on May 29,
1980,(5) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 126 Cong. Rec. 12663-65, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Allen E.] Ertel [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I was in
the House when the previous speaker got in the well and evidently
brought in material which was not in the record before the
committee, which in my judgment means there has been surprise to
the defense in this case in the fact that the gentleman brought up
evidence, which is a document from the State of California. . . .
I did vote on the prevailing side not to postpone. I would not
have voted not to postpone, except for this what I
consider to be a very unfair procedure. . . .
Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote to postpone. . . .
The Speaker: (6) Does the gentleman have the motion
in writing?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Ertel moves that the House reconsider the vote on the
motion to postpone to a day certain. . . .
The Speaker: The question is on the motion offered by Mr. Ertel
to reconsider the vote on the motion offered by Mr. Rousselot to
postpone consideration. . . .
So the motion to reconsider the vote on the motion to postpone
was agreed to. . . .
The Speaker: The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Rousselot) to postpone to June 10.
Mr. [Wyche] Fowler [Jr., of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, I would like
to ask unanimous consent from this body for 10 minutes, to be
equally divided between the opposition and the majority party, to
debate the motion now before us by the gentleman from California
(Mr. Rousselot). . . .
The Speaker: Is there objection to the 10 minutes' debate?
The Chair hears none.
Mr. Fowler: Mr. Speaker, I have been permitted by my chairman
of the committee to say to the body that we were willing, able, and
prepared to stand on the report, the recommendations of our
committee to this body on the matter of Charles H. Wilson. We were
surprised today by the document introduced by the gentleman from
California (Mr. Thomas). No other member of the committee had seen
it. Mr. Charles H. Wilson had not seen it. We did not know that it
was going to be introduced, and I would like to ask and would yield
to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) to ask him if he
would request unanimous consent to strike from the Record that
testimony in order to lay on the table.
Mr. [William D.] Ford of Michigan: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.
. . .
I assume that the rules for debate of this 10 minutes are
controlled by the
[[Page 10481]]
House rules, as was the original debate on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from California, and that limits it to the question
of delaying this matter, and not the merits of the case.
The Speaker: Under the unanimous-consent request the gentleman
is within his rights, the debate is on the advisability of
postponement.
Speaker's Reluctance To Rule in Advance on Relevancy
Sec. 35.17 Where a special order provided that one hour out of four
hours of debate on conference reports considered en bloc be
confined
to one of the reports, the Speaker declined in advance of the
debate to discuss the scope of relevancy during the designated
hour, but stated he would rule on any points of order made during
such debate.
On Oct. 14, 1978,(7) the following proceedings occurred
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 124 Cong. Rec. 38349, 38350, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Thomas L.] Ashley [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
House Resolution 1434, I call up the conference reports on the
bills [H.R. 4018, Public Utility Rates; H.R. 5037, Energy
Conservation; H.R. 5146, Coal Conversion; H.R. 5289, Natural Gas
Policy; and H.R. 5263, Energy Tax].
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (8) Pursuant to House
Resolution 1434, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ashley) will be
recognized for 2 hours and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Anderson) will be recognized for 2 hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair will recognize the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ashley)
and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Anderson) for 30 minutes to
debate the conference report on H.R. 5289. . . .
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: May I . . . inquire of
the Chair whether the first hour of debate is to be directed to the
natural gas conference report and not to the other four conference
reports?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct.
Mr. Bauman: Only to the natural gas conference report?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct.
Mr. Bauman: Would it be out of order to discuss the other parts
during that time?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would like to advise the
gentleman that the Chair would have to rule as points along that
line are brought to the attention of the Chair.
Motion To Postpone
Sec. 35.18 Debate on a motion to postpone must be confined to the issue
of the desirability of postponement, and may not go to the merits
of the main proposition.
During consideration of a privileged resolution reported from the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, the Speaker advised
[[Page 10482]]
the Members as to the scope of debate on a motion to postpone. The
proceedings in the House on May 29, 1980,(9) were as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 126 Cong. Rec. 12649, 12650, 12652, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Charles E.] Bennett [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, by
direction of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, I call
up a privileged resolution (H. Res. 660) in the matter of
Representative Charles H. Wilson, and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 660
Resolved,
(1) That Representative Charles H. Wilson be censured: . .
.
Mr. [John H.] Rousselot [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Rousselot moves to postpone further consideration of
House Resolution 660 until June 10, 1980.
The Speaker: (10) The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from California (Mr. Rousselot) for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Rousselot: Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes, for the purposes
of debate only, to my colleague, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr.
Bethune).
Mr. [Ed] Bethune [of Arkansas]: Mr. Speaker, I thank the
gentleman for yielding this time to me.
Mr. Speaker, during the course of the committee hearings one of
the critical arguments that was made by the gentleman from
California (Mr. Charles H. Wilson) was that the committee was
acting as investigator, prosecutor, grand juror----
Mr. [William D.] Ford of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, I have a point
of order.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. Ford of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, under the rules of the House
the debate must be confined to the question of the postponement and
not to any of the matters involving the matter being postponed.
The Speaker: The gentleman is correct.
The Chair would like to advise the Members that a motion to
postpone to a day certain is debatable within very narrow limits
only. Under the precedents of the House, the motion is debatable
only as to the desirability of postponing consideration of this
resolution to June 10, and it does not admit debate on the merits
of the pending proposition.
Debate as Legislative History
Sec. 35.19 A Member's allegation that debate between two other Members
was an improper attempt to establish legislative history on a
pending motion in the House was held not to constitute a proper
point of order or parliamentary inquiry.
The following proceedings occurred in the House on Dec. 2,
1982,(11) during consideration of
[[Page 10483]]
H.R. 2330 (Nuclear Regulatory Commission authorization):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 128 Cong. Rec. 28552, 28559, 28560, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (12) Pursuant to clause 4,
rule XXVIII, a motion to reject section 23 of the conference report
having been adopted, the conference report is considered as
rejected and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Udall) is recognized
to offer an amendment consisting of the remainder of the conference
report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
clause 4, rule XXVIII, and the action of the House, I move that the
House recede from its disagreement and concur in the Senate
amendment with an amendment which I send to the desk.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Udall moves that the House recede and concur in the
Senate amendment with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the
matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate, insert the
following: . . .
Mr. [Richard L.] Ottinger [of New York]: Is it correct that the
Commission's existing uranium mill tailings licensing requirements
would then automatically go into effect, without constraints
related to possible inconsistencies with proposed EPA standards?
Mr. Udall: Yes, that is correct. The applicability of NRC's
existing standards in total would not be left in doubt by any
provisions of the amendment.
Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a point of
order.
Are the gentleman from New York and the gentleman from Arizona
establishing statutory legislation with these colloquies? They are
giving to the EPA something that it does not have under the
statutory law, or to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from New York fails to
state a point of order.
Mr. Stratton: Well, it is a point of inquiry, Mr. Speaker. I am
trying to determine whether this colloquy is going to go down in
the law books as being the law of the land, because it certainly
differs to what the legislation [is] at the present time. The
Nuclear Regulatory Commission has no authority over mill tailings
or has any authority to direct the EPA.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is unable to respond to the
gentleman's inquiry. The response will have to come from the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Udall).
Mr. Udall: Mr. Speaker, let me say to the gentleman from New
York that obviously we cannot with a colloquy change the law. We
cannot change the conference report. We can indicate what it means
and how it is interpreted by Members who served on it.
Debate on Special Orders
Sec. 35.20 Unanimous-consent requests to address the House for up to
one hour may specify the subject of the ``special order'', and the
occupant of the Chair during that special order may enforce the
rule of relevancy in debate if the special order has been permitted
only on that subject.
[[Page 10484]]
Most special-order requests do not specify the subject to be
debated, and if granted by the House the Member recognized may speak on
any subject. Under Rule XIV, clause 1, however, if the question under
debate has been specified by the House, the Member must confine his
remarks to that subject. On Jan. 23, 1984,(13) a Member
indicated the subject of special orders requested, and another Member
asked for a ruling that the special orders be strictly limited to those
subjects:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 130 Cong. Rec. 90-93, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mrs. [Patricia] Schroeder [of Colorado]: Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that today, following legislative business and
any special orders heretofore entered into, the following Members
may be permitted to address the House, revise and extend their
remarks, and include extraneous material:
Ms. Oakar, for 15 minutes;
Mr. Annunzio, for 5 minutes;
Mr. Gonzalez, for 30 minutes . . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (14) . . . Is there
objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Colorado? . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Richard B. Ray (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mrs. Schroeder: Mr. Speaker, I also ask unanimous consent that
following legislative business on the following days, these special
orders be allowed so that Members may revise and extend their
remarks, and include therein extraneous material:
Mrs. Schroeder, to honor the prior Congressman, Mr. Rogers----
Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Regular order, Mr.
Speaker.
Mrs. Schroeder: Mr. Speaker, may I make a point? These are
requests for the honoring of members who were deceased over the
period that we have been adjourned.
Mr. Walker: Regular order, Mr. Speaker.
The unanimous-consent request is simply for time, and it is not
supposed to include the title of what it is that is being done. . .
.
Mrs. Schroeder: Yes, Mr. Speaker. There is precedent for
restating why we want special days assigned, and several Members,
prior Members of this body, were deceased during this period while
we have been adjourned.
Many Members would like to participate in the special orders,
and Members have requested certain days in advance so that we could
know that and send out a ``Dear Colleague'' in order to do that. .
. .
The three orders dealing with that are these:
Myself, representing the memory of Byron Rogers, which we hope
to do on January 30 for 60 minutes; and
Mr. Kastenmeier and Mr. Fascell on January 31, both wanting 60
minutes to the memory of our deceased prior chairman, Mr. Zablocki.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of
the gentlewoman from Colorado?
Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I do so
to request of the Chair whether or not these special orders will be
absolutely limited to those subject matters. I ask whether
[[Page 10485]]
the Chair will rule at this point that those special orders being
entered into will be absolutely limited to those subject matters
that were suggested by the gentlewoman from Colorado.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that the occupant
of the chair at the time would have to rule on such matters.
Motion To Amend
Sec. 35.21 Debate on a motion to amend must be confined to the subject
of the amendment, and may not range to the merits of a proposition
not included in the underlying resolution.
On Jan. 31, 1995,(15) H. Res. 43, permitting committee
chairmen to schedule and announce hearings, was being considered in the
House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 141 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 43
Resolved, That, in rule XI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives, clause 2(g)(3) is amended to read as follows:
``(3) The chairman of each committee of the House (except the
Committee on Rules) shall make public announcement of the date,
place, and subject matter of any committee hearing at least one
week before the commencement of the hearing. If the chairman of the
committee determines that there is good cause to begin the hearing
sooner, the chairman shall make the announcement at the earliest
possible date. Any announcement made under this subparagraph shall
be promptly published in the Daily Digest and promptly entered into
the committee scheduling service of the House Information
Systems.''.
An amendment was offered:
Mr. [Gerald B. H.] Solomon [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I offer
an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Solomon: Page 2, line 2, strike
``If'' and all that follows through the period on page 2, line
5 and insert the following: ``If the chairman of the committee,
with the concurrence of the ranking minority member, determines
there is good cause to begin the hearing sooner, or if the
committee so determines by majority vote, a quorum being
present for the transaction of business, the chairman shall
make the announcement at the earliest possible date.''. . .
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, the amendment speaks for itself. It
is an agreed-upon amendment. I do not know of any opposition to it.
At the appropriate time, if there are no other speakers on the
other side of the aisle, I would expect to move the previous
question.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman from Massachusetts if he
has any requests for time.
Mr. [John J.] Moakley [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I have
requests from the Members who were part
of the compact we struck last Friday. . . .
Mr. [John] Bryant of Texas: Mr. Speaker, this is a rules change
pending
[[Page 10486]]
before the House today that was worked out and brought to the floor
over a period of several days. Into this rules change was invested
a good deal of effort by the Republicans and by the Democrats, but
this is not a rules change that the public is concerned about.
When the House of Representatives adopted its rules for the
104th Congress, a rules change, which the public is concerned about
and that had the overwhelming support of Democrats, was
conspicuously absent. That is a rule to prohibit the taking of
gifts by Members of Congress from paid lobbyists.
Mr. [John] Linder [of Georgia]: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Regular order.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (16) For what purpose does
the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Linder] rise?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. William E. Barrett (Nebr.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Linder: Mr. Speaker, I would inquire if the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Bryant] is speaking to the motion before the House.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that debate must
be confined to the pending resolution.
The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant] may proceed in order.
Mr. Bryant of Texas: Mr. Speaker, the pending resolution ought
to include language to say that Members of Congress cannot take
free meals and free vacations and free golf trips from lobbyists
that are paid to influence the proceedings before this House. That
addition to this provision could have been brought forward. It
ought to be brought forward.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, regular order. The gentleman is not
talking in regard to a germane amendment to the issue before us
right now.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would advise the gentleman
that the debate must be confined to the subject at hand.
Mr. Bryant of Texas: I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr.
Speaker. . . .
Mr. Speaker, if I advocate that this amendment ought to be
defeated unless it includes the language that I have suggested with
regard to prohibiting Members of Congress from taking freebies from
lobbyists, would I then not be talking upon the amendment at hand?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: It is not relevant to discuss
unrelated issues as a contingency on this resolution.
CHAPTER 29
Consideration and Debate
E. RELEVANCY IN DEBATE
Sec. 36. --On Question of Privilege
Question of Personal Privilege
Sec. 36.1 In addressing the House on a question of personal privilege a
Member must confine himself to that question.
On May 6, 1932, Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, arose to state
a question of personal privilege based on a newspaper editorial
accusing the majority of the House of treason under the leadership of
Mr. Rankin.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 75 Cong. Rec. 9715, 72d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 10487]]
Speaker John N. Garner, of Texas, ruled that a question of personal
privilege was stated, and Mr. Rankin delivered further remarks. Mr.
Albert Johnson, of Washington, then arose to make a point of order that
Mr. Rankin was not speaking to the question of privilege. Speaker
Garner ruled that Mr. Rankin must confine himself to the
question.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See also 90 Cong. Rec. 876, 877, 78th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 28,
1944; and 81 Cong. Rec. 6309, 6310, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., June
24, 1937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 36.2 In speaking to a question of personal privilege based on
criticism of a Member, he is required to confine his remarks to the
question involved, but is entitled to discuss related matters
necessary to challenge the charge against him.
On Feb. 28, 1956,(19) Mr. Craig Hosmer, of California,
arose to a point of personal privilege, based on an editorial from a
newspaper accusing him of falsehoods in relation to a bill before the
House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 102 Cong. Rec. 3477, 3479, 3480, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After Speaker Pro Tempore John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts,
ruled that Mr. Hosmer had stated a question of personal privilege Mr.
Hosmer obtained unanimous consent to revise and extend his remarks and
to include extraneous matter, including tables, during his debate.
Mr. Byron G. Rogers, of Colorado, subsequently rose to the point of
order that Mr. Hosmer was not speaking on his question of personal
privilege but was speaking as to the nature of the bill involved. The
Speaker Pro Tempore ruled as follows:
The Chair has previously stated that in laying the foundation
for answering the charge of falsehood in the editorial, the
gentleman from California would have rather a broad field to
discuss his reasons for defending himself. The Chair calls
attention to the gentleman from California, that there are limits
to the liberality extended in this connection and suggests that the
gentleman from California proceed in order.
Mr. Hosmer proceeded further on his point of personal privilege,
and Mr. Rogers rose to another point of order that Mr. Hosmer was again
discussing a bill and placing before the Members of the House a chart,
and not referring in any way to the truth or falsity of the charges
involved in the question of personal privilege. The Speaker Pro Tempore
ruled:
The Chair might state that he feels that the gentleman from
California is very close to the line where the Chair may sustain a
point of order. As the Chair understands it, the gentleman
[[Page 10488]]
has the right to discuss the facts involved in the pending bill
insofar as that is necessary in order for the gentleman to express
his views with reference to the charge of falsehood contained in
the editorial, and to answer that charge, and make his record in
that respect. The Chair again suggests to the gentleman from
California, having in mind the observations of the Chair,
particularly those just made, that he proceed in order and confine
his discussion of the bill at this time only to that which is
necessary to challenge the charge of falsehood contained in the
editorial.
References to Pending Legislation
Sec. 36.3 A Member who is recognized on a question of personal
privilege must limit himself to a discussion of the charges made
against him and may not discuss a measure which is to come before
the House for consideration.
On Apr. 9, 1943,(20) Mr. Clare
E. Hoffman, of Michigan, rose to
a question of personal privilege based on a newspaper article charging
him with being one
of ``Hitler's American stooges.'' Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled
that a question of personal privilege was stated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 89 Cong. Rec. 3195, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While discussing his question of personal privilege, Mr. Hoffman
digressed to discuss a tax bill which had been introduced in the House
and which was to come before the House for consideration. Mr. Herman P.
Eberharter, of Pennsylvania, arose to state a point of order:
. . . I submit the gentleman is not speaking on a question of
personal privilege when he is discussing a measure which is to come
before the House for consideration.
Mr. Hoffman: I would like to be heard on that, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: The Chair will ask the gentleman from Michigan to
proceed in order, and under the rule he must limit himself to a
discussion of the charges made in his question for personal
privilege. The gentleman will proceed in order.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Id. at p. 3197.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Aug. 4, 1970,(2) Mr. Silvio O. Conte, of
Massachusetts, rose to a question of personal privilege to challenge
words spoken in debate in the House, although the ordinary procedure
requires a timely demand that the objectionable words be taken down.
Mr. Conte based his question of personal privilege on the fact that Mr.
Page H. Belcher, of Oklahoma, had referred to Mr. Conte as ``another
guy'' who had ``horned in'' on the act in relation to a certain bill.
Mr. Conte then began discussing
[[Page 10489]]
the bill in question, the Agricultural Act of 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 116 Cong. Rec. 27130, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Delbert L. Latta, of Ohio, made the point of order that Mr.
Conte was not directing his remarks to the words he challenged but to a
legislative proposition which would be fully discussed when general
debate commenced on the bill. Speaker Pro Tempore Edward P. Boland, of
Massachusetts, directed Mr. Conte to confine his remarks to the point
of personal privilege.
Parliamentarian's Note: A point of order was subsequently made that
the raising of a point of personal privilege was not the proper
procedure to challenge words spoken in debate but that the words should
be demanded to be taken down. The Speaker Pro Tempore ruled that the
point of order came too late, and unanimous consent was granted that
the objectionable words be stricken from the Record.
References to Grounds for Impeachment
Sec. 36.4 Where a question of personal privilege is based up-on
newspaper editorials impugning a Member's motives in offering a
resolution seeking to impeach the President, the Member in
addressing the House may discuss the several charges contained in
his resolution in order to justify his resolution.
On Jan. 23, 1933, Mr. Louis T. McFadden, of Pennsylvania, rose to a
question of personal privilege based on newspaper criticism of his
having moved for the impeachment of President Roosevelt.(3)
When Mr. McFadden proceeded to read additional newspaper editorials,
Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, rose to make the point of order that
Mr. McFadden was not confining himself to the question. Mr. Bertrand H.
Snell, of New York, stated the rule that a Member proposing a question
of personal privilege must confine his remarks to the matter contained
in items on which he bases his question of privilege. Speaker John N.
Garner, of Texas, stated that the newspaper articles read by Mr.
McFadden raised questions as to his right to move for impeachment and
that they were relevant to the question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 76 Cong. Rec. 2294, 72d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to a further point of order by Mr. Snell, Speaker Pro
Tempore Blanton ruled that although Mr. McFadden could not refer to the
experience and law of Great Britain in relation to impeachment, he
could discuss the charges contained in his resolu
[[Page 10490]]
tion of impeachment in order to justify his moving for impeachment:
Mr. Snell: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the
gentleman is not confining himself to the question before the House
or the matter of personal privilege, referring in particular to his
actions in his representative capacity. He is quoting the King of
England and stating matters that happened over in England which
have nothing to do with the charge against the gentleman from
Pennsylvania in his representative capacity. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair sustains the point of order
in so far as it relates to any reference to England, unless there
was some reference to England in the resolution. The gentleman from
Pennsylvania knows the rules. He is confined absolutely to the
matters that were embraced within his resolution, and must not go
beyond that.
Mr. Snell: Just a moment, Mr. Speaker. Has he the right to go
into every single phase of the charges he made in the resolution
that he presented here a week or two ago?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair thinks he is entitled to
explain any matter that is contained within his resolution because
for the filing of it he was called by certain newspapers
contemptible, unpatriotic, and the author of an indecent act.
Mr. Snell: I maintain that he may not discuss what other men in
England have said.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair has sustained the point of
order to that limit, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania
understands the rule and must proceed in order.
Question of Privilege of the House
Sec. 36.5 A Member having been recognized on a question of the
privileges of the House must confine himself to such question.
On Aug. 28, 1940,(4) Speaker William B. Bankhead, of
Alabama, recognized Mr. Jacob Thorkelson, of Montana, on a matter of
privilege of the House raised on the preceding day and pending at
adjournment. Mr. Thorkelson's question of privilege was based on the
alleged extension of remarks in the Record by Mr. Adolph J. Sabath, of
Illinois, without first obtaining permission of the House. The Speaker
ruled that such an extension of remarks gave grounds for a question of
privilege of the House. Mr. Thorkelson proceeded in debate on his
question of privilege and on a resolution which he had offered to
expunge from the Record the remarks inserted by Mr. Sabath without
permission to revise and extend. When Mr. Thorkelson began discussing
British history,
[[Page 10491]]
the Speaker interjected to inquire what relation the discussion had to
the question of privilege of the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 86 Cong. Rec. 11150-58, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: Would the gentleman from Montana allow a question
from the Chair?
Mr. Thorkelson: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: On what phase is the gentleman addressing himself
so far as the question of privilege is concerned?
Mr. Thorkelson: I did not want
to read this, Mr. Speaker. I asked unanimous consent to have it
inserted in the Record. This is a history of the secret service I
am now reading.
The Speaker: Conceding that, to what phase does it have
reference so far as the question of privilege is concerned?
Mr. Thorkelson: With regard to whether I have uttered truths or
falsehoods. I believe that is part of my resolution.
The Speaker: The Chair does not find any language in the
gentleman's resolution where he is charged with an untruth or
falsity.
Mr. Thorkelson: There is the question of whether I have stated
facts or not.
The Speaker: The only question of privilege involved is whether
or not the matter was put in without permission of the House.
Mr. Thorkelson: The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Sabath] asked
me to read it. Now, then, if he does not want me to read it, I will
put it in the Record.
The Speaker: The gentleman from Illinois objected to the
gentleman's request to incorporate the statement in the Record. He
did not request the gentleman to read it. The Chair does not desire
to interrupt the continuity of the gentleman's argument, but the
Chair is under some obligation to see that the gentleman conforms
with the rules and discusses the matter of privilege about which he
complains.
Mr. Thorkelson then made a point of order that under the
Constitution he had a right to present his case before the House and
not to be deprived of that right by the Chair. The Speaker overruled
the point of order.
Question of Personal Privilege
Sec. 36.6 Debate on a question of personal privilege must be confined
to the statements or issue which gave rise to the question of
privilege.
On May 31, 1984,(5) the following proceedings occurred
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 130 Cong. Rec. 14620, 14622, 14623, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I rise
to a question of personal privilege.
The Speaker: (6) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, in this morning's Washington Times
newspaper, an article appears which, if accurate, constitutes a
personalized attack, calls into question possible asso
[[Page 10492]]
ciations this Member may have and, therefore, it seems to me is
subject to a point of personal privilege.
I quote from the newspaper article:
Mr. O'Neill, meanwhile, shrugged off the ads but launched
his own attack on the conservative Republicans with whom he has
become increasingly irritated.
``I understand the young fellows, the regressives, the John
Bircher types, absolutely insisted they run the ads on me,''
the speaker said.
In making the statement, Mr. O'Neill specifically names
Reps. Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., and Robert S. Walker, R-Pa., and
said ``they want to turn back the clock to the days when there
were only the rich and the poor in America.''
He said the conservatives oppose him because he is
``fighting for the middle man and the poor man.''
The Speaker: May the Chair say I may have compared the
gentleman's philosophy with those who belong to the Birch Society.
I never said that the gentleman belonged to the Birch Society.
But nevertheless there is a point of personal privilege because
of the fact that the newspaper printed an article. The point of
personal privilege is against the newspaper.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Walker) for 1 hour. . . .
Mr. [Thomas S.] Foley [of Washington]: . . . Mr. Speaker, the
gentleman said he thought the American people viewed the
responsibility of the Speaker as being fair and impartial as the
presiding officer. I think that is right, and I think this Speaker
has been fair and impartial as a presiding officer.
As a matter of fact, going back over the last decade it is
absolutely rare, probably to the point of being able to count the
times on one hand, where we have had an appeal from a ruling of the
Chair, whether it is being occupied by the Speaker personally, or
by someone acting in his behalf. This cannot be said of the other
body or of most State legislatures. . . .
[I]t is one thing for the gentleman to suggest that some action
of the Speaker off the floor and not presiding over the floor is
something he wants to criticize; it is another thing to imply that
there is unfairness, partiality or partisanship in the way this
Speaker has conducted himself in this Chamber.
Mr. Walker: I would say to the gentleman that the Speaker of
the House is the Speaker of the House full time. He is the symbol
of this body when he is on the floor and when he is off the floor.
What he says and does as Speaker of the House reflects on us all,
all of the time. . . .
Mr. [Vin] Weber [of Minnesota]: . . . What we have just heard
from our colleague from Washington is a definition of fairness of
the chair being that that Speaker's rulings are not appealed. Well,
I will say to you on this side of the aisle we do not think that
this Speaker has been fair. We do not think it is fair that
legislation is bottled up in committee and not brought to the floor
for votes, we do not think it is fair that constitutional
amendments are scheduled for action on the Suspension Calendar, we
do not think it is fair that we are not given proportional
representation on any committees of the House of Representatives,
and I could go on and on and on. . . .
Ms. [Mary Rose] Oakar [of Ohio]: . . . You three gentlemen have
been,
[[Page 10493]]
in my judgment, engaging in [McCarthyism] every evening. You take
the liberty of not only engaging in that kind of rhetoric, but
mentioning names. . . . I was one of them, and you are so ignorant
of the truth that you got me mixed up, I think, with Congresswoman
Schroeder. . . .
You indicated that I had an 18-year-old son who did not want to
be drafted, or something like that. I do not have an 18-year-old
son. . . .
Mr. Walker: The gentlewoman, of course, does make a point.
There was an inaccurate reference to her, not to the statement that
she made, but to the fact that she referred--but that she
referred----
Mr. [John T.] Myers [of Indiana]: Regular order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Walker: I was just about to apologize to the gentlewoman,
which is more than the Speaker has given me. I would say to the
gentlewoman she is owed an apology. . . .
Ms. Oakar: Will you yield?
Mr. Walker: I was trying to apologize to you. If you want me to
stop, I will be very glad to yield to the gentlewoman.
Ms. Oakar: I gave a 1-minute speech about 3 weeks ago in which
I mentioned that, and it is a little belated, your apology, and I
am really surprised that you had not done so before this. But then
I do not think you fellows are very interested in the truth. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (7) The Chair would like to
have order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. John P. Murtha (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let the Chair remind the Members to confine their remarks to
the issue of personal privilege which is the newspaper article
which was brought up in the first place. . . .
Mr. [Newt] Gingrich [of Georgia]: You know, it does not
surprise me that some Democrats get up and tell us how fair the
Speaker is. I expect if we were all Democrats we might think he is
fair, too. . . .
We have been through a cycle in which the President has been
called heartless. It has been said he has ice water in his veins. .
. .
The distinguished majority leader managed to describe the
President as a liar 10 times in a 1-minute speech.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Let the Chair remind the participants
in this debate to stick to the issue of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania's personal privilege, which is not what the gentleman
from Georgia was just debating.
Seating of Member
Sec. 36.7 It is in order during debate on a motion to refer a
resolution directing the temporary seating of a Member-elect to
discuss court decisions relating to the constitutional authority of
the House to judge its elections.
During consideration of House Resolution 97 (to seat Richard D.
McIntyre as a Member from Indiana) in the House on Mar. 4,
1985,(8) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 131 Cong. Rec. 4277, 4278, 4280, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 10494]]
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: (9) The gentleman states a
valid question of privilege.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr.
Alexander).
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 that motion, during which time the gentleman from Arkansas
controls the time. . . .
Mr. Alexander: . . . [A] certificate of election from the
appropriate State officer is considered only as prima facie
evidence of election and may be rendered ineffective by the House
under its power to judge elections. . . .
Mr. Speaker, the matter before us today was . . . resolved in a
memorandum opinion on March 1 by the U.S. district court for the
District of Columbia in the case of McIntyre versus O'Neill,
whereupon the court found as follows. . . .
Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry. . . .
Mr. Speaker, am I correct that the gentleman must address
himself to the resolution that is before the House, and addressing
district court matters that are outside the ability of this House
to make decisions would not be addressing itself specifically to
the resolution at hand?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair must rule that if a court
proceeding relates to a matter under discussion in the Chamber,
then it is not out of order to make reference to the court's
findings and related matter during debate on the motion to refer.
CHAPTER 29
Consideration and Debate
E. RELEVANCY IN DEBATE
Sec. 37. Debate in Committee of the Whole
During general debate in the Committee of the Whole, remarks need
not be confined to the pending bill unless ordered by the House or
unless Calendar Wednesday business is being considered.(10)
Under the modern
[[Page 10495]]
practice, however, bills are generally considered in the Committee of
the Whole pursuant to special rules reported by the Committee on
Rules,(11) and such rules often provide that debate in the
Committee shall ``be confined to the bill,'' therefore requiring
relevancy in debate.(12) Similarly, the Committee may by
unanimous consent require that debate be confined to the
bill,(13) in which case the Members in their remarks must
conform to the rule of relevancy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See Sec. 39.1, infra.
See Rule XXIII clause 3, House Rules and Manual Sec. 865
(1995) and the comments thereto for the subjects requiring
consideration in Committee of the Whole. Under clause 7 of Rule
XXIV, general debate in Committee of the Whole on Calendar
Wednesday business must be confined to the bill.
11. See Ch. 21, supra.
12. See Sec. 37.1, infra.
13. See Sec. 37.2, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If a Member does not obtain unanimous consent to speak out of order
and is repeatedly called to order for failing to confine himself to the
subject, he may be directed by the Chair to take his
seat.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See Sec. 37.1, infra; 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2592, 2594, 2595.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where a bill is being read for amendment in the Committee of the
Whole under the five-minute rule, all debate should be confined to the
pending amendment,(15) and a Member should not discuss under
the five-minute rule amendments to parts of the bill and subjects not
then before the committee.(16) Although Members frequently
avail themselves of the practice under the five-minute rule of offering
pro forma amendments, the purpose of which is to gain time in debate
without actually offering an amendment, a point of order against a
Member so moving will require him to limit his remarks to the pending
question.(17) But a Member offering the preferential motion
to strike the enacting clause under the five-minute rule may discuss
the entire bill, the motion bringing into question the entire bill
before the Committee of the Whole.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See Sec. 38.1, 38.4, infra; 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5240-5256; 8
Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2591.
Rule XXIII clause 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. 870 (1995)
allows a Member offering an amendment in the Committee of the
Whole five minutes ``to explain any amendment he may offer.''
16. See Sec. 38.5, infra.
A Member may obtain unanimous consent to speak out of order
during the five-minute rule (see Sec. 38.16, 38.17, infra).
17. See Sec. 38.8-38.14, infra.
18. See Sec. 37.5-37.11, 38.18-38.20, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal to the Chair's ruling in the Committee of the Whole is
[[Page 10496]]
governed by the five-minute rule, and debate on the appeal must be
confined to the subject of the Chair's ruling.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See Sec. 38.15, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effect of Special Rule
Sec. 37.1 Where a rule provides that debate in the Committee of the
Whole shall be confined to the bill, a Member must confine his
remarks to the bill and if he continues to speak to other matters
after repeated points of order, the Chair will request that he take
his seat.
On Mar. 29, 1944,(20) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 4257, to expatriate or exclude certain persons for
evading military and naval service. (The House had adopted H. Res. 482
for consideration of the bill in Committee of the Whole, providing that
general debate be ``confined to the bill.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 90 Cong. Rec. 3263, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, requested unanimous consent to
speak out of order, and Mr. Noah M. Mason, of Illinois, objected to the
request on the ground that ``under the rule adopted by the House,
debate on this bill is to be restricted to the bill.''
Mr. Celler was then called to order twice for speaking to a subject
irrelevant to the bill; he discussed the conduct of the Arabian nations
in relation to the American war effort.
When Mr. Celler continued to speak out of order, the following
exchange took place (Chairman James Domengeaux [La.] presiding):
Mr. [Adolph J.] Sabath [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a
point of order.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state the point of order.
Mr. Sabath: The gentleman is not speaking to the bill. He has
been admonished several times, he has refused, and I am obliged to
make the point of order myself, though I regret it.
The Chairman: The point of order is sustained and the gentleman
is again requested to confine himself to the bill.
Mr. Mason: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry. How many
times do we have to call the gentleman to order and try to get him
to confine his remarks to the bill before the privilege of the
House is withdrawn?
The Chairman: This will be the last time. If the gentleman does
not proceed in order, he will be requested to take his seat.
Debate on ``Omnibus'' Appropriation Bill
Sec. 37.2 Where general debate was confined in the Com
[[Page 10497]]
mittee of the Whole to an appropriation bill by unanimous consent,
the Speaker indicated that since the pending bill included many
different appropriations, debate on the bill would be broad in
scope.
On Apr. 3, 1950,(1) the House resolved itself into the
Committee of the Whole for the consideration of H.R. 7786, making
appropriations for the support of the government for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1951. By unanimous consent, the House ordered that
general debate be confined to the bill. Mr. Ben F. Jensen, of Iowa,
arose to express the hope that the Chairman of the Committee, Clarence
Cannon, of Missouri, and other Members would not make points of order
on the relevancy of debate since there was so much involved in the
bill. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, replied:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 96 Cong. Rec. 4614, 4615, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair would think that this appropriation bill actually
being 11 bills in one, and covering everything in the Government, a
Member speaking on the bill would have a rather wide range.
Parliamentarian's Note: The 1951 appropriation bill consolidated
into one bill 11 different
appropriation bills considered in prior years.
Speaking Out of Order by Unanimous Consent
Sec. 37.3 Where the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the
Union is considering a bill under terms of a resolution which
states that debate shall be ``confined to the bill,'' a Member may
proceed out of order only by unanimous consent.
On Nov. 27, 1967, the Committee of the Whole was considering H.R.
13489, a credit union measure.(2) The Member having the
floor had yielded two minutes to Mr. John M. Murphy, of New York, who
was speaking on the failure of the city administration of New York City
to provide an adequate housing program. Mr. Durward G. Hall, of
Missouri, rose to state a point of order that Mr. Murphy was speaking
out of order. The Chairman, Donald M. Fraser, of Minnesota, indicated
that Mr. Murphy could speak out of order only by unanimous consent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 113 Cong. Rec. 33773, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 37.4 Where a resolution confines general debate on a bill in
Committee of the Whole to the bill under consideration, a Member
may speak on an
[[Page 10498]]
other subject only by unanimous consent, and the Member controlling
the time may not yield to another Member to speak out of order.
On Nov. 25, 1970, the Committee of the Whole was considering H.R.
19504, the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1970, under a resolution (H. Res.
1267) confining general debate to the subject matter of the
bill.(3) Mr. John C. Kluczynski, of Illinois, who had the
floor, yielded to Mr. Samuel S. Stratton, of New York, to speak out of
order. Chairman Chet Holifield, of California, ruled that Mr.
Kluczynski was required to make a unanimous-consent request for that
purpose and that the Chair could not make the request for him.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 116 Cong. Rec. 38747, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scope of Debate on Motion To Strike Enacting Clause
Sec. 37.5 Debate on a preferential motion that the Committee of the
Whole rise with the recommendation that the enacting clause be
stricken out may go to any portion of the bill under consideration.
On Apr. 4, 1974,(4) during consideration of the
supplemental military procurement authorization for fiscal year 1974
(H.R. 12565) in the Committee of the Whole, Mr. John J. Flynt, Jr., of
Georgia, made a motion, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 120 Cong. Rec. 9853, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Flynt: Mr. Chairman, I offer a preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Flynt moves that the Committee now rise and report the
bill back to the House with a recommendation that the enacting
clause be stricken.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: (5) The gentleman is
recognized for 5 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. James G. O'Hara (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Flynt: Mr. Chairman, make no mistake about it, this so-
called $1.4 billion ceiling is in reality----
Mr. [Joe D.] Waggonner [Jr., of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, a
point of order.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Waggonner: I make a point of order that the gentleman is
not speaking to the preferential motion.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: Under the rule governing preferential
motions, the gentleman from Georgia is privileged to speak to any
part of the bill, but he must confine his remarks to the bill.
Sec. 37.6 Debate in opposition to a preferential motion to strike out
the enacting clause may relate to any portion of the bill,
including the merits of an amendment
[[Page 10499]]
pending when the preferential motion was offered.
During consideration of the military procurement authorization
(H.R. 6674) in the Committee of the Whole on May 20,
1975,(6) the proposition described above was demonstrated as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 121 Cong. Rec. 15458, 15465, 15466, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Melvin] Price [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I move that all
debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto, and on further
amendments to the bill, end in 20 minutes.
The Chairman: (7) The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Illinois.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The motion was agreed to. . . .
The Chairman: The time of the gentleman has expired. [All time
has expired.]
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a
preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Bauman moves that the Committee do now rise and report
the bill back to the House with the recommendation that the
enacting clause be stricken out.
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, I only offer this motion in order to
obtain time since I was not able to receive any time from the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Harkin) who offered what he claimed to be
the Bauman amendment. I have read his amendment very carefully. It
is not the same amendment which I offered to the National Science
Foundation authorization bill. . . .
Mr. [Tom] Harkin [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words, and I rise in opposition to the
preferential motion.
I thank the gentleman from Maryland for giving me an
opportunity to expand a little bit more on some of these ridiculous
spending programs that waste the taxpayers' dollars.
If the offices of other Members are like mine, whenever they
get one of these letters they begin to wonder, and people begin to
ask the Members, just what it is we do to take care of these
situations. If we pass this routine authorization bill for the
Defense Department for $32 billion in the usual manner, we will
have to answer to our constituents if we choose to be honest about
it.
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, I demand regular order.
The Chairman: The gentleman speaks on the preferential motion.
The Chair would like to make the observation that any portion
of the bill is open to [debate].
Sec. 37.7 Since the preferential motion that the Committee rise and
report with the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken
applies to the entire bill, debate may be directed to any part of
the bill (including a pending amendment) and need not be confined
to the merits of the preferential motion.
On June 20, 1975,(8) during consideration of the Energy
Research
[[Page 10500]]
and Development Administration authorization for fiscal year 1976 (H.R.
3474), the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 121 Cong. Rec. 19971, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Tom] Harkin [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a
preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Harkin moves that the Committee do now rise and report
the bill back to the House with the recommendation that the
enacting clause be stricken out. . . .
Mr. Harkin: Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply does this. It
sets
a middle-ground course between the Coughlin amendment and the
committee position.
What my amendment does is go back to the original law as it was
enacted and ask that the utility companies and private industries
come up within 50 percent of the capital cost of the construction
of the Clinch River breeder reactor. . . .
Mr. [John H.] Rousselot [of California]: Mr. Chairman, a point
of order. . . .
Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman not have to speak to the
preferential motion?
The Chairman: (9) The Chair would advise the
gentleman, as he advised another gentleman awhile ago, that debate
on the preferential motion opens the entire bill to debate. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. J. Edward Roush (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Mike] McCormack [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry. . . .
My point of parliamentary inquiry is, does not the gentleman
have to relate to his motion in some manner? He is not even
remotely relating to his motion.
The Chairman: The Chair has listened to the gentleman in the
well and it seems to the Chair that the gentleman in the well is
debating within the parameters of the bill which is before the
Committee, and the point of order is overruled.
Sec. 37.8 Since the preferential motion that the Committee rise and
report with the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken
applies to the entire bill, debate may be directed to any part of
the bill, and the motion may be used by a Member to secure five
minutes to debate a pending amendment notwithstanding a limitation
of time for debate on the pending amendment and all amendments
thereto.
On June 20, 1975,(10) during consideration of H.R. 3474
(11) in the Committee of the Whole, the following
proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 121 Cong. Rec. 19941, 19951, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
11. A bill authorizing appropriations for the Energy Research and
Development Administration for fiscal year 1976.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John] Young of Texas: Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate
on this amendment and all amendments thereto cease in 30 minutes.
[[Page 10501]]
The Chairman: (12) The gentleman from Texas moves
that all debate on the McCormack amendment and all amendments
thereto cease in 30 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. J. Edward Roush (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Young).
The motion was agreed to. . . .
Mr. [Robert W.] Edgar [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I offer
a preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Edgar moves that the Committee do now rise and report
the bill back to the House with the
recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken.
Mr. Edgar: Mr. Chairman, I make this motion to get more time to
talk about this very important matter. . . . We rise in support of
the Coughlin amendment. We feel very strongly that the gentleman
from Iowa (Mr. Harkin) has pointed out many of the important
features of this program that have to be taken into consideration
and we feel very strongly that we should delete this item from the
budget.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the continuation of my time to the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Harkin). . . .
Mr. [Steven D.] Symms [of Idaho]: Mr. Chairman, I demand
regular order.
The Chairman: The Chair is following regular order. . . .
Mr. Symms: Is it regular order to seek recognition under a
preferential motion?
The Chairman: The Chair will state that under the parliamentary
procedure the entire bill is under debate. The Chair is following
regular order.
Sec. 37.9 Debate on a preferential motion, that the Committee of the
Whole rise and report the bill to the House with the recommendation
that the enacting clause be stricken, may relate to any portion of
the bill, including the merits of an amendment pending when the
motion was offered.
During consideration of the energy and water appropriation bill
(H.R. 4388) in the Committee of the Whole on June 14,
1979,(13) the following exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 125 Cong. Rec. 14995, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a
preferential motion.
The Chairman: (14) The Clerk will report the
preferential motion of the gentleman from Michigan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Philip R. Sharp (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Dingell moves that the Committee do now rise and report
the bill back with the recommendation that the enacting clause
be stricken out.
Mr. [John T.] Myers of Indiana: Mr. Chairman, is the gentleman
opposed to the bill?
The Chairman: Is the gentleman from Michigan opposed to the
bill?
Mr. Dingell: In its present form, I am, Mr. Chairman.
[[Page 10502]]
The Chairman: The gentleman qualifies. The gentleman from
Michigan is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion. . .
.
A point of order was made as to the relevancy of Mr. Dingell's
subsequent remarks.
Mr. [Mickey] Edwards [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I do not
believe the gentleman is proceeding in order. I believe the
gentleman is supposed to speak on his preferential motion and not
on the amendment the gentleman is offering.
Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I am explaining why I will vote for
the preferential motion.
The Chairman: Any aspect of the bill is debatable.
The gentleman from Michigan is recognized.
Sec. 37.10 Debate on a preferential motion that the enacting clause be
stricken may relate to any portion of the pending bill or
amendment, and need not be confined to the propriety of the motion.
The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on
Aug. 20, 1980,(15) during consideration of the Treasury
Department and Postal Service appropriations bill for fiscal 1981 (H.R.
7593):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 126 Cong. Rec. 22173-76, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a
preferential motion. . . .
The Chairman: (16) . . . The Clerk will report the
motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Richardson Preyer (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Bauman moves that the Committee do now rise and report
the bill back to the House with the recommendation that the
enacting clause be stricken. . . .
Mr. Bauman: . . . These health programs, which are provided to
Federal employees, are paid for by a combination of Government and
employees. . . .
Mrs. [Patricia] Schroeder [of Colorado]: Mr. Chairman, a point
of order.
Mr. Chairman, I do not believe the gentleman is discussing his
preferential motion.
The Chairman: The entire bill is debatable on a preferential
motion.
Sec. 37.11 Debate in Committee of the Whole on a preferential motion to
rise with the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken
need not be confined to a pending amendment but need only relate to
the bill.
On July 29, 1982,(17) during consideration of the
military procurement authorization for fiscal year 1983 (H.R. 6030) in
the Committee of the Whole, the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 128 Cong. Rec. 18605, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I offer
a preferential motion.
[[Page 10503]]
The Chairman: (18) The Clerk will report the
preferential motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Les AuCoin (Oreg.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Walker moves that the Committee do now rise and report
the bill to the House with the recommendation that the enacting
clause
be stricken out.
Mr. Walker: Mr. Chairman, I think we have had a very valuable
debate on some vital issues here today. . . .
Now, I did not agree with everybody who brought their issues to
the floor. As a matter of fact, I voted against I think most of the
amendments that have been offered; but it has been very valuable
debate and it has been debate that has taken place in pretty strict
adherence to the 5-minute rule, primarily because I started
objecting here earlier today, and I must say that I am sorry I had
to object to the gentleman from Massachusetts who was making a
point on something he felt very strongly about and particularly
because I had to object to the gentleman from New York who for many
years has stood strong on this floor for civil defense and was not
permitted to make his full argument because I objected. . . .
Mr. [Andrew] Jacobs [Jr., of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, a point of
order.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Jacobs: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order that the
gentleman is not speaking to his motion.
The Chairman: The Chair will observe that debate on this motion
can range over the entire bill and procedure thereon.
The gentleman will continue.
Argument on Point of Order
Sec. 37.12 Argument on a point of order must be confined to the point
of order and may not go to the merits of
the amendment being challenged.
On June 24, 1976,(19) during consideration of H.R. 14232
(the Departments of Labor and Health, Education, and Welfare
appropriation bill for fiscal 1977), the following proceedings
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 122 Cong. Rec. 20370, 20371, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mrs. [Millicent H.] Fenwick [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I
offer an amendment as a substitute for the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Skubitz).
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mrs. Fenwick as a substitute for the
amendment offered by Mr. Skubitz: On page 7, strike the period
at the end of line 25, and insert in lieu thereof: ``:
Provided, That none of the funds appropriated under this
paragraph shall be obligated or expended to . . . enforce any
standard, rule, regulation, or order under the Occupational
Safety and Health Act of 1970 which is applicable to any person
who is engaged in a farming operation. . . .''
Mr. [Gary A.] Myers [of Pennsylvania]: 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. Myers of Pennsylvania to the
amendment
[[Page 10504]]
offered by Mrs. Fenwick as a substitute for the amendment
offered by Mr. Skubitz: At the end of the amendment offered by
Mrs. Fenwick strike the period and add the following:
``Provided further, That the funds appropriated under this
paragraph shall be obligated or expended to assure full
compliance of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 by
Members of Congress and their staffs.''
Mr. [William D.] Ford of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, I make a point
of order against the amendment.
The Chairman: (20) The Chair recognizes the
gentleman from Michigan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Ford of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, the amendment is not
germane. It is also in violation of the rule against legislating on
an appropriation bill. . . .
The Chairman: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Myers).
Mr. Myers of Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman, because of my great
concern for the safety of all workers and because of the fact that
Members of Congress are allowed in fact to have several offices and
up to 18 full-time employees, some of those who travel vehicular
equipment on the highways are exposed to extreme hazards. . . .
The objective of this bill is to appropriate money to see that
OSHA is bringing under compliance all workers who work in an
environment such as an industrial office or similar facilities.
Mr. [Ronald A.] Sarasin [of Connecticut]: Mr. Chairman, I make
a point of order.
The Chairman: The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Myers) is
being heard on a point of order.
Mr. Sarasin: Mr. Chairman, it would appear that the gentleman
is not addressing himself to the point of order, but he is
addressing himself to the amendment.
The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Myers), at this point,
should address his comments to the point of order made by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ford), to-wit, that the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Myers) would not be
germane to the language of the substitute which it would seek to
amend and, further, that it would constitute legislation on an
appropriation bill.
CHAPTER 29
Consideration and Debate
E. RELEVANCY IN DEBATE
Sec. 38. Debate Under Five-minute Rule
Relevancy Requirement
Sec. 38.1 Debate in the Committee of the Whole under the five-minute
rule must be confined to the pending amendment.
On Jan. 23, 1936,(1) during debate on a supplemental
appropriations bill, Mr. Hamilton Fish, Jr., of New York, arose to move
to strike out the last word and stated that he was using the motion
``merely as a vehicle for my remarks.'' He then commenced to discuss
the failure to appropriate
[[Page 10505]]
compensation to the widow of a former Congressman. Mr. William B.
Bankhead, of Alabama, arose to state a point of order that Mr. Fish's
remarks did not relate to the amendment then pending. Chairman Jere
Cooper, of Tennessee, ruled as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 80 Cong. Rec. 963, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
. . . The gentleman is aware, of course, that certain practices
are sometimes indulged in by general consent but if a point of
order is made against them, the point of order must be sustained.
Debate under the 5-minute rule must be confined to the paragraph
under consideration. The paragraph here under consideration relates
to the National Labor Relations Board. The gentleman's remarks do
not, apparently, refer to this subject matter. The point of order
is, therefore, sustained.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. See also 110 Cong. Rec. 755, 88th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 21, 1964; 96
Cong. Rec. 1734, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 9, 1950; and 90
Cong. Rec. 421, 78th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 19, 1944.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 38.2 Although debate on an amendment under the five-minute rule in
Committee of the Whole must be confined to the subject matter of
the amendment, enforcement of the rule requires that a point of
order be made, since the Chair does not normally enforce the rule
on his or her own initiative and may even allow some latitude in
debate, at the sufferance of the Committee of the Whole.
On this occasion, the Speaker Pro Tempore had refused to recognize
for one-minute speeches before the legislative business.(3)
The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole stated his intention to
allow, with the sufferance of the Committee of the Whole, the rule of
relevancy in debate to be relaxed, in order to allow Members to address
the subject of one-minute speeches. The proceedings in the Committee of
the Whole on July 25, 1980,(4) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. For further discussion of the Chair's discretion with regard to
recognizing Members for one-minute speeches, see Sec. 9, supra.
4. 126 Cong. Rec. 19766, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [E. G.] Shuster [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment as a substitute for the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Shuster as a substitute for the
amendment offered by Mr. Mitchell of New York:
None of the funds appropriated for the emergency
preparedness and mobilization program may be used to purchase
oil that originated in Libya, where evidence has been presented
that said oil did in fact originate in Libya. . . .
Mr. Shuster: Mr. Chairman, I use this as a mechanism to focus
on an
[[Page 10506]]
issue of great importance to the minority and junior Members of
both parties. By way of background leading up to the Libyan-HUD
relationship, I wish to inform the House that this morning I
delivered to the Speaker of the House a letter expressing our shock
and disappointment with the sudden reversal of a many year custom
in this House where the Chair refused to recognize Members for 1-
minute speeches at the beginning of the day's session. . . .
Fifth, 1-minute speeches are especially important for new
Members on both sides of the aisle, because they must often wait
for hours or days to express themselves in committee or on floor
debate, since the seniority system puts them at the bottom of the
ladder. Sometimes, they are allocated. . . .
Mr. John L. Burton [of California]: The gentleman from
California rises to inquire of the Chair if the gentleman is
speaking on the HUD appropriation bill or has got an amendment to
the House rules.
The Chairman: (5) The gentleman from Pennsylvania is
addressing the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Pennsylvania. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Elliott H. Levitas (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. John L. Burton: . . . We have an agreement to let him talk
out of order?
The Chairman: The Chair, with the sufferance of the Committee
and at this point in the proceedings, is personally willing to
allow the gentleman from Pennsylvania broad leeway. . . .
Mr. [William M.] Thomas [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I thank
the gentleman for yielding.
The old political saying was, ``If you can't stand the heat,
get out of the kitchen.''
Apparently, the Democratic leadership has changed that to say,
``If you can't stand the heat, move the kitchen.''
Mr. John L. Burton: Mr. Chairman, a point of order. . . .
Mr. Chairman, these people are not talking about a relevant,
germane amendment to this bill, and I think it is outrageous that
these dilatory tactics go on in the people's House. . . .
The Chairman: Does the gentleman from California make a point
of order?
Mr. John L. Burton: Yes. He is out of order. Would you rule on
my point of order?
The Chairman: The gentleman must proceed in order.
Sec. 38.3 While debate under the five-minute rule must be confined to
the pending portion of the bill, the Chair cannot anticipate
whether debate on a particular issue might be related to what a
pending portion of the bill contains or does not contain, or to a
germane amendment thereto.
The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole
during consideration of H.R. 2969 (the Department of Defense
authorization for fiscal year 1984) on June 15, 1983: (6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 129 Cong. Rec. 15803, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Ed] Bethune [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, I am not trying
to get the debate off on something that is ir
[[Page 10507]]
relevant. I am now satisfied, based on the letter from the
Secretary dated today in response to my announcement that I
intended to call a secret session, that I can discuss the details
concerning the Big Eye bomb. I intend to do that whether the
gentleman wishes to have me do that or not. . . .
Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I have a
parliamentary inquiry. . . .
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Bethune) has
indicated that he intends to discuss the Big Eye bomb under title I
of the armed services procurement bill of 1984. My inquiry is,
Would not such a discussion be ruled out of order, since there are
no procurement funds in title I for the Big Eye bomb?
The Chairman Pro Tempore: (7) The Chair will state
that the question would only be whether it is relevant to the
matter under consideration in title I of the procurement bill, if
the debate were in open session in the Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Marty Russo (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Stratton: Mr. Chairman, there are no procurement funds for
the Big Eye, and there are no production funds, so then it would be
out of order, I take it, Mr. Chairman.
Let me advise the Chair, however, that we do have money in the
R&D title II section, but not in title I.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that the debate
may advocate that production money be included for the Big Eye
bomb. The Chair does not know what the amendment or debate would
advocate.
Indulging in Personalities
Sec. 38.4 Debate under the five-minute rule in the Committee of the
Whole must be confined to the pending amendment and a Member may
not indulge in personalities.
On Apr. 17, 1936,(8) during consideration of a District
of Columbia rent bill in the Committee of the Whole, Mr. Marion A.
Zioncheck, of Washington, offered an amendment and during debate stated
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 80 Cong. Rec. 5647, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Chairman, there has been a bad rumor running around the
town that the reason the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Blanton] objects
to this bill is that he is a landlord.
Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, made a point of order against
those remarks, and Chairman William B. Umstead, of North Carolina,
ruled as follows:
. . . The gentleman from Washington will confine his remarks to
the amendment which he offered and avoid personalities, and please
proceed in order.
Following another personal remark by Mr. Zioncheck, the Chairman
again reminded him that he could not indulge in personalities.
Confining Remarks to Pending Amendment
Sec. 38.5 Where a Member has been recognized under the
[[Page 10508]]
five-minute rule in the Committee of the Whole to propose an
amendment, he must confine his remarks to the pending amendment and
discussion of subjects which may be addressed later in the reading
is not in order.
On Jan. 21, 1964,(9) Mr. Adam C. Powell, of New York,
arose to offer an amendment, under the five-minute rule, to a bill
amending the Library Services Act. Mr. Powell proceeded to state major
differences between House practice and Senate practice with respect to
striking language from a bill. Mr. Peter H. B. Frelinghuysen, Jr., of
New York, rose to state the point of order that Mr. Powell was not
confining himself to the present amendment but was stating major
differences in all the amendments that Mr. Powell could offer to later
parts of the bill. Chairman William S. Moorhead, of Pennsylvania, ruled
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 110 Cong. Rec. 755, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The gentleman must confine himself to the discussion of the
amendment. It may be to explain it he will have to be broader than
just the narrow amendment itself, but it must be to the subject of
the pending amendment.
Mr. Frelinghuysen: And he must confine himself, Mr. Chairman,
to the significance of the amendment which he has offered?
The Chairman: The gentleman will proceed in order.
Sec. 38.6 Only one amendment to a substitute may be pending at one
time, and amendments which might be subsequently offered may not be
debated while another amendment is pending.
On May 15, 1979,(10) during consideration of the Alaska
National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1979 (H.R. 39), the
following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 125 Cong. Rec. 11178, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: (11) The question is on the amendments
offered by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Huckaby) to the
amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the Committee on
Merchant Marine and Fisheries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Paul Simon (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute
were agreed to.
Mr. [Peter H.] Kostmayer [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I
have two amendments.
The Chairman: Are these amendments to the Merchant Marine
Committee amendment?
Mr. Kostmayer: To Udall-Anderson.
The Chairman: There is already an amendment pending to the
Udall substitute. Another amendment to the Udall substitute is not
in order at this point.
[[Page 10509]]
Mr. Kostmayer: Well, Mr. Chairman, they can be spoken on now
and voted on later; is that correct?
The Chairman: They are not in order at this time.
Sec. 38.7 It is relevant in debate under the five-minute rule to
discuss what weapons could be funded by a pending portion of a bill
containing general, unallocated authorizations for weapons
production and procurement, particularly where an amendment is
pending to prohibit use of the funds for the type of weapon under
discussion.
On June 15, 1983,(12) the following proceedings occurred
in the Committee of the Whole during consideration of H.R. 2969 (the
Department of Defense authorization for fiscal year 1984):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 129 Cong. Rec. 15817, 15818, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Ed] Bethune [of Arkansas]: . . . Now, let us get to the
Big Eye bomb, which is the only thing left before us here today. .
. . The Big Eye bomb has an interesting history. Nineteen years ago
. . . they started working on the Big Eye bomb. . . .
In October 1982, in the test chamber at Aberdeen, Md., . . .
they tested a Big Eye bomb . . . and at 60 degrees Fahrenheit it
blew up. . . .
I do not think, from what I know about this bomb, that they can
make it work, based on this information. . . .
So I do not think you have got a situation here where you have
got the bugs out of this bomb, frankly. In fact, all of the
evidence is to the contrary.
Nineteen years they have been working on this bomb, and they
finally decided to test it under something similar to what they
might actually face in the modern combat world, and it blew up on
them. . . .
Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a
point of order against the gentleman from Arkansas. The gentleman
is discussing a munition that is not funded in this section of the
bill, and he is spending considerable time of the Committee in
discussing that, although there are no funds for the production of
the weapon that he refers to. I think he is proceeding out of
order.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: (13) The gentleman from
Arkansas is discussing chemical weapons, and it is difficult to
restrict the gentleman to a narrow interpretation of that in the
comments he is making.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Marty Russo (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Stratton: Mr. Chairman, if I may be heard further on the
point of order, there are a number of things that are funded in the
bill. Binary systems is the basic issue which the gentleman from
Wisconsin addressed himself to. But the particular one that the
gentleman from Arkansas is debating is something that is not funded
in this portion of the bill, and it seems to me that this is a
proceeding out of order and abusing the time of the Committee.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: Does the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr.
Bethune) wish to be heard on the point of order?
[[Page 10510]]
Mr. Bethune: Mr. Chairman, is my time protected while the
gentleman from New York makes his point of order?
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman's time is protected.
Mr. Bethune: I thank the Chair.
Mr. Chairman, I would just simply say that the bill does ask
for moneys to build buildings, facilities, to do tooling work, to
build the casings for the Big Eye bomb. I do not know what could be
more relevant than to discuss whether or not it works before we
start building facilities and the QL mix that would go in the bomb.
. . .
Mr. Stratton: Mr. Chairman, the thrust of the gentleman's
argument in discussing an item that is not funded in the
legislation is to create the impression that all of the activities
of the Department of the Army in dealing with chemical weapons, and
particularly the binary weapons which are funded in this section,
is defective. But the item which he is constantly referring to, and
with all of its mistakes, is not included; and the problems that it
had led the committee to remove the money for that particular
weapon. If the gentleman wants to discuss it, it ought to be
discussed in the research and development title of the bill rather
than in the procurement and production title with which we are
engaged now.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: (14) The Chair will rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. John P. Murtha (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The money in the bill is unearmarked and the arguments of the
gentleman from Arkansas are considered relevant to the debate on
his amendment which is pending and which addresses the issues being
debated.
The Chair will overrule the point of order.
Debate Under Pro Forma Amendment
Sec. 38.8 Debate in the Committee of the Whole under the five-minute
rule must be confined to the pending amendment and, if a point of
order is raised, a Member may not under a pro forma amendment
discuss a section of the bill not immediately pending.
On Feb. 9, 1950,(15) Mr. Cecil
F. White, of California, arose to make the point of order that Mr. Reid
F. Murray, of Wisconsin, who had gained the floor through offering a
motion to strike the last word, was not discussing the deficiency
appropriation bill (H.R. 7200) then under consideration, nor had he
asked for unanimous consent to proceed out of order. Mr. Murray
replied:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 96 Cong. Rec. 1753, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California is too hasty
because I am talking on this bill and the things that I am talking
about are leading up to this question of food for the Indians which
has to do with this particular bill.
The Chairman: (16) The matter under consideration at
the moment
[[Page 10511]]
happens to be the Tennessee Valley Authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Mike Mansfield (Mont.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Murray of Wisconsin: Mr. Chairman, that may be true, but I
moved to strike out the last word. I am talking in connection with
this bill. In this bill we have surplus foods for the Indians.
The Chairman: The gentleman should discuss that matter which is
pending at the present time. The part of the bill to which he
refers has not been reached yet.
Sec. 38.9 Debate on a motion to strike out the last word in the
Committee of the Whole must relate to the matter contained in the
pending section or amendment.
On Jan. 23, 1936, Chairman Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, ruled that
where a point of order was made against a Member who had moved to
strike out the last word of a pending amendment and then discussed
matters irrelevant to the amendment, the Chair was required to order
the Member with the floor to confine his remarks to the pending
amendment.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 80 Cong. Rec. 963, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 38.10 Debate on a pro forma amendment must be confined to the
portion of the bill to which the pro forma amendment has been
offered.
An example of the proposition stated above occurred on June 21,
1974,(18) during consideration of H.R. 15472 (agriculture,
environment and consumer appropriations for fiscal year 1975) in the
Committee of the Whole. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 120 Cong. Rec. 20595, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Pierre S.] du Pont [IV, of Delaware]: Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike the requisite number of words.
(Mr. du Pont asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. du Pont: Mr. Chairman, I am taking this time now for fear
that when we get down to the end of the bill there will be a
limitation of time, and I will not have the opportunity to explain
the amendment that I intend to offer on the last page of the bill.
Mr. Chairman, I intend to offer an amendment to set a maximum
limit on the appropriations under this bill to $12.7 billion. . . .
Mr. [John E.] Moss [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I insist on
the regular order, and the regular order is the point of the bill
where we are now reading. It is not a point to be reached at a
later time. I insist upon the regular order.
The Chairman: (19) The gentleman is correct. The
gentleman in the well received permission to strike out the last
word and then proceeded to discuss an amendment to be offered to
the last section of the bill. The gentleman from [Delaware] is not
discussing a part of the bill that is pending.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Sam Gibbons (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The point of order is sustained.
[[Page 10512]]
Sec. 38.11 Debate in Committee of the Whole on a pro forma amendment
offered under the five-minute rule must be confined to the subject
of the pending bill.
During consideration of an appropriation bill (H.R. 7631) in the
Committee of the Whole on July 24, 1980,(20) a point of
order was sustained relative to the scope of debate on an amendment.
The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 126 Cong. Rec. 19442, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [James T.] Broyhill [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike the last word. . . .
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Danielson) has
a bill in his committee, and I know I wrote some of the early
language of that bill. I just wanted to ask the gentleman if that
committee will be reporting that regulatory reform bill anytime
soon.
In his remarks the gentleman said that the Congress legislates,
the executive will execute the law, and the judiciary will
interpret it. The problem is that we have been turning over
lawmaking powers to the executive, and that is wrong. . . .
Mr. [Bob] Traxler [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, with due respect
and with due deference to my colleagues, I must rise to a point of
order.
October 1 is coming, and I feel we will not have this bill
completed by that time. I would ask that we return to general
order.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: (1) The debate must be
confined to the subject of the bill. For that reason, the point of
order is sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. D. Douglas Barnard, Jr. (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Broyhill) will proceed
in order.
Parliamentarian's Note: While general debate in Committee of the
Whole need not be confined to the subject matter of the pending bill in
the absence of a special rule so providing, debate under the five-
minute rule must be relevant to the pending bill or amendment.
Sec. 38.12 While normally under the five-minute rule debate on a pro
forma amendment may relate either to a pending amendment in the
nature of a substitute or to a perfecting amendment thereto (as not
necessarily in the 3rd degree), where a special rule permitted both
the offering of perfecting amendments in the 2nd degree and of pro
forma amendments to the substitute when perfecting amendments were
not pending, the Chair permitted
pro forma amendments during pendency of perfecting amendments but
in response to a point of order required that debate be related
solely to the perfecting amendment.
During consideration of the first concurrent resolution on the bud
[[Page 10513]]
get for fiscal year 1983 (H. Con. Res. 345) in the Committee of the
Whole on May 26, 1982,(2) the following exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 128 Cong. Rec. 12088, 12090, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Les] AuCoin [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike
the requisite number of words.
(Mr. AuCoin asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. AuCoin: Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the requisite number
of words not because I intend to speak to the amendment of the
gentleman from Michigan, but instead to take this time in concert
with colleagues who care very much about what the Latta amendment
does to housing. Not for housing, but to housing.
Because of the extent of the confusion in the House over this
issue some time needs to be taken tonight before we ultimately vote
on the Latta amendment. . . .
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 5
additional minutes.
Mr. [James H.] Quillen [of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, I
understood we were debating the Conyers amendment, and I did not
hear permission to speak out of order.
Mr. AuCoin: Mr. Chairman, my remarks go to the Latta
substitute, and I believe that is pending before the committee.
The Chairman: (3) The Chair will have to state that
the matter that is pending is the Conyers amendment, and that
debate should be germane to the Conyers amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 38.13 Debate under the five-minute rule in Committee of the Whole
must be confined to the pending amendment when that point of order
is raised, even if a Member is attempting to respond to previous
extraneous remarks in debate against which no point of order was
raised.
During consideration of the Defense Industrial Base Revitalization
Act (H.R. 5540) in the Committee of the Whole on Sept. 23,
1982,(4) the following exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 128 Cong. Rec. 24967, 24968, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Ed] Bethune [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike
the requisite number of words, and I rise in support of the
Erlenborn amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I would associate myself with the remarks made by
the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Erlenborn). . . .
We just passed a tax bill, and in that tax bill were all kinds
of provisions to encourage investment, to encourage businesses to
expand, and we have heard speech after speech about how those
provisions that we passed in the tax bill were to favor----
Mr. [James J.] Blanchard [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, a point
of order.
[[Page 10514]]
The Chairman: (5) The gentleman will state his point
of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Wyche Fowler, Jr. (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Blanchard: I believe the gentleman from Arkansas is out of
order, Mr. Chairman, in the fact that he is not speaking on the
amendment or anything related to the amendment.
I respect his views and we will fully air those, but this
amendment is the Davis-Bacon amendment; it is not related to the
debate.
Mr. Bethune: Mr. Chairman, may I respond?
The Chairman: The gentleman may respond.
The Chair will say that the gentleman should address the
amendment.
Mr. Bethune: The gentleman would be glad to address the
amendment except that the subject that the gentleman is now
treating was raised by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ford), not
the gentleman from Arkansas.
It seems to me only fair that I be permitted to take some of my
time to rebut the statements made.
The Chairman: The Chair will simply observe that the debate
should relate to the amendment. The gentleman will continue with
his time. . . .
Mr. Bethune: Mr. Chairman, when a subject is raised by another
Member and then a Member is subsequently recognized under the 5-
minute rule, may the Member use whatever portion of his 5 minutes
he desires to rebut the statements made in the course of the
proceeding of the debate?
The Chairman: The Chair will state that if extraneous debate
occurred at a previous time, then a point of order would lie to
object to that at that time. Since the point of order was not
raised, the gentleman from Arkansas is under obligation to confine
his remarks to the amendment.
Sec. 38.14 Debate under the five-minute rule must be confined to the
pending portion of the bill if a point of order is made, but a
Member may speak out of order by unanimous consent.
During consideration of H.R. 3132 (the Treasury and Postal Service
appropriations for fiscal year 1984) in the Committee of the Whole on
June 8, 1983,(6) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 129 Cong. Rec. 14860, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Abraham] Kazen [Jr., of Tex-as]: Mr. Chairman, I have a
parliamentary inquiry. . . .
I intend to have a colloquy with the distinguished chairman of
the subcommittee on a matter that was contained in title I. I do
not have an amendment to offer. I just want to clarify some of the
language in the report.
Do I have to ask unanimous consent to go back to title I or am
I privileged under my privilege to strike the last word? May I
enter into that colloquy without asking for unanimous consent?
The Chairman: (7) The Chair will advise the
gentleman he may move to strike the last word and then ask
[[Page 10515]]
unanimous consent to speak out of order if challenged.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Kazen was allowed to speak out of
order.)
Debate on Appeals
Sec. 38.15 An appeal in the Committee of the Whole is debatable under
the five-minute rule and such debate is confined to the appeal.
On Feb. 22, 1950,(8) Chairman Francis E. Walter, of
Pennsylvania, ruled that where the Member who had the floor yielded
time in debate to a second Member, the second Member could not yield
time to a third Member for the purpose of moving that the Committee of
the Whole rise and report to the House. Mr. Howard W. Smith, of
Virginia, appealed from the decision of the Chair and the Chairman
stated that the appeal was debatable for five minutes but that the
discussion was required to be on the appeal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 96 Cong. Rec. 2178, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, was recognized and described
the proposition then under consideration (H.R. 4453, to prohibit
discrimination in employment because of race, color, religion, or
national origin) as ``communistic legislation that Stalin promulgated
in 1920.'' Mr. Vito Marcantonio, of New York, arose to the point of
order that ``the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Rankin] must direct
his remarks to the question of the appeal from the ruling of the
Chair.'' The Chairman sustained the point of order.
Unanimous Consent To Speak Out of Order
Sec. 38.16 Since debate under the five-minute rule is confined to the
subject matter of the bill, unanimous consent is required for a
Member to propose a question of personal privilege under the guise
of a pro forma amendment.
On Sept. 4, 1969,(9) Mr. Edward I. Koch, of New York,
stated a question of personal privilege in the Committee of the Whole.
Chairman Cornelius E. Gallagher, of New Jersey, stated that a point of
personal privilege could not be raised in the Committee of the Whole
but that Mr. Koch could offer a pro forma amendment to be heard on his
question. Mr. Koch then did as the Chairman suggested. Mr. Joe D.
Waggonner, Jr., of Louisiana, made a point of order that Mr. Koch could
not proceed out of order by debating mat
[[Page 10516]]
ters extraneous to the subject matter of the bill under consideration
(H.R. 12085, extending the Clean Air Act) without requesting unanimous
consent to proceed out of order. The Chairman sustained the point of
order and Mr. Koch was granted unanimous consent to speak out of order
on the question of personal privilege on a pro forma amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 115 Cong. Rec. 24372, 24373, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 38.17 Debate under the five-minute rule in Committee of the Whole
must be confined to the subject matter then pending, but a Member
may speak out of order by unanimous consent, regardless of whether
the Committee is proceeding pursuant to the provisions of a special
order permitting only designated amendments to be offered.
On Aug. 3, 1977,(10) the Committee of the Whole had
under consideration the National Energy Act (H.R. 8444) when the
following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 123 Cong. Rec. 26483, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Mario] Biaggi [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I move to
strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to be permitted to speak
out of order. . . .
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Reserving the right to
object, Mr. Chairman, may we know what the purpose is?
Mr. Biaggi: . . . I am asking for permission to speak out of
order because on this day Archbishop Makarios of Cyprus passed
away. I would like, for the record, to make some appropriate
comments.
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry. . . .
Mr. Chairman, is this request in order under the rule which
allows no amendments and no Members the opportunity to offer any
changes in the bill?
The Chairman: (11) The Chair will respond that by
unanimous consent, it would be in order to speak out of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Edward P. Boland (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motion To Strike Enacting Clause
Sec. 38.18 On a motion to strike out the enacting clause of a bill in
the Committee of the Whole, there is great latitude in debate and a
Member having the floor may discuss the entire bill.
On Apr. 25, 1947,(12) Chairman Earl C. Michener, of
Michigan, overruled a point of order that the gentleman with the floor,
discussing the motion that the Committee of the Whole rise and report
the bill back to the House with the recommendation that the
[[Page 10517]]
enacting clause be stricken, must confine his remarks to the motion:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 93 Cong. Rec. 4087, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, a point of
order.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Case of South Dakota: It has always been my understanding
that when a preferential motion to strike out the enacting clause
was used, that the debate had to be upon that motion. I submit to
the Chair that the gentlewoman is not speaking on the motion.
The Chairman: On a motion to strike out the enacting clause of
a bill, the whole bill is before the House; therefore, there is
great latitude in debate.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. The Chair has repeatedly ruled that the motion opens up the entire
scope of the bill for discussion. See, for example, 113 Cong.
Rec. 32679, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 15, 1967; 113 Cong. Rec.
14145, 14147, 14148, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., May 25, 1967; 104
Cong. Rec. 16718, 16719, 85th Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 8, 1958; and
79 Cong. Rec. 3744, 74th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 15, 1935.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 38.19 Debate in opposition to a preferential motion to strike out
the enacting clause may relate to any portion of the bill,
including the merits of an amendment pending when the preferential
motion was offered.
During consideration of the military procurement authorization
(H.R. 6674) in the Committee of the Whole on May 20,
1975,(14) the proposition described above was demonstrated
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 121 Cong. Rec. 15458, 15465, 15466, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Melvin] Price [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I move that all
debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto, and on further
amendments to the bill, end in 20 minutes.
The Chairman: (15) The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Illinois.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The motion was agreed to. . . .
The Chairman: The time of the gentleman has expired. [All time
has expired.]
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a
preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Bauman moves that the Committee do now rise and report
the bill back to the House with the recommendation that the
enacting clause be stricken out.
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, I only offer this motion in order to
obtain time since I was not able to receive any time from the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Harkin) who offered what he claimed to be
the Bauman amendment. I have read his amendment very carefully. It
is not the same amendment which I offered to the National Science
Foundation authorization bill. . . .
Mr. [Tom] Harkin [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words, and I rise in opposition to the
preferential motion.
I thank the gentleman from Maryland for giving me an
opportunity to
[[Page 10518]]
expand a little bit more on some of these ridiculous spending
programs that waste the taxpayers' dollars.
If the offices of other Members are like mine, whenever they
get one of these letters they begin to wonder, and people begin to
ask the Members, just what it is we do to take care of these
situations. If we pass this routine authorization bill for the
Defense Department for $32 billion in the usual manner, we will
have to answer to our constituents if we choose to be honest about
it.
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, I demand regular order.
The Chairman: The gentleman speaks on the preferential motion.
The Chair would like to make the observation that any portion
of the bill is open to [debate].
Sec. 38.20 Since the preferential motion that the Committee rise and
report with the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken
applies to the entire bill, debate may be directed to any part of
the bill, and the motion may be used by a Member to secure five
minutes to debate a pending amendment notwithstanding a limitation
of time for debate on the pending amendment and all amendments
thereto.
On June 20, 1975,(16) during consideration of H.R. 3474
(17) in the Committee of the Whole, the following
proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 121 Cong. Rec. 19941, 19951, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
17. A bill authorizing appropriations for the Energy Research and
Development Administration for fiscal year 1976.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John] Young of Texas: Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate
on this amendment and all amendments thereto cease in 30 minutes.
The Chairman: (18) The gentleman from Texas moves
that all debate on the McCormack amendment and all amendments
thereto cease in 30 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. J. Edward Roush (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Young).
The motion was agreed to. . . .
Mr. [Robert W.] Edgar [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I offer
a preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Edgar moves that the Committee do now rise and report
the bill back to the House with the recommendation that the
enacting clause be stricken.
Mr. Edgar: Mr. Chairman, I make this motion to get more time to
talk about this very important matter. . . . We rise in support of
the Coughlin amendment. We feel very strongly that the gentleman
from Iowa (Mr. Harkin) has pointed out many of the important
features of this program that have to be taken into consideration
and we feel very strongly that we should delete this item from the
budget.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the continuation of my time to the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Harkin). . . .
Mr. [Steven D.] Symms [of Idaho]: Mr. Chairman, I demand
regular order.
[[Page 10519]]
The Chairman: The Chair is following regular order. . . .
Mr. Symms: Is it regular order to seek recognition under a
preferential motion?
The Chairman: The Chair will state that under the parliamentary
procedure the entire bill is under debate. The Chair is following
regular order.
CHAPTER 29
Consideration and Debate
E. RELEVANCY IN DEBATE
Sec. 39. --General Debate in Committee of the Whole
Relevancy Not Required in General Debate Under General Rules
Sec. 39.1 A Member is not required to confine himself to the subject
matter of the pending bill during general debate in the Committee
of the Whole unless a special rule provides otherwise.
On Apr. 9, 1957,(19) Mr. Noah M. Mason, of Illinois,
rose to make a point of order that Mr. Clarence Cannon, of Missouri,
who was addressing the Committee of the Whole, was speaking about the
Postmaster General and not confining his remarks to the bill then under
discussion, H.R. 6700, the Department of Commerce and related agencies
appropriation bill. Mr. Cannon countered that there was no rule
confining debate to the subject matter of the pending bill in general
debate in the Committee. Chairman Brooks Hays, of Arkansas, ruled as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 103 Cong. Rec. 5360, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
. . . The Chair is not aware of any rule that requires
discussion during general debate to be restricted to the bill. It
is only where a special rule limits debate to the subject of the
bill that the speaker is restricted to the provisions of the bill.
Mr. Mason: Then we are considering this bill without a rule
from the Rules Committee which would limit debate to the bill; is
that it?
The Chairman: That is correct, the Chair will advise the
gentleman; consequently, there is no limitation in general debate
on an appropriation bill.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Where a special rule confines debate in the Committee of the Whole
to the bill under consideration, unanimous consent is required
to speak to another subject (see Sec. Sec. 37.3, 37.4, supra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 13, 1948,(21) while the Committee of the Whole
was sitting, the following ruling by Chairman Charles B. Hoeven, of
Iowa, was made in response to a point of order by Mr. Leon H. Gavin, of
Pennsylvania:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. 94 Cong. Rec. 5802, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wish to ask the Chairman what legislation we are discussing.
What good bill is before the House?
The Chairman: The House is in the Committee of the Whole in
general de
[[Page 10520]]
bate on the bill H.R. 6500 [legislative branch appropriation bill
of 1949]. The gentleman from Missouri has been recognized for 5
minutes and his time has not expired.
Mr. Gavin: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the
gentleman is not discussing the bill under consideration. It is
time we got back to a discussion of this bill. We have taken too
much time on extraneous matters.
The Chairman: The Chair will state that under general debate,
the debate is not confined to the bill.
The point of order is overruled.
Sec. 39.2 General debate in Committee of the Whole House on the State
of the Union need not relate to the bill under consideration in the
absence of a special rule or a unanimous-consent agreement
requiring general debate to be confined to the bill; thus, during
general debate on a general appropriation bill in Committee of the
Whole, a Member may discuss any subject relating to the state of
the Union.
On June 28, 1974,(1) during consideration of the
District of Columbia appropriation bill,(2) the Chair
overruled a point of order as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 120 Cong. Rec. 21743, 21744, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
2. H.R. 15581.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [C. W.] Young of Florida: Mr. Chairman, it is my intention
to speak out of order at this time. I regret that I must use this
procedure to continue a debate that was begun earlier, but the 2
minutes that were offered to me at that time were just not
sufficient to cover the material.
Mr. [Bill D.] Burlison of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, a point of
order.
The Chairman: (3) The gentleman from Missouri will
state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Dante B. Fascell (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Burlison of Missouri: I do not believe the gentleman is
speaking on the matter under consideration.
The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. Under the
precedents and under present unanimous-consent agreement governing
the general debate on the pending bill, there is no limitation on
matters which may be discussed in the Committee of the Whole. If
the Committee of the Whole, operating under a rule from the
Committee on Rules which limited debate to consideration of the
subject matter of the bill, the gentleman's point of order would be
in order.
The point of order at this time is not in order, and the Chair
overrules the point of order.
Mr. Young of Florida: Mr. Chairman, I rise as one Member of
this House, one of a very few, in fact, maybe the only one who has
ever been personally involved in an impeachment procedure from the
time that it was first initiated in a State House of
Representatives until the time that it was disposed of in the State
Senate.
Parliamentarian's Note: Because general appropriation bills are
privileged for consideration in Committee of the Whole under
[[Page 10521]]
Rule XI, and since the unanimous-consent request limiting and dividing
control of general debate did not confine debate to the bill, the
principle of wide latitude for debate as established in 8 Cannon's
Precedents Sec. 2590 was applicable in this instance.
On District of Columbia Day
Sec. 39.3 General debate in the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union on District of Columbia Day is not limited to
the subject matter of the pending bill.
On June 14, 1937,(4) while the Committee of the Whole
was considering District of Columbia legislation on cosmetology (H.R.
6869), and Mr. Howard W. Smith, of Virginia, had the floor, Mr. Everett
M. Dirksen, of Illinois, rose to a point of order that Mr. Smith was
addressing himself to a matter that had already been disposed of and
was not confining his remarks to the bill then under consideration.
Chairman Sam D. McReynolds, of Tennessee, ruled as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 81 Cong. Rec. 5670, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The gentleman is mistaken. We are not under unanimous consent.
We are under the general rules of the House, and the gentleman from
Maryland has 1 hour and he has yielded 5 minutes to the gentleman
from Virginia, who can talk about whatever he
pleases.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. For the consideration of District of Columbia business on second
and fourth Mondays, see Rule XXIV clause 8, House Rules and
Manual Sec. 899 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Apr. 22, 1940,(6) the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union was considering on District of Columbia Day H.R.
8980, a tax bill for the District of Columbia. During debate on the
bill, Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, had the floor and was
discussing matters related to the civil service, the coming war, and
the decisions of the Supreme Court. Mr. Jack Nichols, of Oklahoma,
arose to make a point of order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 86 Cong. Rec. 4871, 4872, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the gentleman is
not proceeding in order. I presume the gentleman is entitled to
this hour by reason of the fact that he is in opposition to the
bill which is being considered. If I am not correct in that I would
like to have the Chair correct me, but if I am correct, then I
think the gentleman's remarks should be confined to the subject
matter of the bill.
The Chairman: (7) The point of order is overruled.
The gentleman will proceed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. R. Ewing Thomason (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Resolution
Sec. 39.4 During the four hours of general debate on economic
[[Page 10522]]
goals and policies provided for on a concurrent resolution on the
budget by section 305(a)(3) of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974, the debate must be confined to the subject of such goals and
policies.
On Apr. 23, 1980,(8) during consideration of the
congressional budget for fiscal years 1981, 1982, and 1983 (H. Con.
Res. 307) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair responded to
parliamentary inquiries relating to the scope of debate on the matter.
The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 126 Cong. Rec. 8809, 8815, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: (9) Pursuant to section 305(a), title
3, of Public Law 93-344, as amended, of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Giaimo) will be
recognized for 5 hours, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta)
will be recognized for 5 hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After opening statements by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on the Budget, the Chair will recognize the
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Giaimo) and the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Latta) for 2 hours each to control debate on economic goals
and policies. After these 4 hours of debate have been consumed or
yielded back, the Chair will recognize the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on the Budget to control the
remainder of their 10 hours of debate.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr.
Giaimo). . . .
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman has consumed 45
minutes. The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Giaimo) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta)
for 2 hours each to control debate on economic goals and policies.
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, as I understand the statutory
requirements, the debate now will be confined to economic policy
and goals; is that correct?
The Chairman Pro Tempore: That is correct.
Mr. Bauman: What if a Member strays from that and starts
talking about other things, should other Members make points of
order and point out that they are out of order? I mean, I do want
to do this under the rule.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair would have to interpret at
that time whether they were within the bounds of the rule or not,
and the rules relating to relevancy in debate would apply.
Under Special Rule Confining Debate ``to the Bill''
Sec. 39.5 Where a special rule provided for the chairman of the
Committee on International
[[Page 10523]]
Relations to designate Members to equally divide and control two
extra hours of general debate on a bill in Committee of the Whole,
the chairman of said committee informed the Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole of his designation of himself, another
Member of the majority party and two Members of the minority party
to control one-half hour each; and the Chairman of the Committee of
the Whole advised that such debate was not required by the rule to
be confined to any particular issue, but to the bill as a whole.
On July 31, 1978,(10) Mr. Clement J. Zablocki, of
Wisconsin, the Chairman of the Committee on International Relations,
made a statement as to the division of control of time for debate
pursuant to a special rule providing for two extra hours of debate on
H.R. 12514, foreign aid authorizations for fiscal 1979. The intent
behind requesting the extra hours had been to afford debate directed at
the Turkish arms embargo issue, but the rule properly omitted any
reference to the scope of debate, other than the requirement that all
general debate be confined to the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 124 Cong. Rec. 23456, 23457, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Zablocki: Mr. Chairman, under the rule, it is my
understanding that the 1 hour for general debate on the entire
bill, that that hour is equally divided between myself and the
ranking minority member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Broomfield).
Then the 2 hours that the rule provides for the Greek-Turkey-
Cyprus issue, that there be 1 hour in support of lifting the
embargo and 1 hour in opposition, and that the hour in support
would be divided between myself and the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Broomfield), and those in opposition to lifting the embargo
would be managed by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Fascell) and
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Derwinski).
The Chairman: (11) The Chair will respond to the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Zablocki) that the Chair has been
informed that the gentleman from Wisconsin has designated the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Fascell) for 1 hour, and also the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Derwinski) for 1 hour. The rule, of
course, does not confine any such debate to the embargo issue
alone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Don Fuqua (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. DISORDER IN DEBATE
CHAPTER 29
Consideration and Debate
E. RELEVANCY IN DEBATE
Sec. 40. In General
Order in debate is governed by numerous rules and practices of the
House. Proceeding in order in
[[Page 10524]]
debate means not only following all the rules and requirements for the
conduct of business in the House or Committee of the
Whole,(12) but also observing the principles of decorum and
courtesy in debate. This chapter focuses on those rules and practices
which require Members to address the House in a certain way and to
avoid personal references or language, and which provide procedures for
dealing with disorderly words and disorderly acts occurring in debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. For points of order based on specific rules governing the procedure
of the House, the reader is advised to consult the table of
contents and the index to this work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker has the authority and the responsibility to preserve
order and decorum in debate,(13) and the Chairman has like
power in the Committee of the Whole.(14) The House has the
power to punish a Member for disorderly conduct in debate by way of
censure, expulsion, or other disciplinary action.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See Rule I clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 622 (1995).
Decorum in debate is also governed by Rule XIV House Rules
and Manual Sec. 749 (1995) and by certain provisions in
Jefferson's Manual (see House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 353 et
seq. [1995]).
14. See Rule XXIII clause 1(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 861 (1995).
15. See comments to U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 5, House Rules and Manual
Sec. Sec. 62 et seq. (1995). Although the House may question
Members for their words or action in debate, Members may not be
compelled to respond outside of Congress for their remarks or
legislative activities. U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 6, clause 1
(see, in general, Ch. 7, supra). For conduct of Members and
punishment by the House, see Ch. 12, supra.
Questions of privilege may be based upon accusations by one
Member against another if the charges are not made in debate on
the floor of the House (see Ch. 11, supra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the opening day of the 101st Congress, the Speaker prefaced his
customary announcement of policies concerning such aspects of the
legislative process as recognition for unanimous-consent requests and
privileges of the floor with a general statement concerning decorum in
the House, including particular adjurations against engaging in
personalities, addressing remarks to spectators, and passing in front
of the Member addressing the Chair.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 135 Cong. Rec. 88, 101st Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 3, 1989. See also
139 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 103d Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 5, 1993; 141
Cong. Rec. p. ____, 104th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 4, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross References
Chairman's power to maintain order in Committee of the Whole, see Ch.
19, supra.
Clerk maintains order before election of Speaker, see Ch. 1, supra.
[[Page 10525]]
Maintenance of order in committees, see Ch. 17, supra.
Member persisting in irrelevant debate may be required to take his
seat, see Sec. 37.1, supra.
Points of order generally, see Ch. 31, infra.
Questions of privilege based on conduct of Members, see Ch. 11, supra.
References to the House, its committees, and Members, see Sec. Sec. 53
et seq., infra.
Speaker's power to maintain order and decorum, see Ch. 6, supra.
Collateral References
Disorder in debate in the Senate, see Riddick/Frumin, Senate Procedure,
S. Doc. No. 101-28, 101st Cong. 2d Sess.
(1992) -------------------
Decorum in Debate
Sec. 40.1 In response to a parliamentary inquiry as to order and
decorum in debate, the Speaker recently having implemented a system
for access to audio coverage of House proceedings by the news media
for broadcast distribution, the Speaker advised and reminded
Members that (1) clause 1 of Rule XIV requires Members on seeking
recognition to rise, address themselves to the Chair, and confine
themselves to the question under debate, avoiding personality; (2)
Members should address their remarks only to the Chair and not to
other entities such as the ``press''; (3) Members should not refer
to or address any occupant of the galleries; and (4) Members should
refer to other Members in debate only in the third person, by State
designation.
On June 14, 1978,(17) the following proceedings occurred
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 124 Cong. Rec. 17615, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: (18) The gentleman from Maryland will
state his parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary inquiry is this:
On June 8, 1978, the Speaker announced to the House that audio
coverage of the House would be allowed and that the national radio
networks would be permitted to have access to the House system. At
that time the Chair stated and requested from the House the
cooperation of all parties involved to insure that the dignity and
the integrity of the proceedings of the House would be upheld.
Mr. Speaker, the rules of the House, I am sure the Speaker
knows, include as one of the duties of the Chair to preserve order
and decorum. Under clause 8 of rule XIV, a prohibition forbids any
Member to introduce or to bring to the
[[Page 10526]]
attention of the House or to make reference to persons in the
gallery, nor may the Speaker entertain a request for the suspension
of this rule by unanimous consent or otherwise. Clause 1 of rule
XIV also requires that all Members address the Chair at all times.
The gentleman from Maryland would further state that during the
course of recent debate the gentleman has noted that, since the
audio coverage of the floor proceedings has begun, and during the
several months since televised proceedings have been permitted to
be transmitted to the office of Members that Members on a number of
occasions have addressed themselves to those people either viewing
the proceedings on television or those listening to the radio.
My parliamentary inquiry is whether under the rules and the
precedents of the House the Members must confine themselves to
addressing the Chair without any reference to persons outside the
Chamber or in the galleries?
The Speaker: The Chair appreciates the parliamentary inquiry
presented by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman) and indeed
anticipated such an inquiry because the Chair appreciates the
talent and vast knowledge the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman)
has as to the rules of the House and states that in no way may a
Member address anybody but the Chair himself, and the Chair has
prepared a statement to that effect.
The Chair is prepared to respond to the parliamentary inquiry
put by the gentleman from Maryland.
The gentleman from Maryland inquires into the proper manner of
addressing this body now that the audio coverage of floor
proceedings has been authorized pursuant to House Resolution 84.
The Chair would point out that clause I, rule XIV, of the rules of
the House requires a Member in seeking recognition to rise, address
himself to the Speaker, and on being recognized confine himself to
the question under debate, avoiding personality. Further, chapter
29, section 13.3 of Deschler's Procedure states that a Member
should address his remarks to the Chair and only to the Chair; it
is not in order for a Member to address his remarks to ``the
press.'' Nor is it in order in debate to refer to anyone in the
galleries under section 13.5 of the same chapter of Deschler's
Procedure. And, a Member should refer to another Member only in the
third person, by State designation.
Accordingly the Chair will inform the gentleman that Members
should continue to address their remarks to the Speaker, or to the
Chair, and only to the Speaker, or to the Chair.
Mr. Bauman: I thank the Speaker for his ruling and his kind
words.
Sec. 40.2 During a special order eulogizing the late Congressman Brooks
Hays, author of a publication on order and decorum in the House
(``Dignity of the House''), an address delivered by Mr. Hays on the
subject in the 85th Congress was inserted in the Record.
On Nov. 4, 1981,(19) Mr. Beryl F. Anthony, Jr., of
Arkansas,
[[Page 10527]]
made the following remarks in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 127 Cong. Rec. 26550, 26572, 26576, 26577, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Under a previous order of the House,
the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Bethune) is recognized for 60
minutes. . . .
Mr. [Ed] Bethune [of Arkansas]: . . . I see the distinguished
gentleman from south Arkansas is with us today. I would yield to
the gentleman. . . .
Mr. Anthony: . . . Something else that Brooks Hays did that our
older Members will realize and I only realized because I
accidentally bumped into a little book that Mr. Hays had prepared
and it was on the decorum that should be used in this body. . . . I
will insert his speech given on this floor on July 11, 1957 at this
point in the Record:
There was no objection.
Mr. Hays of Arkansas. Mr. Speaker, for a number of years
prior to his retirement at the end of the 84th Congress, the
Honorable George Dondero, a distinguished Member of the House,
followed the practice of making a brief presentation early in
the first session of each Congress of some of the rules
supplementing the instructions that our greatly esteemed
Parliamentarian, Mr. Lewis Deschler, and his able assistant,
Colonel Roy, always give to new Members. It is a little late in
this session to attempt that service and I feel unequal to the
task, but I have been requested to present these viewpoints,
partly for the benefit of our new Members and partly as a
reminder for all of us. . . . There are some things we learn by
our individual experience in this body, but sometimes we have
to rely on our predecessors. It is in this realm of faith upon
those who preceded us that I point to the value of the
traditions and Rules of the House. There is a reason for every
rule we have. It is the product of our long experience in
parliamentary government.
An error sometimes creeping into our speeches is to begin
an address, after obtaining the Speaker's recognition, ``Ladies
and gentlemen of the House.'' This is bad practice and actually
an affront to the Speaker, for when we address the Speaker we
address the House, and we should never add anything to this
significant phrase of respect, ``Mr. Speaker.'' The proper
beginning, of course, when we are in the Committee of the Whole
is ``Mr. Chairman.'' One can quickly ascertain whether it
should be ``Mr. Speaker'' or ``Mr. Chairman'' by looking to see
if the Mace is in its place. . . .
We are admonished when any Member has the floor never to
walk between him and the Speaker or in front of the person
having the floor. Smoking in every part of the Chamber is
prohibited specifically . . . .
Let me move quickly to one or two other points. It is never
proper to say ``you'' in addressing another Member nor should
his first name ever be used. It is always ``the gentleman from
Wyoming, the gentleman from Alabama.''
One must always stand to object to any unanimous consent
request and, of course, address the Speaker before voicing the
objection. Anyone who wishes to interrupt a Member should
always rise and first address the Chair--``Mr. Speaker, will
the gentleman yield?''
Badges
Sec. 40.3 Clause 1 of Rule XIV, requiring Members desiring to ``speak
or deliver any matter to the House'' to rise and address the
Speaker to be recognized, proscribes, in effect,
[[Page 10528]]
the wearing of badges by Members to communicate messages; thus, the
Speaker, exercising his authority to preserve order and decorum,
has advised Members that the wearing of badges is inappropriate
under the rules of the House.
The following statement was made by the Speaker (20)
during proceedings on Apr. 15, 1986: (1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
1. 132 Cong. Rec. 7525, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Members wearing yellow badges should be advised that they
are inappropriate under the rules of the House.
The badges in question urged support of military assistance to the
Nicaraguan Contras. In recent years, some Members and staff have worn
various badges on the floor to convey political messages to their
colleagues and to the TV audience. Under the definition of decorum and
debate in clause 1 of Rule XIV, a Member must first seek recognition
and then speak his message, or use exhibits as provided in Rule XXX
subject to approval of the House if objection is made.
Speaker's Admonition
Sec. 40.4 The Speaker admonished all Members to preserve proper decorum
in debate to permit Members to be heard during a series of one-
minute speeches.
On July 23, 1987,(2) Speaker James C. Wright, Jr., of
Texas, made the following announcement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 133 Cong. Rec. 20849, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: The Chair will request the cooperation of Members
today in that there are a great many Members who have indicated a
desire to be heard under the 1-minute rule which is our period of
democracy here in the Chamber and during which any Member is
entitled to be heard.
The Chair would ask that Members cooperate in observing the 1-
minute rule and that other Members observe the decorum of the
Chamber and if they do not wish to hear what is being said, to
retire from the Chamber, because whoever addresses the House is
entitled to be heard.
Sec. 40.5 The rules which direct the Speaker to preserve order and
decorum in the House authorize the Chair to take necessary steps to
prevent or curtail disorderly outbursts by Members; thus, for
example, the Chair may order the microphones in the Chamber turned
off if being utilized by a Member, who has not been properly
recognized, to engage in disorderly behavior.
[[Page 10529]]
On Mar. 16, 1988,(3) during the period for one-minute
speeches in the House, it was demonstrated that, where a Member has
been notified by the Chair that his debate time has expired, he is
thereby denied further recognition in the absence of the permission of
the House to proceed, and he has no right to further address the House
after that time. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 134 Cong. Rec. 4079, 4084, 4085, 100th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Mr. Dornan of California asked and was given permission to
address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. [Robert K.] Dornan of California: Mr. Speaker, and I
address a different Member of this Chamber from New York, because
you have left your chair, and Mr. Majority Whip from California,
you have also fled the floor. In 10 years Jim and Tony--I am not
using any traditional titles like ``distinguished gentleman''--Jim
and Tony, in 10 years I have never heard on this floor so obnoxious
a statement as I heard from Mr. Coelho, which means ``rabbit'' in
Portuguese, as ugly a statement as was just delivered. Mr. Coelho
said that we on our side of the aisle and those conservative
Democrats, particularly those representing States which border the
Gulf of Mexico, sold out the Contras. That is absurd . . . . Panama
is in chaos and Communists in Nicaragua, thanks to the liberal and
radical left leadership in this House are winning a major victory,
right now.
The Speaker Pro Tempore:(4) The time of the
gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan] has expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Gary L. Ackerman (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Dornan of California: Wait a minute. On Honduran soil and
on Nicaraguan soil.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Dornan of California: And it was set up in this House as
you set up the betrayal of the Bay of Pigs.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Dornan of California: I ask--wait a minute--I ask unanimous
consent for 30 seconds. People are dying.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Dornan of California: People are dying.
Mr. [Harold L.] Volkmer [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, regular
order, regular order.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The time of the gentleman has expired.
Will the Sergeant at Arms please turn off the microphone?
Mr. Dornan of California: . . . I demand a Contra vote on aid
to the Democratic Resistance and the freedom fighters in Central
America. In the name of God and liberty and decency I demand
another vote in this Chamber next week. . . .
Mr. [Judd] Gregg [of New Hampshire]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry. . . .
Mr. Speaker, I was just in my office viewing the proceedings
here, and during one of the proceedings, when the gentleman from
California [Mr. Dornan] was addressing the House, it was
[[Page 10530]]
drawn to my attention that the Speaker requested that Mr. Dornan's
microphone be turned off, upon which Mr. Dornan's microphone was
turned off.
Mr. Speaker, my inquiry of the Chair is: Under what rule does
the Speaker decide to gag opposite Members of the House? . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is referring to Mr. Dornan.
He requested permission of the Chair to proceed for 1 minute, and
that permission was granted by the House. Mr. Dornan grossly
exceeded the limits and abused the privilege far in excess of 1
minute, and the Chair proceeded to restore order and decorum to the
House. . . .
Mr. Gregg: . . . I have not heard the Chair respond to my
inquiry which is what ruling is the Chair referring to which allows
him to turn off the microphone of a Member who has the floor?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Clause 2 of rule I.
Mr. Gregg: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that that rule be read. I
would ask that that rule be read, Mr. Speaker. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: It reads, 2. He shall preserve order
and decorum, and, in case of disturbance or disorderly conduct in
the galleries, or in the lobby, may cause the same to be cleared. .
. .
Mr. [Lynn] Martin of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry. . . .
The gentlewoman from Illinois would inquire of the Chair,
because it was difficult occasionally to hear the rather strained
ruling from the Chair, when I heard the Chair read from the rule,
and I hope the Chair will recheck that sentence, because the Chair
talked about disturbances in the gallery and disturbances outside
the floor of the House.
Would the Speaker reread the exact sentence that would indicate
why and how a microphone could be turned off of a duly elected
Member of the House on the floor of the House? . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Under rule I, clause 2--and I will
only read the half of it that applies, so as not to cause confusion
in the minds of those who appear to be confused--``He shall
preserve order and decorum.''
Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, the
sentence goes on.
Mrs. Martin of Illinois: I believe, Mr. Speaker, that you have
been requested specifically to quote that rule that affects a
Member of the House on the floor, and that is not that sentence. .
. . The Chair is not saying that a Member of the House, is subject
to the same rule, even though it does not state it, as applied to
the gallery, will apply to Members of the House. I do not believe
that that can happen in an elected representative body.
Mr. Speaker, would the Chair please quote how it affects an
elected Member speaking on the floor?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will read just what he read
before.
``He shall preserve order and decorum, and,--'' Then it
proceeds to speak about in another place.
``Order and decorum is not just in the halls and in the
galleries. The word ``and'' is followed by a comma.
Parliamentarian's Note: Clause 4 of Rule XIV (5) is, of
course, also
[[Page 10531]]
applicable in situations such as that described above. In pertinent
part, that rule states: ``If any Member, in speaking or otherwise,
transgress the rules of the House, the Speaker shall, or any Member
may, call him to order; in which case he shall immediately sit down,
unless permitted, on motion of another Member, to explain . . .''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 760 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 40.6 A resolution proscribing the Chair from ordering microphones
turned off any time a Member is speaking on the floor (not merely
when a Member is recognized for debate) does not give rise to a
question of the privileges of the House under Rule IX, since not
alleging a violation of any rule of the House (an outburst or
demonstration occurring beyond recognition for debate time not
being a ``proceeding'' of the House); similarly, while a Member may
as a question of personal privilege be recognized to complain about
an abuse of House rules as applied to debate in which he was
properly participating, he may not raise a question of personal
privilege merely to complain that microphones had been ordered
turned off during disorderly conduct during a period in which he
had not been recognized.
On Mar. 16, 1988,(6) the following proceedings occurred
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 134 Cong. Rec. 4085, 4086, 100th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
question of a privilege of the House under rule IX. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (7) The Clerk will report
the resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Gary L. Ackerman (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows: (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. The proceedings on which the resolution was based are discussed in
Sec. 40.5, supra. For subsequent proceedings, see Sec. 40.10,
infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whereas, the Speaker pro tempore ordered the microphone cut
off as a duly-elected Member of the House was speaking; Be it
therefore
Resolved, That the Speaker, Speaker pro tempore, or any
Member of the House as the Presiding Officer of the House of
Representatives may not order the microphone to be cut off
while any Member is speaking on the floor of the House of
Representatives. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The resolution does not allege an
abuse of the House rules, and is not a question of privilege.
The House will proceed to the unfinished business. . . .
Mr. [Robert K.] Dornan of California: Mr. Speaker, I take a
point of personal privilege . . . . It is my understanding . . .
that my microphones
[[Page 10532]]
were not cut off on the House floor, that the microphones were only
cut off to my home in Garden Grove where my wife was watching and
to all people observing these proceedings through the national
technical means of these six cameras on this Chamber.
My point of personal privilege is that I was offended as a
Member by having my words cut off going to the outside world
through the electronic means that this House voted for--not
unanimously--voted for in this Chamber.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair has already just previously
stated that his directions were to the House microphones and not to
the electronic microphones.
Parliamentarian's Note: As noted above, clause 9(b)(1) of Rule I,
which requires complete and unedited broadcast coverage of the
proceedings of the House, does not require in-House microphone
amplification of disorderly conduct by a Member following expiration of
his recognition for debate. It is also arguable whether clause 9(b)(1)
applies to disorderly debate or demonstrations, since these should not
be construed to be ``proceedings'' of the House.
The Day They Broke Every Rule in the House
Sec. 40.7 The Speaker recognized a Member prior to legislative business
for a ``long minute'' to pay tribute to Bob Hope (who was present
in the gallery) on his 75th birthday; at the sufferance of the
Speaker, Members referred to and addressed remarks to the guest in
the gallery; and a Member, yielded to during an extended ``one-
minute'' speech, sang during debate and was ``excused'' for that
action by unanimous-consent request of the Speaker from the floor.
The following events occurred in the House on May 25, 1978:
(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 124 Cong. Rec. 15397-402, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: (10) The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Findley) for a long minute, and the Chair would
request the Members to ask the gentleman to yield. That will be the
procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Paul] Findley [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, today is the
75th birthday celebration of Bob Hope, the greatest humorist of
this century. . . . [W]e are taking this time to express our deep
gratitude on behalf of the American people for his consistent
willingness over the years to contribute countless hours serving
his country and worthy charities. . . .
I yield to our assistant floor leader, the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Wydler).
Mr. [John W.] Wydler [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I thank the
gentleman for yielding.
I am going to violate the House rules for that one sentence and
address a
[[Page 10533]]
comment on our distinguished guest, Bob Hope.
The Speaker: The gentleman is aware of the rules.
Mr. Wydler: I am aware of the rules.
On behalf of the people in my district, Bob, and on behalf of
the people in America just this one sentence sums up our feelings
toward you, and that is: ``Thanks for the Memories.'' . . .
Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: . . . Mr. Speaker, If I
could be granted one wish today it would be that this House could
claim as a member, our honored guest, Bob Hope.
Think of it: All that expertise in foreign affairs from a man
who has been on the road to Morocco, Singapore, and Zanzibar. . . .
Following the traditional prayer, Congressman Hope could regale
us with a 1-minute comic monolog on the legislation before us.
Since quite a bit of the legislation is funny enough as it is, his
comments would serve as frosting on the cake.
The man who once was a prizefighter under the name of ``Packy
East'' would have no trouble adjusting to the floor battles between
Republicans and Democrats. . . .
While I would like to think Bob Hope is inclined to be a
Republican, he plays golf like a Democrat. Why, he is the only
golfer ever to run up a deficit score on the course. . . .
I would like to conclude this welcome with a parody on a
familiar refrain so well known to our honored guest:
Thanks for the Memories
Thanks for the memories,
Of places you have gone,
To cheer our soldiers on.
President sent Kissinger,
But you sent Jill St. John.
We thank you so much!
Thanks for the memories,
Of bringing Christmas cheer,
You did your best, I hear,
But servicemen all say your jokes,
Were worse than Billy Beer. . . .
We thank you so much!
(Chorus)
Seventy plus five is now your age, Bob
We're glad to see your still upon the stage, Bob
We hope you make a decent living wage, Bob
For the more you make,
The more we take!
So thanks for the memories,
We honor you today,
And this is what we say:
Thank God you left Old England
And came to the U.S.A. . . .
We . . . thank you . . . sooooooo much! . . .
Mr. [Thomas P.] O'Neill [Jr., of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I
ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Illinois, Bob Michel,
be excused for ``singing.''
There was no objection.
Mr. O'Neill: Mr. Speaker, I explain to our guests,
particularly, that singing in the House, and speaking in a foreign
language are not customary in the House. Also, you may be
interested to know that in my 26 years in Congress, and I know
there are Members senior to me here, never before have I ever
witnessed anything of this nature. The
[[Page 10534]]
rules say that nobody can be introduced from the galleries and that
rule cannot be waived. Presidents' wives and former Presidents
merely sit there. I have seen distinguished visitors, who have come
to this House, sit in the galleries; but never before have I seen
anything compared to what is transpiring on the floor today. It is
a show of appreciation, of love and affection to a great American,
and I think it is a beautiful tribute.
Speaking in Foreign Language
Sec. 40.8 A Member addressed the Committee of the Whole speaking
Spanish, to whom another Member responded in Italian, there being
no rule prohibiting a Member's speaking in a foreign language.
The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on
Oct. 5, 1981,(11) during consideration of H.R. 3112 (to
extend the Voting Rights Act of 1965):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 127 Cong. Rec. 23187, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Mickey] Leland [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike
the requisite number of words, and I rise to oppose the amendment.
(The following is a translation of remarks which were delivered
in Spanish:)
Mr. Leland: My colleagues, I want to begin speaking Spanish. I
want to begin speaking the language of millions of citizens of this
country. Many of you cannot understand me. And if you cannot
understand me, nor can you understand 21 percent of the adult
citizens of El Paso, Tex.; and nor can you understand 17 percent of
all adult workers of the Southwest. These citizens of the United
States speak only Spanish. You perhaps cannot understand them nor
participate in their culture--but these are citizens of the United
States, with the rights of citizens; their culture is an American
culture, and an intimate part of our culture which makes it more
rich and more strong.
And even though you cannot understand me when I speak Spanish
maybe you can begin to understand the hypocrisy of our political
system which excludes the participation of Hispanic-Americans only
for having a different culture and speaking a different language.
Ya Basta!!
Mrs. [Millicent] Fenwick [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. Leland: I yield to the gentlewoman from New Jersey.
Mrs. Fenwick (In Spanish): ``Si, my colleague, I beg you have
pity on us''.
(In Italian) ``I speak for our Italian citizens. They, too,
have a great culture.''
Personal Privilege Not Appropriate To Address Offenses in Debate
Sec. 40.9 A Member may not rise to a question of personal privilege
under Rule IX merely to complain of words
[[Page 10535]]
previously spoken of him in debate.
On Mar. 16, 1988,(12) the Chair responded to a
parliamentary inquiry regarding a point of personal privilege, as
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 134 Cong. Rec. 4087, 100th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert K.] Dornan of California: Mr. Speaker, I have a
point of parliamentary inquiry. . . .
I would like to inquire if this Member is able to take a point
of personal privilege, that is 1 hour of debate on the House floor
at the moment it is granted, if I feel that my honor was impugned
when the majority whip, who also spoke way beyond 1 minute . . . if
Mr. Coelho tells me that I have sold out the young men and women
that I visited with not more than a month ago who are at this
moment being strafed and rocketed by Soviet gunships, to tell me to
my face--and I am sitting in the front row--that I sold them out
impugned my honor.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (13) The gentleman will
state a parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Gary L. Ackerman (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Dornan of California: Do I have a right for a point of
personal privilege on that?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: That is not a remedy that the
gentleman has under the circumstances.
Mr. Dornan of California: May I ask the ruling of the Chair as
to why I cannot maintain a point of personal privilege that my
honor was impugned.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The point of personal privilege does
not derive from words spoken in debate.
Privilege of House Alleging Rule Violation
Sec. 40.10 A question of the privileges of the House under Rule IX may
be based upon an alleged violation of a rule by the Chair; thus, a
resolution alleging that termination by the Chair of audio
broadcast coverage of House proceedings had been improperly
ordered, and directing the Speaker to assure future compliance with
Rule I, clause 9(b)(1), requiring
complete audio coverage of House proceedings, by not permitting
interruptions of coverage, was held to involve a question of the
integrity of House proceedings and to constitute a question of the
privileges of the House.
On Mar. 17, 1988,(14) the House adopted a resolution
offered as a question of the privileges of the House directing the
Speaker to assure uninterrupted audio and visual coverage of House
proceedings, as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 134 Cong. Rec. 4180, 100th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mrs. [Lynn] Martin of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a
question of the
[[Page 10536]]
privileges of the House pursuant to rule IX of the rules of the
House, and I have a resolution at the desk and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution as follows:
H. Res. 406
Whereas, the broadcast coverage of House proceedings
affects the dignity, decorum and integrity of those
proceedings; and
Whereas, House Rule I, clause 9(b) requires the ``complete
and unedited audio and visual broadcasting'' of House
proceedings; and
Whereas, the Speaker held on April 30, 1985, that H. Res.
150, directing the Speaker to ``provide for the audio and
visual broadcast coverage of the Chamber while Members are
voting,'' raised a legitimate question of the privileges of the
House (House Rules & Manual, 100th Congress, Sec. 662); and
Whereas, on Wednesday, March 16, 1988,(15) the
audio broadcast coverage of House proceedings was terminated
during a Member's spoken remarks while the audio system in the
Chamber continued to operate; and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. For further discussion of the occurrences on the floor on Mar. 16,
1988, see Sec. 40.5, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whereas, such termination of audio broadcast coverage
violates the provision of clause 9(b)(1) of House Rule I
requiring ``complete and unedited audio and visual broadcasting
of House proceedings'': Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, The Speaker is hereby directed to take such steps
as are necessary to ensure future compliance with House Rule I,
clause 9(b) that the audio and visual broadcast coverage of
House proceedings not be interrupted, including instructions to
any Members acting as Speaker pro tempore, and any officers or
employees of the House involved with the broadcast system, and
the implementation of any necessary safeguards to prevent the
termination of such coverage.
The Speaker: (16) The Chair believes that the
resolution offered by the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Martin]
does constitute a question of the privileges of the House under the
precedents cited in the preamble of the resolution since it directs
compliance with clause 9[(b)(1)] of rule I, which requires complete
and unedited broadcast coverage of the proceedings of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Martin] is
recognized for 1 hour. . . .
Mr. [Thomas S.] Foley [of Washington]: . . . Mr. Speaker, we
have no objection to the adoption of the resolution on this side,
but I think it is important to note as well that while the American
people certainly have the right to see whatever occurs on the floor
of the House during the legislative session of the House, it is
also incumbent on all Members of the House on both sides of the
aisle to observe the rules of the House and to observe good order
and decorum. And without attempting to characterize the events of
yesterday, it is clear that under the traditions and rules of the
House, members who proceed out of order after their time has
expired or proceed when not properly recognized by the Chair are
not in good order and are not debating in the spirit of the rules
of the House. . . .
As the gentlewoman has said, the American people have the right
under
[[Page 10537]]
our rules to see what occurs on the House floor. We hope that
Members on both sides of the aisle will behave in a way that
indicates that they are observing good order and decorum, that they
are responding to the rulings of the Chair, and that they are also
observing the rules that proper debate cannot take place in the
House when the time allotted to the Member has expired or the
Member is acting in contravention to the proper rulings of the
Chair.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. The resolution was adopted. See 134 Cong. Rec. 4181, 4182, 100th
Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 17, 1988.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comportment as Breach of Decorum
Sec. 40.11 A Member's comportment may constitute a breach of decorum
even though the content of her speech is not, in itself,
unparliamentary; it is a breach of decorum for a Member to ignore
the Chair's gavel and request to be seated.
On July 29, 1994,(18) a Member ignored repeated requests
by the Chair to suspend and be seated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 140 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 103d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. [Maxine] Waters [of California]: Madam Speaker, last
evening a Member of this House, Peter King, had to be gaveled out
of order at the Whitewater hearings of the Banking Committee. He
had to be gaveled out of order because he badgered a woman who was
a witness from the White House, Maggie Williams. I am pleased I was
able to come to her defense. Madam Speaker, the day is over when
men can badger and intimidate women.
Mr. [F. James] Sensenbrenner [Jr., of Wisconsin]: Madam
Speaker, I demand the gentlewoman's words be taken down.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (19) The gentlewoman from
California [Ms. Waters] must suspend and be seated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Carrie Meek (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk will report the words.
Ms. Waters:----
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentlewoman will please desist and
take her seat.
Ms. Waters:----
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is about to direct the
Sergeant at Arms to present the mace.
The Speaker: (20) The Clerk will report the words. .
. .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Thomas S. Foley (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While in the opinion of the Chair the word ``badgering'' is not
in itself unparliamentary, the Chair believes that the demeanor of
the gentlewoman from California was not in good order in the
subsequent period immediately following those words having been
uttered.
Accordingly, the Chair rules that without leave of the House,
the gentlewoman from California may not proceed for the rest of
today. The Chair would ask whether there is objection to the
gentlewoman from California receiving the right to proceed in good
order.
Mr. [Gerald B. H.] Solomon [of New York]: Reserving the right
to ob
[[Page 10538]]
ject, Mr. Speaker, does that mean that all of the words will be
taken down subsequent to the point that she was ruled out of order
and stricken from the Record?
The Speaker: None of those words will be in the Record, the
Chair will state to the gentleman. None of the words will be in the
Record subsequent to that since she was not recognized. . . .
Mrs. [Patricia] Schroeder [of Colorado]: Reserving the right to
object, Mr. Speaker, I am a little puzzled by the word
``demeanor.'' I was in the Chamber at the time, and I did see the
Chair try to gavel the gentlewoman down, but I can understand why
she could not hear, because there were so many people at mikes and
I think she was confused by that. So I am a little troubled about
that. How can you challenge ``demeanor''?
The Speaker: The Chair wishes to advise the gentlewoman from
Colorado that it is the opinion of the Chair that the Chair at the
time was attempting to insist that the gentlewoman from California
desist with any further statements and sit down. She did not accord
cooperation to the Chair and follow the Chair's instructions.
Consequently, it is the finding of the Chair that her demeanor at
that point in refusing to accept the Chair's instructions was out
of order.
Parliamentarian's Note: While a Member who is held to have breached
the rules of decorum in debate is presumptively disabled from further
recognition on that day, by tradition the Speaker's ruling and any
necessary expungement of the Record are deemed sufficient sanction, and
by custom the chastened Member is permitted to proceed in order
(usually by unanimous consent).
CHAPTER 29
Consideration and Debate
E. RELEVANCY IN DEBATE
Sec. 41. Disorderly Acts; Attire
Rule XIV, clause 7 (1) provides: While the Speaker is
putting a question or addressing the House no Member shall walk out of
or across the hall, nor, when a Member is speaking, pass between him
and the Chair; and during the session of the House no Member shall wear
his hat, or remain by the Clerk's desk during the call of the roll or
the counting of ballots, or smoke upon the floor of the House; and the
Sergeant-at-Arms is charged with the strict enforcement of this clause.
Neither shall any person be allowed to smoke or to use any personal,
electronic office equipment (including cellular phones and computers)
upon the floor of the House at any time. In the 104th Congress, the
prohibition against using personal elec
[[Page 10539]]
tronic office equipment was added to the rule.(2) The
prohibition was affirmed by response to a parliamentary
inquiry.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. House Rules and Manual Sec. 763 (1995).
2. H. Res. 6, 141 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 104th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 4,
1995.
3. 141 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 104th Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 23, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Demonstrations of approval or disapproval, such as applause, are
not a part of the proceedings of the House, and are not reflected in
the Congressional Record unless in joint session.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. See Sec. Sec. 41.8, 41.9, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under his authority to maintain decorum,(5) the Speaker
or Chairman may announce, preceding certain legislation or proceedings,
the decorum to be observed.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Rule I clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 622 (1995) (Speaker)
and Rule XXIII clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 861(a)
(1995) (Chairman of Committee of the Whole).
6. See Sec. 41.7, infra. For decorum during ceremonial proceedings,
see Ch. 36, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Participation in debate and obtaining the floor is governed by Rule
XIV clause 1, which requires that a Member rise, address the Speaker,
and obtain recognition to address the House.(7) While a
Member has the floor, he may not request Members to act contrary to the
rules, such as showing hands or rising in support of a certain
measure.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. House Rules and Manual Sec. 749 (1995). For rulings on disturbances
by Members, see Sec. Sec. 41.1, 41.3, 41.4, infra.
Interruptions of a Member speaking are discussed in
Sec. 42, infra.
A Member must stand to address the House (see Sec. 41.3,
infra).
8. See Sec. 41.10, infra; but see Sec. 41.11, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assaults and affrays between Members are rare in the practice of
the House.(9) The House may act on hostilities by ordering
the resolution of differences,(10) demanding
apology,(11) or in extreme cases censuring Members guilty of
assault and provocation.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. For a recent instance, see Sec. 41.6, infra.
Assaults and hostilities are usually considered as
questions of privilege. House Rules and Manual Sec. 91 (comment
to U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 6, clause 1) (1993).
10. See 2 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 1646-1651, 1657-1662. For
parliamentary law in cases of assaults and affray, see
Jefferson's Manual, House Rules and Manual Sec. 367 (1995).
11. See 2 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 1643, 1646-1651, 1657.
12. See 2 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 1655, 1656.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross References
Conduct of Members and punishment, see Ch. 12, supra.
Disorder in the galleries of the House, see Ch. 4, supra.
[[Page 10540]]
-------------------Disturbances by Members
Sec. 41.1 It is a breach of order for a Member to stand by or walk
about a Member who has the floor in debate.
On Mar. 5, 1936,(13) while Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of
Texas, had the floor, Mr. Marion A. Zioncheck, of Washington, rose and
stood by Mr. Blanton. Mr. Blanton objected to the interruption, and
Chairman William L. Nelson, of Missouri, ruled that Mr. Zioncheck was
out of order as not being in his seat while another Member had the
floor.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 80 Cong. Rec. 3376, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
14. Under parliamentary law, no Member is to disturb another in his
speech, stand up to interrupt him, pass between the Speaker and
the speaking Member, go across the House, or walk up and down
the House. Jefferson's Manual, House Rules and Manual Sec. 364
(1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Adhering to the Speaker's Gavel
Sec. 41.2 A Member's comportment may constitute a breach of decorum
even though the content of her speech is not, in itself,
unparliamentary; it is a breach of decorum for a Member to ignore
the Chair's gavel and request to be seated.
On July 29, 1994,(15) a Member ignored repeated requests
by the Chair to suspend and be seated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 140 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 103d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. [Maxine] Waters [of California]: Madam Speaker, last
evening a Member of this House, Peter King, had to be gaveled out
of order at the Whitewater hearings of the Banking Committee. He
had to be gaveled out of order because he badgered a woman who was
a witness from the White House, Maggie Williams. I am pleased I was
able to come to her defense. Madam Speaker, the day is over when
men can badger and intimidate women.
Mr. [F. James] Sensenbrenner [Jr., of Wisconsin]: Madam
Speaker, I demand the gentlewoman's words be taken down.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (16) The gentlewoman from
California [Ms. Waters] must suspend and be seated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Carrie Meek (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk will report the words.
Ms. Waters:----
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentlewoman will please desist and
take her seat.
Ms. Waters:----
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is about to direct the
Sergeant at Arms to present the mace.
The Speaker: (17) The Clerk will report the words. .
. .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Thomas S. Foley (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While in the opinion of the Chair the word ``badgering'' is not
in itself unparliamentary, the Chair believes that the demeanor of
the gentlewoman from
[[Page 10541]]
California was not in good order in the subsequent period
immediately following those words having been uttered.
Accordingly, the Chair rules that without leave of the House,
the gentlewoman from California may not proceed for the rest of
today. The Chair would ask whether there is objection to the
gentlewoman from California receiving the right to proceed in good
order.
Mr. [Gerald B. H.] Solomon [of New York]: Reserving the right
to object, Mr. Speaker, does that mean that all of the words will
be taken down subsequent to the point that she was ruled out of
order and stricken from the Record?
The Speaker: None of those words will be in the Record, the
Chair will state to the gentleman. None of the words will be in the
Record subsequent to that since she was not recognized. . . .
Mrs. [Patricia] Schroeder [of Colorado]: Reserving the right to
object, Mr. Speaker, I am a little puzzled by the word
``demeanor.'' I was in the Chamber at the time, and I did see the
Chair try to gavel the gentlewoman down, but I can understand why
she could not hear, because there were so many people at mikes and
I think she was confused by that. So I am a little troubled about
that. How can you challenge ``demeanor''?
The Speaker: The Chair wishes to advise the gentlewoman from
Colorado that it is the opinion of the Chair that the Chair at the
time was attempting to insist that the gentlewoman from California
desist with any further statements and sit down. She did not accord
cooperation to the Chair and follow the Chair's instructions.
Consequently, it is the finding of the Chair that her demeanor at
that point in refusing to accept the Chair's instructions was out
of order.
Parliamentarian's Note: While a Member who is held to have breached
the rules of decorum in debate is presumptively disabled from further
recognition on that day, by tradition the Speaker's ruling and any
necessary expungement of the Record are deemed sufficient sanction, and
by custom the chastened Member is permitted to proceed in order
(usually by unanimous consent).
Interrupting Another Member
Sec. 41.3 It is a breach of order in debate for a Member without rising
and addressing the Chair to interject remarks into another Member's
speech.
On July 25, 1935,(18) while Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of
Texas, had the floor, Mr. Samuel Dickstein, of New York, interjected
remarks from his seat without addressing the Chair or securing the
consent of Mr. Blanton. Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee,
intervened and ruled ``it is distinctly against the rules for a
gentleman
[[Page 10542]]
in his seat to interrupt a Member who is speaking.'' (19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 79 Cong. Rec. 11864, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
19. To speak, a Member must rise, address himself to the Speaker, and
be recognized. Rule XIV clause 1, House Rules and Manual
Sec. 749 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Apr. 18, 1973,(20) Chairman Morris K. Udall, of
Arizona, sustained a point of order made by Mr. George E. Danielson, of
California, that a Member then speaking was not standing as required by
the rule of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 119 Cong. Rec. 13136, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
Parliamentarian's Note: Sitting on the committee table
while speaking into a microphone is not in accord with proper
decorum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``Clear the Well''
Sec. 41.4 Where a point of order was made that the well of the House
should be cleared in compliance with the House rules, the Chairman
of the Committee of the Whole requested a Member to step back from
the well of the House to propound his question.
On Mar. 7, 1957,(1) the following exchange and ruling by
Chairman Wayne L. Hays, of Ohio, took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 103 Cong. Rec. 3268, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. August H. Andresen [of Minnesota]: I do not want to yield
for a speech.
Mr. [George H.] Christopher [of Missouri]: I did not come down
to heckle the gentleman.
Mr. August H. Andresen: I will yield for a question, but I
refuse to yield for a speech.
Mr. Christopher: I would like to ask a question.
Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, a point of
order.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Hoffman: I ask that the well be cleared.
The Chairman: The gentleman from Michigan makes a point of
order that the well should be cleared. The gentleman will step back
to the seats to ask his question.
Mr. Christopher: I want to ask a question about the 51 million
acre base.
Mr. Hoffman: Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order.
The Chairman: The gentleman from Missouri will suspend. We want
to comply strictly with the rules. The gentleman will stand back
out of the well, please, while the question is
propounded.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. While one Member is speaking, another may not pass between him and
the Chair. Rule XIV clause 7, House Rules and Manual Sec. 763
(1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 41.5 The Speaker announced that Members should not traffic the
well of the House when another Member is speaking.
On Feb. 3, 1995,(3) the Chair,(4) in response
to a parliamentary in
[[Page 10543]]
quiry, made an announcement concerning conduct of Members while a
Member is speaking in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 141 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
4. Speaker Pro Tempore Peter G. Torkildsen (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. [Marcy] Kaptur [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentlewoman will state her
parliamentary inquiry.
Ms. Kaptur: Mr. Speaker, my inquiry has to do with the courtesy
extended to Members who are attempting to deliver their 1-minute
messages this morning. I notice that Members on the other side are
moving around the podium and placing their papers there,
distracting from the individual who is speaking. Now this side has
not chosen to use those tactics.
My inquiry is as to appropriate behavior when another Member of
the House is addressing the public.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentlewoman's observation is well
taken. Members should not be standing in front of the rostrum while
other Members are speaking, and the Chair would ask all Members to
observe basic courtesy when Members are speaking in the House.
Ms. Kaptur: And Members awaiting their turn to speak should be
seated until they are recognized by the Speaker?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Members should not traffic the well
when any other Member is speaking.
Similarly, on Mar. 3, 1995,(5) the Speaker Pro Tempore
(6) responded to parliamentary inquiries about the presence
of Members in the well while a Member is speaking:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 141 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
6. John T. Doolittle (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Harold L.] Volkmer [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Volkmer: Do the rules of the House permit Members to walk
in the well, be present in the well while a Member is speaking in
the well?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Members should not cross in front of
Members while they are speaking in the well.
Mr. Volkmer: Is it permissible to walk on the other side of the
well while a Member is speaking in the well?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Members should not walk between the
Member speaking and the Chair.
Mr. Volkmer: What I am trying to point out to Members on the
other side, we have never done it on this side, is not to get your
papers up and get ready to make your 1-minute while a Member is
speaking in the well.
Altercations Between Members
Sec. 41.6 Members of the House were permitted to comment as witnesses
or make corroborating statements relative to an altercation between
two Members in the Speaker's lobby.
On Oct. 29, 1963,(7) Mr. Bruce R. Alger, of Texas, was
granted
[[Page 10544]]
permission to address the House relative to an altercation between two
Members:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 109 Cong. Rec. 20413, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Speaker, I take the floor with some sorrow and some humor.
All of us in Congress have certain standards to maintain on the
floor of this House. It has come to my attention that one of the
gentlemen from Texas threatened another Texan on the floor of the
House, to pistol whip him the way they did back home. I ask the
gentleman from California to tell of the incident as he saw it.
Mr. [Del M.] Clawson [of California]: I was a witness when this
very unfortunate threat was made a few minutes ago on the floor of
the House to pistol whip him as they did in Texas. Off the floor I
saw the culmination of this thing when the gentleman from Texas
[Mr. Gonzalez] threatened the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Foreman]
and followed through by striking Mr. Foreman with his fist. I was
frankly shocked and surprised to see this very undignified incident
and irresponsible action by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gonzalez]
take place in the House of Representatives.
Mr. Alger: I want to thank the gentleman for corroborating what
I understand to be the case. I want to compliment my colleague, the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Foreman], for his restraint in not
retaliating by striking the other gentleman, the gentleman from San
Antonio [Mr. Gonzalez].
Mr. [Edgar Franklin] Foreman: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman
yield?
Mr. Alger: I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. Foreman: I thank the gentlemen for coming to my aid in this
instance. In these matters I am perfectly capable of handling
myself physically, particularly when it comes to fisticuffs.
However, I was quite surprised to find that the gentleman from San
Antonio completely lost his head, and evidently, his reasoning, and
had to resort to striking me in these Halls of Congress because he
disagreed with something that had been reported in the newspapers
that I had said.
The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gonzalez] said he understood that
I had called him a Communist. This was certainly a misunderstanding
on his part. I have stated that in my opinion Mr. Gonzalez'
ultraliberal, leftwing voting record had done a disservice to the
U.S. Constitution and helps to serve the Socialist-Communist cause.
I stand behind this statement without retraction or apology.
Parliamentarian's Note: On Feb. 22, 1945, an altercation occurred
between Mr. Frank E. Hook, of Michigan, and Mr. John E. Rankin, of
Mississippi, the latter being disturbed by allegedly blasphemous words
used against him in debate by Mr. Hook. Some physical contact took
place between the two Members on the floor while the House was in
session. Mr. Hook's words, which precipitated the incident, were
stricken from the Record by order of Speaker Pro Tempore Robert
Ramspeck, of Georgia. Mr. Hook and Mr. Rankin later apologized to the
House on Feb. 23, 1945, and no further action was taken by the
House.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 91 Cong. Rec. 1371, 1372, 1390, 1391, 1445, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 10545]]
Announcements as to Anticipated Disorder
Sec. 41.7 The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may make an
announcement concerning decorum on the floor during forthcoming
debate on a certain bill.
On Oct. 21, 1969,(9) Chairman Daniel J. Flood, of
Pennsylvania, made an announcement in relation to the decorum on the
House floor during the debate on H.R. 13827, the Housing and Urban
Development Act of 1969. The Chairman stated that House employees who
did not have specific privileges of the floor would be withdrawn from
the floor, that the whips would be quiet, that the aisles to the right
and left would be cleared, and that there would be no undue activity at
the rail during debate on the bill.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 115 Cong. Rec. 30806, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
10. See also Chairman Flood's announcement during consideration of S.
3708, the Demonstration Cities Act of 1966, 112 Cong. Rec.
26603, 26604, 89th Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 13, 1966.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Demonstrations, Approval, or Disapproval by Members; Applause
Sec. 41.8 Demonstrations of approval or disapproval by Members during
debate, such as applauding or rising to applaud, are not a part of
the Record, and the Speaker may direct the reporters of the debates
to refrain from inserting indications of such activity in the
Record.
On Mar. 6, 1945, Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, addressed the
House on the subject of demonstrations of approval in the House by way
of applause, shouts, and laughter. He made the suggestion that such
demonstrations should be reflected in the Congressional Record,
although the rulings of the Chair had been to the contrary. Speaker Sam
Rayburn, of Texas, discussed his past rulings on the question and the
rational thereof. He concluded, ``the Chair has held that
demonstrations in the House are not a part of the Record, and shall
continue to hold that until the rules of the House are changed.''
(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 91 Cong. Rec. 1789, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evidence of ``Applause'' Normally Omitted
Sec. 41.9 The word ``applause'' may be inserted in the Record where the
demonstration occurs during a joint session of Congress.
[[Page 10546]]
On Mar. 6, 1945,(12) Mr. Charles L. Gifford, of
Massachusetts, called attention to the appearance in the Congressional
Record of Mar. 1 of the word ``applause'' 20 times. He stated that the
insertions apparently included applause as part of the proceedings of
the House, although Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, had just stated that
demonstrations in the House were not and should not be a part of the
Record.(13) Speaker Rayburn responded that (1) he had not
been presiding at the session referred to and (2) the insertions were
not improper because the date referred to was the occasion of a joint
session of Congress in which the President delivered an address.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 91 Cong. Rec. 1790, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
13. See Sec. 41.8, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only Chair Puts Question
Sec. 41.10 Votes on questions may be put only by the Chair and it is
not in order for a Member having the floor in debate to ask that
Members who would vote for the pending bill if it contained a
certain provision to express their approval by rising in their
seats or raising their hands.
On May 5, 1955,(14) Mr. Abraham J. Multer, of New York,
requested in debate that those Members who would vote for a pending
bill if it contained a certain amendment to rise in their seats. Mr.
Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, made the point of order that Mr. Multer
had no right to ask for a vote, and Chairman Robert L. F. Sikes, of
Florida, sustained the point of order. Mr. Multer then refused to yield
to another Member, stating that he would yield only for a ``show of
hands or rising'' by Members who would vote for the provision. Chairman
Sikes reminded Mr. Multer to proceed in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 101 Cong. Rec. 5778, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 41.11 On one occasion during debate in Committee of the Whole,
there being no objection, the Minority Leader requested his party
members to demonstrate their support for a certain proposition by a
show of hands.
On Aug. 6, 1963,(15) Minority Leader Charles A. Halleck,
of Indiana, stated in regard to a pending bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 109 Cong. Rec. 14289, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether it would be parliamentary
or not,
[[Page 10547]]
but I would like to have the Republicans who are here--and we are
in goodly number--raise their hands to indicate whether they will
vote for this bill with or without the amendment.
No objection was made to the request for a show of hands.
Proper Attire
Sec. 41.12 The Speaker announced, since questions had been raised
concerning the proper attire for Members in the Chamber following
the raising of thermostat controls to 78 degrees to comply with a
Presidential order regarding energy conservation, that (1) the
Speaker still considered traditional attire appropriate for
Members, including a coat and tie for male Members and appropriate
attire for female Members; (2) the Chair would recognize any Member
to offer a resolution as a question of the privileges of the House
to permit a relaxation in dress; and (3) the Chair would prefer not
to rule on a point
of order that a Member was
in violation of the Speaker's guidelines, trusting that the
standards of dress would be voluntarily maintained and accepted by
Members, but would not foreclose the possibility of entertaining
such a point of order; the Speaker also refused to recognize a
Member in violation of traditional standards of dress, and
requested the Member in question to remove himself from the floor
and don proper attire.
On July 17, 1979,(16) Speaker Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr., of
Massachusetts, made the following announcement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 125 Cong. Rec. 19008, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: The Chair wishes to make a statement.
In recent days the Congress has undertaken measures to comply
with the President's Executive order implementing thermostat
controls for nonresidential buildings, most particularly by raising
the temperature in the Capitol and congressional office buildings
to 78 degrees. This effort to conserve energy has undoubtedly
resulted in some discomfort for Members, staff, and visitors to the
Capitol. As a result, some questions have arisen concerning proper
dress for Members when they are in the House Chamber. Over many
years and during some uncomfortable seasons, Members have respected
an unwritten standard. Historically, a coat and tie has always been
required for male Members and appropriate attire for female
Members. The Chair believes that the House should continue to
adhere to this practice. The Chair certainly intends to. Perhaps
the Chair reflects the views of his own genera
[[Page 10548]]
tion but he feels that this is one of the ways in which he shows
his respect for this institution.
The Chair does not believe he should become an arbiter of
style. What color a person wears or the manner in which he or she
combs his hair is certainly
a matter for individual determination. . . .
If any Member would desire to offer a resolution raising a
question of privilege of the House to the effect that Members may
relax their dress, such Member may so offer the resolution and the
Chair would recognize him for such purposes. . . . The Chair would
ask the gentleman from Texas if he would kindly remove himself from
the floor and appear in the customary attire that the Members of
the Congress wear. . . .
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, in view of
the ruling by the distinguished Speaker of the House, in the future
would it be in order, under clause 2 of rule I, which grants the
Speaker power to preserve order and decorum, to make a point of
order against any Members of the House who do not accede to the
dress code that the Speaker has described?
The Speaker: The Chair will advise the gentleman from Maryland
that the Chair hopes not to have to rule on a point of order
concerning a dress code for Members and would prefer that the
standards of dress be voluntarily maintained and accepted by the
Members.
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, would the Chair entertain such a point
of order if it were made?
The Speaker: The Chair would not foreclose that at this time.
Mr. Bauman: I thank the Chair.
The Speaker: The Chair would ask the gentleman from Texas to
remove himself from the floor, and the gentleman can address the
House at such time as he is in the proper attire.
Mr. [James A.] Mattox [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker----
The Speaker: The Chair is not recognizing the gentleman. The
Chair has made his statement.
If any Member desires to offer a resolution to change the
customs and attire with regard to dress, as a point of privilege of
the House, the Chair would recognize the Member.
Sec. 41.13 The Speaker announced, during a vote by electronic device,
that Members were not permitted under the traditions of the House
to wear overcoats on the House floor.
On Dec. 16, 1981,(17) Speaker Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr., of
Massachusetts, made an announcement in the House, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 127 Cong. Rec. 31847, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker (during the vote): The Chair has been informed by
some of the Members that the Chair has not been adhering to the
customs and traditions of the House, one being that Members should
not be on the floor with outer garments, with overcoats. So, they
will kindly remove themselves and remove the garments.
Hats
Sec. 41.14 The wearing of hats on the floor by Members is not
[[Page 10549]]
permitted under clause 7 of Rule XIV and the prohibition extends to
the taking off of the hat in tribute to a constituent athletic
team.
On June 22, 1993,(18) the Chair addressed the issue of
the wearing of hats:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 139 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 103d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Mrs. Collins of Illinois asked and was given permission to
address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. [Cardiss] Collins of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, I proudly rise
today to congratulate the Chicago Bulls for their threepeat NBA
championship victory Sunday night, which secured them a
distinguished place in NBA history as one of the league's best
teams of all time. For the first time in 27 years, and only the
third time ever, an NBA champion took home the coveted crown 3
years in succession--an un-BULL-ievable feat in today's era of
professional sports. . . .
Mr. Speaker, I salute my Chicago Bulls.
The Speaker: (19) The Chair understands the
enthusiasm of the gentlewoman from Illinois, but admonishes other
Members that the wearing of hats on the floor of the House, even
to doff them in honor of a very successful team, is not permitted
under the House rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Thomas S. Foley (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smoking
Sec. 41.15 The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole sustained a point
of order that Members were smoking on the floor in violation of
clause 7 of Rule XIV.
On Aug. 14, 1986,(20) during consideration of H.R. 4428
(Department of Defense authorization for fiscal year 1987) in the
Committee of the Whole, Chairman Pro Tempore Marty Russo, of Illinois,
sustained a point of order as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 132 Cong. Rec. 21714, 21718, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Thomas J.] Downey of New York: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a
point of order.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his point of
order.
Mr. Downey of New York: Mr. Chairman, is smoking permitted on
the House floor?
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair will advise Members that
there is no smoking on the House floor. Clause 7 of rule XIV is
explicit on that point. The Chair will advise Members that the
Chair has a very vigilant eye for those kind of infractions. The
Chair will advise Members, the Chair is ever watchful for that
opportunity to find someone out of order for smoking on the floor.
The Chair will advise Members that the Chair is reluctant to
point out Members who have smoking material on their person on the
floor. This is the Chair's last warning to those individuals. The
Chair will have the Sergeant at Arms enforce the rule.
Sec. 41.16 The prohibition against smoking on the floor of the
[[Page 10550]]
House extends to smoking behind the rail.
On Feb. 23, 1995,(1) the Chair responded to
parliamentary inquiries on the subject of smoking:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 141 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Ray] LaHood [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (2) The gentleman will
state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Thomas W. Ewing (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. LaHood: Mr. Speaker, is it within the realm of the House
rules for Members to smoke on the floor?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: That is prohibited.
Mr. LaHood: I wish the Chair would advise Members of that,
please.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Members are so advised.
Mr. [Harold L.] Volkmer [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Volkmer: Mr. Speaker, at the rear of the Chambers, behind
the rail, is that included in the area in which Members can smoke?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: That has been ruled to be part of the
floor.
Mr. Volkmer: And Members are not to smoke in the back behind
the rail?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct.
Speaking From Well When House Not in Session
Sec. 41.17 Members may not speak from the well of the House if the
House is in recess.
On Aug. 2, 1955,(3) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas,
answered a parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 101 Cong. Rec. 13067, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, if the House
is in recess, under the rules of the House may a Member speak from
the well of the House while the recess is on?
The Speaker: Not when the House is in recess.
CHAPTER 29
Consideration and Debate
E. RELEVANCY IN DEBATE
Sec. 42. Manner of Address; Interruptions
When speaking in the House, a Member must rise and respectfully
address himself to ``Mr. Speaker.'' (4) In the Committee of
the Whole, the proper form of address is ``Mr.
Chairman.''(5) If the presiding officer is a woman, the
proper address is ``Madam Speaker'' or ``Madam Chairman.''
(6) Remarks in debate are not properly addressed either to
individual Members (7) or to occupants of the
galleries.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Rule XIV clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 749 (1995). The
requirement is derived from parliamentary law; see Jefferson's
Manual, House Rules and Manual Sec. 354 (1995).
5. See Sec. 42.1, infra.
6. See Sec. 42.4, infra.
7. See Sec. 42.5, infra. For the proper form of reference and of
response to another Member, see Sec. 56, infra.
8. See Sec. 42.7, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 10551]]
In order to interrupt a Member who is speaking, a Member may not
simply interject remarks but must rise, address the Chair, and gain the
consent of the Member speaking.(9) However, a Member may be
interrupted for a point of order, the filing of a conference report, or
the receipt of a message.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. See Sec. Sec. 42.8-42.10, 42.12, infra.
10. House Rules and Manual Sec. 750 (1995).
For interruptions of the Member with the floor, generally,
see Sec. 32, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross References
Form of reference to Members, see Sec. 56, infra.
Interruption of Member with the floor, see Sec. 32, supra.
Properly seeking recognition, see Sec. 8, supra.
Yielding time for debate, motions and amendments, see Sec. Sec. 29-31,
supra. -------------------
Addressing Speaker or Chairman; Form
Sec. 42.1 In rising to address the House or the Committee of the Whole,
Members should address only the Speaker or the Chairman, without
making reference to the House or the Committee, or to any
individual Member.
On Jan. 12, 1932,(11) Mr. Robert Luce, of Massachusetts,
arose to state a question of privilege and then discussed at length the
proper form of address in the House or in the Committee of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 75 Cong. Rec. 1815, 72d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege.
The Speaker: (12) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. John N. Garner (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Luce: . . . There is presented to me this morning an
opportunity to call to the attention of the House a matter that has
disturbed me for some time. This is my first convenient chance to
lay it before the House. I find in the Record this morning that a
few remarks I made yesterday are printed as follows on page 1694:
``Mr. Speaker, ladies, and gentlemen.''
Not since I have been a Member have I thus broken parliamentary
law. Of course, I desire not to go on record as supporting a
practice which is obnoxious to me.
When I came here 12 years ago, nobody, so far as I can
recollect, ever deviated from the parliamentary rule that
salutation should be confined to the occupant of the chair, either
``Mr. Speaker'' or ``Mr. Chairman.'' Within a very few years the
practice has grown up of addressing the House en masse by some form
of preliminary language. This is contrary to the parliamentary
precedent of several hundred years.
I would read to you a statement by Sir Thomas Smith who
described the
[[Page 10552]]
practice of the Parliament of Queen Elizabeth's time. He said:
Though one do praise the law, the other dissuade it. For
every man speaketh as to the speaker, not as one to another,
for that is against the order of the House.
Jefferson's Manual, which is the law of the House when it has
no rule to the contrary, says that ``when any Member means to speak
. . . he is . . . to address himself not to the House, nor to any
particular Member, but to the Speaker,'' and so forth. Notice that
he is to address himself not to the House, but to the Speaker of
the House.
. . . I am quite sure that the reason for the rule has always
persisted and will continue to persist, because it is, as the
writers say, to avoid altercations. Its purpose is to prevent men
from directly addressing each other and thus invite a breach of
decorum.
For that reason, and hoping that I have not unduly taken the
time of the House in calling attention to this matter, I ask
unanimous consent that the words ``ladies and gentlemen'' be
stricken from the report of my speech. [Applause.]
Speaker Garner responded:
The Chair is in entire sympathy with the remarks made by the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Luce]. It is supposed to be a
slight upon the Chair, according to the expressions of the former
Speakers of the House, when Members address the Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole or the Speaker and then address the Members
on the floor en masse. The Speaker represents the House of
Representatives in its organization, and by addressing the Chair
gentlemen address the entire membership of the House.
Similarly, on May 21, 1941,(13) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of
Texas, stated in response to a parliamentary inquiry that the proper
form of address was ``Mr. Speaker'' or ``Mr. Chairman'' without the
addition of ``ladies and gentlemen'' or any other
language.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 87 Cong. Rec. 4307, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
14. See also 109 Cong. Rec. 6892, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 24, 1963;
83 Cong. Rec. 3768, 3769, 75th Cong. 3d Sess., Mar. 21, 1938;
and 78 Cong. Rec. 10627, 73d Cong. 2d Sess., June 6, 1934.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 42.2 Remarks in the House, even if critical of the Speaker, should
be directed to ``Mr. Speaker'' under clause 1 of Rule XIV, even if
he is not occupying the chair.
On Nov. 1, 1983,(15) Speaker Pro Tempore Paul Simon, of
Illinois, responded to a parliamentary inquiry regarding the proper
mode of addressing the Chair in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 129 Cong. Rec. 30267, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, it is
apparent from your remarks in the New York Times this morning that
the political rhetoric of 1984 is going to get plenty rough. . . .
[[Page 10553]]
Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Stratton: Mr. Speaker, is it in order for any Member of the
House to address a Speaker pro tempore who is occupying the chair
and make charges that were directed at the Speaker himself?
It would appear to be improper. I would think, under the rules
of the House.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is advised that the remarks
are directed to the Chair, whoever the occupant of the chair is.
Addressing the President
Sec. 42.3 Although Members may discuss past and present Presidential
actions and suggest possible future Presidential actions, it is not
in order to address remarks in debate directly to the President, as
in the second person.
On Oct. 16, 1989,(16) during the period for one-minute
speeches in the House, the Speaker cautioned Members against a renewed
tendency to address remarks in debate directly to the President.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 135 Cong. Rec. 24715, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert G.] Torricelli [of New Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, George
Bush's honeymoon is most assuredly now over. . . .
Mr. President, it is time to get to work, time to decide why is
it you sought the Presidency, to tell us where it is you would take
America. . . .
Mr. President, listen to this, if you will, from the president
of the Chase Manhattan Bank: ``There are some very significant
issues out there such as the fiscal deficit, our relations with
Japan, that have to be the subject of major initiatives. I'd like
to see that initiative, and I haven't. There is no agenda.''
Mr. President, listen to not only your critics but to your
fans. It is time to lead our country.
The Speaker: (17) As the Chair announced on July 23,
1987, it is not in order to address the President in debate.
Members must address their remarks to the Chair. Although Members
may discuss past and present Presidential actions and suggest
possible future Presidential actions, they may not directly address
the President, as in the second person.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Thomas S. Foley (Wash.).
18. See also the proceedings of May 17, 1989 (remarks of Mrs. Barbara
Boxer, of California; and, in the 101st Cong. 2d Sess., the
proceedings of May 8, 1990 (remarks of Mr. Richard J. Durbin,
of Illinois) and May 9, 1990 (remarks of Mr. Charles E.
Schumer, of New York).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Addressing Female Occupant of Chair
Sec. 42.4 In addressing a lady occupant of the Chair the prop
[[Page 10554]]
er form of address is ``Madam Chairman'' in the Committee of the
Whole and ``Madam Speaker'' in the House.
On Mar. 2, 1932, Speaker John N. Garner, of Texas, responded as
follows to a parliamentary inquiry:
Mr. [Claude V.] Parsons [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Parsons: Yesterday afternoon the distinguished
Congresswoman from Florida occupied the chair and in addressing the
Chair I addressed her as Madam Chairman. I notice in the Record
this morning, on page 5196, that it is printed as Mr. Chairman. I
wish to inquire which one of the titles is correct.
The Speaker: In the opinion of the present occupant of the
chair, the gentleman from Illinois in addressing the Chair as Madam
Chairman used the correct form.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 75 Cong. Rec. 5117, 72d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Sept. 20, 1973,(20) Chairman Martha W. Griffiths, of
Michigan, was presiding in the Committee of the Whole and Mr. H. R.
Gross, of Iowa, addressed her as ``Ms. Chairperson.'' The Chairman
responded as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 119 Cong. Rec. 30594, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the benefit of Members, the Chair would like to announce
that the Chair is properly addressed as Madam Chairman. While she
seems to be neutral, she is not neuter.
Addressing Members
Sec. 42.5 It is a breach of parliamentary law for Members to preface
their remarks by addressing themselves to ``Mr. Speaker, gentlemen
of the House,'' or ``Mr. Speaker, Members of the House.''
On Mar. 21, 1938,(1) Mr. John J. Cochran, of Missouri,
raised a parliamentary inquiry as to the proper form of address by
Members. He stated that a practice had grown up of addressing remarks
to ``gentlemen of the House'' and ``Members of the House.'' He stated
that such a form was an insult to the female Members of the House and
recommended return of the House to the universal parliamentary practice
of addressing only the Speaker and not the Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 83 Cong. Rec. 3768, 3769, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After lengthy discussion, Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama,
cited the governing rule (Rule XIV) and stated that only the Speaker in
the House and the Chairman in the Committee of the Whole should be
addressed.
Sec. 42.6 The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole has
[[Page 10555]]
on occasion reminded Members that remarks in debate should be
addressed to the Chairman and not to other Members in the Chamber.
During consideration of House Joint Resolution 403 (making further
continuing appropriations for fiscal year 1984) in the Committee of the
Whole on Nov. 8, 1983,(2) the following exchange prompted
the Chair to remind the Members of the rule regarding addressing the
Chair in debate rather than other Members:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 129 Cong. Rec. 31458, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [James C.] Wright [Jr., of Texas]: I appreciate the
gentleman's good wishes. I accept them in the spirit in which they
are offered.
Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Somebody thought I
got mad at you down here.
Mr. Wright: You? Of course, not you.
Mr. [William H.] Natcher [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
The Chairman: (3) I invite the gentlemen
participants in this colloquy to follow the rules and address the
Chair and not each other.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Wyche Fowler, Jr. (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Conte: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Addressing Galleries
Sec. 42.7 It is not in order for a Member to address his remarks to the
``press.''
On Apr. 24, 1963,(4) Chairman Eugene J. Keogh, of New
York, ruled on a point of order directed against a Member who addressed
``the press.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 109 Cong. Rec. 6892, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Thomas B.] Curtis [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I want to
say to my so-called liberal friends who voted the motion up which
closed off debate on such a serious matter that you have clearly
demonstrated your concern for the basic civil liberties.
I would say to the press that this is a good observation----
Mr. [Ross] Bass [of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point
of order that the gentleman is out of order in addressing the press
gallery or any other gallery from the floor of the House.
Mr. Curtis: I am not addressing the press gallery. I am
addressing----
The Chairman: The gentleman from Missouri will suspend. The
Chair advises the gentleman that the correct parliamentary
procedure is for the gentleman to address the Chair and only the
Chair. The gentleman will proceed in accordance with the rules.
Parliamentarian's Note: Under the current practice of televising
House proceedings, it is not in order to address remarks to anyone in
the television audience or to anyone not present, including Members.
Interruptions in Debate
Sec. 42.8 The Speaker has repeatedly ruled that under
[[Page 10556]]
the rules and procedures of the House a Member who wishes to
interrupt another who has the floor must first address the Chair
and then obtain consent of the Member who has the floor.
On June 7, 1961,(5) while Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of
Michigan, had the floor, he yielded to Mr. Albert Thomas, of Texas, who
thereafter attempted to interrupt Mr. Hoffman and to yield to a third
Member. Mr. Hoffman made a point of order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 107 Cong. Rec. 9681, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Chairman . . . Members [have] to address the Chair or the
Speaker before making a request that the Member speaking could
yield to anyone. Is that right?
The Chairman: (6) That is the rule and practice of
the House and Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: Pardon me, then. I had not noticed
that the practice was being observed.
Similarly, on July 16, 1935,(7) Speaker Joseph W. Byrns,
of Tennessee, ruled as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 79 Cong. Rec. 11256, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The rules of the House provide that Members of the House shall
observe proper decorum in debate. This is the only way in which
matters may be discussed in a sound, sensible, sane manner, and a
proper conclusion arrived at. Those Members particularly who have
been here for years, it seems to the Chair, should be doubly
careful to strictly conform to the rule.
The rules provide that when a Member rises to interrupt another
he shall address the Chair and do it respectfully and secure the
consent of the Member who is talking.
The Speaker then cited Rule XIV clause 1, governing the subject of
address.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 749 (1995). See also Sec. 32,
supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker has ruled on numerous other occasions that it is not in
order in debate for a Member to interrupt another who has the floor
without first addressing the Chair and obtaining consent of the Member
who has the floor.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. See 102 Cong. Rec. 11455, 84th Cong. 2d Sess., June 29, 1956; 83
Cong. Rec. 591, 592, 75th Cong. 3d Sess., Jan. 15, 1938; 80
Cong. Rec. 1665, 1666, 74th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 7, 1936; 79
Cong. Rec. 5461, 74th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 11, 1935; and 78
Cong. Rec. 10630, 73d Cong. 2d Sess., June 6, 1934.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 42.9 In order to interrogate a Member who has the floor in debate
a Member must first address the Chair and secure the consent of the
Member who has the floor.
On Apr. 11, 1935,(10) Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of
Tennessee,
[[Page 10557]]
intervened in debate to rule as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 79 Cong. Rec. 5461, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Joseph P.] Monaghan [of Missouri]: May I say to the
gentleman----
Mr. [John J.] O'Connor [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I do not
yield.
Mr. Monaghan: There will be a day of reckoning for those
advocating the delusion plan suggested [consideration of H. Res.
197, a rule for consideration of social security legislation].
Mr. O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, I do not yield.
The Speaker: The Chair will state that the rules provide that a
Member desiring to interrogate the Member who has the floor must
first address himself to the Chair and obtain consent of the
gentleman addressing the House. It is highly improper . . . for a
Member to rise and interrupt the Member addressing the House
without first addressing the Chair and obtaining consent of the
gentleman who has the floor.
Sec. 42.10 It is a breach of order in debate for a Member without
rising and addressing the Chair to interject remarks into another
speech.
On July 25, 1935,(11) while Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of
Texas, had the floor, Mr. Samuel Dickstein, of New York, interjected
remarks from his seat without addressing the Chair or securing the
consent of Mr. Blanton. Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee,
intervened and ruled ``it is distinctly against the rules for a
gentleman in his seat to interrupt a Member who is speaking.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 79 Cong. Rec. 11864, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 42.11 The Chair enforces section 364 of Jefferson's Manual by
admonishing Members who attempt to disturb Members who are
addressing the House by conversing with them.
In the proceedings of Feb. 21, 1984,(12) the Chair
sought to preserve order by admonishing Members not to converse with a
Member attempting to address the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 130 Cong. Rec. 2758, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker Pro Tempore:(13) The House will be in
order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair would like to suggest that the rules of the House
prohibit the engagement of private conversation with someone who is
in the process of speaking or has just concluded speaking and would
ask the gentleman on his left and the gentleman on his right to
extend to one another the courtesies commonly expected of Members
of the House.
Sec. 42.12 One Member may not submit a parliamentary inquiry while
another Member has the floor without his consent.
[[Page 10558]]
On Mar. 13, 1936,(14) when Mr. Thomas O'Malley, of
Wisconsin, attempted to interrupt the Member who had the floor by
stating a parliamentary inquiry, Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee,
ruled that a Member could not take the Member speaking off the floor by
stating a parliamentary inquiry without obtaining the latter's
consent.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 80 Cong. Rec. 3720, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
15. See also 79 Cong. Rec. 11864, 74th Cong. 1st Sess., July 25, 1935.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Remarks Do Not Appear in Record
Sec. 42.13 Where a Member interrupts debate without being recognized or
yielded to by the Member under recognition and without rising to a
point of order, his remarks do not appear in the Record as he was
not recognized to make them, but his name is shown in the Record at
the points of interruption.
On July 21, 1993,(16) the following proceedings occurred
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 139 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 103d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (17) Under the previous
order of the House, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] is
recognized for 60 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Eric D. Fingerhut (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Dan] Burton of Indiana: Mr. Speaker, we have a number of
Members that want to speak tonight on the problems we have with the
House Post Office. . . .
I just wanted to say to the gentleman that the Members of this
body would not be nearly as concerned had this not been swept under
the rug 1 year ago, and time goes on and on. It is the same, and it
is very analogous to the check scandal. . . .
And so I think we have an obligation.
Mr. [David R.] Obey [of Wisconsin]: . . .
Mr. Burton of Indiana: I did not yield; I did not yield. I do
not yield.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Indiana [Mr.
Burton] has the floor.
Mr. Burton of Indiana: . . . All I say to my colleagues is: Let
us make a clean breast of it. Let us bring the facts before the
House and not impede justice. . . .
Mr. [John T.] Doolittle [of California]: If the gentleman will
yield, there is a specific point I want to respond to.
The firing of those U.S. attorneys was not routine. It had
never been done before in such a fashion. And to stand here on the
floor and to represent that was routine is a misstatement. It was
completely out of the ordinary.
Mr. Obey: . . .
Mr. [Randy] Cunningham [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I ask for
regular order or to have the gentleman removed.
[[Page 10559]]
Mr. Burton of Indiana: This gentleman keeps interfering. I
yielded to him once. I have control of the time, as I understand
it.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Indiana [Mr.
Burton] has control of the time.
Mr. Obey: Mr. Speaker, has the gentleman asked the U.S.
attorney?
Mr. Burton of Indiana: Mr. Speaker, I have the time. I am not
yielding to the gentleman.
Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: I think there are
questions about whether or not this letter is an attempt to prevent
an investigation.
Mr. Obey: . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Indiana has the
time.
Mr. Walker: The gentleman knows the rules of the House.
Mr. Obey: Yes, I do.
Mr. Walker: If the gentleman from Indiana will yield to the
gentleman, the gentleman is not obeying the rules of the House.
Mr. Obey: . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Indiana controls
the time and has yielded to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Burton of Indiana: Mr. Speaker, may I make an inquiry? We
have been interrupted several times. This is taking away from our
time. I hope that the Chair will be fair in allocating the time,
because we have had to endure this now for about the last 10
minutes.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will endeavor to be fair.
Mr. Burton of Indiana: Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to
me. . . .
Mr. Obey: . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Indiana has yielded
to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, who controls the floor.
Mr. Walker: The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] of course
does not want to listen to the points being made here because the
gentleman from Wisconsin was one of those who voted last year to
table the resolution attempting to make----
Mr. Obey: . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
Obey] has not been yielded time, has not been recognized.
Member Declines To Yield
Sec. 42.14 A Member wishing to interrupt another in debate should
address the Chair for permission of the Member speaking who may
exercise his own discretion as to whether or not to yield; the
Chair will take the initiative in preserving order when a Member
declining to yield in debate continues to be interrupted by another
Member, and may order that the remarks of the Member interrupting
not appear in the Record.
On July 26, 1984,(18) the Committee of the Whole had
under
[[Page 10560]]
consideration H.R. 11, the Education Amendments of 1984. Mr. Robert S.
Walker, of Pennsylvania, who was discussing prayer in schools, was
interrupted by George Miller, of California, who was reading passages
aloud from the Bible for purposes of demonstrating his argument that
the right to pray is not absolute:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 130 Cong. Rec. 21247, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Walker: . . . It has been referred to by many people on the
floor today that they know of no situation in the country where
silent prayer has ever been ruled out of order by the courts. That
is wrong.
I have here an article before me from CQ in which it says that
in Alabama the silent prayer in Alabama was ruled out of order by
the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. . . .
[Mr. Miller of California proceeded to read from the Bible at
this point.]
The Chairman Pro Tempore: (19) The gentleman will
suspend. The gentleman from California will suspend. The gentleman
is out of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Abraham Kazen, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Miller of California: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to
raise the point----
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman is out of order.
Mr. Walker: Mr. Chairman, I have not yielded to the gentleman.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman has not yielded.
The gentleman's words when he spoke in the well without getting
the permission of the Member who had the floor will not appear in
the Record.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania may proceed. . . .
Mr. Walker: . . . I must say that the gentleman reading from
the Holy Bible in the course of the discussion here I think is
somewhat inappropriate. It was far more appropriate in the course
of political debate; it was far more appropriate than the so-called
prayer uttered earlier by the gentleman from New York.
Mr. Miller of California: Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman
yield?
Mr. Walker: I would be glad to yield to the gentleman.
Mr. Miller of California: I think the point is this: That
suggesting that this is an absolute right and that in fact to try
to prescribe it, whether it is audible, whether it is oral, whether
it is loud, whether it is soft, whether it is silent, is a point of
real contention, because it is not an absolute right, as the
gentleman suggests.
We just saw the rules of the House work against that right. The
gentleman raised the point earlier about a teacher----
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The time of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania has expired.
Addressing Television Audience
Sec. 42.15 The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole reminded the
Members that remarks in debate should be addressed to the Chairman,
and not to Members or others not present in the Chamber.
[[Page 10561]]
On Apr. 5, 1979,(20) during consideration of the
International Development Cooperation Act of 1979 (H.R. 3324) in the
Committee of the Whole, Chairman Elliott Levitas, of Georgia, made the
following statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 125 Cong. Rec. 7356, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: Before recognizing the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Derwinski), the Chair would like to observe that when the
Members are engaging in debate in the Committee of the Whole, they
should be addressing the Chairman of the Committee; they are not
addressing Members who are watching on television sets or others
outside the Chamber. The Chair would remind the Members to observe
that rule.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
Sec. 42.16 It is not in order in debate to address remarks to the
``television'' or to anyone, including Members not present, viewing
televised House proceedings, and the Chair on his or her own
initiative calls a Member to order for violating that rule.
On Nov. 8, 1979,(1) the following exchange occurred in
the Committee of the Whole during consideration of the Milk Price
Support Act (H.R. 4167):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 125 Cong. Rec. 31519, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Paul] Findley [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, while the
attendance in this Chamber is very light, just about as light as I
can recall in my experience here, we have the hope that some of the
Members are watching by television and therefore even though----
The Chairman: (2) The gentleman will suspend.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Gladys Noon Spellman (Md.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair will admonish the gentleman to address the Chair and
the Members in the body and not to make reference to the
television.
Sec. 42.17 Remarks in debate must be addressed to the Chair only, and
it is not in order to address remarks to the broadcast proceedings
of the House or anyone viewing them.
On Sept. 29, 1983,(3) during special-order speeches,
Speaker Pro Tempore Matthew F. McHugh, of New York, responded to a
parliamentary inquiry regarding violation of the rules in addressing
anyone other than the Chair:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 129 Cong. Rec. 26501, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Bill] Alexander [of Arkansas]: . . . I am grateful for
this opportunity to be here this evening in this forum broadcast
over television, for people to see for themselves the facts which
have caused these gigantic and tragic deficits. . . .
Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry. . . .
I just want to inquire whether or not it is not true that
referring to broad
[[Page 10562]]
casting of the proceedings of the House on television is not a
violation of a rule of the House.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman (Mr. Alexander) should
direct his remarks to the Chair.
Parliamentarian's Note: It should be noted that the Chair did not
specifically rule on whether a Member could discuss the fact that the
proceedings were being televised.
Sec. 42.18 Members in debate should address their remarks to the Chair
and not to ``our viewing audience.''
On Aug. 2, 1984,(4) in sustaining a point of order, the
Speaker Pro Tempore admonished the Member against referring to
audiences, as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 130 Cong. Rec. 22271, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Duncan L.] Hunter [of California]: I thank the gentleman
for yielding. He has made most of the points that I wanted to make
and that is that sure, these are selective votes, although they
were not selected particularly for us. These were selected because
these were 19 of the most important votes that would have taken the
biggest pieces of the deficit, and you voted regularly against
them. And the point that is being made is that over the last 5
years we voted for $274.5 billion more than the President
requested. . . .
I think for the purpose of keeping our viewing audience totally
informed we should not misrepresent ourselves.
Mr. [Robert E.] Wise [Jr., of West Virginia]: Point of order,
Mr. Speaker. Point of order.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (5) The point of order is
sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. John McK. Spratt, Jr. (S.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please do not refer to the viewing audience or television or
any other reference of that kind.
Sec. 42.19 Prior to a special-order speech in which several Members
intended to use photographic exhibits of missing children, the
Chair reminded all Members to address the Chair and to avoid direct
references to the television audience.
On Apr. 2, 1985,(6) the Speaker Pro Tempore made an
announcement, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 131 Cong. Rec. 7221, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (7) The Chair will ask that
all Members who wish to exhibit pictures to address the Chair and
avoid direct references to the television audience.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Kenneth J. Gray (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Edwards) is recognized for 60 minutes.
Mr. [Mickey] Edwards of Oklahoma: Mr. Speaker, last summer I
began a project to use the televised proceedings of the House of
Representatives to help find some of the 160,000 children who each
year are reported kidnaped either by strangers or by a parent who
does not have custody.
[[Page 10563]]
Sec. 42.20 Remarks in debate should be addressed to the Chair, and not
to others who are not in the Chamber, such as those in the
television (whether closed circuit or public) audience.
On Oct. 9, 1985,(8) the Chair took the initiative to
remind a Member that references to any television audience were not in
order. The proceedings in the Committee of the Whole during
consideration of H.R. 3008 (Federal Pay Equity Act) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 131 Cong. Rec. 26961, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Tommy F.] Robinson [of Arkansas]: . . . I know the females
in my office are watching. Louise, I pay you $47,000 a year. I do
not discriminate in my office. I do not know about the rest of my
Democratic colleagues. But I pay my employees based on their
ability to do the job.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman will suspend for a
moment.
In accordance with the procedure of the House, the gentleman
should not refer to any television audience.
Sec. 42.21 It is not in order in
debate to address remarks
to anyone viewing televised House proceedings, and the Chair
enforces this rule on his or her own initiative.
The following proceedings occurred in the House on Feb. 25, 1986:
(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 132 Cong. Rec. 2676, 2677, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (10) Under a previous order
of the House, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) is recognized
for 5 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Thomas R. Carper (Del.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [James V.] Hansen [of Utah]: Mr. Speaker, I will not
pretend that the House Chamber is full of people. In fact, there
are just a few people in the House Chamber presently. I want to
take this special order time to speak about tobacco use in America.
. . .
Mr. Hansen in his opening remarks specifically referred to and
addressed the television audience. He revised his remarks when
requested by the Speaker Pro Tempore:
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would respectfully request
the gentleman to revise his comments, and delete all references to
the TV audience.
Mr. Hansen: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and
extend my remarks, deleting all comments as specified by the Chair.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from Utah?
There was no objection.
Sec. 42.22 Members should address the Chair in debate and should not
address the television audience.
[[Page 10564]]
On June 3, 1987,(11) during consideration of H.R. 1934
(fairness in broadcasting) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair
admonished the House about the proper manner of address during debate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 133 Cong. Rec. 14524, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Mike] Synar [of Oklahoma]: . . . I had some prepared
remarks, but as I listened to the debate, I realized that most of
the issues have been responded to, so let me take my 2 minutes to
talk directly to the 8 million or more people who are watching this
on C-SPAN and the millions or more who will be listening on radio
with respect to this debate. . . .
The Chairman: (12) The Chair would request all
speakers to address themselves to the Chair and not refer to the
television audience.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Jim Moody (Wis.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 42.23 It is not in order in debate to address the viewing
television audience, including other Members who might be watching,
since under Rule XIV, clause 1, a Member must address the Chair.
On Dec. 17, 1987,(13) the Chair took the initiative
during a special-order speech to remind a Member that all remarks
should be directed to the Chair:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 133 Cong. Rec. 36139, 36140, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (14) Under a previous order
of the House, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] is recognized
for 60 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Doug Barnard, Jr. (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Dan] Burton of Indiana: Mr. Speaker, I intend to talk more
tonight about the problems in Central America that we have to face
as a nation and that the freedom fighters have to face as a people
who are fighting against tyranny down there. Before I do, I would
just like to say that I feel a sense of frustration, as many of my
colleagues do, and if any of the leadership happens to be watching
on television, I hope they will take these remarks under
advisement, because it is really sad that here we are very close to
Christmas Eve and we have not completed the business of this House.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair must remind the gentleman
from Indiana [Mr. Burton] that Members should not direct their
remarks to any viewing audience. All remarks should be made to the
Chair.
Proper Manner of Addressing Colleague
Sec. 42.24 Clause 1 of Rule XIV and section 361 of Jefferson's Manual
prohibit a Member from engaging in personalities in debate and
specifically require references to another Member only ``by his
seat in the House, or who spoke last, or on the other side of the
question,'' and not by name or in the second person.
During debate on the military procurement authorization for fis
[[Page 10565]]
cal year 1983 (H.R. 6030) in Committee of the Whole on July 21,
1982,(15) the following exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 128 Cong. Rec. 17314, 17315, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, the
gentleman is in a sense remaking his speech again and not
responding to my point.
Mr. [Nicholas] Mavroules [of Massachusetts]: Well, Sam, I am
responding to you. I am going to ask a basic question.
If we are going to discuss basic
defense posture for this country, why
is it always we go on to the MX missile. . . .
The Chairman Pro Tempore: (16) The Chair will state
to the gentleman that references to Members should not be by
familiar name but by reference to the gentleman from the State of
New York or the gentleman from the State of Massachusetts, rather
than their familiar names. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Les AuCoin (Oreg.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair will . . . advise all Members that references to
Members shall not be by their familiar names, under House rules. .
. .
The Chair is not addressing the gentleman from New York. The
Chair is addressing all Members, on the basis of what he has heard
in the discussion.
Sec. 42.25 The proper form of reference to another Member is to the
``gentleman (or gentlewoman) from (State),'' and not any other
appellation or characterization.
On Oct. 2, 1984,(17) during consideration of the
balanced budget bill (H.R. 6300) in the House, the Chair, in responding
to a parliamentary inquiry, reminded the Members of the proper form of
reference to other Members:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 130 Cong. Rec. 28519, 28520, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Daniel E.] Lungren [of California]: Well, Mr. Speaker,
thank God this is not a medical research center, because if you
believe laetrile cures cancer, you think that Dr. ``Feelgood's''
bill here on the floor is going to do something, but the fact of
the matter
is that it has nothing to do with the
legislation on the floor; it has to do
with the will of the Members of Congress. . . .
Mr. [Ronald V.] Dellums [of California]: Mr. Speaker, is it a
violation of the comity and custom of the House to refer to a
Member of this body in terms other than as the gentleman from a
particular State?
The Chairman of this committee was referred to as ``Dr.
Feelgood Jones,'' and I would think that is in violation of the
comity and custom of the House. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (18) The gentleman is
correct in stating that it is the custom and practice and tradition
of the body that Members of the body should be referred to as the
gentleman or gentlewoman from a certain State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 42.26 Members in debate should not refer to other
[[Page 10566]]
Members by their first names; rather such references should be in
the third
person, by state delegation.
The following proceedings occurred in the House on Mar. 7, 1985:
(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 131 Cong. Rec. 5028, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Sure, I do very much,
and that is the reason why I want every one of those votes counted
to determine the result. . . .
Mr. [Mickey] Leland [of Texas]: Yes, but now, Bob, you will
admit----
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (20) Will the gentleman
refrain from using personal names and use formal address in
addressing another Member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Dale E. Kildee (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAPTER 29
Consideration and Debate
E. RELEVANCY IN DEBATE
Sec. 43. Disorderly Language
The determination of what language is unparliamentary in debate is
not subject to immutable rules; the current meaning of language, the
tone and intent of the Member speaking, and the subject of his remarks,
must all be taken into account by the Speaker. There have been
instances in which the same word has on one occasion been ruled
permissible and on another ruled unparliamentary.(1) A
colloquialism may be ruled unparliamentary because of its commonly
known implication.(2) And the context of the debate itself
must be considered in determining whether the words objected to
constitute disorderly criticism or merely general opinion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. See, for example, Sec. Sec. 43.7, 43.8, infra, for rulings on
``damn'' and ``damnable.''
2. See Sec. 61, infra, for rulings on colloquialisms used in reference
to Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both the English (3) and American legislative practice
suggest guidelines to be followed in determining whether certain words
in relation to a certain subject are disorderly or permissible. For
example, no reference may be made to gallery occupants.(4)
And although the proposals of other Members may be criticized, their
motives and personalities may not be attacked.(5) (Most of
the rulings on the propriety of certain language in debate have
involved references to Members and are so numerous as to occupy their
own portion of this work.) (6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Parliamentary law in relation to disorderly words in debate is
generally discussed in Jefferson's Manual, House Rules and
Manual Sec. Sec. 353-379 (1995).
For an analysis of principles governing the House of
Commons, see Erskine May's Treatise on the Law, Privileges,
Proceedings and Usage of Parliament, 448-471, Butterworth & Co.
Ltd. (London 1964) (17th ed.).
4. See Sec. 45, infra.
5. See Sec. 60, infra.
6. References to Members, to the House and its parties, and to
committees are discussed at Sec. Sec. 53 et seq., infra, and
are only mentioned here where relevant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 10567]]
Several general rules may be safely stated as to disorderly
language in general. Persons not Members of the House may be freely
criticized on the floor without restriction as to personalities or
motive, if such reference is not irrelevant and if language used is not
in itself objectionable.(7) Profanity may not be voiced in
debate regardless of the subject of the remarks,(8) and
remarks with critical racial overtones are out of order.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. See, for example, Sec. Sec. 43.2, 43.3, infra.
8. See Sec. Sec. 43.6-43.9, infra.
9. See Sec. Sec. 43.4, 43.5, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The manner in which a Member addresses or seeks to address the
House, regardless of his proposed remarks, is subject to a point of
order under House rules.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See Sec. 42, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under clause 1 of Rule XIV, Members should refrain from using
profanity or vulgarity in debate; the Chair has taken the initiative
against a Member's use of profanity.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See the proceedings of Mar. 5, 1991, at 137 Cong. Rec. 5036, 5037,
102d Cong. 1st Sess., during consideration of H. Res. 95
(commending Operation Desert Storm).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under a new provision of House Rule XIV clause 9(b),(12)
unparliamentary remarks may be deleted only by permission or order of
the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. House Rules and Manual Sec. 764a (1995), adopted on Jan. 4, 1995
(H. Res. 6), 104th Cong. 1st
Sess. -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
References to State or Region
Sec. 43.1 A statement in debate ``when this committee investigates the
recent wave of police lynch murder in Mississippi . . . and in the
capital itself'' was held in order.
On Mar. 9, 1948,(13) the following words in debate,
referring to the Committee on Un-American Activities, were objected to
by
Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, and demanded taken down: ``When
this committee investigates the recent wave of police lynch murder in
Mississippi, in the area of Jackson, and in the capital itself--''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 94 Cong. Rec. 2408, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Rankin based his point of order on the fact that the Member
speaking was accusing Mr. Rankin's state of murder. Speaker Joseph W.
Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, ruled that the words were not
unparliamentary and that the Member speaking was merely expressing his
opinion.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Under the standing rules of the Senate, ``No Senator shall refer
offensively to any State of the Union.'' Rule XIX clause 3,
Standing Rules of the Senate Sec. 19.3. There is no such House
rule nor mention of the subject in Jefferson's Manual. See 8
Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 2522-2525 for Senate rulings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 10568]]
References to Associations or Groups
Sec. 43.2 A statement in debate accusing a medical association of
``spurious reasoning'' in regard to their opposition to a bill was
held in order.
On Mar. 19, 1962,(15) a Member stated in debate, ``this
is an example of the spurious reasoning that the AMA has with regard to
their opposition to this bill.'' The words were demanded to be taken
down, and Speaker Pro Tempore W. Homer Thornberry, of Texas, ruled that
the words were not violative of House rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 108 Cong. Rec. 4458, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
References to Former President
Sec. 43.3 It has been held in order to state ``that Abraham Lincoln was
a Communist.''
On Nov. 15, 1945,(16) Mr. Andrew J. Biemiller, of
Wisconsin, accused Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, of having termed
Abraham Lincoln a Communist, and on being corrected by Mr. Rankin,
stated ``I am delighted to have the record show that there is at least
one liberal in the past century that Mr. Rankin does not consider as a
Communist.'' Mr. Rankin then demanded that those words be taken down,
but Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled that they were in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 91 Cong. Rec. 10736, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker then responded as follows to an additional point of
order by Mr. Rankin:
Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, the point of order is this: That,
taken in the light of his previous statements, where he [Mr.
Biemiller] falsely accused me of making a statement with reference
to Abraham Lincoln that was exactly opposite from what I did say,
his utterance was a violation of the rules of the House.
The Speaker: Even if the gentleman had given his opinion that
Mr. Lincoln was a Communist, that would not have been a violation
of the rules of the House.
Remarks as to Race or Class
Sec. 43.4 A statement in debate expressing the opinion of the Member
that if he were a Negro he would avoid association with non-Negroes
was held not to reflect on any Member of the House and therefore to
be in order.
On Apr. 5, 1946,(17) Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi,
delivered
[[Page 10569]]
the following words in debate, in relation to an amendment denying
funds to segregated schools offered by Mr. Adam C. Powell, of New York:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 92 Cong. Rec. 3229, 3230, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If I were a Negro I would want to be as black as the ace of
spades, and I would not be running around here trying to play
tennis on a white man's court. I would go with the other Negroes
and have the best time in my life.
Mr. Powell demanded those words be taken down, but Speaker Sam
Rayburn, of Texas, ruled that the words used did not refer by name or
otherwise to any Member and were in order.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See also Sec. Sec. 65.1-65.3, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 43.5 It has been held not a breach of order to refer in debate to
a class or group
of persons as ``Negroes,'' although it was claimed that a
corruption of that term was used.
On Feb. 18, 1947,(19) Mr. John E. Rankin, of
Mississippi, delivered the following remarks in debate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 93 Cong. Rec. 1131, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, let us turn back to this Negro witness. His name is
Nowell. He lived in Detroit. He said he was born in Georgia. Now, I
have lived all my life and practiced law for years in a State where
we had many, many lawsuits between Negroes and whites and between
Negroes themselves. I am used to cross-examining them. I know
something of the way they testify, and have a fairly good way
weighing testimony, and if I am any judge this Negro, Nowell, was
sincere in every word he said.
Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, then considered
the following point of order:
Mr. [Adam C.] Powell [of New York]: Is it within the rules of
this Congress to refer to any group of our Nation in disparaging
terms?
Mr. Rankin: It is not disparaging to call them Negroes, as all
respectable Negroes know.
Mr. Powell: I am addressing the Speaker.
The Speaker: The Chair is not aware of the disparaging term
used.
Mr. Powell: He used the term ``nigger'' in referring to a
group.
The Speaker: The Chair understood the gentleman to say
``Negro.''
Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, I said what I always say and what I am
always going to say when referring to these people.
The Speaker: The gentleman will proceed in order.
Mr. Powell: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
The Speaker: The Chair overrules the point of order.
Similarly, on Sept. 21, 1949,(20) Mr. Rankin was
delivering remarks in debate against Paul
[[Page 10570]]
Robeson, whom he termed a ``Negro Communist.'' Mr. Vito Marcantonio, of
New York, made the following point of order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 95 Cong. Rec. 13124, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The gentleman from Mississippi used the word ``nigger.'' I ask
that that word be taken down and stricken from the Record inasmuch
as there are two Members in this House of the Negro race, and that
word reflects on them.
Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Tex-as, stated that he had understood Mr.
Rankin to say ``Negro.'' Mr. Marcantonio insisted that Mr. Rankin had
said ``nigger''; the Speaker ruled as follows:
The Chair holds that the remarks of the gentleman from
Mississippi are not subject to a point of order. He referred to the
Negro race, and they should not be ashamed of that designation.
Profanity
Sec. 43.6 It is a breach of order in debate to use words bordering on
profanity.
On July 18, 1951,(1) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas,
ruled after objection had been made to the use of the word ``damn'' in
debate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 97 Cong. Rec. 8415, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair is bound to hold that the using of words like those
just used . . . or any other words bordering on profanity, is a
violation of the rules of the House.
Sec. 43.7 Use of the word ``damnable'' has been held in order, although
the Speaker in ruling on those words found the term rather harsh
and expressed the hope that his ruling would not be a precedent for
further use.
On Jan. 15, 1948,(2) Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York,
stated in reference to the remarks on Palestine of Mr. John E. Rankin,
of Mississippi:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 94 Cong. Rec. 205, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
. . . [H]e makes an aspersion upon those who, with great
intrepidity and great wisdom, pioneered to set up that state, that
they are inclined to be Communists or are Communists. That is a
damnable statement to make.
Mr. Rankin objected to the use of the word ``damnable'' as a
violation of House rules and of ``all rules of common decency,'' and
Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, ruled as follows:
The Chair is not too conversant with the word ``damnable'' but
does not find that it is banned in the rules of
parliamentary procedure. The Chair thinks it is a rather harsh
word.
The Chair hopes that the Members will not take this as a
precedent for using the word on too many occasions.
Sec. 43.8 A statement that a group does ``not give a damn'' was held to
be a violation of rules on debate.
[[Page 10571]]
On July 18, 1951,(3) the Committee of the Whole was
considering amendments to H.R. 3871, the Defense Production Act of
1950. Mr. William J. Green, Jr., of Pennsylvania, made the following
remarks about an amendment offered by Mr. Wingate H. Lucas, of Texas:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 97 Cong. Rec. 415, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
. . . Certainly I have a great deal of respect and admiration
for the gentleman from Texas and for the other people that support
these issues, but they all remind me of the fellow who sold a blind
horse to the farmer. When the horse walked into the barn the farmer
said to the city slicker, ``Why, that horse is blind.'' He said,
``No, he is not blind; he just doesn't give a damn.''
Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, demanded that the statement
implying that a group of Members didn't give a damn be taken down, and
Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled the words out of order as
bordering on profanity. Mr. Green then obtained unanimous consent to
withdraw the objectionable words.
Blasphemous Words
Sec. 43.9 The Speaker ordered allegedly blasphemous words stricken from
the Record without awaiting objection by the House.
On Feb. 22, 1945, Mr. Frank E. Hook, of Michigan, used critical and
allegedly blasphemous language in debate, directed against Mr. John E.
Rankin, of Mississippi. After some disturbance on the floor, Mr. Rankin
demanded the words be taken down. Speaker Pro Tempore Robert Ramspeck,
of Georgia, ruled the language a breach of order and immediately ruled
the words stricken from the Record, without awaiting the objection of
the House.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 91 Cong. Rec. 1371, 1372, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: The exact words used were stricken and do
not therefore appear in the Record. Normally the Speaker says ``without
objection'' the offending words will be stricken from the Record since
the House, not the Chair, controls the Record. Mr. Rankin claimed that
Mr. Hook had referred to him as a ``God damn liar'' but Mr. Hook
contended he had stated ``you are a dirty liar.'' The language used
precipitated a short affray on the floor, but both Mr. Hook and Mr.
Rankin apologized to the House, which took no further
action.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Id. at pp. 1371, 1372, 1390, 1391, 1445.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 10572]]
CHAPTER 29
Consideration and Debate
E. RELEVANCY IN DEBATE
Sec. 44. --Reference to Senate or to Senators
The principle of comity governs the propriety of certain references
in debate to the Senate or to individual Senators.(6) The
basis for applying the principle of comity is drawn from Jefferson's
Manual:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. The common definition of comity is kindly, courteous behavior or
mutual consideration between equals. The term also refers to
the legal principle whereby courts of one sovereignty defer to
the laws of another. Webster's Third New International
Dictionary, G. & C. Merriam Co. (Springfield, 1966).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is a breach of order in debate to notice what has been said
on the same subject in the other House, or the particular votes or
majorities on it there; because the opinion of each House should be
left to its own independency, not to be influenced by the
proceedings of the other; and the quoting them might beget
reflections leading to a misunderstanding between the two
Houses.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. House Rules and Manual Sec. 371 (1995).
Jefferson's Manual is a part of the standing rules of the
House where not inconsistent with them. Rule XLII, House Rules
and Manual Sec. 938 (1995).
In the procedure of the House of Commons, the rule has been
held ``not to apply to reports of committees of the other
House, even though they have not been communicated to the
commons, nor is the rule extended to the votes or proceedings
of either House, as they are recorded and printed by
authority.'' Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, 451, 452,
Butterworth & Co. Ltd. (London, 1964) (17th ed.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although Jefferson's Manual specifically prohibits reference only
as to what has been said on the same subject in the other House, the
weight of precedent favors the position that Members are not allowed to
refer to any debates or proceedings in the Senate, to individual
Senators, or even to speeches and statements made by Senators on or off
the Senate floor.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. See Sec. Sec. 44.32, 44.33, infra, for the prohibition against
reference to a Senator's statements outside the Senate;
Sec. 44.45, infra, for the prohibition against reference to a
Senator's vote on legislation; Sec. Sec. 44.24, 44.25, 44.45,
infra, for the prohibition against quoting Senate proceedings
in the Congressional Record; and Sec. Sec. 44.12, 44.16, 44.23,
infra, for the prohibition against reference to Senate
proceedings on propositions before the House.
Although the Vice President presides over the Senate, he is
not a Member thereof, and comity does not prohibit references
to the Vice President in his capacity as an executive branch
official (see Sec. 47.9, infra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The standards established by precedent were somewhat changed
beginning in the 100th Congress and were in part codi
[[Page 10573]]
fied by a further amendment to the rules which became effective in
1989.(9) Clause 1 of Rule XIV, now provides that debate may
include references to actions taken by the Senate or by committees
thereof which are a matter of public record, references to the pendency
or sponsorship in the Senate of bills, resolutions, and amendments,
factual descriptions relating to Senate action or inaction concerning a
measure then under debate in the House, and quotations from Senate
proceedings on a measure then under debate in the House and which are
relevant to the making of legislative history establishing the meaning
of that measure, but may not include characterizations of Senate action
or inaction, other references to individual Members of the Senate, or
other quotations from Senate proceedings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1989, p. 72; House Rules and Manual Sec. 749
(1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the references now specifically permitted by the
rule, there are other relevant precedents which help define the
parameters of debate. While it has normally been considered a breach of
order to quote from Senate
proceedings in the Congressional Record, unanimous consent has been
granted for the insertion in the Record of portions of remarks made in
the Senate on a particular bill.(10) Members have on
occasion been permitted to refer to speeches made by Senators which
appeared in newspapers, without denominating the persons quoted as
Senators.(11) Where a Member is discussing a question
involving conference committee procedure, he may state what occurred in
the conference committee session without referring to a named
Senator.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See Sec. 44.24, infra.
It has been generally stated that the Senate may be
referred to properly in debate if the principles of the rule of
comity are not violated. See 5 Hinds' Precedents
Sec. Sec. 5098, 5099, 5107-5111, 5114-5120.
11. See Sec. 44.25, infra.
12. See Sec. 44.10, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to such references to the Senate or Senators as are
still prohibited, the rule is of such positive force in the House that
it has always been considered the particular duty of the Speaker or the
Chair to intervene in debate and to prohibit references to the Senate
on his own responsibility.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See Sec. Sec. 44.7, 44.8, infra. Jefferson's Manual states ``it is
the duty of the House, and more particularly of the Speaker, to
interfere immediately, and not to permit expressions to go
unnoticed which may give a ground of complaint to the other
House, and introduce proceedings and mutual accusations between
the two Houses, which can hardly be terminated without
difficulty and disorder.'' House Rules and Manual Sec. 374
(1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 10574]]
The rule of comity applies in the Senate, but in the enforcement of
the rule much is left to the discretion of the Senators and to the
Presiding Officer of the Senate.(14) However, the extent to
which the rule is enforced or not enforced in the Senate is irrelevant
to its application to the House.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See Sec. 46, infra.
15. See Sec. 44.3, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A difficult question arises when debate or proceedings in the
Senate infringe upon the privileges of the House.(16) Where
a Representative alleges that statements were made in the Senate
impugning the intergrity of the House or of its Members, the proper
procedure is the adoption of a resolution to be messaged to the Senate
and requesting corrective action, such as expungement of remarks from
the Congressional Record.(17) It has been held that a
resolution offered in the House requesting the Senate to expunge from
the Record statements in criticism of a Member of the House was in
violation of the rule prohibiting references to the Senate in debate;
(18) on the other hand, a properly drafted resolution
referring to language published in the Record on a designated page of
Senate proceedings as constituting a breach of privilege and requesting
the Senate to take appropriate action concerning the subject was
considered to present a question of the privileges of the House, and,
having been agreed to, was messaged to the Senate.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. ``Neither House can exercise any authority over a Member or officer
of the other, but should complain to the House of which he is,
and leave the punishment to them. . . . Where the complaint is
of words disrespectfully spoken by a Member of another House,
it is difficult to obtain punishment. . . .'' Jefferson's
Manual, House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 373, 374 (1995).
17. Where the House or a Member is assailed in the Senate, the question
must be raised in the House without discussing Senate debate or
criticizing the Senator involved. See Sec. 44.9, infra, and 5
Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 5123, 5126.
For an instance where such a resolution was messaged to the
Senate but no Senate action was taken, see Sec. 46.13, infra.
18. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2519.
19. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2516.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As stated above, the new provisions of Rule XIV, clause
1,(20)
[[Page 10575]]
added in the 101st Congress,(1) have changed some of the
ground rules on what is a permissible reference to ``the other body''
and its actions. Certain precedents carried in section 44 must be
considered in light of this new rule and practice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 749 (1995): Debate may include
references to actions taken by the Senate or by committees
thereof which are a matter of public record, references to the
pendency or sponsorship in the Senate of bills, resolutions,
and amendments, factual descriptions relating to Senate action
or inaction concerning a measure then under debate in the
House, and quotations from Senate proceedings on a measure then
under debate in the House and which are relevant to the making
of legislative history establishing the meaning of that
measure, but may not include characterizations of Senate action
or inaction, other references to individual Members of the
Senate, or other quotations from Senate proceedings.
1. See H. Res. 5, 135 Cong. Rec. 72, 101st Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 3,
1989.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In one instance, a Member in debate referred to a Senator's
participation, at the Member's invitation, in meetings on the House
side of the Capitol with House Members; and to the Senator's position
on issues discussed.(2) Even in this instance, however, the
Member should have been requested to avoid specific references to
members of the other body.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. See 131 Cong. Rec. 6438, 99th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 27, 1985
(remarks of Mr. William V. Alexander, Jr., of Arkansas).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Member may not refer to confirmation proceedings in the Senate by
criticizing the action of a Senate committee, as by describing the
committee as ``continuing its downhill slide'' in recommending a
judicial nominee.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. See the proceedings at 138 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 102d Cong. 2d Sess.,
July 9, 1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross References
House-Senate relations generally, see Ch. 32, infra.
Question of privilege, see Ch. 11, supra.
References in Senate to House or to Representatives, see Sec. 46,
infra.
Collateral References
Reference in Senate debate to the House of Representatives and to
Representatives, see Riddick/Frumin, Senate Procedure, pp. 745-48,
S. Doc. No. 101-28
(1992). -------------------
Explanations of the Rule of Comity
Sec. 44.1 Historically, it has been held that a Representative could
not in debate comment either directly or indirectly, even for
complimentary remarks, on the action, speeches, or proceedings of a
Senator or of the Senate itself.
On May 31, 1946,(4) Mr. Andrew J. Biemiller, of
Wisconsin, cited recent remarks made on the floor
[[Page 10576]]
of the Senate criticizing the proceedings of the House on a certain
legislative measure. He inquired whether such Senate references were
not a violation of the rule of comity between the two Houses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 92 Cong. Rec. 6043, 6044, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, delivered the following statement
and analysis:
Ever since the present occupant of the chair has held that
position he has sustained the point of order each and every time it
has been made when there was any reflection on a Member of the
other body that might disturb the comity of the two bodies, and has
even taken it upon himself on various occasions voluntarily to call
the attention of Members to Jefferson's Manual, upon which we base
our rules and upon which the comity of the Houses has been
preserved so long.
In Cannon's Precedents, volume VIII, section 2519, we find the
following:
It is not in order in debate to criticize the action of
Members of the Senate in connection with their legislative
duties. Members may not in debate reflect upon the actions or
speeches of Senators or upon the proceedings in the Senate.
This question has been raised many times in connection with
actions of individual Members of the House. The rule, I believe, is
rigid and the decisions have followed along that line. An inquiry
was made of one Speaker as to whether it was proper to speak of a
Senator or actions of the Senate if the remarks were not critical.
The then Speaker held:
The rule is that a Member of the House cannot discuss a
Senator at all, not even complimenting him, because if you do
compliment him somebody might jump up and say that he was the
grandest rascal in the country and you would then have on your
hands a debate of a very acrimonious nature.
The Chair at that time went on to say, and this is the rule
that the present occupant of the chair has consistently followed
and will:
The Chair is firm and he believes that the House will
remain firm to our adherence to the rules of sportsmanship and
comity as laid down in Jefferson's Manual.
The House of Representatives, if the Chair can control the
situation, will live up to that rule of comity now and hereafter.
That is the statement the Chair desires to make.
Mr. [Joseph W.] Martin [Jr.] of Massachusetts: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Martin of Massachusetts: Mr. Speaker, the statement
referred to was made in the other body, therefore is [it] not
before the House at all?
The Speaker: The Chair cannot rule on that and the Chair made
no reference to a statement made in another body. He was very
careful about that.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. A series of important rulings and statements on comity between the
Houses was made between 1930 and 1935; See 8 Cannon's
Precedents Sec. Sec. 2503, 2506, 2518-2520.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 44.2 The purpose of the rule prohibiting reference in debate to
speeches of Senators
[[Page 10577]]
or to the proceedings of
the Senate is to preserve
harmony between the two Houses.
On Jan. 16, 1946,(6) in response to a parliamentary
inquiry as to whether references to the other body were proper on the
floor of the House, Speaker Pro Tempore John W. McCormack, of
Massachusetts, stated as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 92 Cong. Rec. 40, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair will state, without the response being other than a
general expression of the Chair's opinion on a matter which is not
before the Chair to decide at the present time, that of course
under the rules of the House and under the rules of any legislative
body reference to debate in another body, generally speaking,
violates the rules and tends to create lack of harmony between the
branches.
Mr. Reid F. Murray, of Wisconsin, then arose to inquire whether a
letter that he had written to a Member of the other body could be
included in an extension of remarks in the Record. The Speaker Pro
Tempore informed him that a point of order could always be raised
following the insertion in the Record of material that violated a House
rule. Further discussion then took place:
Mr. [Joseph W.] Martin, [Jr.] of Massachusetts: Mr. Speaker, I
am raising this question not because of this particular instance
concerning which I have no desire to enter into any discussion, but
in the interest of proper observance of the rules of the House I
believe we ought to have a clear-cut decision as to whether we can
mention in debate the name of a person who is a Member of the other
body. I understand, of course, that the Chair has not been called
upon to make a rule in this particular case because no objection
was raised, but I do not think the matter should be left with the
understanding that, generally speaking, it would not be in order.
We ought to know whether it is in order or not in case an objection
is raised. . . .
Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Martin] is right, so far as
mentioning the name of a Member of the other body as a Senator. But
when a man arises here and mentions the name of a distinguished
citizen of a State as a candidate for President, who happens to be
a Member of the other body and does not mention that fact, I doubt
if he violates the rules of the House. That rule is to create and
maintain comity between the two Houses. It is to prevent the
criticism of Members of the other body as such on the floor of the
House. The same thing applies in the Senate. However, the gentleman
from Wisconsin was a little late. A while ago when some Member here
mentioned the fact that the other body was not in session and
referred to it in that respect, I think he violated the rules of
the House. But if you merely refer to a man, a distinguished
citizen of the United States who happens to be a Member of the
other body and do not
[[Page 10578]]
refer to that fact, I do not think it violates the rule.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The whole purpose of the rule, of
course, is to maintain and preserve comity between the two
legislative bodies, which is of paramount importance.
Sec. 44.3 Speaker Longworth ruled that references to the Senate or its
proceedings were not in order in House debate under the principles
of Jefferson's Manual, notwithstanding contrary Senate practice.
On May 16, 1930, following a point of order against reference to
the proceedings of a Senate committee, Mr. Bertrand H. Snell, of New
York, quoted those sections of Jefferson's Manual pertinent to the
subject of comity between the two Houses. Speaker Nicholas Longworth,
of Ohio, delivered a lengthy statement on the development of Senate
practice and on the recent decisions in that body holding that the
sections of Jefferson's Manual did not apply to the Senate and that
Senators could use their own discretion in commenting or reflecting
upon House speeches or House proceedings.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Since the Senate has not adopted Jefferson's Manual, the rule of
comity in debate has been less strictly enforced there than in
the House. See Sec. 46, infra, for Senate precedents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaker Longworth stated that he would nevertheless insist upon
strict adherence to both the letter and the spirit of Jefferson's
Manual, prohibiting reflections ``in any way on the floor of the House
against the actions, speeches, or proceedings of another Member [of the
Senate] or of the body itself.''
Sec. 44.4 It is a violation of the rules of parliamentary procedure to
refer by name to the remarks or actions of a Senator occurring in
the Senate or elsewhere, and where a Member in debate or through an
insertion in the Record transgresses this rule the Speaker calls
him to order under Rule XIV clause 4.
Where a Member had on a previous day made an unchallenged reference
in debate and in a Record insertion to the actions of a named Senator
outside of the Senate, the Speaker, in response to a parliamentary
inquiry, indicated that those remarks were in violation of the rule of
comity between the two Houses (8) and by unanimous consent
the remarks were stricken from the permanent Record. The proceedings of
Oct. 7, 1975,(9) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. See House Rules and Manual (Jefferson's Manual) Sec. 374 (1995).
9. 121 Cong. Rec. 32055, 32056, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 10579]]
Mr. [James C.] Cleveland [of New Hampshire]: Mr. Speaker, I
have asked for this time for the purpose of addressing the Chair so
that I may make an inquiry, which will be in the nature of a
parliamentary inquiry, of the Chair, in regard to the following
matter:
On last April 17, at page H2884 of the Record, I was commenting
on the manner in which the Senate was handling aspects of the New
Hampshire Senate election, remarks were critical of the Senate and
the Speaker at this time called me to order, and, quoting from the
Speaker's remarks, the Speaker asked me to desist and stated that
my remarks were in violation of the rules of the House and the
rules of comity.
For this reason, Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring this to the
attention of the Chair: I noticed on October 1 that at pages H9424-
H9425 of the Record the gentleman from New York (Mr. Koch)
addressed the House under the 1-minute rule and had been extremely
critical of the junior Senator from New York (Mr. Buckley).
Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire if the remarks of the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Koch), like those of mine earlier in
the year, are in violation of the rules of the House and the rules
of comity.
The Speaker: (10) Does the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Koch) desire to be heard?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Edward I.] Koch [of New York]: I do, Mr. Speaker. . . .
In Cannon's Precedents, Mr. Speaker, there is a statement that
it is not in order in debate to criticize Members of the other
body, but such rule does not apply to criticisms of statements made
by Members of the other body outside the Chamber.
In my remarks to which the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr.
Cleveland) refers, I did discuss the remarks of a Member of the
other body, the younger brother of a noted columnist. . . .
In any event, as a result of those remarks, this noted
columnist, for whom I have high regard . . . took exception to my
remarks in his column.
In examining the precedents, I have come to the conclusion that
I ought not to have mentioned the exact name of that Member of the
other body. Therefore, with the Chair's permission, I would consent
to a withdrawal of that unutterable name and have substituted in
each and every case where that name was mentioned a reference to
the fact that I was referring to the younger brother of a noted
columnist.
The Speaker: The Chair is ready to rule.
The Chair will state that not only was this matter brought to
his attention today, but the Chair noted the
remarks of the gentleman from New York when they appeared in the
Record of October 1, 1975, and anticipated that this question might
arise.
The Chair has, accordingly, checked the precedents. The
precedents of the House indicate that it is not in order for a
Member of this body to refer to the actions or remarks of a Member
of the other body occurring either within the other body or
elsewhere--Speaker Rayburn, May 5, 1941. The motives of the Member
making the remarks are
[[Page 10580]]
not relevant to a determination of whether they are or are not in
order, as even complimentary remarks have been held to violate the
rule of comity between the two Houses--Volume VIII, 2509.
Speaker Rayburn succinctly stated the reason for the rule in
1941, subsequent to the citation given by the gentleman from New
York, observing that--
If there is a thing in the world that is important, it is
that there be comity and good feeling between the two
legislative bodies.
To allow references in one body to the actions of Members of
the other, he continued:
In all probability would lead to a situation which might
make ordered legislative procedure impossible. (May 5, 1941,
Record, pp. 3566-3567).
The present and all previous occupants of this Chair have
attempted to preserve the comity between the two Houses.
The Chair notes that the remarks in question were in part
delivered from the floor of the House and in part inserted for
printing in the Record. Had the Chair been aware of the content of
the remarks when uttered or been informed of the contents of the
matter to be inserted, he would have enforced the rule of comity at
that time.
The rule of comity has clearly been violated and, without
objection, the remarks of the gentleman from New York will be
stricken from the Record.
There was no objection.
Parliamentarian's Note: The Rayburn ruling of May 5, 1941, to the
extent that it is inconsistent with the precedent cited by Mr. Koch (5
Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5112) overruled that prior precedent and it is
no longer proper to refer to a Senator's statement made outside the
Senate.
Sec. 44.5 Although the Senate does not strictly incorporate Jefferson's
Manual as a rule and is not bound by the prohibitions against
reference to Members of the House, the Speaker strictly enforces
the House rule on his own initiative and may deny an offending
Member further recognition; thus, in anticipation of debate
potentially critical of the Senate and its members, the Speaker
announced his intention to strictly enforce section 374 of
Jefferson's Manual prohibiting improper references to the Senate,
including a denial of further recognition to offending Members
subject to House permission to proceed in order.
On June 16, 1982,(11) Speaker Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr., of
Massachusetts, made a statement re
[[Page 10581]]
garding comity in debate. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 128 Cong. Rec. 13843, 13873, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: The Chair appreciates the fact that there is an
amendment that will be offered very shortly concerning the Senate.
The Chair deems it necessary to make a statement at this time
to firmly establish an understanding that improper references to
the other body or its Members during debate are contrary to the
rules and precedents of the House and will not be tolerated. The
Chair will quote from section 374 of Jefferson's Manual which is a
part of the rules of the House:
It is the duty of the House, and more particularly of the
Speaker, to interfere immediately, and not to permit
expressions to go unnoticed which may give a ground of
complaint to the other House, and introduce proceedings and
mutual accusations between the two Houses, which can hardly be
terminated without difficulty and disorder.
Traditionally when a Member inadvertently transgresses this
rule of the House, the Chair upon calling the Member to order
prevails upon that Member to remove the offending remarks from the
Record. With the advent of television, however, the Chair is not
certain that such a remedy is sufficient. Henceforth, where a
Member's references to the other body are contrary to the important
principle of comity stated in Jefferson's Manual, the Chair may
immediately deny further recognition to that Member at that point
in the debate subject to permission of the House to proceed in
order. The Chair requests all Members to abide by this rule in
order to avoid embarrassment to themselves and to the House.
Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Conte: Mr. Speaker, in order to abide by the rules, which
are very difficult, does the Senate have the same rule? Does the
other body?
The Speaker: No; the Senate does not have the same rule, but it
is a rule of our House and we are going to abide by it as long as I
am Speaker.
Mr. Conte: Is it permissible to refer to them as ``the other
body''?
The Speaker: That is permissible, the other body. . . .
Mr. [David R.] Obey [of Wisconsin]: If the gentleman will yield
on that point, I do not want to behave like the other body. I am
fed up with Members of the other body posing for holy pictures on
congressional pay and then running around, collecting $60,000 in
outside income.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is constrained to admonish
the body, in accordance with the warning of the Speaker earlier,
that the Members should be careful in their references to the other
body.
--Criticism of the Idea of ``Comity''
Sec. 44.6 A Member took the floor to advocate a change in that
provision of House rules contained in Jefferson's Manual
prohibiting references to actions of the Senate and to Senators.
[[Page 10582]]
The following remarks were made in the House on Dec. 20, 1985:
(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 131 Cong. Rec. 38731, 38732, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Mr. Frank asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute.)
Mr. [Barney] Frank [of Massachusetts]: . . . A couple of
hundred years ago there was a proposal that said the Houses ought
not to comment on each other. It has become very clear that it has
become difficult to transact business and impossible to transmit
intelligent information while we have that constraint.
So I hope that in the session that begins in 1987 we will
change that archaic rule and we will be able in the House and
Senate to talk about each other and to stop this pretense that each
is off on some other planet
somewhere uninfluenced by and uninfluenceable by the other.
Role of the Speaker
Sec. 44.7 It is the duty of the Chair to interrupt a Member in debate
when the Member proposes to refer to the opinions or statements of
Senators or to Senate proceedings in violation of the rules.
On May 25, 1937,(13) when a Member proposed to read a
letter from a member of the Senate in Committee of the Whole, Chairman
John J. O'Connor, of New York, on his own responsibility called him to
order for reading a letter from a member of the other body.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 81 Cong. Rec. 5013, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, on Apr. 18, 1939,(14) when a Member referred
to the action of the Senate on a particular appropriation bill then
before the House, Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, stated as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 84 Cong. Rec. 4404, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair desires to call the attention of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania to the fact that under the rules of the House he is
not permitted to refer to any action taken in the Senate of the
United States.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. ``[I]t is the duty of the House, and more particularly of the
Speaker, to interfere immediately, and not to permit
expressions to go unnoticed which may give a ground of
complaint to the other House. . . .'' Jefferson's Manual, House
Rules and Manual Sec. 374 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Announcements as to Enforcement of Rule of Comity
Sec. 44.8 The Speaker has on occasion addressed the House in relation
to violations of the rule prohibiting references to the Senate in
debate, and has stated his intention to prevent violations thereof.
[[Page 10583]]
On May 5, 1941,(16) following a ruling by Speaker Sam
Rayburn, of Texas, on a violation of the House rules, whereby a Member
inserted in his extension of remarks in the Congressional Record
critical references to the speeches of a Senator made off the floor of
the House, the Speaker addressed the House on the unprecedented
frequency with which the particular rule was being violated in the 77th
Congress. The Speaker stated that thereafter he would on his own
initiative call the attention of Members to violations of the
provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 87 Cong. Rec. 3566, 3567, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, on Jan. 17, 1955,(17) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of
Texas, made the following announcement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 101 Cong. Rec. 386, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair desires to make this statement at the beginning of
this session with reference to something that has been maintained
by every Speaker of the House since the present occupant of the
Chair has been a Member of this body, and that is that the House of
Representatives, regardless of what any other body or any other
individual does, has maintained strictly those rules and
regulations which protect and perpetuate the comity between the two
Houses. And when any Member of this House rises to make remarks
about what has happened in another body or about any individual in
that body, the present occupant of the Chair will certainly see
that the rules of the House and the rules of comity between the two
Houses are enforced.
On Mar. 26, 1964,(18) after ruling on a point of order
based on House references to the Senate, Speaker John W. McCormack, of
Massachusetts, made the following announcement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 110 Cong. Rec. 6365, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair is going to be very strict in the future with
relation to references to speeches made in the other body or to
references to Members of the other body. The Chair feels at this
time it might be well to read the rule of the House covering this
subject:
It is a breach of order in debate to notice what has been
said on the same subject in the other House, or the particular
votes or majorities on it there; because the opinion of each
House should be left to its own independency, not to be
influenced by the proceedings of the other; and the quoting
them might beget reflections leading to a misunderstanding
between the two Houses.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. The Speaker cited the provisions of parliamentary law contained in
Jefferson's Manual, House Rules and Manual Sec. 371 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment on Senate Proceedings Critical of House
Sec. 44.9 A Member may not in debate comment on Senate proceedings
impugning the integrity of the House, the
[[Page 10584]]
proper procedure being the introduction of a resolution requesting
corrective action by the Senate.
On May 11, 1932,(20) Mr. Fred A. Britten, of Illinois,
stated his intention in the Committee of
the Whole (which was considering H.J. Res. 149) to read from the
Congressional Record proceedings in the Senate which impugned the
honesty of purpose of every Member of the House. Mr. Thomas L. Blanton,
of Texas, arose to make the point of order that ``in order to preserve
the friendliness and the amity and the comity that exists and should
exist between the two Houses of Congress, it has always been the rule
that no criticism or censure could be made from this floor concerning
any Member of the body in the other end of the Capitol.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 75 Cong. Rec. 10019, 72d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman Gordon Browning, of Tennessee, ruled that Mr. Britten
could neither quote from the Congressional Record nor quote from
newspaper reports of Senate speeches or proceedings. The Chairman
referred to the precedent of May 6, 1930, wherein Speaker Nicholas
Longworth, of Ohio, had held that a Member could not reflect in any way
in debate on the floor of the House on the actions, speeches, or
proceedings of a Senator, or of the Senate itself.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. For the exhaustive opinion of Speaker Longworth on May 6, 1930, see
8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2518.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Britten appealed the Chairman's decision, but withdrew his
appeal after William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, then Speaker of the
House, was granted five minutes' time. Mr. Bankhead supported the
Chairman's ruling and alluded to the ``very elaborate and very learned,
and in my opinion very correct'' ruling of Speaker Longworth. Mr.
Bankhead added that when the Committee of the Whole rose Mr. Britten
could raise his question of privilege by introducing a resolution to be
sent to the Senate asking that any language impugning the House or its
Members be corrected.
Comment on Conference Proceedings
Sec. 44.10 It is in order in debate while discussing a question
involving conference committee procedures to state what occurred in
a conference committee session, without referring to a named
Senator.
On July 29, 1935,(2) Mr. John G. Cooper, of Ohio, was
discussing
[[Page 10585]]
the procedure followed at a conference committee and stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 79 Cong. Rec. 12011, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Speaker, I apologize, but I will say that the Senator, who
is chairman of the conference committee, stated to us that if Mr.
Cohen could not sit in at the conference there would be no
conference.
He further said:
I doubt if I know enough about the bill to give it an
intelligent discussion unless Mr. Cohen sits in here with me.
Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, made a point of order against
Mr. Cooper's remarks on the ground that he had ``no right to criticize
Members of the Senate on the floor of the House, whether he calls them
by name or not. This tirade against the Senate is in violation of the
rules of the House.''
Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, ruled as follows:
The rule provides that Members shall not criticize a Member of
the other body in a discussion on the floor. As the Chair
understands the gentleman, he is not referring to a Senator by
name, but stating what occurred in the conference committee.
Comment on Senate Proceedings on Measure Pending in House
Sec. 44.11 Under the old rule, it was not in order in debate to quote
Senate proceedings on a bill or resolution then before the House.
On Aug. 24, 1935,(3) while the House was considering
Senate Joint Resolution 175, amending the Independent Offices
Appropriation Act of 1934, Mr. Schuyler Otis Bland, of Virginia, quoted
from Senate debate on the joint resolution:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 79 Cong. Rec. 14599, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
. . . Then Senator Black says about his resolution:
I am not trying to throw this matter into a state of chaos.
Mr. Edward C. Moran, Jr., of Maine, made the point of order that
Mr. Bland was quoting from Senate proceedings and Mr. Bland responded:
For heaven's sake, has the Senate gotten to the place where its
Senators cannot be quoted, and Senator Black, the great apostle of
these gentlemen, cannot have his views presented for your
consideration?
Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, ruled as follows:
The Chair reads from Jefferson's Manual, as follows:
It is a breach of order in debate to notice what has been
said on the same subject in the other House, or the particular
votes or majorities on it there; because the opinion of each
House should be left to its own independency, not to be
influenced by the proceedings of the other; and the
[[Page 10586]]
quoting them might beget reflections leading to a
misunderstanding between the two Houses.
Mr. Bland: I beg the Chair's pardon.
The Speaker: The Chair is of the opinion that the point of
order is well taken. The gentleman from Virginia will proceed in
order.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. For the provisions cited by the Speaker, see Jefferson's Manual,
House Rules and Manual Sec. 371 (1995). See Rule XIV clause 1,
House Rules and Manual Sec. 749 (1995), for current rule on
Senate references.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 44.12 Although it is a breach of order in House debate to quote
from Senate debate, Members may by unanimous consent insert in the
Record Senate remarks on bills pending before the House.
On May 23, 1968,(5) during consideration of H.R. 8578,
amending the Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, Mr. Hale Boggs,
of Louisiana, asked unanimous consent that the Senate debate on a
certain amendment to the bill be printed in the Record. No objection
was heard, and a lengthy excerpt from Senate proceedings of April 23,
1968, was inserted.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 114 Cong. Rec. 14640-51, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
6. Senate practice is similar, unanimous consent being required to
refer to House proceedings on a proposition then before the
Senate (see Sec. 46.6, infra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 44.13 As provided in Jefferson's Manual,(7) it is a
breach of order in debate to notice what has been said on the same
subject in the Senate, or to refer to particular Senators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. See House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 371, 372 (1995). Following
changes made in Rule XIV clause 1 beginning in 1987, the quote
from Senate proceedings would be considered permissible, as
helping to illuminate the legislative history of the bill under
consideration in the House. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 749
(1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Oct. 21, 1981,(8) during consideration of the Food
and Agriculture Act of 1981 (H.R. 3603) in the Committee of the Whole,
the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 127 Cong. Rec. 24748, 24753, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert N.] Shamansky [of Ohio]: I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to quote from Senator Hatfield, from
the Congressional Record of September 17, 1981----
The Chairman: (9) The Chair will advise the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Shamansky) that it is not in order to
quote from the proceedings of the other body. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Joel] Pritchard [of Washington]: That is an excellent
question and I intend to address that very question with the rest
of my remarks.
[[Page 10587]]
First of all, let us remember where this bill is going to go.
It is going to go to conference committee. And the gentleman from
North Carolina in the other body is the chairman of the Senate
delegation.
The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman that
reference to a particular Member of the other body is not in order.
Sec. 44.14 Under clause 1 of Rule XIV, the range of permissible
references in debate to the Senate does not extend to
characterizations of Senate actions or to votes of individual
Senators; thus, the Chair sustained a point of order against
remarks in debate to the effect that certain Senators had, by their
votes in that body, given an imprimatur of reasonableness to a
particular position.
On Nov. 2, 1989,(10) during consideration of House
Concurrent Resolution 221 (supporting Central American peace and
democracy) in the House, the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 135 Cong. Rec. 26918, 26919, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Henry J.] Hyde [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, the
distinguished chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee feels that
there has been an agreement. . . .
We have a consensus document and the chairman with great
diplomacy, wants to get a document that everybody can support. I do
not object to our resolution. It is an adequate resolution, but it
lacks substance. It is more cotton candy than T-bone steak.
The Senate, on the other hand, the other body, passed a real
resolution that is awfully tough. I would like the opportunity to
vote for the Senate language rather than our rather pastel, pallid,
accurate-as-far-as-it-goes but mild resolution.
Now first of all I would be interested to see how the gentleman
on the other side could not vote for something because it is too
abrasive when it is supported by both of the distinguished Senators
from California, both of the distinguished Senators from Ohio, both
of the distinguished Senators from Connecticut, the majority
leader, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee in the
other body. It would seem to me that would qualify it, having their
imprimatur, to get the support from everybody in this Chamber.
Mr. [Ted] Weiss [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of
order. . . .
Mr. Speaker, is it in order discussing what went on in the
Senate and what the motivations were of the people in the Senate? .
. .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (11) The gentleman may
report the general collective action taken by the other body, but
may not characterize the votes of individual Senators as good or
bad.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Jim McDermott (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Senators as Sponsors of Legislation
Sec. 44.15 Under clause 1 of Rule XIV, debate ordinarily may
[[Page 10588]]
include references to individual Senators only to identify them as
sponsors of legislation; the range of permissible references to the
Senate does not extend to the opinions or policy positions of
individual Senators.
The following proceedings occurred in the House on July 12, 1990:
(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 136 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 101st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Newt] Gingrich [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, it is outrageous
for the Senate Democratic leader to publicly demand higher taxes
and a massive 25-percent increase in the income tax top rate. The
Senate Democratic leader is threatening to destroy the budget
summit.
Mr. Speaker, Senator Mitchell does not attend summit meetings.
He publicly demands tax increases. Senator Mitchell does not offer
serious budget reforms. He publicly demands tax increases. Senator
Mitchell does not offer spending cuts.
Mr. [Harold L.] Volkmer [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I ask that
the words of the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich] be taken
down.
The Speaker: (13) The Chair will merely caution the
gentleman from Georgia that such references to Members of the other
body are not in order. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Thomas S. Foley (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Gingrich: I would inquire of the Speaker, if it is in
reference to a public newspaper account of public activity by a
political leader, and I believe in this House we have a remarkably
wide range of free speech, and this is not a reference to any
action by the Senator of Maine in the Senate.
The Speaker: Under clause 1, rule XIV, it is an improper
reference to a Member of the other body. . . .
Mr. Gingrich: . . . Would the Speaker, and I am not trying to
play games with the Speaker, would the Speaker simply instruct the
gentleman what precisely are the ground rules for discussing
publicly the activities of the Democratic leader of the other body
when they appear in public and not in the other body? . . .
The Speaker: The Chair will remind the gentleman of clause 1 of
rule XIV which states that when any member desires to speak or
deliver any matter to the House:
He shall rise and respectfully address himself, Mr.
Speaker, and on being recognized may address the House from any
place on the floor or from the Clerk's desk, and he shall
confine himself to the question under debate, avoiding
personality. Debate may include references to actions taken by
the Senate or by committees thereof, which are a matter of
public record, references to the pendency or sponsorship of
Senate bills, resolutions or amendment, factual description
relating to Senate action or inaction concerning those then
under debate in the House and questions from Senate proceedings
on a measure then under debate in the House and which are
relevant to the making of legislative history establishing the
meaning of that measure, but may not include characteristics of
Senate action or inaction, other references to individual
Members of the Senate or other quotations from Senate
proceedings.
[[Page 10589]]
Parliamentarian's Note: As indicated above, in the House, the Chair
takes the initiative in calling to order a Member for making
unparliamentary references to the Senate or its members.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. For further discussion of procedures relating to calls to order, or
control by the Chair of disorderly proceedings, see Sec. 48,
infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Critical or Derogatory References to Senators
Sec. 44.16 The Speaker held out
of order a statement on a
pending bill ``[i]f Senators in
a moment of aberration approve such language, I do not approve. . .
.''
On Jan. 29, 1946,(15) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 4437, to return public employment offices to state
operation. Mr. Everett M. Dirksen, of Illinois, offered an amendment,
which was opposed by Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York. Mr. Dirksen
informed him that the language of the amendment had been approved by
two Senators, whom he named, and Mr. Celler responded ``[i]f Senators
in a moment of aberration approve such language, I do not approve. . .
.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 92 Cong. Rec. 533, 534, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The words were taken down in the House on the demand of Mr. John E.
Rankin, of Mississippi, and stricken from the Record, after Speaker Sam
Rayburn, of Texas, ruled the language ``unparliamentary in referring to
the action of the membership in another body.''
Sec. 44.17 It is a violation of the rule of comity to criticize in
debate the actions of a Senator with regard to legislation, and it
is the duty of the Chair to call to order a Member who violates the
rule.
During consideration of the Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act of 1979 (H.R. 39) in the Committee of the Whole on May
15, 1979,(16) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 125 Cong. Rec. 11133, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: I just want to put it in
the record. I do not think it has much to do with what we are doing
today, but on May 8 the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Seiberling), on
page H2851, tells this whole story chapter and verse. I want to
endorse what he said. It is a different ball game. It is akin to
being in a poker game 10 minutes to midnight and I have a pair of
deuces, and my opponent says, ``I will split the pot with you.''
Time is about to run out.
Under this December 18 deadline we made a deal, the best deal
we could make. Then, some guy named Gravel comes on and the chips
are all over the
[[Page 10590]]
floor. Then, we decide to play until 3 o'clock and we redeal the
cards and we find that we do not have that situation in our hand
and nobody asks to split the pot. We want a strong bill. That was a
pretty lousy compromise. I made it and I would have fought for it
on the floor, but it was upset by the Senator from Alaska and it
has no status here today.
The Chairman: (17) The Chair would simply point out
that references to actions taken in the other body are contrary to
the rules of the House.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Paul Simon (Ill.).
18. See Jefferson's Manual, section 371. Mr. Udall subsequently revised
his remarks to delete the references to Senator Gravel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 44.18 It is a breach of order under clause 1 of Rule XIV to
characterize Senate action or inaction, such as mocking the
resolve, courage or conviction of the Senate or referring to that
body as ``jello''.
Speaker Thomas S. Foley, of Washington, made an announcement
regarding comity between the House and Senate following certain remarks
made in debate in the House on Aug. 4, 1989.(19) The
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 135 Cong. Rec. 19314, 19315, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Barney] Frank [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute.
The Speaker: Without objection, the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) is recognized for 1 minute. . . .
Mr. Frank: I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, having consulted with the very distinguished and
objective parliamentarians and with the Speaker, on reflection it
did seem to me that my comparison of the U.S. Senate to Jell-O was
not totally in keeping with the traditions of this institution and
I thought it would be appropriate for me to indicate that fact to
the House.
Mr. [Dennis E.] Eckart [of Ohio]: Continuing my reservation of
objection on this matter, Mr. Speaker, perhaps the gentleman should
offer his apology to General Foods.
Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
The Speaker: The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) is
recognized for 1 minute.
Mr. Frank: Mr. Speaker, as I said in foolish answer to the
gentleman from Ohio, while I was not enthralled with the
performance of our constitutional equal, the U.S. Senate, my
comparison to them as Jell-O did not seem to me, on sober second
thought, to be entirely appropriate, and I therefore apologize.
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER
The Speaker: The Chair will take this occasion to state that
the Chair appreciates the good humor of debate, but the Chair also
believes that all Members should observe the rules of
[[Page 10591]]
comity with respect to the other body. I am glad the gentleman from
Massachusetts has made his statement.
Sec. 44.19 It is a violation of the rule of comity as expressed in
section 374 of Jefferson's Manual, to read into the Record critical
references to members of the Senate, even if the criticism was
stated in a letter written by a non-Member.
During consideration of the Civil Rights Commission Act of 1983
(H.R. 2230) in the Committee of the Whole on Aug. 4,
1983,(20) the Chair admonished the Committee that references
to either the other body or members thereof were not in order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 129 Cong. Rec. 23135, 23136, 23145, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [F. James] Sensenbrenner [Jr., of Wisconsin]: . . . I have
in my possession a letter dated July 15 from Albert Shanker,
president of the American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO, to
Senator Biden which states in part:
Rarely have I been as outraged at the behavior of a fellow
Democrat as I was watching you on the evening news Wednesday.
Your performance at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on
the Civil Rights commission nominees may as well have been
bought, paid for and delivered by the Republican National
Committee. Do you really believe, Senator Biden, that Democrats
or fair minded people anywhere are going to think you a fit
representative for telling the nation that you've made up your
mind how you're going to vote on a nomination before you've
heard one word of testimony from the nominees? . . .
Your anti-quota and anti-busing rhetoric at the hearing
will not mask your action on these nominations. I can imagine
no finer candidates for the Civil Rights Commission than Morris
Abram, John Bunzel and Robert Destro . . . .
Senator Biden, you have before your committee four
excellent nominees with impeccable civil rights credentials.
You will irreparably harm yourself and other Democrats next
year if you insist on obstructing action on these nominees. You
give Ronald Reagan an excellent issue on which to run next year
if you and your colleagues insist on protecting the pro-quotas,
pro-busing interests and attacking staunch civil rights
veterans like Abram, Bunzel, Destro and Chavez. . . .
The Chairman: (1) Before recognizing another Member
to speak, the Chair would like to make a statement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Morris K. Udall (Ariz.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regardless of the effect that pending legislation may have on
proceedings in the other body, reference to actions or proceedings
in that body or remarks critical of Members of that body are not in
order under the rules and precedents of the House.
Sec. 44.20 It is a breach of order in debate to refer to the motives of
the Senate or Senators in passing certain legislation; nor is it in
order to read from the Congressional Record as to specific actions
taken in the Senate on legislative issues.
[[Page 10592]]
On Oct. 17, 1985,(2) the Chair took the initiative to
admonish a Member against references to the Senate or Senators. The
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 131 Cong. Rec. 27772, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Mike] Lowry of Washington: Mr. Speaker, with all due
respect to my well-meaning friends, what the Gramm/Rudman movement
over in the other body really did was simply provide a way by which
at least 30-some Senators can get past the next election without
having to face the tough proposition of how you really cut the
budget. That was proven.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (3) The Chair would advise
the gentleman that it is against the rules of the House to refer to
the motives of the other body or its Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Howard E. Wolpe (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Lowry of Washington: Mr. Speaker, I would not even consider
inferring the motives of the other body.
Mr. Speaker, what I would like to do is read the record of the
other body of the day after the Gramm-Rudman passed and they voted
specifically on the items not to cut the budget.
On the Bradley amendment to cut the defense budget----
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will advise the gentleman
that he must not refer to actions of the other body in that way.
Sec. 44.21 The Chair admonished a Member during debate not to refer to
a Senator in a critical manner although not identified by name.
On Dec. 18, 1985,(4) the following proceedings occurred
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 131 Cong. Rec. 37813, 37814, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Fernand J.] St Germain [of Rhode Island]: . . . Mr.
Speaker, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania is a member of our
Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs, I would like to
state that it has come to my attention that the other body has
placed in the continuing resolution some special legislation for
special people. There is a Member of the other body who, in 1983,
fought tooth and nail to prevent a housing bill from being adopted
in the Congress.
Again this year, Members will recall we put our housing bill
into reconciliation. Once again, the same individual Member of the
other body is saying, ``No, no, no.'' He is using parliamentary
chicanery to deny the people of this Nation safe, decent, sanitary
housing.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (5) The gentleman should
not refer to the other body and he is skirting very closely on
offensive language.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Dale E. Kildee (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 44.22 It is not in order under clause 1 of Rule XIV to cast
reflections on remarks made by a Senator, occurring in the Senate
or elsewhere, even if the Senator is not identified by name.
On Feb. 23, 1994,(6) a Member in debate criticized
remarks made
[[Page 10593]]
by a Senator, by referring to the Senator as ``a person who resides in
the State of South Carolina.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 140 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 103d Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was
H. Res. 343, expressing the Sense of Congress on the Senior
Representative of the Nation of Islam.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Kweisi] Mfume [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to
offer a friendly amendment to the amendment in hopes of bringing
balance and substance to this debate and to this issue of
repudiation that go directly to the heart of remarks made by a
gentleman of the other body. . . .
Mr. [Charles B.] Rangel [of New York]: I am trying to find out
from the author of this amendment how could it be related to this
amendment and whether it is inviting, whether it has been
distributed, what it is that you bring before this House at this
time. . . .
Mr. Mfume: The amendment that I had hoped to offer was an
amendment that would have brought balance to this debate in which
all of us have a sense of outrage and revulsion at remarks that
were made at Kean College, but many of us also have a sense of
outrage and revulsion at remarks made by a Member of the other body
recently in which black people were referred to as darkies,
Hispanics were referred to as wetbacks, and Africans were referred
to as cannibals. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (7) The Chair would like to
remind the gentleman in the well that he cannot refer to Members of
the other body and statements made by that Member of the other
body.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Robert G. Torricelli (N.J.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Mfume: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Chair. Is the
Chair telling me that I cannot say or make mention of a Member of
the other body as long as I do not use that person's name?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman, under the rules, cannot
refer to statements made by the Members of the other body.
Mr. Mfume: If I could ask further, may I have permission to
refer to statements made from someone from South Carolina?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: If that is a Member from the other
body, the gentleman cannot do that.
Mr. Mfume: With all due respect, there are many people from
South Carolina. I am not necessarily mentioning a Member of the
other body but a resident of the State of South Carolina.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman would proceed in order
at the Chair's request.
Similarly, on June 30, 1995,(8) the Chair addressed the
issue of references to Senators (as well as to the President), in
response to remarks made by Mr. Robert K. Dornan, of California:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 141 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Dornan: I am going to get justice here. I am going to get
justice for all the Vietnamese who were tortured to death in those
so-called reeducation concentration camps. . . .
I will tell you this: This ex-member here, now a Senator, is
from a Bible Belt State. . . .
I will tell you, if you are from Iowa, you know most of this
material. I can
[[Page 10594]]
not believe what you have sent to represent your country. I hope
you enjoy your Fourth of July in Iowa and New Hampshire, because
you are going to have U.S. Senators and, God forbid, the three
House Members from the minority, one of them a distinguished Army
captain from the D-Day period. I hope they are not toasting the
terrorists and the Communist victors who brought such human rights
abuse and grief to all of Southeast Asia. . . .
I am going to go over with the parliamentarians how I can
recoup my honor from January 25 of this year, when I used the
expression ``aid and comfort to the enemy.'' I know it is in the
Constitution. I know there is a technicality when war is not
declared. But I am going to discuss every dictionary definition,
British and American, of aid, of comfort and of what constitutes an
enemy. . . .
When I tell you that Clinton gave aid and comfort to the enemy
in Hanoi by his Moscow trip and his demonstrations in London, where
they were called the fall offensive, so named by the same
Communists in Hanoi that will be toasting Americans today----
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (9) The Chair would caution
the Member to be very cautious of any statements about the
President of the United States. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Constance A. Morella (Md.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair would like to also point out for the Record something
that the Representative does know, just to remind him, that
personal references to members of the other body, even though not
mentioned by name, when it is very clear to whom the references are
made, should be avoided, and this is something that had been
mentioned on February 23, 1994, by the Chair.
Reading Senate Proceedings From the Record
Sec. 44.23 It is not in order in debate to read from the Record
statements made in the Senate or Senate proceedings which are not
related to a pending measure in the House.
On Aug. 24, 1935,(10) the following exchange and ruling
by Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 79 Cong. Rec. 14599, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Schuyler Otis] Bland [of Virginia]: . . . Then Senator
Black says about his resolution:
I am not trying to throw this matter into a state of
chaos.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. The resolution under discussion was S.J. Res. 175, amending the
Independent Offices Appropriation Act of 1934.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Edward C.] Moran [Jr., of Maine]: Mr. Speaker, I make the
point of order that the present speaker is quoting from the Senate
proceedings.
Mr. Bland: For heaven's sake, has the Senate gotten to the
place where its Senators cannot be quoted, and Senator Black, the
great apostle of these gentlemen, cannot have his views presented
for your consideration?
Mr. Moran: Mr. Speaker, I ask for a ruling on the point of
order.
[[Page 10595]]
Mr. [John J.] O'Connor [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I understand
the gentleman is reading from the Congressional Record.
Mr. Bland: Yes.
Mr. O'Connor: And is not referring to a Senator in any
disparaging manner.
Mr. Bland: Not in the slightest--I am commending him.
Mr. Moran: If the Speaker will refer to the discussion of the
Bland bill upon the floor of the House, he will find that the same
point of order was made against me--that is how I recall it--and
the point of order was sustained.
The Speaker: The Chair reads from Jefferson's Manual, as
follows:
It is a breach of order in debate to notice what has been
said on the same subject in the other House, or the particular
votes or majorities on it there; because the opinion of each
House should be left to its own independency, not to be
influenced by the proceedings of the other; and the quoting
them might beget reflections leading to a misunderstanding
between the two Houses.
Mr. Bland: I beg the Chair's pardon.
The Speaker: The Chair is of the opinion that the point of
order is well taken. The gentleman from Virginia will proceed in
order.
Sec. 44.24 Although in certain circumstances it is a breach of order to
refer to Senate debate, on one occasion a Member by unanimous
consent secured permission to include in the Record portions of
remarks made in the Senate.
On May 23, 1968,(12) during consideration of H.R. 8578,
amending the Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, Mr. Hale Boggs,
of Louisiana, asked unanimous consent that the Senate debate on a
certain amendment be printed in the Record. No objection was heard, and
a lengthy excerpt from Senate proceedings of Apr. 23, 1968, was
inserted.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 114 Cong. Rec. 14640-51, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
13. Insertions in the Record, see Ch. 5, supra. Under the more liberal
practice beginning in the 100th Congress, such references, if
related to a measure then pending in the House, would be
permitted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 44.25 On one occasion, the Speaker declined to rule on a point of
order directed against a critical reference to the views of a
Senator, expressed in a speech on the Senate floor, and, after
noting the applicable rule, permitted the Member to proceed in
order.
On Mar. 26, 1964,(14) while making a one-minute speech
in the House, Mr. Louis C. Wyman, of New Hampshire, expressed his
disagreement with remarks of the Chairman of the Senate Committee on
Foreign Relations made
[[Page 10596]]
on the Senate floor on the preceding day. A point of order was made
against reference to a member of the other body and the following
exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 110 Cong. Rec. 6361, 6362, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Wyman: Mr. Speaker, I want to express myself as being in
wholehearted disagreement with the amazing, incredible, and
dismaying remarks regarding American foreign policy of the chairman
of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee made on the Senate floor
yesterday wherein he has indicated in regard to Cuba that Castro is
here to stay; that we will not fight to oust him because it is not
worth it, and has implied that such a policy is called ``daring
thinking'' for America, a policy I might say that invites surrender
on the installment plan of the rest of the free world to communism
bit by bit and piece by piece.
May the Lord help us should this sort of policy be in effect--
--
Mr. [Ken] Hechler [of West Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, a point of
order.
The Speaker: (15) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hechler: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman's remarks are directed
to a Member of the other body, which is a violation of the rules of
the House.
The Speaker: The Chair will say that under the rules no Member
may refer to a Member of the other body, or to a speech another
Member has made in that body.
The gentleman from New Hampshire will proceed in order.
Mr. Wyman: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Wyman: Mr. Speaker, I had no intention to violate the rules
of the House. The speech is a matter of record. It was made by the
chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate, and I do
not know how I could refer to it otherwise. The speech is in the
Record, and it is before us at our seats.
May I inquire as to how I may now properly refer to the speech
and disassociate myself from its views without referring to its
author?
The Speaker: The Chair has stated what the rules of the House
are. The Chair did not use the word ``violate.'' The Chair did not
go that far. The Chair simply says reference to a Member of the
other body is not proper, and is not consistent with the rules of
the House. The gentleman was recognized to proceed in order.
Mr. Wyman: Mr. Speaker, I will, of course, accord with the rule
and I will therefore refer only to prominently publicized remarks
appearing on the front pages of the Nation's newspapers of last
night and this morning.
Indirect Reference to the Senate
Sec. 44.26 It has been held that the restriction against certain
references to ``the Senate'' applies equally to comments critical
of ``the other body'' or members thereof.
On Feb. 17, 1936,(16) Mr. Harold Knutson, of Minnesota,
on the
[[Page 10597]]
floor delivered the following remarks:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 80 Cong. Rec. 2218, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
. . . A very remarkable address was delivered in another body a
week ago today that I feel should not go unanswered. In that
address the speaker virtually served notice on Japan that if the
Japanese do not live up to the obligations which she has assumed in
certain treaties this country would go to considerable lengths to
compel her to do so. In view of the fact that the speaker to whom I
have reference occupies a position unusually close to the
administration, I am wondering whether he spoke by the card.
In response to a point of order, Mr. Knutson stated that he did not
mention the Senate but simply some remarks that had been made in
another body. Speaker Pro Tempore John J. McSwain, of South Carolina,
ruled as follows:
The Chair sustains the point of order. The implication is plain
that the reference is to the Senate of the United States. The point
of order is sustained. The gentleman will please proceed in order.
On May 19, 1948,(17) Mr. Herman P. Eberharter, of
Pennsylvania, referred to inaction of ``the other body'' on H.R. 5852,
the subversive activities control bill of 1948. A point of order was
made against the reference to the Senate, and Chairman James W.
Wadsworth, Jr., of New York, ruled that the point of order was well
taken and that Mr. Eberharter must proceed in order. Mr. Eberharter
stated as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 94 Cong. Rec. 6112, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding under the rules of the
House that a Member of the House is not permitted to refer to the
Senate of the United States and is not permitted to refer to any
Senator by name. However, it is my understanding, and I think it
has been so ruled on many occasions, that it is perfectly within
the rules of the House to refer to the other branch of the Congress
as ``the other Body.'' I did not mention the word ``Senate,'' Mr.
Chairman, nor did I mention the name of any Senator. I submit that
the point of order is not well taken, and I hope the Chairman will
so rule.
The Chairman then called the attention of Mr. Eberharter to the
provision on the subject in Jefferson's Manual and directed Mr.
Eberharter to proceed in order.
Sec. 44.27 A Senator may not be referred to, even indirectly, in debate
on the floor of the House.
On Mar. 24, 1961,(18) a point of order was made against
remarks in debate by Mr. Neal Smith, of Iowa, who referred indirectly
to the Goldwater Department Store in Arizona, in an apparent ref
[[Page 10598]]
erence to Senator Barry M. Goldwater, of Arizona. Mr. Smith stated that
``some people call it the Goldwater-Ayres Bill because it is an example
of exempting multi-million dollar stores in Arizona.'' The Committee of
the Whole rose and the objectionable words were reported to the House
where they were ordered stricken from the record, after Speaker Sam
Rayburn, of Texas, ruled that a reference to a member of the other body
by name is a violation of the rules of the House. Mr. John H. Dent, of
Pennsylvania, then raised a parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 107 Cong. Rec. 4780, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If a trade name or the name of a product bears the same name as
a Member of the Senate, are we forbidden from mentioning that
particular product or chain or store, or whatever the item may be?
The Chairman: (19) The Chair will pass on that
question when it arises. The Chair may say that the gentleman's
inquiry is not a parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 44.28 A Member may not in debate refer to a Senator indirectly by
the use of the term ``senior Senator'' from a particular state.
On May 2, 1941,(20) after Speaker Pro Tempore Fadjo
Cravens, of Arkansas, ruled out of order a reference to a Senator, he
stated in response to a parliamentary inquiry that such reference would
not be corrected by referring to the Senator as the senior Senator from
a state. He stated that a Member could not do indirectly what he could
not do directly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 87 Cong. Rec. 3536, 3537, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Complimentary References to Named Senator
Sec. 44.29 It is not in order in debate in the House to refer to a
Senator by name, even in a complimentary way.
On Mar. 24, 1961,(1) Mr. James Roosevelt, of California,
inquired of Chairman Eugene J. Keogh, of New York:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 107 Cong. Rec. 4780, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Chairman, do I correctly understand that the rules of the
House do not prevent a Member from mentioning a Senator's name as
long as he does not mention it in a derogatory manner?
Chairman Keogh ruled:
It is the understanding of the Chair that under the rules of
the House, the name of a Member of the other body may not be
mentioned in any fashion.
The Speaker of the House and the presiding Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole have so ruled on numerous
occasions.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. For a discussion of the prohibition against naming a Senator, see
Sec. 44.2, supra. See also 109 Cong. Rec. 1985, 88th Cong. 1st
Sess., Feb. 7, 1963; 96 Cong. Rec. 3131, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.,
Mar. 9, 1950; 87 Cong. Rec. 3536, 3537, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.,
May 2, 1941; and 79 Cong. Rec. 12011, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.,
July 29, 1935. For the current practice, which permits certain
references to legislative actions by a Senator, see Rule XIV
clause 1 as amended in the 100th and 101st Congresses. House
Rules and Manual Sec. 749 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 10599]]
Sec. 44.30 It is in violation of Jefferson's Manual to quote from
Senate proceedings even if the intent is to commend and not to
criticize.
On Mar. 31, 1982,(3) during consideration of House
Resolution 378 (providing investigative funds for House committees),
the Speaker Pro Tempore took the initiative to call a Member to order
for making improper references to the Senate. The proceedings were as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 128 Cong. Rec. 6081, 6083, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Frank] Annunzio [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, by direction
of the Committee on House Administration, I call up a privileged
resolution (H. Res. 378) 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 2d session of the 97th
Congress, and ask for its immediate consideration. . . .
In answer to a defeated motion to reduce the Senate resolution
by an additional $409,000, Senator Mathias informed his colleagues,
just like I did several weeks ago:
We will get to the point where we will damage the
effectiveness of the committees. I think that we have to ask
the Senate what it would cost the taxpayers in not being able
to deal efficiently and, most important, effectively with the
problems that beset this country.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (4) Will the gentleman
suspend momentarily?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Timothy E. Wirth (Colo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair would remind the gentleman that he should not refer
to specific debate in the other body.
The gentleman from Illinois will resume.
Mr. Annunzio: I am quoting; I am not saying anything
derogatory. I am just quoting from the Record, and it is
complimentary.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would only remind the
gentleman from Illinois of the rules of the House, in which the
House should not refer to specific proceedings of the other body,
even in a complimentary way.
Mr. Annunzio: I appreciate the suggestion from the Chair. But I
thought that I was abiding by the rules because I was saying some
nice things about a Republican Senator from Maryland.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair respects the respectful
nature of the gentleman in the well, but would again only remind
the gentleman of the rules of the House and the Chair's
responsibility thereunder to take the initiative he has taken.
[[Page 10600]]
Reference to Statements Made Off Senate Floor
Sec. 44.31 It has been held a breach of order in debate to notice what
a Senator has said in his official capacity, even if his statements
were made for newspaper publication.
On June 26, 1935,(5) in the Committee of the Whole Mr.
Charles V. Truax, of Ohio, quoted a statement made by a Senator and was
challenged on a point of order by Mr. Schuyler Otis Bland, of Virginia.
Mr. Truax then stated a parliamentary inquiry whether it was against
the rules of the House to notice what a Member of the other body had
said for a newspaper publication. Chairman Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas,
stated as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 79 Cong. Rec. 10189, 10190, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If made as a Senator in his official capacity, yes. The
gentleman understands the English language, and the Chair has read
the rule of the House. [Sec. 371 of Jefferson's Manual.] It was
held by Mr. Speaker Clark that it is improper for a Member of the
House to refer to a Senator even in complimentary terms.
Sec. 44.32 It is a breach of order in debate to refer to speeches by
Senators made outside of the Senate.
On May 2, 1941,(6) after a point of order was made
against a reference by a Member to a certain Senator, Speaker Pro
Tempore Fadjo Cravens, of Arkansas, ruled that such reference
constituted a violation of the rules. The Member whose remarks were
objected to stated that his violation of the rules was unintentional,
since he had not realized that the House rules also covered statements
made by members of the Senate outside the Capitol walls.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 87 Cong. Rec. 3536, 3537, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
7. This ruling represents the current line of precedent; for the
former practice, see 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2519 (``The
rule against criticism of Senators in debate applies only to
words spoken on the floor and does not extend to speeches and
interviews outside the House.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker Pro Tempore then stated in response to a parliamentary
inquiry that a Member could not do indirectly what he could not do
directly, and that the violation of the rules would not be corrected by
referring to the Senator in such a way as to avoid specifically naming
him.
Sec. 44.33 It is a breach of order in debate for a member to read a
letter from a member of the Senate.
On May 25, 1937,(8) a Member remarked that he had
letters from
[[Page 10601]]
members of the Senate voicing their sympathy with a political movement
and stated his immediate intention to read one of those letters.
Chairman John J. O'Connor, of New York, intervened to rule ``the Chair,
on its own responsibility, makes the point of order against the reading
of the letter from a member of another body.'' (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 81 Cong. Rec. 5013, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
9. In earlier practice, reference was permitted to a letter expressing
a Senator's views on legislation; see 5 Hinds' Precedents
Sec. 5112.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 44.34 The principle of comity between the two Houses prohibits any
reference in debate to actions of Senators within or outside the
Senate.
On June 13, 1974,(10) a Member demanded that another
Member's references in debate to a Senator be stricken from the Record,
but did not demand that the words be ``taken down'' (pursuant to Rule
XIV clause 5). The Speaker Pro Tempore sustained the point of order
against violation of the principle of comity (11) but did
not submit to the House the question
of striking the unparliamentary words. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 120 Cong. Rec. 19083, 19085, 19086, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
11. See Jefferson's Manual Sec. 374, House Rules and Manual (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (12) Under a previous order
of the House, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Steiger) is
recognized for 45 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. John J. McFall (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Sam] Steiger [of Arizona]: Mr. Speaker, with a petulance
usually reserved to Secretaries of State, Mo Udall and Henry
Jackson have blamed the defeat of the land-use planning bill on
``impeachment politics.'' Mr. Udall states that the President
changed his position on land-use planning in order to retain the
support of conservative Members of the House regarding impeachment.
. . .
We can fully appreciate that the gentleman from Washington, who
is an active candidate for President, might be seeking ways to
present his case in some kind of a different manner.
Mr. [Thomas S.] Foley [of Washington]: Mr. Speaker, if the
gentleman will suspend for a minute, I would like to make a
parliamentary inquiry. . . .
I pose the parliamentary inquiry, whether or not discussion of
the motives of a Member of the other body is in order.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct. It is not in
order, in view of the rule of comity between the two Houses.
The gentleman will proceed.
Mr. Steiger of Arizona: Mr. Speaker, I would advise the
gentleman from California (Mr. Rousselot) that I am about to
continue to yield him the time; that I, too, think it is very
presumptive of the gentleman from Washington, who is running for
President; all I heard the gentleman from California (Mr.
Rousselot) say was that the Senator was a candidate for President.
Mr. [John H.] Rousselot [of California]: He is a potential
candidate for President. If that is impugning his motives, I do not
see how it is.
[[Page 10602]]
Mr. Foley: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. The remarks of the
gentleman from California and the remarks of the gentleman from
Arizona are out of order. I ask that they be stricken.
Mr. Steiger of Arizona: Mr. Speaker, might I be heard on that
point of order?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will proceed on the
point of order.
Mr. Steiger of Arizona: I would restate what I said, that in my
view it is presumptuous of the gentleman from Washington to hold
himself up as a candidate for the Presidency of the United States.
I fail to see that that is impugning the gentleman's motives.
It is an accepted fact in political life that the gentleman
from Washington is, indeed, a candidate for the Presidency, at
least in his own eyes.
I suspect, and I am certainly entitled to a view of that
candidacy and I have stated that view, with no intent at all of
demeaning the gentleman from Washington.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: While the gentleman has not demanded
that words be taken down, the Chair will state that under the rules
of debate it is not in order for a Member to voice an opinion or
cast a reflection on either Members of the House or Members of the
other body and it is not in order to refer to Senators by name or
in terms of personal criticism, or even for the purpose of
complimenting and the inhibition extends to comments of criticism
of their actions outside the Senate.
The Chair would also point out to the gentlemen who are
carrying on this debate that it is Thursday afternoon and there is
no need to get involved in a big political debate.
So the gentleman in the well will proceed in order.
Sec. 44.35 It is a violation of the rules of parliamentary procedure to
refer by name to the remarks or actions of a Senator occurring in
the Senate or elsewhere, and where a Member in debate or through an
insertion in the Record transgresses this rule the Speaker calls
him to order under Rule XIV clause 4.
See the proceedings of Oct. 7, 1975, at Sec. 44.4, supra.
Sec. 44.36 On one occasion, a Member upon being cautioned by the Chair
not to refer to a Senator in debate, obtained unanimous consent to
refer to correspondence between the Senator and a federal official.
The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on
June 25, 1986,(13) during consideration of H.R. 5052
(military construction appropriations):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 132 Cong. Rec. 15492, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Dennis M.] Hertel of Michigan: . . . Let me talk about the
defense side of this and read a letter from Barry Goldwater, the
chairman of the Armed Services Committee in the Senate. . . .
[[Page 10603]]
The Chairman: (14) The Chair would caution the
gentleman not to refer to Members of the other body.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. William J. Hughes (N.J.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hertel of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, is it in order to refer
to the letter?
The Chairman: Without objection, it may be submitted.
There was no objection.
Mr. Hertel of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, I refer to this letter
from Mr. Goldwater. He writes: . . .
Hon. Caspar Weinberger,
Secretary of Defense, Department of Defense, Washington, D.C.
Dear Cap: The issue of homeporting for navy ships is soon
to come up before the Senate and quite frankly I'm opposed to
it. . . .
This is a letter from the chairman of the Senate Armed Services
Committee. This is his opinion.
Sec. 44.37 It is improper in debate to refer to quotations of
Senators appearing in outside publications (``Senator
Proxmire was quoted in
The American Banker as saying . . .'').
During consideration of the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance
Corporation Revitalization Act of 1987 (H.R. 27) in the Committee of
the Whole on May 5, 1987,(15)
a Member made reference to a quotation from a Senator that had been
published whereupon the Chair reminded the Members that it was against
the rules to quote a member of the other body. The proceedings were as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 133 Cong. Rec. 11214, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Stephen L.] Neal [of North Carolina]: . . . Furthermore
Mr. Chairman, a distinguished Member of the other body was quoted
in a publication dated May 5, The American Banker, as saying that
the condition of the FSLIC is being deliberately exaggerated by the
U.S. Treasury and the Federal Home Loan Bank Board to pressure
Congress into acting on a $15 billion ``clean FSLIC bill.''. . .
The Chairman: (16) The Chair would like to remind
Members that it is not in accordance with our rules to quote an
individual Member of the other body.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Dan Glickman (Kans.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference to Senate Votes
Sec. 44.38 Reference in debate to Senate votes on a legislative
proposition is not in order.
On Aug. 17, 1961,(17) after Mr. Frank Thompson, Jr., of
New Jersey, moved to strike out the last word on a pending proposition,
he read into his remarks a newspaper editorial referring to the vote of
some Republicans on a proposition before Congress. A point of order was
made that it was contrary to the rules of the House to mention the vote
of a
[[Page 10604]]
Senator and Chairman Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas, sustained the point
of order.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 107 Cong. Rec. 16210, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
18. See also 78 Cong. Rec. 1111, 73d Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 22, 1934.
References to the votes of Senators on legislative
propositions are specifically prohibited by Jefferson's Manual:
``It is a breach of order in debate to notice what has been
said on the same subject in the other House, or the particular
votes or majorities on it there. . . .'' House Rules and Manual
Sec. 371 (1995). See Sec. 44.14, infra, for current decisions
on references to Senate votes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 44.39 Under section 371 of Jefferson's Manual, it is not in order
in the House to refer to particular votes in the Senate or to the
positions taken by individual Senators.
The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on
July 29, 1981,(19) during consideration of H.R. 4242 (Tax
Incentive Act of 1981):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 127 Cong. Rec. 18244, 18249, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Jack] Kemp [of New York]: I appreciate the comments of my
friend from Georgia. They are very important to all of us and in
the same spirit of bipartisanship I am pleased to announce that the
Senate, in an overwhelming vote of 89 to 11, passed substantially
the same bill as the Conable-Hance substitute. . . .
Mr. [Gerald B.] Solomon [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I rise in
favor of the Conable-Hance bill, and I bring the Members' attention
to a list of 23 more Democratic Senators who have just supported
this fine bill.
The Chairman: (20) The gentleman will suspend. As
the gentlemen from New York know, the action of the Senate and
individual votes in that body may not be mentioned in debate. The
Members will keep that in mind.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 44.40 Jefferson's Manual prohibits reference in debate to specific
votes in the Senate.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 371 (1995). However, this
proscription has been relaxed somewhat by virtue of the new
language in Rule XIV, clause 1, added in the 101st Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During consideration of the conference report on S. 1503 (Standby
Petroleum Allocation Act) in the House on Mar. 2, 1982,(2)
the following exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 128 Cong. Rec. 3117, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Timothy E.] Wirth [of Colorado]: This is a conference
report and this has been through the Senate, as the gentleman said.
Has this not already been voted on?
Mr. [Philip R.] Sharp [of Indiana]: The Senate voted for this
86 to 7.
Mr. [James T.] Broyhill [of North Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, a
point of order.
Mr. Wirth: The Senate voted for it 86 to 7.
Mr. Broyhill: Mr. Speaker, point of order.
[[Page 10605]]
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (3) The gentlemen are
reminded that they should not refer to the specific vote in the
other body.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. George E. Danielson (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 44.41 It is a violation of the rule of comity to refer in debate
to the votes of particular members of the Senate, and the Chair has
called Members to order on his own initiative for quoting the vote
totals on a measure when it was before the Senate.
On Apr. 12, 1984,(4) during consideration of House
Concurrent Resolution 290 (expressing the sense of Congress that no
appropriated funds be used for the purpose of mining the ports or
territorial waters of Nicaragua) in the House, the Chair exercised his
initiative in admonishing the Members against references to the Senate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 130 Cong. Rec. 9474, 9477, 9478, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Henry J.] Hyde [of Illinois]: . . . I have this hopelessly
old-fashioned notion that as leader of the free world we have an
obligation to resist handing Central America over to
the Fascists of the left, the Communists. . . .
I would remind you that a few days ago the senior Senator from
New York stood on the floor of the other body and reminded his
colleagues that as of the moment he was talking, half of the arms
and 80 percent of the ammunition being used by the guerrillas to
kill and to bomb and to maim and to destroy powerlines and schools
and to burn buses in El Salvador was coming through Nicaragua. . .
.
Mr. [Theodore S.] Weiss [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, might I
remind the distinguished minority leader in this House that the
other body, under the leadership of its Republican leader, by a
vote of 84 to 12 adopted this identical resolution. The Foreign
Affairs Committee, with the dissent of only three members of the
minority party, by a vote of 32 to 3 reported out this resolution.
. . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (5) The Chair would remind
the Members of the House that it is not within the purview of the
rules to state a vote of the other body. That has now been done
twice and the Chair would caution the Members of the House not to
do that. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Steny H. Hoyer (Md.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Elliott H.] Levitas [of Georgia]: . . . Tonight I will act
in a bipartisan way, and I will not repeat
the overwhelming bipartisan vote in
the other body on this identical resolution, but tonight I will
join in a bipartisan way voting with people who
have names like Armstrong, Baker, D'Amato, Garn, Grassley, Laxalt,
Percy, Simpson, Stevens, and Warner.
This should be a bipartisan vote in this House as well.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would again remind the
Members that it is not within the purview of the rules either to
state a specific vote on an issue in the other body or to
[[Page 10606]]
reference specific Members of the other body as to how they vote.
Sec. 44.42 It is a breach of order in debate to notice particular votes
in the Senate, even on a subject related to that under House
debate, and it is the duty of the Chair to take the initiative in
enforcing this rule.
On July 31, 1984,(6) during consideration of House
Resolution 555 (expressing the sense of the House that it disapproves
the appointment of Anne M. Burford) in the House, the Speaker Pro
Tempore, in response to a parliamentary inquiry, admonished the Members
against references to votes occurring in the other body:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 130 Cong. Rec. 21670, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Norman E.] D'Amours [of New Hampshire]: . . . I would like
to compliment my very good friend from Alaska (Mr. Young) . . . for
having completely avoided injecting partisan politics into his
approach to this resolution. . . .
The Senate last week voted in a fully bipartisan way to object
to the appointment of Anne Burford. As a matter of fact, the
Republicans voted overwhelmingly against her appointment. I think
the vote was 33 to 19, in the Republican Party 19 supporting her.
This truly is bipartisan.
Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry. . . .
Mr. Speaker, on occasions in the recent past, Members of the
minority on the floor have been cautioned about utilizing votes in
the Senate or referring to the Senate's deliberations in any way on
this floor.
Is that something which is only going to apply to the minority
and references such as we just heard used extensively in the debate
of the gentleman from New Hampshire go unreprimanded by the Chair?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (7) The Chair would
indicate that those references should not have been made to
specific votes in the other body. Members on both sides of the
aisle will refrain from those kinds of references.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Leon E. Panetta (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 44.43 Although it is proper to refer to the fact that particular
matters have been sent from the Senate, it is not in order in
debate to refer to specific votes in the Senate or to criticize
members of the Senate who voted a particular way.
During consideration of the conference report on House Joint
Resolution 372 (to extend the public debt limit) in the House on Nov.
6, 1985,(8) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 131 Cong. Rec. 30852, 30853, 30863, 30864, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A message from the Senate by Mr. Sparrow, one of its clerks,
announced that the Senate agrees to the report of the committee of
conference on the dis
[[Page 10607]]
agreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to
the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 372) entitled ``Joint resolution
increasing the statutory limit on the public debt.'' . . .
The message also announced that the Senate concurs in House
amendment to Senate amendment No. 2, with an amendment. . . .
Mr. [Connie] Mack [III, of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Mack moves to take from the Speaker's table House Joint
Resolution 372, with the Senate amendment to the House
amendment to Senate amendment No. 2 and to concur in the Senate
amendment as follows: . . .
Mr. Mack: Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Lott).
Mr. [Trent] Lott [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, earlier this
afternoon, the other body once again voted on this issue that we
have been debating, the deficit reduction package known as the
Gramm-Rudman-Hollings-Mack deficit reduction package. The vote was
almost identical to the vote that occurred some 3 weeks ago, I
guess now, 74 to 24.
I understand from talking to our colleagues in the other body
that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) added an amendment
that was an improvement on the bill and that was accepted.
Mr. [Les] AuCoin [of Oregon]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: (9) The gentleman will state his
parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. AuCoin: Mr. Speaker, is it not against the rules of the
House to refer to actions in the other body, either Members of the
other body or votes in the other body?
The Speaker: Under normal circumstances, the answer is in the
affirmative. But we are referring to a matter that has just been
sent over from the other body, so the gentleman may refer to that
fact.
Mr. AuCoin: Mr. Speaker, does that include that announcement of
the actual vote in the other body?
The Speaker: The Chair will state to the gentleman that that
would not be in order.
Sec. 44.44 It is not in order in debate to refer to specific votes in
the Senate, and the Chair calls to order Members on his or her own
initiative for violating the rule of comity.
The following proceedings occurred in the House on Mar. 13, 1986:
(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 132 Cong. Rec. 4636, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [William H.] Gray [3d] of Pennsylvania: Mr. Speaker, I rise
in strong support of the rule allowing for consideration of House
Concurrent Resolution 296, the concurrent resolution on the budget
for fiscal year 1987. . . .
Last week the Senate Budget Committee considered the
President's budget and voted against its adoption. In considering
the President's budget, the Senate Budget Committee was able to
gain some idea of the level of support
[[Page 10608]]
for that plan and use that experience in setting out to formulate
an alternative. Then after the vote, they started to work on an
alternative and they are still working. They did not have an
alternative when they voted on the President's budget. They voted
and they are now working, and I propose the same thing.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (11) The Chair would ask
that Members not refer to any specific vote in the other body.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. John Joseph Moakley (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Insertions in the Record
Sec. 44.45 Inserting references to Senate speeches or proceedings in
the Congressional Record Extension of Remarks is a violation of
House rules.
On May 2, 1941, Mr. Adolph J. Sabath, of Illinois, inserted in the
Extension of Remarks of the Congressional Record extensive references
to speeches made by a certain Senator, principally off the floor of the
Senate.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See 87 Cong. Rec. 3609, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 5, 1941, Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, raised a
question of the privilege of the House.(13) Mr. Hoffman
referred to the extension of remarks of Mr. Sabath and introduced a
resolution to have those remarks expunged from the Record since they
were in violation of the rules of the House prohibiting reference in
debate to Senators and their proceedings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Id. at pp. 3566, 3567.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Sabath then addressed the House and was granted unanimous
consent to withdraw the objectionable remarks from the permanent
Record.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See also Sec. 44.2, supra (where a Member inquired whether a letter
written by him to a Senator could be inserted in the Record as
an extension of his remarks, the Speaker stated that a point of
order could be based on the objectionable insertion).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Critical References to Senate or its Committees
Sec. 44.46 It is not in order in debate to criticize actions of the
Senate or its committees, and it is the duty of the Speaker to call
the offending Member to order; (15) thus, where improper
reference to the Senate has been made by a Member, the Speaker has
called the Member to order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See Jefferson's Manual Sec. 374, House Rules and Manual (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Apr. 17, 1975,(16) the proceedings described above,
relative to a violation of the principle of
[[Page 10609]]
comity, occurred in the House, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 121 Cong. Rec. 10458, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Mr. Cleveland asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute, and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. [James C.] Cleveland [of New Hampshire]: Mr. Speaker, I am
amazed that four Democratic members of the Rules Committee of the
other body, reviewing the challenge of Democrat John Durkin to the
seating of Senator-elect Louis Wyman, should have yesterday voted
to take away from Wyman 10 straight Republican ballots that had
been properly counted for him in New Hampshire. These critically
important votes belong to Mr. Wyman by settled New Hampshire law in
a contest with an existing margin of two votes.
As even Durkin's counsel acknowledged before the committee, the
ballots were and would have consistently been counted for Wyman in
New Hampshire. On each the voter had voted a cross in the straight
Republican circle with no marks on the Democratic side of the
ballot. He had also voted a cross in every voting square except Mr.
Wyman's. By operation of statute and court decision in New
Hampshire for 60 years--as well as in other States having the
straight ticket option--a vote in the straight ticket circle is a
vote for every candidate under the circle and a vote in every box
under the circle by operation of law.
Worse yet, similar ballots for Durkin in the original New
Hampshire recount had not been challenged by Wyman because under
settled New Hampshire law they were recognized as valid votes.
These remain in the totals relied on by the Senate committee,
counted for Durkin.
On April 9 in this Record I called for a new election in New
Hampshire and surely this has now become a compelling necessity,
unless we are to witness a legislative Watergate.
The Speaker: (17) The Chair must ask the gentleman
to desist and must call to the attention of the gentleman from New
Hampshire that his remarks are in violation of the rules of the
House and rules of comity. The Chair has been very lenient, but
this goes far beyond the bounds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is not proper to criticize the actions of the other body, or
any committee of the other body, in any matter relating to official
duties.
Mr. Cleveland: Mr. Speaker, would it be in order for me to
quote a Member of the other body who characterized this?
The Speaker: No, it would not be. The Chair was very lenient by
letting the gentleman make his point, but the Chair is going to be
strict in observing the rules of comity between the two bodies.
Otherwise we cannot function as an independent, separate
legislative body under the Constitution of the United States.
Removing Remarks Violative of Comity From Record
Sec. 44.47 The Speaker, upon hearing words in debate which were
critical of a Senator, assumed the duty imposed upon him by
Jefferson's Manual (18) and in
[[Page 10610]]
formed the offending Member that his words were in violation of the
principle of comity and should be removed from the Record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 374 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Nov. 18, 1975,(19) the proceedings described above
occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 121 Cong. Rec. 37010, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Mr. [R. Lawrence] Coughlin [of Pennsylvania] asked and was
given permission to address the House for 1 minute, to revise and
extend his remarks, and include extraneous matter.)
[Mr. Coughlin addressed the House and in his remarks was
critical of Senator Proxmire and his support for the Joint
Committee on Defense Production.]
The Speaker: (20) The Chair, in view of the noise
that was in the Chamber, was unable to hear all of the remarks of
the gentleman from Pennsylvania which, I understand, referred to
activities of the Senate and to Members of the other body. This is
in violation of the Rules of the House, and any remarks made by the
gentleman from Ohio should not touch upon that subject. Any remarks
made by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania that touched upon that subject should
be removed from the Record and should not be put in the Record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 44.48 It is not in order in debate to refer critically to members
of the Senate, and the Chair is required on his own initiative by
both clause 4, Rule XIV, and section 374 of Jefferson's Manual to
call a Member to order for such remarks unless the Member
voluntarily withdraws them from the Record (prior to demand by
another Member that the words be ``taken down'').
In the proceedings of Aug. 20, 1980,(1) the Chair, in
inquiring whether a Member wished to withdraw his remarks concerning a
Senator, referred to section 374 of Jefferson's Manual, which relates
to the duty of the Speaker to prevent expressions offensive to the
other House. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 126 Cong. Rec. 22151-53, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert K.] Dornan [of California]: . . . The FEC, through
its Office of General Counsel, has allowed an elected Federal
official, just like ourselves, to keep for over 1 year, $1,150 of
acknowledged illegal corporate campaign contributions. The
corporation--whatever it did is somewhat unclear--laundered $13,000
into my opponent's campaign and $23,150 of illegal corporate money
into this elected Federal official's campaign coffers. . . .
And now a convicted felon down
at the Talladega Prison in Alabama . . . denies that this Federal
official ever returned the money to him. I direct my colleagues to
read the relevant
[[Page 10611]]
Jack Anderson columns. I was told while at the Talladega Federal
prison in Alabama in the presence of an FBI agent and an assistant
U.S. district
attorney from Birmingham that my young opponent merely went through
the motions of returning illegal $1,000 corporate campaign
contributions. I was told that this $13,000 was returned. The money
never left California. It was reloaned to my young opponent by his
original Alabama benefactor. . . .
Mr. [Ronnie G.] Flippo [of Alabama]: . . . I wish the gentleman
would refrain from referring to the Senator from Alabama, and give
the Senator an opportunity to do what he needs to do to explain the
situations. He does not need to be tried by the Jack Andersons of
this world. We have a proper court procedure and a way to proceed
in that regard.
I would hope that the gentleman would refrain from bringing up
the name of any official from Alabama, or any other State
official's name up, in a manner that would tend to encourage people
to believe that they had done something wrong, when no such thing
exists or it has not been proven in a court of law. I know the
gentleman's high regard for court proceedings.
Mr. Dornan: If the gentleman will yield, I believe I have
discovered a major coverup; a terribly inept, if not illegal
obstruction of justice by Justice Department people assigned to the
fair State of Alabama. I gave the Senator mentioned before a face-
to-face opportunity, alone in his office, to explain his
involvement but he would not do so.
Mr. Flippo: Mr. Chairman, I ask that the gentleman's words be
taken down.
The Chairman: (2) The gentleman may not refer to
Members of the other body.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Richardson Preyer (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Flippo: Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the gentleman's
words be taken down. . . .
The Chairman: The Chair will state to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Dornan) that under the rules of the House it is not
in order to refer to Members of the other body and in the light of
that the Chair would ask the gentleman from California if he wishes
to withdraw his remarks concerning the Member of the other body.
Mr. Dornan: Mr. Chairman, as of about a year-and-a-half ago,
videotape records of House proceedings have been made. Taking that
into consideration I will accede to the Chair's suggestion and
remove all statements in the written Record pertaining to Members
of the other body.
The Chairman: The gentleman will proceed. The gentleman has
agreed to remove all the statements in question from the Record.
Otherwise the Chair would exercise his authority under section 374
of Jefferson's Manual [relating to the duty of the Speaker to
prevent expressions in debate offensive to the other House].
Sec. 44.49 It is against the rules of order stated in Jefferson's
Manual to read into the Record remarks critical of members of the
Senate or to the actions of individual Senators, and while the
Speaker does not have unilateral au
[[Page 10612]]
thority to expunge improper references from the Record, he may
request Members who have made improper references to Senators to
omit those references from the Record.
While under section 374 of Jefferson's Manual it is the duty of the
Speaker to interfere ``so as not to permit expressions to go unnoticed
which may give a ground of complaint to the other House,'' the Speaker
has not been presumed to have unilateral authority to expunge improper
references from the Record, but merely to request the offending Member
to delete the references. The House and not the Speaker controls the
Record and the Speaker must rely on the good faith of Members to heed
his admonition to delete the offending material. (Of course, the
Speaker may deny further recognition to Members violating the
prohibition against improper references.) (3) A request that
offending material be deleted from the Record was made by the Speaker
Pro Tempore (4) on May 8, 1984.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. See the proceedings of June 16, 1982, discussed in Sec. 44.5,
supra.
4. Theodore S. Weiss (N.Y.).
5. 130 Cong. Rec. 11421, 11425, 11428, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Under a previous order of the House,
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Walker) is recognized for 60
minutes.
Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, recently
Frank Gregorsky, from the Republican Study Committee, prepared a
paper entitled ``What's the Matter with Democratic Foreign
Policy?'' . . . I am going to begin presenting this paper as Mr.
Gregorsky has written it.
part one: a world view in search of a world . . .
Everyone knows that Senator Ted Kennedy has a ``dovish'' voting
record on defense and foreign policy matters. . . .
Kennedy chose to write in Rolling Stone on March 15, 1984:
Reagan is the best pretender as president that we have had
in modern history. Some White House aides talk of ``the peace
issue'' as if it were mostly a political problem for Ronald
Reagan. Others imply that they only need to play for time
before launching a wider war in Central America in 1985. . . .
That definitive prose is worth more for insight than a printout
of Kennedy's 21 plus years of Senate votes; there's a comprehensive
way of viewing America and the world behind it. . . .
To be a rising Democrat today requires a certain view of what
shaped the present. It was stated with a flourish by a man elected
to the House in 1974 and the Senate in 1978, Paul Tsongas of
Massachusetts, in a floor speech January 29, 1980:
Twenty years ago, Mr. President, people stood up on the
floor of this Chamber and said, ``Well, maybe Batista was not
such a great soul after all,'' but they never said any
[[Page 10613]]
thing about him when he was in power. ``And this fellow, Fidel
Castro, we do not like the way he combs his beard.''
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Would the gentleman pause just a
moment. The Chair does request the gentleman to omit those portions
of the paper which he is reading which refer to specific sitting
Members of the other body and to their actions in that body.
As you know, there is a rule against it, and the Chair is
required to take the initiative to enforce that rule.
Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, if I am not mistaken, the gentleman to
whom I am referring was a Member of the House during the period of
the time that this speech was made.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: As long as it is not a reference to
his actions in the other body, in the Senate, or critical of him as
a Senator.
There are a couple of other references a bit earlier that the
Chair would respectfully request the gentleman to omit when he has
finished his reading today.
Sec. 44.50 In response to a point of order, the Speaker Pro Tempore
called to order a Member for referring to proceedings in the Senate
and ordered the remarks stricken from the Record without objection.
On Dec. 10, 1980,(6) a point of order was made against
the following remarks of Mr. Don Edwards, of California:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 126 Cong. Rec. 33204, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Edwards of California: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in a moment
that will long be remembered with bitterness by the minorities,
women, and the handicapped of America, the Congress sounded the
death knell for the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1980. . . .
We must also fully recognize why the measure failed. Republican
leaders, intimidated by a small minority of their own party, aided
and abetted this abdication of responsibility. President-elect
Reagan himself, asked to reassure minorities, that a Republican
administration will not turn its back on their needs, issued
meaningless platitudes instead of support for a bill that the House
of Representatives adopted by a 3-to-1 margin. . . .
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I make a
point of order against the gentleman's remarks. They are not in
keeping with the rule that requires no mention of the other body.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (7) The gentleman from
California (Mr. Edwards) is referring to the proceedings of the
other body. He will please restrict them. They are out of order and
without objection, will be stricken from the Record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Ray Roberts (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 44.51 On his own initiative, the Speaker Pro Tempore called a
Member to order for referring to the Senate in a critical manner.
[[Page 10614]]
On Dec. 10, 1980,(8) Mr. Robert S. Walker, of
Pennsylvania, was called to order by the Chair for remarks made in the
following statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 126 Cong. Rec. 33205, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Mr. Walker asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, it appears as though Washington
lameducks are lining up for one last major rape of the American
taxpayer. In the continuing appropriations bill that has emerged,
section 155 builds in the potential for severance pay for the
Senate staff members displaced by the transition to a Republican
majority.
I took a look at the figures and figured out that in one
committee, in the Foreign Relations Committee, if everybody draws
the maximum permitted under that bill, that one committee will be
eligible for $426,500 in severance pay.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (9) The Chair will advise
the gentleman from Pennsylvania that the Chair just had to call to
order a Member from the other side of the aisle. The gentleman
simply cannot refer to the other body in those terms. Will the
gentleman please remove these remarks?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Ray Roberts (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Walker: I thank the Chair for his correction. I thought the
Chair ruled in favor of it in the previous instance.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman may proceed.
Historical References to Senate Actions
Sec. 44.52 The inhibition against referring in debate to members or
proceedings of the Senate does not extend to historical discussion
of previous members of the Senate; on one occasion, where a point
of order was made that a Member was violating the rule of comity by
referring to past members of the Senate, the Chair did not directly
rule on the point of order but advised the Member having the floor
to continue to proceed in order.
On May 18, 1977,(10) the proceedings described above
occurred in the Committee of the Whole as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 123 Cong. Rec. 15388, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [William] Clay [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I might say
that the passage of this act had something to do with the
personalities and personal conflict between two Senators from the
State of New Mexico, one whose name bears the title of this bill,
the Hatch Act. Senator Hatch, even though a Democrat, had not been
privy to the political spoils system because he was an opponent of
Franklin Roosevelt, so his counterpart in the Senate was the
recipient of all of the political jobs under the WPA and other
relief programs.
[[Page 10615]]
Consequently, in an effort to get back at this counterpart and
at Franklin Delano Roosevelt----
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, a point of
order.
The Chairman: (11) The gentleman will state his
point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. James R. Mann (S.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Bauman: The gentleman is referring to the other body and
actions in the other body. Under our rules, that is forbidden.
The Chairman: The gentleman may proceed in order.
Mr. Clay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thought I was referring to
history. If the other body is not a part of history, I am sorry.
Members Wishing To Discuss Actions of Senate Should Do So Off the Floor
Sec. 44.53 A Member stated in a one-minute speech that because the
rules of comity prohibited him from referring in debate to the
actions or statements of a member of the Senate, he would make his
comments elsewhere.
On May 10, 1978,(12) Mr. David R. Obey, of Wisconsin,
made the following statement in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 124 Cong. Rec. 13211, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Mr. Obey asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Obey: Mr. Speaker, I wish House rules did not prevent me
from saying on this floor what I would like to say about a speech
delivered Monday by a certain Member of the other body but, because
they do, I will make my comments elsewhere.
Parliamentarian's Note: Mr. Obey objected to statements by Senator
Weicker reported in the press, criticizing the administration's policy
in the Middle East, but was advised that any statement in debate
criticizing or referring to a member of the Senate or his remarks
either on or off the Senate floor would violate the rule of comity.
References to Senators Who Are Presidential Candidates
Sec. 44.54 The rule of comity in debate, which has been strictly
construed to prohibit references to the words or actions of members
of the Senate, does not prohibit references to Senators in their
capacity as candidates for the Presidency or other office, but
references attacking the character or integrity of a member of the
Senate are improper (and the Chair on his own initiative enforces
the rule of comity in debate).
[[Page 10616]]
On Oct. 30, 1979,(13) the following proceedings occurred
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 125 Cong. Rec. 30150, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Mr. Dornan asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. [Robert K.] Dornan [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I support
what the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) has
called for: The resignation of Robert Strange McNamara from the
World Bank. Only one Member of the Congress of the United States
has ever negotiated the Chappaquiddick Channel by swimming it. Only
one Member of Congress has ever made it across that channel on his
own power. And he was not a Member of the U.S. Senate. That person
is this Congressman standing here before this body, me. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (14) It is a violation of
the rules of the House to attack the character or integrity of a
Member of the other body and the rule of comity also prohibits
references either directly or indirectly to words or actions of a
Member of the other body, with respect to his actions in that body.
There is a delicate line which lies sometimes almost invisibly
between a Member in his capacity as a Member of Congress, and that
same individual in his capacity as a candidate for the Presidency
or other office.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair hopes and trusts that Members will exercise
sufficient prudence and sufficient good taste that they will
respect that difference.
Mr. [John F.] Seiberling [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I will not
demand that the secretary take down the words of the previous
speaker, but in the light of the ruling that the Chair just made,
if similar outbursts occur I will make that demand.
Sec. 44.55 Remarks in debate ordinarily may not include references to
members of the Senate other than to identify their sponsorship of
legislation; but where a Senator is also a candidate for President
or Vice President his official policies, actions, and opinions as a
candidate may be criticized in terms not personally offensive.
On Sept. 29, 1988,(15) during the period for one-minute
speeches in the House, the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 134 Cong. Rec. 26683, 26684, 100th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Mr. Williams asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. [Pat] Williams [of Montana]: Mr. Speaker, yesterday
Republican Vice-Presidential candidate Dan Quayle was in Texas. He
visited, he was kind enough to go by and visit a Job Corps center
in El Paso, and while there he looked 300 Job Corps students in the
eye and said, ``We believe in you.''
He did not tell them that he had voted to shut that center
down. He did
[[Page 10617]]
not tell them that the Reagan-Bush administration in fact has
demanded that every Job Corps center in America, bar none, be
closed.
This is the same Senator Quayle that supports wars that he
won't fight, the same Senator Quayle who got into law school under
an entry minority program that he later votes against.
There is a word for it, my colleagues, it is called hypocrisy.
Mr. [Dan] Lungren [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the
gentleman's words be taken down. . . .
The Speaker: (16) The Clerk will report the words of
the gentleman from Montana.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
This is the same Senator Quayle that supports wars that he
won't fight, the same Senator Quayle who got into law school
under an entry minority program that he later votes against.
There is a word for it, my colleagues, it is called
hypocrisy.
The Speaker: The Chair has considered closely the question of
the use of words to distinguish policies as opposed to individuals.
There are precedents touching on proper and improper references in
debate and dealing with the preservation of comity between the
House and Senate. It is important to recognize that the individual
referenced in the remarks not only is a candidate for Vice
President of the United States but is a Member of the other body.
The precedents relating to references in debate to the
President, Vice President, or to a Member of the other body who is
a nominated or declared candidate for President or Vice President
permit criticisms of official policy, actions and opinions of that
person as a candidate, but do not permit personal abuse, do not
permit innuendo and do not permit ridicule, and they do require
that the proper rules of decorum must be followed during any debate
relating to the President of the United States or a Member of the
other body.
It could be argued that there is a distinction between calling
an individual a hypocrite, for example, and referring to some
policy as hypocrisy, but the Chair has discovered a precedent that
seems to be directly in point. In 1945, a Member of the House from
Georgia referred to another Member and said, ``I was reminded that
pretexts are never wanting when hypocrisy wishes to add malice to
falsehood or cowardice to stab a foe who cannot defend himself.''
Speaker Rayburn ruled that this was out of order as an
unparliamentary reference to another Member of the body.
By extension, the same identical words should be held out of
order in reference to a Member of the other body whether or not he
were a candidate for a high office, and under these circumstances
and citing this precedent, the Chair would suggest that the
gentleman from Montana withdraw the offending remarks, including
the particular word ``hypocrisy,'' and either amend his reference
in the permanent Record or delete it. . . .
Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, do I understand correctly that the
Speaker's ruling is based upon my characterization of a U.S.
Senator, in this case Senator Quayle, that had the Republican Vice-
Presidential candidate not been at
[[Page 10618]]
this time a U.S. Senator, that my remarks would, in fact, be in
order? . . .
The Speaker: . . .The Chair would suggest to the gentleman from
Montana that there are standards that apply in the Chamber and in
the precedents with respect to nominated candidates for President
and Vice President. The Chair is not certain if they are precisely
the same as applied to a Member of the other body or a Member of
this body, but in this instance, it is not necessary to make that
hypothetical distinction since the individual involved is a Member
of the other body.
Mr. Williams: Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker: Would
it be within the rules of the House if the last sentence of my 1-
minute, the one which characterizes Senator Quayle's actions as
hypocrisy, be removed by unanimous consent from my 1-minute
statement?
The Speaker: The Chair would suggest to the gentleman from
Montana that this might be a satisfactory solution.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the
last sentence of my 1-minute statement, the sentence in which I
characterized Senator Quayle's actions as hypocrisy, be stricken.
Mr. Lungren: Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: Please, the Chair will recognize the gentleman for
a parliamentary inquiry, but, first, please permit the gentleman
from Montana to complete his request. . . .
Mr. Lungren: I reserve the right to object, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: That is fine. The gentleman may reserve his right
to object, but in the interests of orderly procedure, permit the
Chair to allow the gentleman from Montana to complete his request.
Mr. Williams: Let me be sure the Chair understands my request:
I have asked unanimous consent that the last sentence of my 1-
minute statement be stricken. . . .
The Speaker: . . . Has the gentleman from Montana completed his
request?
Mr. Williams: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not. Both times I have
been interrupted as I have attempted to ask unanimous consent that
the last sentence of my 1-minute statement be eliminated. That was
the sentence which referred to Senator Quayle's actions as
hypocrisy. I seek unanimous consent to strike the last sentence of
my 1-minute statement.
The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Montana?
Mr. Lungren: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, Mr.
Speaker, under normal circumstances and in the interests of comity
of this House and the relationship of this House and the other
body, I would not object. However, as is very obvious from the
statements of the gentleman, the insult, the language that is not
to be used under our rules was repeated three times in an effort to
make a point which violates, in my judgment, the sense of the rules
of the House and, therefore, since it is not, I believe,
appropriate to do that, I object.
The Speaker: Objection is heard.
Parliamentarian's Note: On Sept. 29, 1988,(17) Speaker
Wright
[[Page 10619]]
ruled that although it is not in order in debate to criticize a member
of the Senate, where the Senator is also a candidate for President or
Vice President, his official policies, actions, and opinions as a
candidate may be criticized so long as those references are not
personally offensive. That ruling was consistent with an earlier ruling
of Oct. 30, 1979,(18) also cited in the House Rules and
Manual at Sec. 371. Similar rulings prohibiting personally abusive
references to the President or Vice President are cited in Sec. 370 of
the Manual. Thus, it is clear that a standard exists under the
precedents under which personally offensive references to a sitting
President, Vice President, or Senator are out of order although that
person may be a candidate for office.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 134 Cong. Rec. 26683, 26684, 100th Cong. 2d Sess.
18. 125 Cong. Rec. 30150, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Sept. 29, 1988,(19) Speaker Wright was asked whether
a similar standard applied to references in debate to a candidate who
did not happen to hold any of those offices. The Speaker responded that
``there are standards that apply in the Chamber and in the precedents
with respect to nominated candidates for President and Vice President.
The Chair is not certain if they are precisely the same as applied to a
member of the other body or a Member of this body . . .'' but in that
instance it was only a hypothetical question which the Chair declined
to answer with any greater specificity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 134 Cong. Rec. 26683, 26684, 100th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Referring to Senate Inaction on Subject Under Debate in House
Sec. 44.56 Jefferson's Manual (20) proscribes references in
debate to specific proceedings of the Senate or to Senators by
name, and the Chair should take the initiative to prevent such
references.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 371, 374 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following proceedings occurred in the House on Oct. 29,
1981,(1) during consideration of S. 815 (Department of
Defense authorization for fiscal year 1982):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 127 Cong. Rec. 26051, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Duncan L.] Hunter [of California]: . . . Mr. Speaker, I
would simply like to say I am a member of the Special Procurement
Procedures Panel that was started this year on the Armed Services
Committee. In fact, we have held a large number of hearings. . . .
But we have a problem with accepting the Senate
recommendations,
[[Page 10620]]
which I understand came about without benefit of hearings.
I would be happy to yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado if
she could address that point.
Is that true, that Senator Nunn had no hearings on this?
Mrs. [Patricia] Schroeder [of Colorado]: I would be delighted
to respond if the gentleman will yield.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (2) The Chair would observe
it is not appropriate to refer to the proceedings of the other
body. It is not in order to refer to Senators by name. It is not in
order to refer to debates, probable action or procedure of the
Senate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. James L. Oberstar (Minn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 44.57 Under Jefferson's Manual,(3) the Chair takes the
initiative in calling Members to order who make improper references
during debate to Senate legislative inaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 374 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During debate in the House on Mar. 23, 1982,(4) the
following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 128 Cong. Rec. 5014, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, as the
Members know, it is a difficult job to try to bring out these bills
responsibly. We are working on a timetable with the administration.
There are several bills, the health and education and labor bill
and the Post Office and Treasury bill, that have not been passed by
the Congress.
But it is not the fault of this House. They passed this House
early last year. They have been sitting over there in the Senate.
If you have a gripe, go over there and tell them to pass those
bills.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (5) The gentleman will
observe regular order. The gentleman will be advised that such
characterizations of the proceedings in the other body are
inappropriate on this floor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Elliott H. Levitas (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 44.58 While it is not in order in debate to refer to actual
proceedings or debate in the Senate, it is in order to state
whether or not the Senate has acted on House-passed legislation;
and in making an appropriate reference to the other body, the term
``Senate'' may be used and is not in itself a violation of the rule
of comity.
Although it is traditional in debate to refer to the Senate as
``the other body,'' Jefferson's Manual does not totally proscribe use
of the word ``Senate'' during debate if merely a reference to that
body's existence, particularly if the reference is not critical in
nature and does not mention specific actions taken by that body nor
specific members thereof. A ruling to that effect was made on Oct. 4,
1984: (6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. See 130 Cong. Rec. 30046, 30047, 98th Cong. 2d Sess. In an isolated
instance, however, the Chair did sustain a point of order
against the use of the word ``Senate'' in a context
descriptive merely of the existence
of that body (see 130 Cong. Rec. 22270, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.,
Aug. 2, 1984).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 10621]]
Mr. [James C.] Wright [Jr., of Texas]: . . . Today at the White
House in a ceremony the President of the United States was asked
why he is shutting down the Government. . . .
``This has been very typical,'' said the President, ``of what
has happened ever since we have been here. You can lay this right
on the majority party of the House of Representatives.''
The President went on to say, ``Just once it would be great to
have a budget on time.''
Now, I think it is important that we recite the chronological
facts in order that the honor of the House as an institution may be
defended. . . .
Now, that is inaccurate in the extreme. He can have a second
simple extension to sign if the Senate will act. The House already
has done so, and it is pending in the Senate right now.
The House passed the first continuing resolution on the 25th of
September. The other body has not acted upon it yet.
So, in light of that, the House on the 1st of October, Monday,
the first day of the new fiscal year, sent a second continuing
resolution to the Senate. It was a simple 2-day extension to give
the Senate additional time to act upon the first one. This bill was
passed and sent to the President on Monday, the 1st of October.
The President allowed the Government to go on and continue
operating without even signing that bill until 3 o'clock yesterday,
2 days after the lapse of time in which a legalistic interpretation
would have required him to close the Government. Then finally he
signed that bill and now it is expiring again. So the House on the
4th of October, today, has sent yet another continuing
appropriation bill to the other body and we are still awaiting
Senate action. . . .
Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: A point of order, Mr.
Speaker. . . .
Mr. Speaker, is it not against the rules of the House to be
referring to the actions of the other body?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (7) The gentleman has not
referred to actions of the other body. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. William R. Ratchford (Conn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Walker: The other body was just referred to as the Senate.
Is that not against the rules of the House?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: According to the precedents, reference
can be made to the fact of the legislative product of the other
body, which the gentleman from Texas has done.
Sec. 44.59 While a Member in debate may refer to the pendency of a
House-passed bill in the Senate, it is a breach of order in debate
to refer to a House bill as ``languishing'' in the Senate and it is
the duty of the Chair to call to order an offending Member.
The following proceedings occurred in the House on July 31,
1986,(8) during the period allocated for special-order
speeches:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 132 Cong. Rec. 18253, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 10622]]
Mr. [James C.] Wright [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, the trade
deficit, which is closing American factories and throwing Americans
out of work, took another upward bound last month. It is time for
the Senate to act on the House-passed trade bill which has been
languishing there for 10 weeks. . . .
If the Senate fails to take up H.R. 4800, it will do the Nation
a grave injustice and the American people will expect more than a
mere apology for its inaction.
Mr. [Robert W.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry. . . .
Mr. Speaker, is it not against the rules of the House for
someone to refer to legislative action in the Senate and that ``the
House bill languishing in the Senate'' is beyond the scope of the
House rules?
The Speaker: (9) . . . The Chair would respond to
the inquiry by reminding Members that a Member may refer to where
legislation is in the Senate; that is within the rules. Members
cannot be critical of the Senate or name any Senator by name. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Wright: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to amend my
statement to say that, ``This important legislation has been
languishing without action in the honorable Senate for the past 10
weeks.''
The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Texas?
There was no objection. . . .
Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, even in the gentleman's amended
version, the gentleman is beyond the scope of the House rules. . .
.
Parliamentarian's Note: Although the Speaker did not rule on the
latter point, Mr. Walker's observation was correct, in that
``languishing'' implies suffering neglect or inaction.
Advocating Senate Action on Nomination
Sec. 44.60 In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Speaker Pro
Tempore indicated that it is a breach of order under section 371 of
Jefferson's Manual for a Member to refer in debate to confirmation
proceedings in the Senate by advocating that that body take a
certain action with regard to a Presidential nominee.
The following proceedings occurred in the House on Feb. 7, 1984:
(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 130 Cong. Rec. 1978, 1979, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Jim] Moody [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, our colleagues in
the Senate will soon consider President Reagan's nomination of
Edward Meese as Attorney General. I urge our colleagues in the
other body to take an extremely close look at the record of this
man who would shape our country's policy on Justice-related issues.
. . .
Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry. . . .
[[Page 10623]]
Mr. Speaker, is it correct that we are not supposed to refer in
any way to actions of the Senate on the floor of the House?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (11) The gentleman is
correct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Mario Biaggi (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: Under section 374 of Jefferson's Manual,
the Chair may take the initiative to call a Member to order for
attempting to influence the Senate in debate. A mere reference to the
fact of confirmation proceedings
in the other body, however, in
the absence of characterization of those proceedings, would not be out
of order.
Referring to Remarks Made by Senator at Time He Was a Member of the
House
Sec. 44.61 References in debate
to a former Member of the House who is presently a member of the
Senate are permissible only if they merely address prior House
service and are not implicitly critical of the individual as a
Senator.
On May 8, 1984,(12) the following proceedings occurred
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 130 Cong. Rec. 11428, 11431, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (13) Under a previous order
of the House, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich) is
recognized for 60 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Ike Skelton (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Newt] Gingrich [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, I am going to
pick up where the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Walker) left off
in the document entitled, ``What is the Matter With the Democratic
Foreign Policy,'' by Mr. Frank Gregorsky. . . .
Somehow, some day, this country has got to learn to live
with revolution in the Third World. It's endemic. It's
relatively easy to suppress revolution in Grenada, so we
congratulate ourselves. . . .
Savimbi was quoted in the Washington Post May 29, 1983: . . .
. . . These Westerners say we should not take aid from
South Africa for our struggle. But they will never give us aid
themselves. They seem to be asking us to commit suicide, to
accept being crushed by the Cubans and the Russians in our own
country. We do not want to be an African Hungary. To avoid it,
we have to take help from wherever it is on offer.
It won't come from a Democratic House. It won't come from
Democrats like Chris Dodd, who is more entranced than Jonas Savimbi
by the thought of another Hungary.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is sure the gentleman is
aware of the rule that he cannot make reference to sitting Members
of the other body or to the activities or proceedings in that body.
Mr. Gingrich: In the body. All right. . . .
Let me ask the Chair for just a moment, to insure the Chair
understands what I am now doing, I have a series of quotations from
a gentleman who is
[[Page 10624]]
currently in the other body, but the quotations are from the floor
of the House when he was in this body. I presume they are,
therefore, legitimate.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: If they are not references to or
critical of him as a Senator.
Mr. Gingrich: All right.
Messrs. Dodd and Downey are two who've been saying the same
thing since they got to Washington over nine years ago.
Chris Dodd on Cambodia, March 12, 1975: . . .
. . . The greatest gift our country can give to the
Cambodian people is not guns but peace. And the best way to
accomplish that goal is by ending military aid now.
Chris Dodd on Angola, December 19, 1975:
Mr. Speaker, I am urging my colleagues . . . to denounce
equivocally the blatant intrusion on the part of the Ford
Administration, the Soviet Union, and the South African and
Cuban regimes in the domestic affairs of [Angola].
Speculating on Senate Legislative Action
Sec. 44.62 It is not in order in debate to refer to legislative actions
which might be taken by named members of the Senate, or by Senators
designated by position, and the Chair calls Members to order on his
own initiative for violating this rule of comity.
On Oct. 11, 1984,(14) Speaker Pro Tempore Steny H.
Hoyer, of Maryland, exercised his initiative in calling a Member to
order for references to members of the Senate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 130 Cong. Rec. 32151, 32153, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Stephen J.] Solarz [of New York]: If the gentleman will
continue to yield, it is too late in effect, for another rule. It
is too late for another bill, too late for another conference, too
late for another amendment. It is this or nothing.
Mr. Speaker, if this is adopted, we have reason to believe that
it can pass in the Senate. Senator Heinz, who has been one of the
key actors in this whole drama in the other body, is committed to
moving it forward.
We understand the very distinguished majority leader is looking
sympathetically on this approach in the other body.
There is strong support for it, but if this goes down, it is
all over.
I know that we are not supposed to mention other names in other
bodies, but several Members have done it here today. But I can tell
you that the chairman of the Banking Committee, when you have taken
away his authority and put something in here, he is not going to
accept that. Neither is the majority leader, and neither is----
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman should not refer, as the
Chair observed earlier, to possible actions of Members of the other
body.
Sec. 44.63 The Chair admonished Members that statements in
[[Page 10625]]
debate speculating as to the intent of the Senate or of individual
Senators as to action in that body on legislation pending in the
House was a violation of the rule of comity.
During consideration of the Local Government Antitrust Act of 1984
(H.R. 6027) in the House on Oct. 11, 1984,(15) the Speaker
Pro Tempore called Members to order for references to specific
Senators:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 130 Cong. Rec. 32221-23, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Martin O.] Sabo [of Minnesota]: . . . Are certain Senators
serious when they say they would leave all the municipalities in
the country subject to antitrust suits unless they can have their
way in overriding this rider? I cannot make that judgment.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (16) The Chair would
observe that the discussion about the other body, of course, and
what they may or may not do is speculation and that is not
consistent with the rules and would urge Members to try to refrain
from such expressions. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Steny H. Hoyer (Md.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Philip M. Crane [of Illinois]: I respect the statement of
the Speaker, but I have before me a letter from
the National Association of Counties, signed by Matthew Coffey, who
is executive director, indicating that from the standpoint of
county government this is the most important issue to come through
the 98th Congress and that they reluctantly went along with this
FTC provision added to it because, in their own words, the Senate
has made it clear that they will not accept protective legislation
unless this FTC provision is included.
Senate is a broad term. How can anyone read the mind of the
Senate? My interest is that if there is anybody who is conversant,
because I certainly know the mechanisms whereby that could be an
obstructionist body to passage if this legislation were made, but
can anyone provide any insight as to specifics with regard to
Senate objections? . . .
Mr. [John F.] Seiberling [of Ohio]: . . . The problem was not a
Senate conferee, but another Member who would exercise his full
powers as a Member of that body.
Mr. [Henry J.] Hyde [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, would the
gentleman yield further?
Mr. [Charles] Wilson [of Texas]: I yield.
Mr. Hyde: I think the gentleman is talking about a different
Member of the other body. This illustrates the terrible confusion
on this issue.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentlemen are out of order and
should delete specific references to the other body's Members.
Sec. 44.64 The Chair will call to order Members who make improper
references in debate to proceedings in the Senate.
On Feb. 27, 1985,(17) the Speaker admonished a Member
not to
[[Page 10626]]
refer to proceedings in the other body:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 131 Cong. Rec. 3850, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Mr. Glickman asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. [Dan] Glickman [of Kansas]: Mr. Speaker, reports are that
the leadership of the other body, fearing the votes might be there
to pass farm credit legislation similar to that which we are taking
up today, has been delaying votes.
The Speaker: (18) Under the rules the gentleman is
not to refer to proceedings in the other body.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Addressing Remarks to Members of Senate
Sec. 44.65 It is improper in debate to call on Senators to act or to
characterize action or inaction of the Senate.
On Apr. 29, 1986,(19) the Speaker Pro Tempore exercised
his initiative in calling to order a Member for references to the
Senate. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 132 Cong. Rec. 8855, 8856, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Mr. Schumer asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.).
Mr. [Charles E.] Schumer [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, it was
with some confusion that I read in today's New York Times that a
distinguished Member of the other body said that Congress had
become ``so enmeshed in political maneuvering'' that it cannot
produce a Federal budget. A little later in the article he said he
wanted to wait until he could get a majority of his party to agree
on a budget before he would bring one to the floor. And the
confusion about this, Mr. Speaker, is very simple. There are 24
Republicans generally on the right side of the other body who are
saying that they will not go for a budget unless XYZ is met.
That is no way to produce a budget, Mr. Speaker. If on our side
of the aisle we decided that we had to bring every Member along and
every Member's specific interest had to be weighed without
compromise, we would not have a budget either. . . .
I say to my colleagues in the other body, it is about time you
tried to reach a consensus, as some of your Members are starving to
do, and move on a budget in the Senate.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (20) The Chair wishes to
point out that the gentleman should not refer to proceedings from
the other body.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Richard B. Ray (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAPTER 29
Consideration and Debate
E. RELEVANCY IN DEBATE
Sec. 45. --Reference to Gallery Occupants
By standing rule of the House, no Member may introduce or refer to
any occupant of the galleries of the House.(1) The rule is
strictly
[[Page 10627]]
enforced, and the Speaker may intervene on his own initiative to
prevent infraction thereof.(2) The rule may not be suspended
by permission to proceed out of order, even for commendations for
honored guests.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Rule XIV clause 8, House Rules and Manual Sec. 764 (1995). The rule
was not adopted until 1933; however, Speaker John N. Garner
(Tex.) independently invoked a prohibition against introducing
gallery occupants. 6 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 197.
2. See Sec. Sec. 45.4, 45.7, infra.
3. See Rule XIV clause 8, House Rules and Manual Sec. 764 (1995) and
the ruling of Chairman Benjamin F. James (Pa.) cited at
Sec. 45.1, infra. -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Generally; Reference to Guests
Sec. 45.1 Reference in debate to an honored guest in the gallery is not
in order under House rules, even with permission to proceed out of
order.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. See Rule XIV clause 8, House Rules and Manual Sec. 764 (1995). For
an occasion where a Member referred to a certain individual--
who happened to be in the gallery--without violating the rule,
see Sec. 45.9, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 27, 1954,(5) during debate on a bill, Mr.
Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, yielded to Mr. Walter H. Judd, of
Minnesota, who stated his purpose to call attention to a ``French nurse
who is in the gallery.'' Chairman Benjamin F. James, of Pennsylvania,
ordered Mr. Judd to suspend since the rules of the House prohibited
references to persons in the gallery. Mr. Judd then asked for unanimous
consent to proceed out of order, and the Chairman answered as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 100 Cong. Rec. 12253, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: The gentleman may not proceed out of order for
the purpose which he manifestly intends to use the time. The Chair
regrets extremely that he must so hold under the rules of procedure
of the House. We are all conscious of the great heroism of the
person to whom the Chair knows that the gentleman wishes to allude,
but it is a matter of extreme regret that because of the rules of
the House, reference may not be made to anyone in the gallery.
Mr. Judd: I shall not say anything about the gallery. I shall
say she is on the Hill today.
The Chairman: The Chair greatly regrets that under the rules of
procedure of the House, the gentleman must be denied the privilege
of introducing anyone in the gallery which, I know, every Member of
the House would greatly appreciate in this instance, if it were
possible under the rules.
Mr. Judd: Mr. Chairman, I had no intention of introducing
anyone in the gallery. Is it not possible to refer here to persons
who are in our country?
The Chairman: It is not possible to refer to any person in the
gallery.
Mr. Judd: May I not call attention to a most distinguished
visitor in our country today?
[[Page 10628]]
The Chairman: The gentleman may refer to one who is in our
country.
Mr. Judd: Well, then, I should like to refer to the
distinguished heroine of Dien Bien Phu who we, in the United
States, are happy these days to welcome to our shores and to our
city, and to pay tribute to her as a person whose heroism is
acclaimed by all, and as a symbol of all women of the world who in
times of great crisis and peril are faithful to their duty,
particularly that of ministering to men wounded in the defense of
freedom. We pay tribute to her wherever she may be in our country
at the present moment.
Similarly, on Apr. 16, 1940,(6) Speaker Pro Tempore Sam
Rayburn, of Texas, called to order Mr. Bernard J. Gehrmann, of
Wisconsin, for calling attention to ``a couple of children that were
rescued in Finland'' who were in the gallery, over Mr. Gehrmann's
protestations that the children were rescued from a war zone through
the efforts of the State Department.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 86 Cong. Rec. 4589, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
7. See also 103 Cong. Rec. 10585, 85th Cong. 1st Sess., June 28, 1957.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 45.2 It is a violation of the rules for a Member to call
attention to any person or group in the gallery, including his
constituents.
On Mar. 16, 1945,(8) the following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 91 Cong. Rec. 2371, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert F.] Rich [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I move to
strike out the last word.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, it so happens that I
have some of my constituents come to the House once in awhile and
visit me, and they happen to be in the gallery now. I was in the
gallery when I heard
the statement made by the chairman
of the subcommittee, and immediately started down.
Mr. [Frank E.] Hook [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, a point of
order.
The Chairman: (9) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hook: If I understand the rules correctly, no reference is
to be made to any parties in the gallery. I make the point of order
against the statement of the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
The Chairman: The gentleman from Michigan properly understands
the rules of the House. The gentleman from Pennsylvania will
proceed in order.
Guests Interested in Pending Bill
Sec. 45.3 Reference to federal officials present in the gallery and
interested in pending legislation is a breach of order.
On Feb. 6, 1964,(10) the following exchange and ruling
took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 110 Cong. Rec. 2264, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Paul C.] Jones of Missouri: . . . I think this is just
another exam
[[Page 10629]]
ple of how misinformed we have been on some of the features of this
bill. . . . [W]hat are you looking at the gallery for? I know the
Justice Department is there. Maybe the guy who prepared the figures
is up there in the gallery. If he is, he ought to step down here
and keep the man posted.
The Chairman: (11) The gentleman from Missouri, I am
sure, knows the rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Jones of Missouri: I am not addressing the gallery.
The Chairman: You are not to refer to anybody in the gallery.
The gentleman will proceed in order.
Sec. 45.4 It is not in order in debate to refer to or to direct
questions regarding pending legislation to persons in the gallery;
and the Chair must on his own initiative enforce this rule.
On Oct. 19, 1977,(12) Chairman Morris K. Udall, of
Arizona, exercised his duty to enforce the rule (13)
prohibiting reference to occupants of the gallery during debate. The
following proceedings occurred during consideration of the Energy
Transportation Security Act of 1977 (H.R. 1037) in the Committee of the
Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 123 Cong. Rec. 34220, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
13. Rule XIV clause 8, House Rules and Manual Sec. 764 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Paul N.] McCloskey [Jr., of California]: Mr. Chairman, I
notice the sole administration spokesman, the Maritime
Administrator, is in the gallery. Can we get the administration's
position, so that the House can be advised?
It was never discussed in committee. Can we ask the
Administrator what the administration's position is?
The Chairman: The gentleman will proceed in order. The Chair
will inform the gentleman from California (Mr. McCloskey) that the
precedents of the House do not permit questions of persons in the
House gallery and the rules do not permit reference in debate to
persons in the gallery.
Sec. 45.5 It is a breach of order in debate to refer to the
observations of an occupant of the gallery on a bill pending before
the House.
On June 4, 1963, the House was considering civil rights legislation
which engendered numerous quorum calls and motions to adjourn. During
the debate, Mr. Clark MacGregor, of Minnesota, yielded to Mr. William
T. Cahill, of New Jersey, who stated that he ``thought the House might
like to have the observation of a disinterested, objective observer who
was sitting up in the gallery and who happens to be a visitor of
mine''. Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, interrupted Mr.
Cahill and ordered him to suspend, since reference to anyone in the
gallery or reference to his observations or opinions
[[Page 10630]]
was not consistent with the rules of the House.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 109 Cong. Rec. 10151-66, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
References to the Press Gallery
Sec. 45.6 It is not in order for a Member to refer to or address
remarks to the press gallery.
On Apr. 24, 1963,(15) Chairman Eugene J. Keogh, of New
York, ruled as follows on a point of order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 109 Cong. Rec. 6892, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Thomas B.] Curtis [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I want to
say to my so-called liberal friends who voted the motion up which
closed off debate on such a serious matter that you have clearly
demonstrated your concern for the basic civil liberties.
I would say to the press that this is a good observation----
Mr. [Ross] Bass [of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point
of order that the gentleman is out of order in addressing the press
gallery or any other gallery from the floor of the House.
Mr. Curtis: I am not addressing the press gallery. I am
addressing----
The Chairman: The gentleman from Missouri will suspend. The
Chair advises the gentleman that the correct parliamentary
procedure is for the gentleman to address the Chair and only the
Chair. The gentleman will proceed in accordance with the rules.
Duty of Speaker
Sec. 45.7 When a Member indicates in debate that he intends to make
reference to an occupant of the gallery, the Chair on his own
initiative invokes the rule prohibiting such references.
On July 27, 1954,(16) a Member to whom time was yielded
stated his purpose to call attention to a person in the gallery who had
demonstrated great heroism in foreign combat. Chairman Benjamin F.
James, of Pennsylvania, interrupted the remarks of Mr. Walter H. Judd,
of Minnesota, to ask him to suspend due to those provisions of House
rules which prohibit reference to any occupant of the gallery in House
debate.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 100 Cong. Rec. 12253, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
17. For other instances where the Chair has on his own initiative
prevented infraction of the rules prohibiting reference to
gallery occupants, see 110 Cong. Rec. 2264, 88th Cong. 2d
Sess., Feb. 6, 1964; and 109 Cong. Rec. 10151-66, 88th Cong.
1st Sess., June 4, 1963.
For an occasion where the Speaker did not hear a reference
to gallery occupants and therefore did not call the Member
speaking to order, see 111 Cong. Rec. 6022, 6023, 89th Cong.
1st Sess., Mar. 25, 1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Announcements by the Chair
Sec. 45.8 The Speaker stated his intention in the 72d Congress
[[Page 10631]]
(when the rule was not yet adopted) not to recognize any Member for
the purpose of calling attention to gallery occupants.
On June 27, 1932,(18) Speaker John N. Garner, of Texas,
made an announcement after permission had been requested to address the
House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 75 Cong. Rec. 14051, 72d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [James V.] McClintic of Oklahoma: Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to address the House for one minute to make an
announcement.
The Speaker: Is it concerning anyone in the gallery?
Mr. McClintic of Oklahoma: No, sir.
The Speaker: The Chair desires to state that after consultation
with a great many Members, he believes it is the better policy not
to recognize Members to call attention to guests in the gallery.
The Chair does not intend to recognize anyone in the future for
that purpose.
Acknowledging a Visitor Without Reference to His Presence
Sec. 45.9 On one occasion, a Member obtained unanimous consent to speak
out of order on time yielded him during debate on a motion to
suspend the rules, and delivered encomiums to a guest in the
gallery, but did not mention the guest's presence or directly
address remarks to him.
On Sept. 25, 1978,(19) the following proceedings
occurred in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 124 Cong. Rec. 31197, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Thomas S.] Foley [of Washington]: I yield to the gentleman
from Ohio for the purpose of a unanimous-consent request.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Luken was allowed to speak out of
order.)
Mr. [Thomas A.] Luken [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the
fact that the House has given its unanimous consent to take just 1
minute or at the most 2 minutes of the time of the House.
I rise today to salute a man whose accomplishments on the
baseball diamond amount to more than most records in National
League baseball history. I am talking about my friend and fellow
Cincinnatian and constituent, Pete Rose.
CHAPTER 29
Consideration and Debate
E. RELEVANCY IN DEBATE
Sec. 46. References in Senate to House
No standing rule of the Senate prohibits reference in debate to
proceedings of the House, to individual Representatives, or to their
remarks in debate.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. The Senate rule governing order in debate is Rule XIX, Standing
Rules of the Senate Sec. 19. For an unsuccessful attempt in the
88th Congress to amend Rule XIX by prohibiting reference in
debate to the House, see Sec. 46.1, infra.
For a summary of the Senate precedents on references in
debate to Representatives or to the House, see Riddick/Frumin,
Senate Procedure, pp. 745-48, S. Doc. No. 101-28 (1992).
For a discussion of procedure in the House for challenging
unparliamentary remarks made in the Senate relating to the
House or the Members, see Sec. 44 (introductory discussion),
supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 10632]]
The Senate has not adopted as part of its rules Jefferson's
Manual,(1) which prohibits reference in either the House or
in the Senate to Members or proceedings of the other
body.(2) And it has been said that since the Senate is a
self-governing body it is for the Senate to determine how far Senators
might go in commenting upon language used or proceedings in the other
body.(3) Nevertheless, the Senate generally follows the
parliamentary principle that it is a breach of order, as interfering
with the independence of the two Houses, to allude to what has been
done in the other House as a means of influencing the judgment of the
one in which a question is pending.(4) References to the
House or its Members have on occasion been ruled out when a point of
order was raised, but it is not the custom in the Senate for the Chair
to initiate action with respect to such remarks.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. See Sec. 46.2, infra.
2. Jefferson's Manual, House Rules and Manual Sec. 371 (1995).
3. Riddick/Frumin, Senate Procedure, pp. 745-48, S. Doc. No. 101-28
(1992).
For similar statements made by the Presiding Officer on
more recent occasions, see Sec. Sec. 46.2, 46.3, infra.
4. See Sec. 46.7, infra, and Jefferson's Manual, House Rules and
Manual Sec. 371 (1995) for the parliamentary principle that
``the opinion of each House should be left to its own
independency.''
5. See Sec. 46.3, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference to House proceedings on a bill being considered in the
Senate has been permitted by unanimous consent,(6) or where
the propriety of House action or procedure on a Senate measure is in
issue.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. See Sec. 46.6, infra.
7. On one occasion, the Senate was considering a resolution of inquiry
into allegedly improper action by the Speaker of the House on a
Senate joint resolution. The Presiding Officer ruled that
Senators could use their own discretion in mentioning the
Members or the proceedings of the House. See Sec. 46.2, infra.
Under normal practice, Senators may not refer to the actions of
the Speaker of the House (see Sec. 46.7, infra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Presiding Officer of the Senate has ruled that, when refer
[[Page 10633]]
ring to a Member of the House, a Senator may not refer to the Member by
name (8) or impute to him unworthy motives or
falsehood.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. See Sec. 46.9, infra.
9. See Sec. Sec. 46.10-46.12, infra. As those precedents indicate,
Senators are allowed wider latitude, in referring to and
criticizing Representatives, than Members of the House are
allowed in mentioning Senators. See Sec. 44, supra, for House
precedents on the rule of comity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The House has on a very few occasions messaged resolutions to the
Senate, characterizing language by a Senator in debate as
unparliamentary and as a reflection on the House or on its Members.
Pursuant to one such message the Senate ordered the objectionable
language expunged from the Record,(10) but more recently the
Senate took no action on a similar House resolution.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2516 (cited as support for similar
resolution in Sec. 46.13, infra).
11. See Sec. 46.13, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Senate has messaged a resolution to the House concerning
objectionable language by a Representative in debate impugning a
Senator; although the House returned the resolution to the Senate on
the ground that it was a breach of privilege (because declaring a
Representative's statement untrue), the House later expunged the
objectionable remarks from the Record on the grounds they violated the
rules of the House.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2514.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross References
Communications from the Senate, see Ch. 32, infra.
House references to Senate, its proceedings, or Members, see Sec. 44,
supra.
House-Senate relations generally, see Ch. 32, infra.
Collateral References
Riddick/Frumin, Senate Procedure, pp. 745-48, S. Doc. No. 101-28
(1992). -------------------
Senate Rules Provisions
Sec. 46.1 In the Senate a resolution providing for amendment to Senate
Rule XIX on debate to prohibit references in debate to certain
conduct or motives of Representatives was referred to committee but
was not acted on.
On Feb. 6, 1963,(13) after discussing the need for
comity between the two Houses, Senator Wayne L. Morse, of Oregon,
introduced in the Senate Senate Resolution 84, to prohibit by standing
[[Page 10634]]
rule certain references in debate to Members of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 109 Cong. Rec. 1929, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolved, That rule XIX be amended to add a new paragraph at
the end thereof, as follows:
``8. No Senator in debate shall by any form of words impute to
any Member of the House of Representatives any conduct or motive
unworthy or unbecoming a Representative.''
The resolution was referred to the Committee on Rules and
Administration, but no action was taken in the 88th Congress.
Sec. 46.2 In contrast to earlier decisions, the President of the Senate
ruled in the 71st Congress that since the Senate had not adopted
Jefferson's Manual as a part of its standing rules, references to
the proceedings of the House were left to the discretion of
Senators.
On Apr. 21, 1930, Senator George W. Norris, of Nebraska, discussed
at length in the Senate the alleged action of the House in retaining a
Senate joint resolution for more than 10 months rather than referring
it to committee (S.J. Res. 3, the so-called ``lame-duck''
constitutional amendment).(14) Senator Norris referred
extensively to House proceedings and described the action taken on the
resolution as ``arbitrary.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. For Senator Norris' remarks, see 72 Cong. Rec. 7311-13, 71st Cong.
2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Simeon D. Fess, of Ohio, then arose to make the point of
order that ``the rule of the Senate does not permit a Senator on the
floor of the Senate to criticize what is said by a Congressman on the
floor of the House nor the action of the House.''
Senator Norris challenged Senator Fess to point out any such
standing rule, and after intervening debate, Senator Fess cited page
248 of Jefferson's Manual, prohibiting Members of one House from
referring to the proceedings of the other House. Senator Norris
responded that the provisions of Jefferson's Manual stated general
parliamentary law but were not binding or adopted by the Senate as part
of the rules.
Vice President Charles Curtis, of Kansas, ruled on the question:
The Senate has not adopted Jefferson's Manual as a part of the
rules of the Senate. It is left to the discretion of Senators as to
what they may or may not say about the proceedings of the House in
connection with the resolution under consideration.
Mr. Fess: This is not a rule.
The Vice President: The Chair makes that ruling now.
Parliamentarian's Note: In so ruling, the Vice President overruled
decisions to the contrary by President Pro Tempore Jacob H.
[[Page 10635]]
Gallinger, of New Hampshire, on Aug. 26, 1912,(15) and by
Presiding Officer William H. King, of Utah, on July 31,
1917.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2501.
16. See 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2513. Senate practice prior to the
20th century was not uniform and in some cases not ruled upon;
see 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 5096, 5098, 5100, 5110, 5122,
5126.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretion of Presiding Officer
Sec. 46.3 The Presiding Officer of the Senate stated in response to a
parliamentary inquiry that the propriety of references to
Representatives is a matter of discretion with the Presiding
Officer.
On Feb. 20, 1963,(17) Senator Michael J. Mansfield, of
Montana, inquired of Presiding Officer Birch E. Bayh, of Indiana,
whether reference by name to a Member of the House was proper in Senate
debate. The Presiding Officer responded:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 109 Cong. Rec. 2648, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair respectfully submits that, according to rule XIX of
the Senate, the point which the majority leader raises is not
mentioned; that the subject covered in his question to the Chair
has been a matter of discretion with the Presiding Officer at the
specific time in question. Unless a point of order is made by the
majority leader or any other Member of the Senate, the Chair will
not call to order the Senator who is speaking in the Senate.
Parliamentarian's Note: Senator John J. Williams, of Delaware, who
had the floor and was referring critically to a Member of the House,
was permitted to proceed without objection to his remarks.
Announcements
Sec. 46.4 The Senate Majority Leader announced his intention in the
84th Congress to seek enforcement of the rule of comity as to
disparaging remarks between the two Houses.
On Jan. 18, 1955,(18) Lyndon B. Johnson, of Texas, the
Majority Leader of the Senate, made the following announcement on the
floor:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 101 Cong. Rec. 441, 442, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. President, I have a brief announcement I should like to
make. Yesterday in the House of Representatives the beloved and
respected Speaker, Mr. Rayburn, made an announcement of interest,
and I think of tremendous importance, to this body. The Speaker
advised that it would be his practice during this Congress to
enforce strictly the rule of comity between the Houses when Members
of that body arose to make derogatory remarks about either the
Senate or any Member of the Senate.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. The announcement of Jan. 17, 1955, by Speaker Sam Rayburn (Tex.)
stating his intention to enforce the rule of comity, appears
id. at p. 386.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 10636]]
Mr. President, I should like at this time to announce that, as
majority leader, I, too, will follow the longstanding precedents of
this body during the coming Congress in the enforcement of this
rule of comity. Good relations between the House and the Senate and
its Members are of the utmost importance in these critical times. I
think it is equally important that the standards of Senate rule XIX
which apply in the Senate should, under the precedents of comity
between the Houses, be vigorously applied if the occasion arises.
It will be my intention to see that that rule is followed in
the Senate while I am sitting in this chair as majority leader.
Mr. [William F.] Knowland [of California]: Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. Johnson of Texas: I yield to the distinguished minority
leader.
Mr. Knowland: I should like to associate myself with the
distinguished majority leader in his remarks. I think the orderly
processes of the two Houses will be better served if the precedents
of comity as between the two Houses are followed, and I am sure the
public business will be expedited if the Senate observes those
precedents and adheres to the rule.
Mr. Johnson of Texas: I am delighted to have the minority
leader associate himself with the statement I have made. It is
quite in keeping with the course of conduct he has always followed.
References to House Legislative Proceedings
Sec. 46.5 A Senator was permitted to refer in debate to proceedings in
the House, but not to its character or integrity.
On July 24, 1954,(20) Senator Paul H. Douglas, of
Illinois, asked the Presiding Officer in the Senate a parliamentary
inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 100 Cong. Rec. 11893, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Senator from Illinois inquires whether the rules of the
Senate permit reference to the proceedings of the House of
Representatives. I am aware that the rules of the House of
Representatives prohibit such references, and I rise to inquire
whether the rules of the Senate prohibit such references, or
whether they are permitted under our rules.
The Presiding Officer: The Chair will state there is no rule to
prevent a Senator from referring to the proceedings of the House of
Representatives, but a Senator is not permitted to refer to its
character, integrity, and so forth.
Senator Douglas then referred to legislative action of the House on
the preceding evening.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. See also 72 Cong. Rec. 11677, 71st Cong. 2d Sess., June 25, 1930.
By contrast, Members of the House may not in debate mention
the Senate even through complimentary remarks (see Sec. 44.1,
supra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effect of Unanimous Consent
Sec. 46.6 By unanimous consent, a member of the Senate may allude to or
quote from the proceedings of the House.
[[Page 10637]]
On Feb. 28, 1966,(2) during consideration of S. 2791,
supplemental military and procurement authorization for fiscal 1966, a
Senator raised a parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 112 Cong. Rec. 4300, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [J. William] Fulbright [of Arkansas]: Mr. President, is it
in order to read from a report of a committee of the House of
Representatives?
The Presiding Officer: (3) The Chair reads from page
314 of ``Senate Procedure'': (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Ernest Gruening (Alaska).
4. Watkins and Riddick, Senate Procedure, S. Doc. No. 44, 88th Cong.
(1964).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the precedents it has been held not in order in
debate for a Senator to make reference to action by the House
of Representatives, to read an extract from the proceedings of
the House relating to a matter under discussion, to read from a
speech made by a Member of the House during that particular
Congress on the pending subject, to refer to or make any
illusion to or comment upon the proceedings of the House of
Representatives, or to make reference to the proceedings in the
House on the matter under consideration for the purpose of
influencing the action of the Senate.
It is out of order, as interfering with the independence of
the two Houses, to allude to what has been done in the other
House as a means of influencing the judgment of the one in
which a question is pending.
However, if no objection is interposed, the Senator may
proceed.
Mr. [Richard B.] Russell of Georgia: Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the Senator from Arkansas be permitted to
read the report of any House committees.
The Presiding Officer: Is there objection? The Chair hears
none, and it is so ordered.
Portions of House Report No. 1293 on the pending bill were then
read in debate and inserted in the Record.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. See also Sec. 46.9, infra (permission granted to Senator by
Presiding Officer to read from House proceedings on certain
bill).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference to Speaker of the House
Sec. 46.7 It has been held out of order in Senate debate to refer to
the actions of the Speaker of the House.
On Aug. 12, 1935,(6) Senator Huey P. Long, of Louisiana,
stated in Senate debate ``The Speaker of the House went to the White
House, and he gave out a statement on the steps of the White House.''
Senator Joseph T. Robinson, of Arkansas, rose to the point of order
that a Senator had no right to refer to the action of the Speaker of
the House in debate. Vice President John N. Garner, of Texas, sustained
the point of order. Senator Long then continued:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 79 Cong. Rec. 12892, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may not mention that he is a Representative? Very well; then
I will for
[[Page 10638]]
get that; but once upon a time there was a man of influence in the
United States who announced on the White House steps that there
would not be anything done about the Black bill, and there was not
anything done about it.
Sec. 46.8 The President of the Senate ruled that a Senator could refer
critically to the Speaker of the House when the Senate was
considering a resolution to inquire into House inaction on a Senate
joint resolution.
On Apr. 21, 1930,(7) the Senate was considering a
resolution to inquire into the failure of the Speaker of the House to
take prompt action on Senate Joint Resolution 3, a constitutional
amendment passed by the Senate. Senator George W. Norris, of Nebraska,
referred extensively in debate to the action of Speaker Nicholas
Longworth, of Ohio, which he described as ``arbitrary.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 72 Cong. Rec. 7313, 71st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to a point of order, Vice President Charles Curtis, of
Kansas, ruled that ``it is left to the discretion of the Senators as to
what they may or may not say about the proceedings of the House in
connection with the resolution under consideration.''
Naming House Member
Sec. 46.9 The Senate rules do not specifically prohibit a Senator's
reference to a Member of the House by name, but such a reference,
if objected to, has been held out of order.
On Feb. 20, 1963,(8) Senator John J. Williams, of
Delaware, had the floor in the Senate and was referring critically and
by name to a Member of the House, Adam C. Powell, of New York. Senator
Michael J. Mansfield, of Montana, asked Senator Williams to yield for
the propounding of a parliamentary inquiry and stated as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 109 Cong. Rec. 2648, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. President, at page 265 of the manual entitled ``Senate
Procedure,'' the following statement appears in the fifth full
paragraph:
It has been held out of order for a Senator to make
references to Members of the House----
Mr. Williams of Delaware: Mr. President----
Mr. Mansfield: The next phrase reads--I am sure the Senator
would wish me to keep the continuity--``to refer to a Member of the
House by name.''
My question is--and I ask this question in my present capacity
for clarification: Is the reference to ``to refer to
[[Page 10639]]
a Member of the House by name'' out of order?
Presiding Officer Birch E. Bayh, of Indiana, responded as follows:
The Chair respectfully submits that, according to rule XIX of
the Senate, the point which the majority leader raises is not
mentioned; that the subject covered in his question to the Chair
has been a matter of discretion with the Presiding Officer at the
specific time in question. Unless a point of order is made by the
majority leader or any other Member of the Senate, the Chair will
not call to order the Senator who is speaking in the Senate.
No point of order was made against Senator Williams' remarks.
On Aug. 26, 1935, the Senate was considering H.R. 9215, a
supplemental deficiency appropriation bill. Senator Huey P. Long, of
Louisiana, asked whether he would be permitted to read from the
Congressional Record portions of House proceedings on the bill, and
Vice President John N. Garner, of Texas, ruled that he did have a right
to so read from the Record. Senator Long read a lengthy excerpt and
then, in commenting upon it, mentioned the name of a Member of the
House. The Vice President ruled:
The Chair calls the Senator from Louisiana to order. . . . The
Senator has no right to refer to the House of Representatives. The
Chair has called his attention to that rule before, and does so now
for the second time. The next time the Chair calls the Senator's
attention to it the Senator will have to take his seat.
Senator Long protested that he had been granted permission to read
from the Record and the Vice President responded:
The Senator is familiar with the rule of the Senate--it has
been called to his attention a number of times--with reference to
referring to an individual Member of the House of Representatives,
or to the House of Representatives itself in its procedure. The
Senator did ask the Chair if he could read the Record of the House
of Representatives. The Chair thinks he could; but the Chair does
not think the Senator ought to speak with reference to the
Membership of the House, or of the House itself, in a derogatory
manner. That is in violation of the rule of the
Senate.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 79 Cong. Rec. 14735, 14736, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference to Member's Integrity or Motives
Sec. 46.10 A Senator introduced a resolution to expunge from the Record
certain remarks made in the Senate impugning the integrity of a
Member of the House.
On Feb. 6, 1963,(10) Senator Wayne L. Morse, of Oregon,
addressed the Senate on the subject
[[Page 10640]]
of comity between the two Houses. He took exception to a speech made on
the Senate floor the previous day by Senator John J. Williams, of
Delaware, entitled ``The Administration Has Been Shoveling Out the
Taxpayers' Money to Congressman Adam Powell.'' (11) Senator
Morse discussed the precedents of the Senate on the subject:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 109 Cong. Rec. 1927-29, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
11. Senator Williams' speech, which claimed misuse of government funds
for the benefit of Mr. Powell, appears at 109 Cong. Rec. 1769-
71, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 5, 1963.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
. . . I rise to take exception to a speech made on the floor of
the Senate yesterday by the Senator from Delaware. It contained, in
my opinion, such a serious imputation against the character and
reputation of a colleague on the House side that in my judgment the
speech should not stand, at least without a protest. It should not,
in my judgment, stand as a precedent.
Therefore, before finishing my remarks, I shall offer . . . a
resolution to expunge the speech of the Senator from Delaware on
yesterday from the permanent record of the Congressional Record. .
. .
The Senator from Delaware has made clear to me that he does not
intend to expunge his speech from the Record, and I respect his
attitude. . . .
I am not going to speak at any great length, but I am going to
start my discussion by calling attention to rule XIX of the Senate,
to be found on page 20 of the Senate Manual. I will read section 2
of it, which is relevant and pertinent to my remarks:
No Senator in debate shall, directly or indirectly, by any
form of words impute to another Senator or to other Senators
any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a Senator.
Section 3 reads:
No Senator in debate shall refer offensively to any State
of the Union.
Senator Morse then introduced the following resolution (S. Res.
85):
Resolved, That the matter appearing in the daily issue of the
Congressional Record of February 5 (legislative day, January 15),
1963, beginning on page 1673, at the top of the second column,
under the caption ``The Administration Has Been Shoveling Out the
Taxpayers' Money to Congressman Adam Powell,'' and extending down
to and including so much of the second column on page 1675 as
precedes the matter entitled ``The New York City Newspaper
Strike,'' be, and it is hereby, ordered to be expunged from the
Record.
No action was taken on the resolution during the 88th Congress.
Sec. 46.11 It is not in order in Senate debate to impute unworthy
motives to Members of the House.
On Feb. 28, 1966,(12) Senator Stephen M. Young, of Ohio,
arose in the Senate to state a question
[[Page 10641]]
of personal privilege, and concluded by stating a parliamentary inquiry
to the Chair:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 112 Cong. Rec. 4245, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. President, I rise to a question of personal privilege. A
short time ago my attention was called to some remarks made in the
other body on Thursday by Representative Wayne Hays, of the 18th
Ohio District, and Robert Sweeney, Ohio Representative at large, as
reported on page 4019 of the Congressional Record adverting to the
Vietnam conflict.
According to the Congressional Record, the Representative from
the 18th Ohio District stated:
Mr. Chairman, there is one matter that I would like to
mention. I would like to sort of apologize to the House of
Representatives. There have been a lot of remarks made on the
other side of this building which I believe have aided our
enemies out there, because I believe they are hoping for us to
get tired of this war and quit. I further believe that is the
reason they think they are winning.
Yesterday the junior Senator from my State made a personal
attack upon the Secretary of State and said that he ought to
resign. On behalf of the people of my district, I want to
apologize because I supported the junior Senator a year ago
last fall. . . .
Mr. President, I propound a parliamentary inquiry: Would it be
a violation of the rules of the Senate were I to assert in this
Chamber at this time that Representative Hays, of Ohio, and one-
term Representative Sweeney, of Ohio, are guilty of falsely,
viciously, and maliciously making stupid, lying statements
assailing the loyalty and patriotism of Senators, including the
junior Senator from Ohio, and that they are liars in alleging that
we ``have aided our enemies''?
Presiding Officer Ernest Gruening, of Alaska, ruled as follows:
In response to the inquiry of the Senator from Ohio, the Chair
states that under the precedents it has been held not in order in
debate for a Senator to make reference to action by the House of
Representatives. Also, it has been held out of order for Senators
to make reference to Members of the House or to refer to a Member
of the House by name, to criticize the action of the Speaker, to
refer in debate to a Member of the House in opprobrious terms, or
to impute to him unworthy motives.
Mr. Young of Ohio: I, of course, abide by the ruling of the
Chair, and I respect it. If, however, on some future occasion a
similar contemptible attack is made on me with the insect-like
buzzing of lying allegations by either or both of these publicity
seekers, I shall surely embalm and embed them in the liquid amber
of my remarks.
Sec. 46.12 It is a breach of order in debate in the Senate to refer to
a Representative as a ``liar.''
On Feb. 28, 1966,(13) after a Senator had raised a
parliamentary inquiry on the subject of references in debate to
Representatives and had received a ruling from Presiding Officer Ernest
[[Page 10642]]
Gruening, of Alaska, Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen, of Illinois,
raised another parliamentary inquiry on the subject:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 112 Cong. Rec. 4246, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. President, for the sake of clarification and a meticulous
interpretation of the rules, I should like to inquire whether
calling a Member of another body a liar is an imputation of
improper motive.
The Presiding Officer: Under the precedents, that would not be
in order.
House Action on Senate References
Sec. 46.13 A Senator having assailed a House Member in debate, the
House messaged to the Senate a resolution declaring the language a
breach of privilege and requesting the Senate to take appropriate
action concerning the subject.
On Sept. 27, 1951,(14) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of
Michigan, arose in the House to state a question of privilege based on
critical references in the Senate to a Member of the House and to
introduce a resolution to be agreed to and then messaged to the Senate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 97 Cong. Rec. 12269, 12270, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It appears from page 12098 of the Congressional Record of
yesterday, September 26, 1951, that in the other body, a Member of
that body from Michigan, among other things, from the floor of that
body made the following statement:
Now, Mr. President, I should like to address myself briefly
to the allegations and insinuations of the Representative from
the Second District of Michigan, Mr. Meader.
According to the newspaper clippings reaching me from the
Republican National Committee, Mr. Meader and others have
charged that the Democratic Party in Michigan is selling jobs
in the Post Office Department. That, Mr. President, is what I
meant by a political smear. Mr. Meader is a lawyer. I am
surprised that he is reaching conclusions before the evidence
is in. He has reached his conclusion on the basis of the fund-
solicitation letter plus one letter from a constituent who
complains that, as a veteran, he was passed over unlawfully for
a postmaster's appointment. I immediately asked Mr. Meader for
the identity of this man.
Mr. Meader refused to let me know the identity of the man.
Mr. Meader must be acquainted with the civil-service and
post-office laws and regulations governing these matters. He
must know that without cause a veteran cannot possibly be
passed over by a nonveteran. The rest of his anonymous
correspondent's complaint deals with hearsay.
The foregoing language which assails a Member of the House
constitutes a breach of privilege. Inasmuch as the House is without
authority to itself act to correct the foregoing, I send to the
Clerk's desk the following resolution:
House Resolution 441
Resolved, That the language published in the daily
Congressional Record on Wednesday, September 26, 1951, on page
12377, in the report of an address to the Senate by
[[Page 10643]]
the Senator from Michigan, Mr. Moody, is improper,
unparliamentary, and a reflection on the character of a Member
of the House, the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Meader, and
constitutes a breach of privilege and is calculated to create
unfriendly relations and conditions between the House of
Representatives and the Senate: Therefore be it
Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be transmitted to
the Senate and that the Senate be requested to take appropriate
action concerning the subject.
Mr. Speaker, the precedent for this action is found in Eighth
Cannon's Precedents, page 231, section 2516. From that precedent it
appears that on August 18, 1921, a Member of the other body made
certain remarks referring, though not by name, to a Member of the
House, which reflected upon the House Member's integrity in his
representative capacity.
On August 22, following, a question of privilege was raised and
a resolution, similar to the one which has been sent to the Clerk's
desk, was adopted by the House and a copy was sent to the other
body. Subsequently, on a unanimous-consent request in the other
body, the matter referred to in the resolution was expunged from
the Record. The purpose of this resolution, if that be the sense of
the Senate, is to call for similar action with reference to the
language used yesterday and which, by name, challenged the
integrity of the Member of the House from Michigan, Mr. Meader, in
his representative capacity.
Mr. Speaker, it will be noted that I have referred to a Member
of the other body by name, but I followed word for word, except as
to identity, a previous resolution and ruling by a former Speaker
of the House to which reference has been made. I send a resolution
to the Clerk's desk.
The House adopted the resolution without further debate, but no
action was taken by the Senate in the 82d Congress.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. For a similar occurrence, where a Member of the House rose to a
question of privilege based on a Senator's having assailed the
House in debate, see 102 Cong. Rec. 12522, 12523, 84th Cong. 2d
Sess., July 12, 1956. The Senator in question, Hubert H.
Humphrey (Minn.) withdrew the objectionable remarks from the
permanent Congressional Record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference to Presence of Member of House on Senate Floor
Sec. 46.14 During debate in the Senate, a member of the Senate
introduced and acknowledged the presence on the floor of a Member
of the House, discussed actions of and communications between
Members of the House, and caused to be inserted in the Record
letters from the said Member of the House to the Speaker and to the
Majority Leader of the Senate.
On Feb. 10, 1978,(16) during debate in the Senate on the
ratification of the Panama Canal Treaty,
[[Page 10644]]
Mr. Orrin G. Hatch, of Utah, made the following statements:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 124 Cong. Rec. 3204, 3205, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hatch: Mr. President . . . I would . . . like to call the
attention of the Senate to the fact that one of our distinguished
colleagues from the House has just brought some, I think, important
papers to me.
I would like to just say that this colleague's name is
Congressman George Hansen from the Second District of Idaho.
Congressman Hansen has been very active of late doing everything he
possibly can to justify and to bring about a means whereby the
House of Representatives will not be ignored with regard to the
Panama Canal treaties, and that the article IV, section 3, clause 2
sections of the Constitution likewise will not be ignored.
Congressman Hansen has put a great deal of time and effort into
talking with his colleagues in the House, and he has brought over a
list of 219 Members of the House who are basically subscribers or
cosponsors of his resolution which states:
That it is the sense of the Congress of the United States
that any right to, title to, or interest in the property of the
United States Government agencies in the Panama Canal Zone or
any real property and improvements thereon located in the Zone
should not be . . . disposed of to any foreign government
without specific authorization . . . by an Act of Congress.
Two hundred and nineteen of his House Members have cosponsored
this resolution . . . .
[Congressman Hansen] has also brought to me two letters, one
written to our own distinguished colleague and friend Senator
Robert C. Byrd, the majority leader, and a letter to the Honorable
Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr., Speaker of the House of Representatives.
I would just quote from one aspect of the letter to Speaker
O'Neill.
Congressman Hansen states in his letter to Speaker O'Neill.
You will note that the concept of the Resolution is to
protect the integrity of the legislative process against
default or Executive usurpa-
tion. . . .
Mr. Robert C. Byrd [of West Virginia]: For the Record, my
answer was that under the Constitution the Senate has the sole
prerogative and responsibility to give its approval to the
ratification of a treaty No. 1; and, No. 2, property transfers can
be self-executing by treaties that are approved by the Senate. . .
.
The Presiding Officer: (17) There is a request
before this body for a unanimous consent to have printed in the
Record certain documents [together with the remarks pertinent
thereto]. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Robert Morgan (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is there objection?
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be
printed in the Record. . . .
CHAPTER 29
Consideration and Debate
E. RELEVANCY IN DEBATE
Sec. 47. Criticism of Executive and Governmental Officials; References
to Presidential or Vice-Presidential Candidates
Members are permitted wide latitude to criticize the President,
[[Page 10645]]
other officials of the executive branch, and the government it-self,
contrary to the English parliamentary law which prohibits speaking
``irreverently or seditiously against the King.'' (18) A
Member may criticize the motives or action of the President or of other
executive officials,(19) but such disapproval may not extend
to personal attacks, innuendo, or ridicule.(20) The Chief
Executive must be referred to in debate as the President or Chief
Executive and not by surname.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See Jefferson's Manual, House Rules and Manual Sec. 370 (1995) for
the English rule and the differing practice of the House.
U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 6, clause 1 protects Members from
being questioned outside the House for any reference to the
executive branch. See, in general, Ch. 7, supra.
19. See Sec. Sec. 47.3, 47.4, infra; 5 Hinds' Precedents
Sec. Sec. 5087-5091; 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 2499,
2500.
The precedents on comity, which prohibit most references in
debate to the Senate or Senators, do not apply to the Vice
President, who may preside over the Senate but is not a member
(see Sec. 47.9, infra).
20. See Sec. 47.1, infra; 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5094; and 8 Cannon's
Precedents Sec. 2497.
1. See Sec. 47.1, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Members may employ strong language in criticizing the
government,(2) government agencies,(3) and
governmental policies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. See Sec. Sec. 47.3, 47.5, 47.6, infra.
3. See Sec. 47.4, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In debating propositions to impeach, Members may freely discuss
charges and the basis for them,(4) but may not resort to
personally offensive language.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. See Sec. Sec. 47.7, 47.8, infra; 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5093.
5. See the report prepared by a select committee pursuant to H. Res.
494, 60th Cong. 2d Sess., and cited at 8 Cannon's Precedents
Sec. 2497. See also 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5094 for
personally offensive and unparliamentary language used in
reference to President Andrew Johnson when being impeached.
Impeachment proceedings and references to respondent, see Ch.
14, supra. -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference to President
Sec. 47.1 In discussing the President of the United States in debate a
Member may not refer to him contemptuously or by surname.
On Jan. 23, 1933,(6) Mr. James M. Beck, of Pennsylvania,
arose to a point of order and stated as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 76 Cong. Rec. 2297, 72d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McFadden] who is now
addressing the House has on more than one occasion in the course of
his address referred to the President of the United States as
``Hoover.'' My point of order is that it does not accord with the
dig
[[Page 10646]]
nity of this House that the President of the United States should
be contemptuously referred to by his last name.
Speaker Pro Tempore Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, sustained the
point of order.
Sec. 47.2 A statement in debate that a Member would have no more reason
for criticizing the administration than for ``shoving the Vice
President around'' was held not a breach of order.
On June 10, 1964,(7) Mr. Wayne L. Hays, of Ohio, stated
in response to a comment critical of the present administration, ``You
would not have any more reason for criticizing the administration than
you would for shoving the Vice President around in Dallas.'' (Addressed
to Mr. Edgar Franklin Foreman [Tex.]).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 110 Cong. Rec. 13275, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The words were demanded to be taken down, and Speaker John W.
McCormack, of Massachusetts, ruled that there was nothing objectionable
or in violation of the rules of the House in the language used, being
simply an opinion by Mr. Hays.
Conduct of Government Officials
Sec. 47.3 In debate Members may arraign in strong terms the conduct of
officials of the executive branch of the government.
On Oct. 1, 1940,(8) Mr. John C. Schafer, of Wisconsin,
delivered the following remarks in debate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 86 Cong. Rec. 12985, 12986, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
. . . God knows our half-baked nitwits who are handling the
foreign affairs have been carrying on a course of conduct which
inevitably will plunge us into the new European war. . . .
Mr. Sam Hobbs, of Alabama, demanded that those words be taken down,
and Speaker Pro Tempore Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, ruled that the words
were not a breach of order since they did not refer to Members of the
House but to certain officials in the executive branch of the
government.
Characterization of Government Agency
Sec. 47.4 A statement in debate referring to a federal agency as a
socialist and communist experiment was held not to reflect upon the
membership of the House and not to be a breach of order.
On Mar. 31, 1954,(9) Mr. Ralph W. Gwinn, of New York,
speaking on an amendment before the Com
[[Page 10647]]
mittee of the Whole stated as follows: ``Mr. Chairman, we have had 20
years' experience now with America's first, much-touted, great,
Socialist, Communist experiment.'' (Referring to the Tennessee Valley
Authority) Mr. James P. Sutton, of Tennessee, demanded that the words
be taken down, and Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts,
ruled, after Mr. Gwinn unsuccessfully attempted to read a definition of
communism, that nothing in the language cited reflected upon the
membership of the House or would otherwise be considered
unparliamentary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 100 Cong. Rec. 4221, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Criticism of Government
Sec. 47.5 A statement in debate characterizing the national government
as a ``labor government, rapidly headed into a labor dictatorship,
which, if not checked, will soon run into labor despotism'' was
held merely an expression of opinion and not a breach of order.
On Feb. 26, 1942,(10) Mr. Edward E. Cox, of Georgia,
stated in debate: ``We are already living under a labor government,
rapidly headed into a labor dictatorship, which, if not checked, will
soon run into labor despotism.'' Mr. Raymond S. McKeough, of Illinois,
demanded that the words be tak-en down and Speaker Sam Rayburn, of
Texas, ruled as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 88 Cong. Rec. 1714, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whatever might be the opinion of anybody who occupies this
place, the present occupant would think that it would be going very
far, even though words were harsh, if Members were precluded from
expressing an opinion with respect to a Government tendency. The
Chair sees only in these words the expression of an opinion by the
gentleman from Georgia and therefore feels constrained to hold that
they are not unparliamentary.
Sec. 47.6 The Speaker held that language condemning the government as
having become ``something hated, something oppressive'' did not
transgress House rules.
On June 14, 1929,(11) the following words were used in
debate by Mr. Fiorello H. LaGuardia, of New York, ``Why, Mr. Speaker,
Uncle Sam, the United States Government, was always considered by the
American people as something kindly, something to love; instead, now,
it has become something hated, something oppressive.'' Mr. B. Frank
Murphy,
[[Page 10648]]
of Ohio, demanded that the words be taken down, and Speaker Pro Tempore
Thomas S. Williams, of Illinois, ruled that ``the gentleman from New
York was merely condemning a measure that has been enacted into law.
That certainly does not transgress any rule of the House and the Chair
holds the words to be in order.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 71 Cong. Rec. 2924, 71st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Debate on Impeachment
Sec. 47.7 In presenting impeachment charges a Member is not confined to
a bare statement of the charges but may supplement them with
argumentative statements as to the official in question.
On May 7, 1935,(12) Mr. Everett M. Dirksen, of Illinois,
rose in order to prefer charges of impeachment against a federal judge.
During Mr. Dirksen's address, during which he stated his personal
opinion of the judge in question and of other federal judges, Mr.
Hatton W. Sumners, of Texas, arose to state as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 79 Cong. Rec. 7081, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not familiar with the precedents, but I have the
impression that in preferring charges of impeachment, argumentative
statements should be avoided as much as possible. If I am wrong in
that statement with reference to what the precedents and custom
have established, I of course withdraw the
observation.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Id. at p. 7085.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Dirksen stated that he had no desire to violate the precedents
but stated that there were two additional pages of explanatory matter
which he desired either to state to the House or to insert into the
Record to elaborate the statement of specific charges that had been
made. Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, ruled as follows:
The Chair thinks it is entirely up to the gentleman from
Illinois so far as the propriety of his statement is
concerned.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, on Jan. 14, 1936, Mr. Robert A. Green, of Florida, arose
to present impeachment charges against a federal judge.(15)
Mr. Carl E. Mapes, of Michigan, rose to state a point of order that Mr.
Green was presenting argumentative and personal statements, after Mr.
Green had delivered the following remarks:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 80 Cong. Rec. 404, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
. . . I am vitally interested in this investigation for two
important reasons: First, from a careful study of the evidence I am
convinced that Judge Ritter is an ignorant, unjust, tyrannical, and
corrupt judge; that a majority of the people in his district have
the same convictions that I have; that
[[Page 10649]]
confidence in him and his court is lacking; that his usefulness as
a judge of the southern district of Florida has long since come to
an end. Second, a large portion of the district over which Judge
Ritter presides is in my congressional district, and my people
demand and feel that they are entitled to a judge learned in the
law and one who has dignity, honor, and integrity.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Id. at p. 405.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaker Byrns ruled that Mr. Green was entitled to one hour's
debate on the charges and that he could use all or any portion of the
hour as he saw fit, including a general discussion of the
charges.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Id. at p. 406.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 47.8 In debating articles of impeachment a Member may refer to the
political, social, and family background of the accused.
On Mar. 2, 1936, Mr. Hatton W. Sumners, of Texas, called up for
consideration House Resolution 422, presenting articles of impeachment
against Federal Judge Halsted L. Ritter.(18) Extensive
debate ensued on the resolution, and Mr. Louis Ludlow, of Indiana,
arose to present himself as a ``character witness'' on behalf of Judge
Ritter. He began to discuss the family background of the accused and
the ``outstanding character and personality'' of the accused's father.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 80 Cong. Rec. 3066, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Malcolm C. Tarver, of Georgia, arose to state the point of
order that Mr. Ludlow was ``endeavoring to read into the Record a
statement with regard to the progenitors of the gentleman against whom
these impeachment proceedings are pending.'' Mr. Tarver stated that
such matters were not properly to be considered by the House and should
not be discussed.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Id. at p. 3069.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, ruled that within the four
and one-half hours of debate provided for on the resolution, Members
could address themselves to any subject relating to the articles of
impeachment and the accused.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Application of Rule of Comity
Sec. 47.9 The Minority Leader stated that the rule of comity,
prohibiting any reference in the House to the Senate or to
Senators, was not applicable to criticisms in debate of the Vice
President as an official of the executive branch, the Vice
President not being a member of the Senate.
[[Page 10650]]
On July 22, 1971,(1) Mr. John H. Dent, of Pennsylvania,
referred critically in debate to Vice President Spiro T. Agnew. The
Minority Leader, Gerald R. Ford, of Michigan, responded that Mr. Dent's
remarks were inappropriate and in poor taste, and then discussed in the
same context a special-order speech made on the preceding day by Mr.
William L. Clay, of Missouri:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 117 Cong. Rec. 26654, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
. . . If I could, let me add another comment at this point: in
a special order yesterday one of the gentlemen from the other side
of the aisle, on page 26517, used language in reference to a high
official in the U.S. Government that I have never seen used or
heard used in this Chamber. I have checked it out, and apparently
under the rules of the House, that language of the gentleman from
Missouri is not subject to the rules of the House because the Vice
President is not a Member of the other body.
Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: May I say to the gentleman----
Mr. Gerald R. Ford: May I finish my thought? And I appreciate
the gentleman giving me this time.
I cannot imagine somebody in this body on either side of the
aisle using language of that kind on the floor of the House in
reference to the second ranking Member of the U.S. Government in
the executive branch. I could appropriately categorize that
language in one way or another, but I would have to use language,
in my opinion, that would violate the rules of the House.
It seems to me that the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) for
having used that language, owes an apology to the House and an
apology to the Vice President.
References to Senators, Candidates for President
Sec. 47.10 Although it is not in order in debate to criticize a member
of the Senate, where a Senator is also a candidate for President or
Vice President, his official policies, actions, and opinions as a
candidate may be criticized in terms not personally offensive.
On Sept. 29, 1988,(2) Speaker James C. Wright, Jr., of
Texas, set forth the principles governing references to candidates for
President or Vice-President, particularly where a candidate is a member
of the Senate. On that day, after a demand that words uttered in debate
be taken down as unparliamentary, the Speaker ruled that the remarks
characterizing the relationship between Senator and Vice-Presidential
candidate J. Danforth Quayle's political words and his living deeds as
``hypoc
[[Page 10651]]
risy'' were out of order and should be withdrawn:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 134 Cong. Rec. 26683, 26684, 100th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Mr. Williams asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. [Pat] Williams [of Montana]: Mr. Speaker, yesterday
Republican Vice-Presidential candidate Dan Quayle was in Texas. He
visited, he was kind enough to go by and visit a Job Corps center
in El Paso, and while there he looked 300 Job Corps students in the
eye and said, ``We believe in you.''
He did not tell them that he had voted to shut that center
down. He did not tell them that the Reagan-Bush administration in
fact has demanded that every Job Corps center in America, bar none,
be closed.
This is the same Senator Quayle that supports wars that he
won't fight, the same Senator Quayle who got into law school under
an entry minority program that he later votes against.
There is a word for it, my colleagues, it is called hypocrisy.
Mr. [Dan] Lungren [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the
gentleman's words be taken down. . . .
The Speaker: The Clerk will report the words of the gentleman
from Montana.
The Clerk read as follows:
This is the same Senator Quayle that supports wars that he
won't fight, the same Senator Quayle who got into law school
under an entry minority program that he later votes against.
There is a word for it, my colleagues, it is called
hypocrisy.
The Speaker: The Chair has considered closely the question of
the use of words to distinguish policies as opposed to individuals.
There are precedents touching on proper and improper references in
debate and dealing with the preservation of comity between the
House and Senate. It is important to recognize that the individual
referenced in the remarks not only is a candidate for Vice
President of the United States but is a Member of the other body.
The precedents relating to references in debate to the
President, Vice President, or to a Member of the other body who is
a nominated or declared candidate for President or Vice President
permit criticisms of official policy, actions and opinions of that
person as a candidate, but do not permit personal abuse, do not
permit innuendo and do not permit ridicule, and they do require
that the proper rules of decorum must be followed during any debate
relating to the President of the United States or a Member of the
other body.
It could be argued that there is a distinction between calling
an individual a hypocrite, for example, and referring to some
policy as hypocrisy, but the Chair has discovered a precedent that
seems to be directly in point. In 1945, a Member of the House from
Georgia referred to another Member and said, ``I was reminded that
pretexts are never wanting when hypocrisy wishes to add malice to
falsehood or cowardice to stab a foe who cannot defend himself.''
Speaker Rayburn ruled that this was out of order as an
unparliamentary reference to another Member of the body.
By extension, the same identical words should be held out of
order in reference to a Member of the other body whether or not he
were a can
[[Page 10652]]
didate for a high office, and under these circumstances and citing
this precedent, the Chair would suggest that the gentleman from
Montana withdraw the offending remarks, including the particular
word ``hypocrisy,'' and either amend his reference in the permanent
Record or delete it. . . .
Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, do I understand correctly that the
Speaker's ruling is based upon my characterization of a U.S.
Senator, in this case Senator Quayle, that had the Republican Vice-
Presidential candidate not been at this time a U.S. Senator, that
my remarks would, in fact, be in order? . . .
The Speaker: . . . The Chair would suggest to the gentleman
from Montana that there are standards that apply in the Chamber and
in the precedents with respect to nominated candidates for
President and Vice President. The Chair is not certain if they are
precisely the same as applied to a Member of the other body or a
Member of this body, but in this instance, it is not necessary to
make that hypothetical distinction since the individual involved is
a Member of the other body.
Mr. Williams: Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker: Would
it be within the rules of the House if the last sentence of my 1-
minute, the one which characterizes Senator Quayle's actions as
hypocrisy, be removed by unanimous consent from my 1-minute
statement?
The Speaker: The Chair would suggest to the gentleman from
Montana that this might be a satisfactory solution.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the
last sentence of my 1-minute statement, the sentence in which I
characterized Senator Quayle's actions as hypocrisy, be stricken.
Mr. Lungren: Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: Please, the Chair will recognize the gentleman for
a parliamentary inquiry, but, first, please permit the gentleman
from Montana to complete his request. . . .
Mr. Lungren: I reserve the right to object, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: That is fine. The gentleman may reserve his right
to object, but in the interests of orderly procedure, permit the
Chair to allow the gentleman from Montana to complete his request.
Mr. Williams: Let me be sure the Chair understands my request:
I have asked unanimous consent that the last sentence of my 1-
minute statement be stricken. . . .
The Speaker: . . . Has the gentleman from Montana completed his
request?
Mr. Williams: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not. Both times I have
been interrupted as I have attempted to ask unanimous consent that
the last sentence of my 1-minute statement be eliminated. That was
the sentence which referred to Senator Quayle's actions as
hypocrisy. I seek unanimous consent to strike the last sentence of
my 1-minute statement.
The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Montana?
Mr. Lungren: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, Mr.
Speaker, under normal circumstances and in the interests of comity
of this House and
[[Page 10653]]
the relationship of this House and the other body, I would not
object. However, as is very obvious from the statements of the
gentleman, the insult, the language that is not to be used under
our rules was repeated three times in an effort to make a point
which violates, in my judgment, the sense of the rules of the House
and, therefore, since it is not, I believe, appropriate to do that,
I object.
The Speaker: Objection is heard.
References to President Made Outside Chamber
Sec. 47.11 The Minority Leader took the floor to criticize the Speaker
for making certain remarks in his daily press conference concerning
the President of the United States.
On July 25, 1984,(3) the following statement was made on
the floor by Minority Leader Robert H. Michel, of Illinois:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 130 Cong. Rec. 20931, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Michel: Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago the distinguished
majority leader referred to the President as ``intellectually
dishonest.''
Mr. Speaker, on July 19, 1984, United Press International
reported that the Speaker of the House said the following things
about the President of the United States--and I quote:
The evil is in the White House at the present time . . .
and that evil is a man who has no care and no concern for the
working class . . . He's cold. He's mean. He's got ice water
for blood.
In almost 30 years in the House, I have never heard such
abusive language used by a Speaker of the House about the President
of the United States. . . .
There are precedents in our House rules forbidding personal
abuse of a President on the floor of the House.
Surely the spirit of these rules ought to be adhered to by the
Speaker off the floor as well as on the floor.
Parliamentarian's Note: While there are precedents indicating that
it is a breach of order in debate to refer to the President
disrespectfully,(4) the principle has not been extended to
statements made outside the Chamber.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. See 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 2497, 2498.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inserting in Record Remarks Made in Press Critical of President
Sec. 47.12 In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Chair, while
declining to rule on the propriety in prior debates of certain
references to the President, indicated that a more permissive
standard than that applicable to references to a sitting Member
does not permit language personally abusive of the President.
[[Page 10654]]
The following proceedings occurred in the House on Feb. 25, 1985:
(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 131 Cong. Rec. 3344-47, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker Pro Tempore:(6) Under a previous order
of the House, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich) is
recognized for 60 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Sam B. Hall, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Newt] Gingrich [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, I am going to
insert in the Record today and read into the Record several
editorials, one from the Atlanta Journal and Constitution
yesterday, Sunday, February 24, and one this morning from the Wall
Street Journal. . . .
Yet twice the House has voted to deny McIntyre the seat
while it investigates. . . .
A few Republicans near each election try to remind voters
that the Democrats' first vote will be for O'Neill and that
vote signals bondage. This year it meant the abandonment of
fairness. . . .
Mr. Gingrich: . . . I was asking the Chair to rule in this sort
of setting if one is reporting to the House on the written opinion
of a columnist in which the columnist has said very strong things,
is it appropriate for the House to be informed of this and, if so,
what is the correct procedure?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The ruling of the Chair is that the
gentleman should not read into the Record things which would
clearly be outside the rules of this House. . . .
Mr. Gingrich: If I may continue a moment to ask the gentleman,
if we are in a situation where in the view of some people, such as
Mr. Williams of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, very strong
things are legitimately being said, and this is obviously his
viewpoint, what is the appropriate manner in which to report his
language to the House?
That is not me saying these things; he is saying these things.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman knows the rules of the
House, I am certain, and he can take out or delete any things that
he knows would violate the rules of this House if spoken from the
floor. . . .
Mr. Gingrich: If I may reclaim my time and also ask the Chair .
. . would the Chair uphold the same precedents on the
unparliamentary remarks with respect to the President of the United
States?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: If they violate the rules of the House
the Chair would certainly do that. If the President is personally
being abused on the floor of this House, the Chair would do so. . .
.
Anyone could raise a point of order concerning such language,
and the Chair cannot now say how the Chair would rule. . . .
Mr. Gingrich: But it is the Chair's--I will yield in just a
second--but it would be the Chair's understanding, or the Chair's
inclination that the President has the same basic protection as a
Member of the House in terms of his name?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman would recognize that it
is not quite the same standard, but nonetheless anyone, of course,
is capable of making an objection.
In Cannon's Procedure, as to the President, section 370, it
says:
[[Page 10655]]
The principles of decorum and courtesy governing the
relations of the two Houses should extend to the relations of
the House with the President. In referring to the President a
Member shall abstain from language personally offensive and
shall eschew terms of [opprobrium]. It is the duty of the House
to protect the President from personal abuse or innuendo.
Mr. Gingrich: So about a year ago when the very distinguished
majority leader referred to him I think 16 times in 1 minute, using
words like ``untrue'' and ``lie''----
The Speaker Pro Tempore: First of all let the Chair say to the
gentleman from Georgia that the Chair is not going to rule on
something that happened before. . . .
The Chair heard no objection to that speech to which the
gentleman is referring.
Addressing President in Debate
Sec. 47.13 Although Members may discuss past and present Presidential
actions and suggest possible future Presidential actions, it is not
in order to address remarks in debate directly to the President, as
in the second person.
On Oct. 16, 1989,(7) during the period for one-minute
speeches in the House, the Speaker cautioned Members against a renewed
tendency to address remarks in debate directly to the President.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 135 Cong. Rec. 24715, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert G.] Torricelli [of New Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, George
Bush's honeymoon is most assuredly now over. . . .
Mr. President, it is time to get to work, time to decide why is
it you sought the Presidency, to tell us where it is you would take
America. . . .
Mr. President, listen to this, if you will, from the president
of the Chase Manhattan Bank: ``There are some very significant
issues out there such as the fiscal deficit, our relations with
Japan, that have to be the subject of major initiatives. I'd like
to see that initiative, and I haven't. There is no agenda.''
Mr. President, listen to not only your critics but to your
fans. It is time to lead our country.
The Speaker: (8) As the Chair announced on July 23,
1987, it is not in order to address the President in debate.
Members must address their remarks to the Chair. Although Members
may discuss past and present Presidential actions and suggest
possible future Presidential actions, they may not directly address
the President, as in the second person.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Thomas S. Foley (Wash.).
9. See also the proceedings of May 17, 1989 (remarks of Mrs. Barbara
Boxer, of California); and, in the 101st Cong. 2d Sess., the
proceedings of May 8, 1990 (remarks of Mr. Richard J. Durbin,
of Illinois) and May 9, 1990 (remarks of Mr. Charles E.
Schumer, of New York).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 47.14 Under clause 1 of Rule XIV, remarks in debate
[[Page 10656]]
should be addressed to the Chair, and it is not in order to direct
remarks outside the Chamber or to address others, including the
President, in the second person.
During a one-minute speech in the House on Oct. 11,
1990,(10) the Chair admonished a Member against directing
his remarks to any individual other than the Chair. The proceedings
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 136 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 101st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Les] AuCoin [of Oregon]: Mr. Speaker, I am truly amazed at
the President's flip-flop on whether the wealthy should pay their
fair share of income taxes. . . .
Well, Mr. President, you were elected to know what to do.
The American people are confused. They want you to lead. Let me
make a suggestion:
Drop your commitment to no new taxes for your rich friends, and
take a stand for the middle class and say, ``I am with you. I'm
going to make this Tax Code fair for American working families.'' .
. .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (11) The Chair is
constrained to remind Members that it is not proper directly to
address the President from the floor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Romano L. Mazzoli (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unparliamentary References to President
Sec. 47.15 Language in debate charging that the President has been
``intellectually dishonest'' is a breach of order connoting an
intent to deceive that is personally abusive of the President; the
Chair clarified his ruling in this instance by comparing similar
words that were distinguishable in connotation.
On May 9, 1990,(12) following an admonition to a Member
to refrain from unparliamentary references to the President, the Chair
clarified that earlier ruling, as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 136 Cong. Rec. 9828, 9829, 101st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Mr. Torricelli asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. [Robert G.] Torricelli [of New Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, you
heard it here today: Republican Member after Republican Member
taking the floor, predicting that the President will never raise
taxes.
I am here to predict that he will raise taxes. And, Mr.
Speaker, we are both right because no doubt, for the President's
friends, for those of privilege in America he will never raise
taxes.
But for you and for me and for the overwhelming majority of
Americans, he is--he says that he is going to, and he is about
doing it. It isn't, Mr. Speaker, that the President is
intellectually dishonest, though indeed in the last election he
was. It is about the fact that he has a $500 billion----
[[Page 10657]]
Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I ask
that the gentleman's words be taken down.
[The words in question were held to be unparliamentary, the
Speaker Pro Tempore (13) stating as follows:]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. John P. Murtha (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In referring to the President during debate a Member shall
abstain from ``terms of approbrium,'' such as calling the President
a ``liar''--V, 5094, VIII, 2498.
Subsequently in the proceedings, the Chair stated as follows:
The Speaker Pro Tempore: If the Chair could have order, let the
Chair clarify his ruling.
The Chair would like to clarify his earlier ruling on the words
of the gentleman from New Jersey.
The Chair does not believe that an allegation of intellectual
inconsistency is necessarily unparliamentary.
However, to whatever extent the phrase ``intellectual
dishonesty'' may connote an intent to deceive, the Chair believes
that it does tend to be personally offensive and therefore
unparliamentary.
Sec. 47.16 Debate may not include remarks personally offensive toward
the President, including references to accusations of sexual
misconduct, and the Chair will caution Members against using such
personally offensive references.
On May 10, 1994,(14) in response to frequent remarks
relative to allegations of sexual misconduct by the President, the
Speaker reminded all Members that the rules of comity prevent
discussions of the President's personal character.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 140 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 103d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: (15) Under the Speaker's announced
policy of February 11, 1994, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith)
is recognized during morning business for 5 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Thomas S. Foley (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Lamar S.] Smith of Texas: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago
Newsweek published an article the likes of which I have never seen
before concerning a current President. Titled ``The Politics of
Promiscuity,'' it examines the basic question of President
Clinton's character. . . .
The Newsweek author is not talking about promiscuity's most
common meaning, but its fullest meaning--casual or irregular
behavior. Whether at home or abroad, this kind of careless,
cavalier conduct has been the trademark of this administration. . .
.
President Clinton's financial dealings are a case in point. . .
.
The President has insisted that he lost money on his financial
transactions and he believes that should be the end of the
discussion. . . .
The question is not whether money was made, but why was he
involved in the first place? And the answer is that he had no
business doing business with people whose business it was his
business to regulate.
If this fault were the only lapse--or if the administration's
faults were only lapses--then there would not be such a
[[Page 10658]]
cause for concern. But as the administration's faults continue to
mount and continue to erode America's foundations, it becomes daily
more obvious that they are not lapses. They are not strayings from
a shared path of principles, but a new route of questionable rights
and values altogether. . . .
The Newsweek article observes President Clinton tells his
closest advisers that ``character is a journey, not a
destination.'' Klein writes:
This evolutionary notion of character is something of a
finesse: it can drift from explaining lapses to excusing them.
There is an adolescent, unformed, half-baked quality to it--as
there is to the notion of promiscuity itself: an inability to
settle, to stand, to commit. It will not suffice in a
president. . . .
(Mr. Ballenger asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. [Cass] Ballenger [of North Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, the
President has hired Robert Bennett, the noted defense attorney, to
defend him against charges of sexual harassment.
Can Bennett defend the President against charges of factual
harassment? This is where the President says one thing, but does
another.
His health care plan was supposed to promote health security
for all, but in reality would lower health care quality while
costing a million jobs.
He promised to end welfare as we know it, but if he has a plan
he will not show it. . . .
The Speaker: The Chair wishes to remind Members that comments
regarding the President of the United States are covered by House
rules of comity, and Members should avoid any references to the
President that involve suggestions of a personal character.
The Chair wishes to allow reasonable latitude for debate on
subjects of personal interest and importance, but Members will
observe the rules of comity with regard to the President, Members
of the other body, and their fellow Members.
Parliamentarian's Note: The Speaker, with the concurrence of the
Minority Leader, advised the Parliamentarian that extraneous matter
inserted in the Record should also be perused for conformity with the
Speaker's statement on this matter.
Sec. 47.17 A Member was disciplined for stating that the President had
given ``aid and comfort to the enemy,'' and the Chair indicated
that the Member would not be allowed to speak on the floor of the
House or to insert remarks in the Record in any manner or form for
24 hours.
On Jan. 25, 1995,(16) a Member was disciplined for
remarks relating to the President:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 141 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Mr. Dornan asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. [Robert K.] Dornan [of California]: . . . I was offended by
Clinton's speech last night on 15 points.
[[Page 10659]]
I will do a 5-minute special order tonight I have just signed
up for. I can only mention four.
The first one is new covenant. The Ark of the Covenant was the
Old Covenant. The New Covenant was the Son of God, Jesus Christ. .
. .
No. 2, to put a Medal of Honor winner in the gallery that
joined the Marine Corps at 16, fudging his birth certificate, that
pulled that second grenade under his stomach, miraculously
surviving and saving his four friends, he did that 6 days past his
17th birthday.
Does Clinton think putting a Medal of Honor winner up there is
not going to recall for most of us that he avoided the draft three
times and put teenagers in his place possibly to go to Vietnam?
No. 3, the line on the cold war. . . .
By the way, Mr. Speaker, the second amendment is not for
killing little ducks and leaving Huey and Dewey and Louis without
an aunt and uncle. It is for hunting politicians, like Grozny,
1776, when they take your independence away. . . .
Mr. [Vic] Fazio of California: Mr. Speaker, I move the
gentleman's words be taken down. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (17) All Members will
suspend. The Clerk will report the words spoken by the gentleman. .
. .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. John J. Duncan, Jr. (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Even Andrea Mitchell of NBC took note that [it] is Ronald
Reagan's prerogative, George Bush's and all of us who wore the
uniform or served in a civilian capacity to crush the evil
empire. Clinton gave aid and comfort to the enemy.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: In the opinion of the Chair, that is
not a proper reference to the President. Without objection, the
words are stricken from the Record. . . .
Mr. Fazio of California: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to
object, I think the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan] owes the
entire institution, the Congress, and the President an apology.
Mr. Dornan: Hell no; hell, no. . . .
Unanimous consent to proceed for 15 seconds? . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from California [Mr.
Fazio] has the floor at this moment.
Mr. Fazio of California: I would be happy to yield to my
colleague from California, since I have the time, to hear his
response.
Mr. Dornan: Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Fazio of California: I yield to the gentleman from
California.
Mr. Dornan: To my distinguished friend and colleague, Maj. Earl
Kolbile, Lt. Comdr. J. J. Connell was beaten to death in Hanoi. I
have had friends beaten to death in Hanoi, tortured and beaten. You
have not. . . .
I will not withdraw my remarks. I will not only not apologize.
. . .
Mr. [Harold L.] Volkmer [of Missouri]: I ask that the words of
the gentleman from California be taken down.
Mr. Dornan: Good. I will leave the floor, no apology, and I
will not speak the rest of the day. The truth is the truth.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The House will be in order. The
gentleman's words have already been taken down. . . .
[[Page 10660]]
Mr. Fazio of California: The gentleman is challenging the words
that were uttered in response to my question.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair rules that those words as
follows ``I believe the President did give aid and comfort to the
enemy, Hanoi,'' were also out of order. The Chair has ruled that,
based on the precedents of the House, the words of the gentleman
from California were out of order, and without objection, both sets
of words will be stricken from the Record. . . .
Mr. Fazio of California: I have a parliamentary inquiry of the
Speaker at this point.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his inquiry.
Mr. Fazio of California: When the Speaker rules that the
gentleman should not be allowed to speak for 24 hours, does that
encompass remarks that might be placed in the Record, participation
in special orders, and other activities that might not involve the
gentleman speaking on the floor?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: It is the House's determination as to
whether or not the Member should be allowed to proceed in order for
the remainder of the day. That determination shall not be made by
the Chair.
Mr. Fazio of California: In other words, is the House required
to vote on whether or not remarks should be placed in the Record?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Unparliamentary remarks cannot be
inserted in the Record.
Mr. Fazio of California: But remarks that are not ruled
unparliamentary may be placed in the Record if they are not uttered
on the floor; is that the ruling of the Speaker?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Unparliamentary remarks should not be
inserted in the Record in any manner or form. . . .
Mr. Fazio of California: So in other words, just to confirm the
Speaker's ruling, we will not read or hear from the gentleman from
California [Mr. Dornan] for the next 24 hours; is that correct?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Unless the House permits him to
proceed in order, the gentleman is correct.
Mr. Fazio of California: And for the House to permit that would
require a majority vote?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: It would require either unanimous
consent or a majority vote of the House to permit the gentleman to
proceed in order. . . .
Mr. [David E.] Bonior [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman
from California [Mr. Dornan] is on his feet. Is he not supposed to
remain seated until the determination?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman can either be seated or
leave the Chamber.
Mr. Bonior: He chose to leave the Chamber; OK. . . .
In a further ruling, the Chair stated that the following words were
not unparliamentary:
By the way, Mr. Speaker, the Second Amendment is not for
killing little ducks and leaving Huey, Duey and Louie without
an aunt and uncle. It is for hunting politicians, like Grozny,
1776, when they take your independence away. Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
References to President's Family
Sec. 47.18 In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the
[[Page 10661]]
Speaker advised that it is not in order in debate to refer to the
President in terms personally offensive; but that the traditional
protections (in Jefferson's Manual and the precedents) against
unparliamentary references to the President do not necessarily
extend to members of his family.
On July 12, 1990,(18) after the Chair had exercised his
initiative in cautioning a Member against improper references to
individual Senators, he responded to a parliamentary inquiry regarding
references to the President. The proceedings in the House were as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 136 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 101st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Newt] Gingrich [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, it is outrageous
for the Senate Democratic leader to publicly demand higher taxes
and a massive 25-percent increase in the income tax top rate. The
Senate Democratic leader is threatening to destroy the budget
summit.
Mr. Speaker, Senator Mitchell does not attend summit meetings.
He publicly demands tax increases. Senator Mitchell does not offer
serious budget reforms. He publicly demands tax increases. . . .
The Speaker: (19) The Chair will . . . caution the
gentleman from Georgia that such references to Members of the other
body are not in order. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Thomas S. Foley (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Debate may include references to actions taken by the
Senate or by committees thereof, which are a matter of public
record . . . but may not include other references to individual
Members of the Senate or other quotations from Senate
proceedings.
Mr. Gingrich: Let me then ask the Speaker:
Is the Chair prepared, because there is a similar phrase about
protecting the integrity of the President, is the Chair as prepared
to rule tightly when members of the Democratic Party describe
President Bush and his immediate family? Are we going to have a
standard by which I may not refer to the action of the Democratic
leader in the Senate, which is a public action in a newspaper, but
the members of the Democratic Party may say virtually anything
weakening, and defaming and insulting the President of the United
States? . . .
The Speaker: The Chair will tell the gentleman from Georgia
[Mr. Gingrich] that references to the President of the United
States that are personally offensive references are not permitted
in debate. They are not covered by this particular rule. This rule
reflects upon references to the other body and is in a long
tradition of comity between the two bodies of the Congress. It has
been recently amended to permit references to Senate actions, but
the tradition against making references to individual Senators or
characterizing their activity on or off the floor is against the
rule and traditions of the House. . . .
Mr. Gingrich: . . . I would simply want to serve notice to my
colleagues
[[Page 10662]]
on the Democratic side that we will ask the Chair to be as strict
in protecting the President and his immediate family as the Chair
is legitimately being with respect to the other body.
The Speaker: The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich] has, in
effect, cooperated with the Chair on the matter. . . .
Mr. [Dennis E.] Eckart [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry. . . .
To what extent do the rules of the House extend to individuals
who may be related to public officials.
The Speaker: The traditions only go to the references to
Members of the other body personally or to the President
personally, but do not necessarily go to the matters of the
President's family.
Parliamentarian's Note: In some instances, of course, a particular
criticism of the President's family might constitute a personal affront
to the President himself.
CHAPTER 29
Consideration and Debate
E. RELEVANCY IN DEBATE
Sec. 48. Procedure; Calls to Order
Clause 4 of Rule XIV of the House rules provides a procedure for
dealing with disorderly words or actions by Members:
If any Member, in speaking or otherwise, transgress the rules
of the House, the Speaker shall, or any Member may, call him to
order; in which case he shall immediately sit down, unless
permitted, on motion of another Member, to explain, and the House
shall, if appealed to, decide on the case without debate; if the
decision is in favor of the Member called to order, he shall be at
liberty to proceed, but not otherwise; and, if the case require it,
he shall be liable to censure or such punishment as the House may
deem proper.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. House Rules and Manual Sec. 760 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where the violation of the rules is technical and not willful, a
point of order, rather than a demand that words be taken down, is often
made, and if sustained the Speaker directs the Member who had the floor
to proceed in order.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. See Ch. 31, infra, for points of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where objectionable words are uttered in debate and are called to
the attention of the House, the provisions of the cited rule are
followed explicitly. If a Member demands that the offending words ``be
taken down,'' the Member must take his seat until the words are
reported pursuant to Rule XIV clause 5:
If a Member is called to order for words spoken in debate, the
Member calling him to order shall indicate the words excepted to,
and they shall be taken down in writing at the Clerk's desk and
read aloud to the House; but he shall not be held to answer, nor to
be subject to the censure of the House therefor, if further debate
or other business has intervened.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. House Rules and Manual Sec. 761 (1995).
A Delegate may call a Member to order (2 Hinds' Precedents
Sec. 1295).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 10663]]
As clause 4 of the rule indicates, the Speaker may on his own
initiative call a Member to order for words spoken in debate or for
other acts of disorder and has so done on occasion; (4) and
where a Member has persisted in speaking when not recognized and in
spite of repeated calls to order, the Speaker has ordered his
microphone turned off.(5) The Speaker has an affirmative
duty to call a Member to order for referring, in violation of the
rules, to individual Senators or to proceedings of the
Senate.(6) If the words used in debate refer critically to
the Speaker and are taken down, the Speaker leaves the chair after
appointing another Member to preside for the purpose of ruling on the
words objected to.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. See, for example, Sec. Sec. 48.1, 48.2, 48.5-48.7, 48.9, 48.10,
infra.
5. See Sec. 48.20, infra.
6. See Sec. 48.3, infra.
``[I]t is the duty of the House, and more particularly of
the Speaker, to interfere immediately, and not to permit
expressions to go unnoticed which may give a ground of
complaint to the other House. . . .'' Jefferson's Manual, House
Rules and Manual Sec. 374 (1995).
For announcements by the Chair stating his intention to
strictly enforce the rule of comity, see Sec. 44.8, supra.
7. See Sec. 48.11, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the demand to take down words spoken in debate must come
immediately after the words are uttered,(8) a question of
privilege based upon such words may not be raised at a subsequent
time.(9) But the insertion of objectionable words in the
Congressional Record by a Member, either under leave to revise and
extend, or without such leave, will support a question of
privilege.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. See Sec. 49, infra.
9. See Sec. Sec. 48.14, 48.15, infra.
10. See Sec. 48.16, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where objectionable words are uttered in the Committee of the
Whole, a demand must be made to take them down, the Committee rises,
and the words are reported by the Clerk for a ruling by the Speaker.
After the House determines whether to expunge offensive words from the
Record, and whether to permit an offending Member to proceed in order,
the Committee then resumes sitting without motion.(11) House
action is strictly limited to the words reported from the
Committee,(12) and the Speaker will not entertain a request
that further words spoken in the Committee be taken
down.(13) The Committee of the Whole can take no action on
[[Page 10664]]
objectionable words, such as expungement from the
Record,(14) but both the objectionable words and the demand
that words be taken down may be withdrawn in the
Committee.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See Sec. 49.42, infra.
12. See Sec. 50.10, infra.
13. See Sec. 49.39, infra.
14. See Sec. 49.16, infra.
15. See Sec. 49.27, infra (demand may be withdrawn without unanimous
consent) and Sec. 49.31, infra (objectionable words may be
withdrawn by unanimous consent).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following is the order of precedence of motions if words are
sought to be ruled out of order in the House: (1) under Rule XIV clause
4, before the Speaker rules, a motion to explain is in order and is
preferential; (2) when the Speaker rules, any appeal from the ruling
must come immediately and is not debatable; (3) after the ruling, a
motion to strike or expunge from the Record has priority, since
permitting a motion to explain at that stage would undermine the
Speaker's ruling and a possible appeal; the motion to strike is
debatable and the previous question should be moved; (4) a motion to
permit the offending Member to proceed in order is debatable and the
previous question should be moved, but the motion should be made so
that the Member is not prohibited from speaking for the remainder of
the day.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See Sec. 52, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forms
Form of call to order in the House.
The Speaker: For what purpose does the gentleman rise?
Member: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state his point of order.
Member: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the
gentleman from [State] is . . . .
The Speaker: The point is well taken and the gentleman will
proceed in order.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Cannon's Procedure of the House of Representatives, 75, H. Doc. No.
122, 86th Cong. 1st Sess. (1959).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross References
Call to order for disorderly acts, see Sec. 43, supra.
Call to order may take Member off the floor, see Sec. 33, supra.
Chairman's role in maintaining order in the Committee of the Whole, see
Ch. 19, supra.
Clerk maintains order before election of Speaker, see Ch. 1, supra.
Expungement and deletion of matter from the Congressional Record
generally, see Ch. 5, supra.
Member persisting in irrelevant debate may be required to take his
seat, see Sec. 37, supra.
Punishment for acts by Members, see Ch. 12, supra.
Recognition for points of order, see Sec. 20, supra.
Collateral References
Call to order in the Senate, see Riddick/Frumin, Senate Procedure, S.
Doc. No. 101-28, 101st Cong. 2d Sess. (1992).
[[Page 10665]]
-------------------Authority of Speaker or
Chairman
Sec. 48.1 The Speaker, observing that debate is becoming personal and
approaching a violation of the rules, may request Members to
proceed in order.
On June 23, 1964,(18) Speaker John W. McCormack, of
Massachusetts, intervened during debate in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 110 Cong. Rec. 14717, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: The gentleman had better stop
right there, or I will have his words taken down, because I am not
the head of two national banks. We do not have two charters. You
had better either stick to the facts, or you will stop talking; one
or the other.
Mr. [Wright] Patman [of Texas]: If the gentleman will retract
his own words, I cannot help that.
The Speaker: The gentleman will suspend. Both gentlemen will
suspend.
Mr. Hays: Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Patman: I will not yield until I finish my statement.
The Speaker: The Chair suggests that the rules are established
as the law of the House and the Chair is not passing at this time
on any question in connection with the rules, but the Chair
suggests that there has been a very close approach in more than one
way or two ways to a violation of the rules. The Chair suggests
that the gentleman from Texas proceed in order and, if he yields,
that the gentleman from Ohio make his observations in order.
Sec. 48.2 The Speaker may call a Member to order for words spoken in
debate.
On Jan. 12, 1961,(19) when Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa,
referred in debate to the ``so-called painless method of packing the
Rules Committee,'' Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, called him to order
on his own initiative and ruled the language out of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 107 Cong. Rec. 650, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 48.3 It is the duty of the Chair to interrupt a Member in debate
when the Member proposes to refer to the opinions or statements of
Senators or to Senate proceedings.
On May 25, 1937,(20) when a Member proposed to read a
letter from a member of the Senate on the floor of the House, Chairman
John J. O'Connor, of New York, on his own responsibility made a point
of order against the reading of the letter from a member of the other
body.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 81 Cong. Rec. 5013, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, on Apr. 18, 1939,(1) when a Member referred
to the
[[Page 10666]]
action of the Senate on a particular appropriation bill then before the
House, Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, stated as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 84 Cong. Rec. 4404, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair desires to call the attention of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania to the fact that under the rules of the House he is
not permitted to refer to any action taken in the Senate of the
United States.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. The Chair also intervenes on his own initiative to prevent
reference to gallery occupants (see Sec. 45, supra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chair May Take Initiative
Sec. 48.4 The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole called the
Committee to order and stated that he would not hesitate to call
Members to order by name if order was not promptly established.
During consideration of House Concurrent Resolution 307 (first
concurrent resolution on the congressional budget for fiscal years
1981, 1982 and 1983) in the Committee of the Whole on Apr. 30,
1980,(3) the Chair made a statement, as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 126 Cong. Rec. 9471, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John W.] Wydler [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the
point of order that the Committee is not in order.
The Chairman: (4) Permit the Chair to say that he
believes that every Member has a right to be heard in the Committee
of the Whole. It is not a matter of the Chair desiring order. It is
a matter of Members deserving order so that there can be a
reasonable procedure; and the Chair proposes to see to it that each
Member is given an opportunity to express himself. It will be a
great deal easier for everybody if the Committee comes to order a
little bit more quickly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair will conclude by saying he does not hesitate to call
names if he must.
Sec. 48.5 The Chair may take the initiative to enforce the prohibition
in clause 1 of Rule XIV against Members engaging in personalities
during debate and call to order a Member alleging that an
identifiable group of sitting Members have committed a crime.
During proceedings in the House on Mar. 21, 1989,(5)
Speaker James C. Wright, Jr., of Texas, exercised his prerogative under
Rule XIV, clause 1, in calling a Member to order for use of
personalities in debate. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 135 Cong. Rec. 5016, 5017, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker,
bipartisanship
[[Page 10667]]
in the House has taken a curious twist. It now appears that the
Democrat leadership is attempting to influence and interfere in the
race for Republican whip. . . .
To those Democrats who have been a part of trying to influence
the outcome of this election, let it be noted that the last time
you played this game, you stole the Indiana seat from the
Republican Party. That outrage and this one tell us more than we
need to know about your definition of bipartisanship.
The Speaker: The gentleman is not proceeding in a parliamentary
manner. He used the word ``stole.'' His accusation that Members of
the House stole an election is improper, and the gentleman realizes
that. . . .
The gentleman is engaging in personalities and when he uses
words like the word ``stole'' with reference to an identifiable
group of Members, that has been held improper.
Sec. 48.6 Instance where the Speaker ignored the demand that words be
taken down and exercised his initiative to caution the offending
Member.
On July 12, 1990,(6) it was demonstrated that the range
of permissible references to the Senate in debate does not extend to
the opinions or policy positions of individual Senators. The
proceedings in the House were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 136 Cong. Rec. ____, 101st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Mr. Gingrich asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. [Newt] Gingrich [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, it is outrageous
for the Senate Democratic leader to publicly demand higher taxes
and a massive 25-percent increase in the income tax top rate. The
Senate Democratic leader is threatening to destroy the budget
summit.
Mr. Speaker, Senator Mitchell does not attend summit meetings.
He publicly demands tax increases. Senator Mitchell does not offer
serious budget reforms. He publicly demands tax increases. Senator
Mitchell does not offer spending cuts.
Mr. [Harold L.] Volkmer [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I ask that
the words of the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich] be taken
down.
The Speaker: (7) The Chair will merely caution the
gentleman from Georgia that such references to members of the other
body are not in order. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Thomas S. Foley (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Gingrich: I would inquire of the Speaker, if it is in
reference to a public newspaper account of public activity by a
political leader, and I believe in this House we have a remarkably
wide range of free speech, and this is not a reference to any
action by the Senator of Maine in the Senate.
The Speaker: Under clause 1, rule XIV, it is an improper
reference to a Member of the other body.
The Chair would ask the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich]
to observe the traditions of the House.
[[Page 10668]]
Speaker Sometimes Takes Initiative Where Improper Remarks Are Uttered
Sec. 48.7 The Speaker cautioned a Member that it is a breach of order
under clause 1 of Rule XIV to allege in debate that a Member has
engaged in conduct similar to the subject of a complaint pending
before the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct against
another Member; and under clause 4 of that rule, the Chair takes
the initiative in calling to order Members improperly engaging in
personalities in debate.
Speaker Pro Tempore G. V. (Sonny) Montgomery, of Mississippi,
called a Member to order in the House on Mar. 22, 1989,(8)
as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 135 Cong. Rec. 5130, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Mr. Alexander asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks and to include extraneous material.)
Mr. [Bill] Alexander [of Arkansas]: Mr. Speaker, after arriving
at the Capitol a few minutes ago on this glorious spring day, I
learned that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have
conducted an election for minority whip resulting in the election
of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich) as minority whip. . .
.
I would note to those who are observing that the gentleman from
Georgia made his name, so to speak, by a sustained personal attack
on the good name of Jim Wright, the Speaker of the House of
Representatives who has devoted decades of meritorious service to
our country. The gentleman from Georgia alleged that the Speaker
has circumvented minimum income limits of Members of Congress by
writing a book for which he received a royalty.
Now, it is also to be noted that just this week it was learned
that the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich) also allegedly has a
book deal. It is alleged in the Washington Post this week that the
gentleman from Georgia received a royalty or a payment in the
nature of a royalty. This is apparently similar to the Wright
arrangement which is the basis of the gentleman from Georgia's
complaint before the Ethics Committee.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would state to the gentleman
that he cannot make personal references, as the gentleman has done
in his remarks.
Sec. 48.8 The Chair enforces section 364 of Jefferson's Manual by
admonishing Members who attempt to disturb Members who are
addressing the House by conversing with them.
In the proceedings of Feb. 21, 1984,(9) the Chair sought
to preserve order by admonishing Mem
[[Page 10669]]
bers not to converse with a Member attempting to address the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 130 Cong. Rec. 2758, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker Pro Tempore:(10) The House will be in
order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair would like to suggest that the rules of the House
prohibit the engagement of private conversation with someone who is
in the process of speaking or has just concluded speaking and would
ask the gentleman on his left and the gentleman on his right to
extend to one another the courtesies commonly expected of Members
of the House.
Sec. 48.9 Where a Member transgresses clause 1 of Rule XIV by engaging
in personalities in debate, and discusses behavior of a Member
where a complaint has been filed with the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct concerning that conduct, the Chair takes the
initiative to call him to order pursuant to clause 4 of Rule XIV.
On Nov. 3, 1989,(11) the following proceedings occurred
in
the House during a special-order speech:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 135 Cong. Rec. 27077, 27082, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker Pro Tempore:(12) Under a previous order
of the House,
the gentleman from California [Mr. Dannemeyer] is recognized for 60
minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Jolene Unsoeld (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [William E.] Dannemeyer [of California]: . . . I want to
make clear to my colleagues that at the appropriate time in the
near future, I will offer a resolution, in one form or another, to
expel [two Members specified]. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will pause. The
gentleman is discussing a matter pending before the Ethics
Committee. I would remind the gentleman from California that clause
1 of rule XIV prevents Members in debate from engaging in
personalities. Clause 4 of that rule provides that if any member
transgresses the rules of the House, the Speaker shall, or any
Member may, call him to order.
The gentleman may proceed within the rules of the House.
Mr. Dannemeyer: . . . George Washington Law Professor John
Banzhaf has done extensive research on a case of Member ``X.'' He
concludes that Member ``X'' has publicly admitted to committing
crimes, and a refusal to take any action would undermine the
public's confidence in the mechanism set up to ensure that Members
of Congress abide by ethical and moral standards at least as high
as those to which we currently hold attorneys, cadets at the
Nation's military academies, high military officials, and even
school principals.
Indeed, since the prostitute was prosecuted and convicted for
sodomy and his school principal lover was forced to resign, a
failure to take any action against a Congressman who commits the
same crimes would lead
[[Page 10670]]
people to believe that lesser rather than stricter standards were
being applied.
The Boston Globe wrote, ``Were Member X's transgressions
serious enough to warrant his departure from Congress? Yes. For his
own good and for the good of his constituents, his causes and
Congress''----
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will cease. The Chair
would remind the gentleman, and will repeat again, and will read
the Speaker's full statement, clause 1 of rule XIV prevents Members
in debate from engaging in personalities. Clause 4 of that rule
provides that if any Member transgresses the rules of the House,
the Speaker shall, or any Member may, call him to order. Members
may recall that on December 18, 1987, the Chair enunciated the
standard that debate would not be proper if it attempted to focus
on the conduct of a Member about whom a report had been filed by
the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct or whose conduct was
not the subject of a privileged matter then pending before the
House. Similarly, the Chair would suggest that debate is not proper
which speculates on the motivations of a Member who may have filed
a complaint before the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
against another Member.
Mr. Dannemeyer: Madam Speaker, I have no longer made reference
to a specific Member. I have merely made reference to ``Member X.''
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is referring to
newspaper stories which specifically names Members.
Sec. 48.10 Where a Member transgresses clause 1 of Rule XIV, by
engaging in personalities in debate (as by discussing the facts
surrounding a disciplinary resolution then pending on the House
Calendar), the Chair takes the initiative to call him to order
pursuant to clause 4 of Rule XIV.
On July 24, 1990,(13) the following proceedings occurred
in
the House during a special-order speech:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 136 Cong. Rec. ____, 101st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (14) Un-der a previous
order of the House, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dannemeyer]
is recognized for 60 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Timothy J. Penny (Minn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [William E.] Dannemeyer [of California]: Mr. Speaker and
Members, I have taken this special order this evening for the
purpose of talking to my colleagues about the matter that will be
coming up on the floor of the House for consideration, probably
sometime this week, dealing with our colleague, the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank]. The House Ethics Committee submitted a
report on July 20, which was just last Friday and that report has
now been printed in the Record, and I will make reference to it as
I discuss this issue. . . .
I would like briefly to discuss the issue of what was contained
in the Ethics Committee report to the House on July 20. I believe
that the newspaper accounts of the conduct of Mr. Frank are quite
well-known to all of
[[Page 10671]]
us, but I think it is also appropriate that some discussion be made
so that we have the issue before us.
Beginning sometime in 1985, believed to be around April of that
year, at least in the statement of----
The Speaker Pro Tempore: If the gentleman from California [Mr.
Dannemeyer] will suspend for a moment, at this point the Chair
would caution all Members that it is not in order in debate to
engage in personalities. Members should refrain from references in
debate to the conduct of other Members, where such conduct is not
the subject then pending before the House as a question of the
privileges of the House.
When a privileged resolution is offered, it would be
appropriate for any Member then to discuss the details of the case.
At this point, it would be inappropriate.
Mr. Dannemeyer: Do I understand the Speaker to say that it
would be inappropriate for me to discuss the details of the report
that has been filed?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: It would be inappropriate to discuss
the conduct of other Members, where such conduct is not the subject
then pending before the House as a question of privilege.
Mr. Dannemeyer: Well, if I may inquire of the Speaker, the
report of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct was filed
July 20. It describes in detail the items that I feel like I am in
a position to discuss at this time, by virtue of the fact that this
report is now part of the public record.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The report has been filed. The report
is not the pending business.
Parliamentarian's Note: It is not in order in debate to refer to
the official conduct of a Member where such conduct is not the
subject then pending before the House by way of a report of the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct or as a question of the
privileges of the House. Moreover, it is the consideration of a
disciplinary resolution, not the filing of a report thereon, that is
the condition for debate on the conduct of the Member concerned. Any
discussion of a Member's conduct should be considered as dealing in
``personality'' unless the conduct is the subject of the business then
pending before the House. When the conduct is the pending business of
the House,
its relevance under the Constitutional prerogative of the House to
punish its Members for disorderly behavior supersedes the prohibition
against ``personality'' in debate and its probative value outweighs its
tendency to impair
decorum. The only other permissible debate of a Member's conduct would
be in the context of debate on another Member's conduct, by way of
comparison of contemplated punishments, but within narrower limits than
if the conduct being debated were the Member's own in the context of a
disciplinary resolution relating to him.
[[Page 10672]]
Where Objectionable Words Impugn the Speaker
Sec. 48.11 Where words used in debate have affected the Speaker and
have been taken down, the Speaker has left the Chair after
designating another Member to preside.
On Feb. 7, 1935,(15) and on May 31, 1934,(16)
when words were used in debate impugning the integrity of the Speaker,
the Speaker left the Chair after designating another Member to preside
and to rule on the words objected to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 79 Cong. Rec. 1680, 1681, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
16. 78 Cong. Rec. 10167-70, 73d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Procedure In the House
Sec. 48.12 The only method by which the words of the Member having the
floor may be challenged is through a demand that his words be taken
down.
The following proceedings occurred in the House on June 4,
1984,(17) during consideration of the Oregon Wilderness Act
of 1983 (H.R. 1149):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 130 Cong. Rec. 14805, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Les] AuCoin [of Oregon]: . . . The House has had its
opportunity to work its will. The only thing that would be gained
now by not voting for this bill as it is would be to delay a final
resolution, pushing it off further down the road . . . running this
issue up against all the other issues that the Congress is going to
be dealing with in its rush toward adjournment and that will
guarantee the doom of this bill.
Obviously, no responsible person on either side of this issue
wants such a thing to happen.
Mr. [Don] Young of Alaska: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
The Speaker Pro Tempore:(18) The gentleman will
state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Young of Alaska: Mr. Speaker, I would like to suggest that
the gentleman not use the term ``no responsible person.''
Both Members from Oregon are very responsible members of the
committee that I am ranking member of, and I consider my
responsibility very seriously and to say that we are not
responsible because we are in opposition to this bill is incorrect.
I would respectfully suggest that the gentleman reconsider his
words.
Mr. AuCoin: Mr. Speaker, this gentleman said that no
responsible person wants to see a resolution of this bill delayed
to such a date in which no passage of the bill dealing with the
Oregon RARE II problem would be possible. . . .
I assume it applies to the gentleman from Alaska. I think he is
responsible. I do not think he wants to see a resolution of this
bill delayed.
Mr. Young of Alaska: The bill is basically wrong. I rose
against the bill
[[Page 10673]]
and to allude to the fact that we are irresponsible does not become
the gentleman at all. That disturbs me a great deal. . . .
So I would suggest again to the gentleman to choose his words
very carefully.
Mr. AuCoin: Mr. Speaker, what is the regular order?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman may proceed. The
gentleman has not asked the words be taken down. The gentleman may
proceed.
--Where Member Has Breached Rules of Decorum
Sec. 48.13 Upon a timely demand that words spoken in debate be taken
down as unparliamentary, the Chair gavels the proceedings to a
halt, directs the challenged Member to be seated under clause 4 of
Rule XIV and directs the Clerk to report the words; but, while a
Member who is held to have breached the rules of decorum in debate
is presumptively disabled from further recognition on that day, by
tradition the Speaker's ruling and any necessary expungement of the
Record are deemed sufficient sanction, and by custom the chastened
Member is permitted to proceed in order (usually by unanimous
consent).
The proceedings of July 29, 1994,(19) demonstrate
procedures following a demand that the words be taken down:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 140 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 103d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. [Maxine] Waters [of California]: Madam Speaker, last
evening a Member of this House, Peter King, had to be gaveled out
of order at the Whitewater hearings of the Banking Committee. He
had to be gaveled out of order because he badgered a woman who was
a witness from the White House, Maggie Williams. I am pleased I was
able to come to her defense. Madam Speaker, the day is over
when men can badger and intimidate women.
Mr. [F. James] Sensenbrenner [Jr., of Wisconsin]: Madam
Speaker, I demand the gentlewoman's words be taken down.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (1) The gentlewoman from
California [Ms. Waters] must suspend and be seated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Carrie Meek (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk will report the words.
Ms. Waters:----
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentlewoman will please desist and
take her seat.
Ms. Waters:----
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is about to direct the
Sergeant at Arms to present the mace.
The Speaker:(2) The Clerk will report the words.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Thomas S. Foley (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
He had to be gaveled out of order because he badgered a
woman who
[[Page 10674]]
was a witness from the White House, Maggie Williams. I am
pleased I was able to come to her defense. Madam Chairwoman,
the day is over when men can badger and intimidate women.
The Speaker: While in the opinion of the Chair the word
``badgering'' is not in itself unparliamentary, the Chair believes
that the demeanor of the gentlewoman from California was not in
good order in the subsequent period immediately following those
words having been uttered.
Accordingly, the Chair rules that without leave of the House,
the gentlewoman from California may not proceed for the rest of
today. . . . The Chair wishes to advise the gentlewoman from
Colorado that it is the opinion of the Chair that the Chair at the
time was attempting to insist that the gentlewoman from California
desist with any further statements and sit down. She did not accord
cooperation to the Chair and follow the Chair's instructions.
Consequently, it is the finding of the Chair that her demeanor at
that point in refusing to accept the Chair's instructions was out
of order.
The Chair wishes to ask if there is objection to the
gentlewoman from California proceeding in good order.
Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Reserving the right
to object, Mr. Speaker, do I understand that the Chair is putting
the question to the House under unanimous consent of the
gentlewoman being able to proceed for the rest of the day?
The Speaker: That is correct.
Mr. Walker: I thank the Chair.
The Speaker: Without objection, so ordered.
There was no objection.
--Raising Question of Personal Privilege
Sec. 48.14 A question of personal privilege may not normally be based
upon language uttered on the floor of the House in debate, the
proper course being the demand that words be taken down before
other debate on business intervenes.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 95 Cong. Rec. 2651, 2652, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 16, 1949; 93
Cong. Rec. 2314, 80th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 20, 1947; 92 Cong.
Rec. 5000, 79th Cong. 2d Sess., May 14, 1946; 84 Cong. Rec.
2883, 2884, 76th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 16, 1939; and 81 Cong.
Rec. 6309, 6310, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., June 24, 1937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 7, 1935,(4) Mr. Jennings Randolph, of West
Virginia, arose to a question of personal privilege, resulting in the
following ruling:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 79 Cong. Rec. 8864, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Randolph: I wish to answer certain remarks made yesterday
by the gentleman from Texas referring to testimony I gave in the
district court on two occasions, and also his comment upon my
service in the Congress.
The Speaker: (5) In the opinion of the Chair it is
not in order to rise to a question of personal privilege based on
matters uttered in debate on the floor of the House. The proper
course to be
[[Page 10675]]
pursued under such circumstances is to demand that the
objectionable words be taken down.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair does not think the gentleman can rise to a question
of personal privilege under the circumstances.
Sec. 48.15 A Member may rise neither to a question of personal
privilege nor to a question of privilege of the House based on
words uttered in debate on the floor of the House.
On Feb. 6, 1950,(6) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan,
arose to state a ``question of the privilege of the House and also a
question of personal privilege.'' He based his question on a one-minute
speech made on the floor of the House on Feb. 2, 1950, by Mr. Anthony
Cavalcante, of Pennsylvania, wherein reflections were cast ``upon the
House as a whole,'' upon ``more than two-thirds of the Members of the
House,'' upon an individual Member of the House, and upon a member of
``the other body.'' Mr. Hoffman then introduced a resolution to strike
the allegedly objectionable words from the Congressional Record of Feb.
2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 96 Cong. Rec. 1514, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, stated his opinion that a question
of privilege coming several days after objectionable words were uttered
was improper and impracticable. Mr. Hoffman responded that although the
words were uttered on the floor and that he was present in the Chamber
at the time, he had not heard all the words spoken. He stated that
there were precedents to the effect that a point of order need not
necessarily be made at the time the words were uttered.
Speaker Rayburn ruled as follows:
The Chair will read the rule:
If a Member is called to order for words spoken in debate,
the Member calling him to order shall indicate the words
excepted to, and they shall be taken down in writing at the
Clerk's desk and read aloud to the House; but he shall not be
held to answer, nor be subject to the censure of the House
therefore, if further debate or other business has
intervened.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Rule XIV clause 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. 761 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair, in the interest of orderly procedure, is forced to
hold that after the Journal has been read and approved and the
Record read and approved, it would be bad practice to go back and
open it up.
Parliamentarian's Note: Under normal practice, the only situation
where a question of personal privilege can be raised for objectionable
words after intervening debate is where the words are in
[[Page 10676]]
serted, not spoken, and appear in the Record or under Extensions of
Remarks.
Sec. 48.16 A question of personal privilege may be based upon
unparliamentary language inserted by a Member in his speech under
leave to revise and extend his remarks.
On June 24, 1937,(8) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan,
arose to a question of personal privilege. He based his question on
remarks printed in the Congressional Record of June 22, 1937, made by
Mr. Adolph J. Sabath, of Illinois, and Mr. Maury Maverick, of Texas.
Mr. Maverick's remarks had been uttered on the floor in debate, but Mr.
Sabath's remarks had not been made on the floor but inserted in the
Record under leave to revise and extend.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 81 Cong. Rec. 6309, 6310, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, stated that in his opinion
Mr. Hoffman could not base a question of personal privilege on remarks
which had been uttered on the floor in debate.
As to the remarks inserted in the Record by Mr. Sabath, the Speaker
stated as follows:
If, as a matter of fact, the gentleman from Illinois inserted
in the Record matters not actually stated by him upon the floor at
the time which gave offense to the gentleman from Michigan, it was
then the privilege of the gentleman from Michigan to raise that
question, as he has now raised it, as a matter of personal
privilege when his attention was called to the offending language.
In view of the fact that the gentleman from Illinois has undertaken
to make an explanation of the matter and has offered to move to
have the offending language stricken from the Record, does the
gentleman still insist on the matter of personal privilege? . . .
The gentleman would, if he insisted, after the ruling of the
Chair on the second point of order involving the language of the
gentleman from Illinois, be entitled to discuss that matter.
Sec. 48.17 Words spoken in the Committee of the Whole may be taken down
and ruled on in the House by the Speaker, but they do not give rise
to a question of personal privilege.
On Mar. 16, 1949,(9) while the Committee of the Whole
was considering Senate Joint Resolution 36, authorizing a contribution
by the United States for the relief
of Palestine refugees, Mr. John
W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, stated in reference to Mr. John E.
Rankin, of Mississippi, ``Before Pearl Harbor the gentleman was opposed
to every bill necessary for
[[Page 10677]]
the defense of our country.'' The words were demanded to be taken down,
the Committee rose, and Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled that the
language objected to was merely an opinion and not a violation of the
rules of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 95 Cong. Rec. 2651, 2652, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee resumed its sitting, and Mr. McCormack proceeded in
debate. Mr. Rankin then arose to a question of personal privilege.
Chairman John J. Rooney, of New York, ruled as follows:
Such a point may not be raised in the Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Rankin: Oh, yes; where the offense is committed in the
Committee of the Whole, it is in order.
The Chairman: The proper remedy is to have the words taken
down.
Mr. Rankin: The words have been taken down and were read by the
Clerk.
The Chairman: I may say to the gentleman from Mississippi that
the Speaker of the House has already ruled on that.
Sec. 48.18 Where a Member attempted to raise a question of personal
privilege based on objectionable words spoken in debate, the
Speaker, while declining to rule on the question presented,
recognized him for a one-minute speech to reply to the derogatory
remarks.
On Oct. 15, 1969,(10) Mr. William E. Brock, 3d, of
Tennessee, made the following one-minute speech in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 115 Cong. Rec. 30080, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Speaker, most of us heard last evening a great plea for
honest debate, for free and open discussion of the issues of the
tragedy of Vietnam. That debate went on for 5 hours.
Now, today, we have witnessed a turn. Those who spoke so
eloquently for freedom and full debate now object to the
consideration of a resolution which endorses the right of dissent
in this country. I think it is typical of the double standard that
is applied in this country by those elements who are so critical of
an honest effort of a great Nation to achieve a lasting peace.
Mr. Arnold Olsen, of Montana, then rose to a point of privilege:
Mr. Speaker, my point of personal privilege is the attack just
made from the well of the House on the loyalty of so many of us and
the right of free speech in this country.
Mr. Speaker, I think that address is entitled to a response of
1 minute.
Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, did not rule on
whether a question of personal privilege was presented, but granted Mr.
Olsen ``under the circumstances'' the right to make a one-minute speech
in reply to Mr. Brock's remarks.
[[Page 10678]]
Interrupting Member Who Declines To Yield; Deleting Remarks of Member
Not Recognized
Sec. 48.19 A Member wishing to interrupt another in debate should
address the Chair for permission of the Member speaking who may
exercise his own discretion as to whether or not to yield; the
Chair will take the initiative in preserving order when a Member
declining to yield in debate continues to be interrupted by another
Member, and may order that the remarks of the Member interrupting
not appear in the Record.
On July 26, 1984,(11) the Committee of the Whole had
under consideration H.R. 11, the Education Amendments of 1984. Mr.
Robert S. Walker, of Pennsylvania, who was discussing prayer in
schools, was interrupted by George Miller, of California, who was
reading passages aloud from the Bible for purposes of demonstrating his
argument that the right to pray is not absolute:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 130 Cong. Rec. 21247, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Walker: . . . It has been referred to by many people on the
floor today that they know of no situation in the country where
silent prayer has ever been ruled out of order by the courts. That
is wrong.
I have here an article before me from CQ in which it says that
in Alabama the silent prayer in Alabama was ruled out of order by
the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. . . .
[Mr. Miller of California proceeded to read from the Bible at
this point.]
The Chairman Pro Tempore: (12) The gentleman will
suspend. The gentleman from California will suspend. The gentleman
is out of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Abraham Kazen, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Miller of California: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to
raise the point----
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman is out of order.
Mr. Walker: Mr. Chairman, I have not yielded to the gentleman.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman has not yielded.
The gentleman's words when he spoke in the well without getting
the permission of the Member who had the floor will not appear in
the Record.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania may proceed. . . .
Mr. Walker: . . . I must say that the gentleman reading from
the Holy Bible in the course of the discussion here I think is
somewhat inappropriate. It was far more appropriate in the course
of political debate; it was far more appropriate than the so-called
prayer uttered earlier by the gentleman from New York.
Mr. Miller of California: Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman
yield?
Mr. Walker: I would be glad to yield to the gentleman.
[[Page 10679]]
Mr. Miller of California: I think the point is this: That
suggesting that this is an absolute right and that in fact to try
to prescribe it, whether it is audible, whether it is oral, whether
it is loud, whether it is soft, whether it is silent, is a point of
real contention, because it is not an absolute right, as the
gentleman suggests.
We just saw the rules of the House work against that right. The
gentleman raised the point earlier about a teacher----
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The time of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania has expired.
In the House; Turning Off Microphone as Way To Preserve Order
Sec. 48.20 The rules which direct the Speaker to preserve order and
decorum in the House authorize the Chair to take necessary steps to
prevent or curtail disorderly outbursts by Members; thus, for
example, the Chair may order the microphones turned off if being
utilized by a Member, who has not been properly recognized, to
engage in disorderly behavior.
On Mar. 16, 1988,(13) during the period for one-minute
speeches in the House, it was demonstrated that, where a Member has
been notified by the Chair that his debate time has expired, he is
thereby denied further recognition in the absence of the permission of
the House to proceed, and he has no right to further address the House
after that time. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 134 Cong. Rec. 4079, 4084, 4085, 100th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Mr. Dornan of California asked and was given permission to
address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. [Robert K.] Dornan of California: Mr. Speaker, and I
address a different Member of this Chamber from New York, because
you have left your chair, and Mr. Majority Whip from California,
you have also fled the floor. In 10 years Jim and Tony--I am not
using any traditional titles like ``distinguished gentleman''--Jim
and Tony, in 10 years I have never heard on this floor so obnoxious
a statement as I heard from Mr. Coelho, which means ``rabbit'' in
Portuguese, as ugly a statement as was just delivered. Mr. Coelho
said that we on our side of the aisle and those conservative
Democrats, particularly those representing States which border the
Gulf of Mexico, sold out the Contras. That is absurd. . . . Panama
is in chaos and Communists in Nicaragua, thanks to the liberal and
radical left leadership in this House are winning a major victory,
right now.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (14) The time of the
gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan] has expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Gary L. Ackerman (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Dornan of California: Wait a minute. On Honduran soil and
on Nicaraguan soil.
[[Page 10680]]
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Dornan of California: And it was set up in this House as
you set up the betrayal of the Bay of Pigs.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Dornan of California: I ask--wait a minute--I ask unanimous
consent for 30 seconds. People are dying.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Dornan of California: People are dying.
Mr. [Harold L.] Volkmer [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, regular
order, regular order.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The time of the gentleman has expired.
Will the Sergeant at Arms please turn off the microphone?
Mr. Dornan of California: . . . I demand a Contra vote on aid
to the Democratic Resistance and the freedom fighters in Central
America. In the name of God and liberty and decency I demand
another vote in this Chamber next week. . . .
Mr. [Judd] Gregg [of New Hampshire]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry. . . .
Mr. Speaker, I was just in my office viewing the proceedings
here, and during one of the proceedings, when the gentleman from
California [Mr. Dornan] was addressing the House, it was drawn to
my attention that the Speaker requested that Mr. Dornan's
microphone be turned off, upon which Mr. Dornan's microphone was
turned off.
Mr. Speaker, my inquiry of the Chair is: Under what rule does
the Speaker decide to gag opposite Members of the House? . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is referring to Mr. Dornan.
He requested permission of the Chair to proceed for 1 minute, and
that permission was granted by the House. Mr. Dornan grossly
exceeded the limits and abused the privilege far in excess of 1
minute, and the Chair proceeded to restore order and decorum to the
House. . . .
Mr. Gregg: . . . I have not heard the Chair respond to my
inquiry which is what ruling is the Chair referring to which allows
him to turn off the microphone of a Member who has the floor?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Clause 2 of rule I.
Mr. Gregg: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that that rule be read. I
would ask that that rule be read, Mr. Speaker. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: It reads, 2. He shall preserve order
and decorum, and, in case of disturbance or disorderly conduct in
the galleries, or in the lobby, may cause the same to be cleared. .
. .
Mrs. [Lynn] Martin of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry. . . .
The gentlewoman from Illinois would inquire of the Chair,
because it was difficult occasionally to hear the rather strained
ruling from the Chair, when I heard the Chair read from the rule,
and I hope the Chair will recheck that sentence, because the Chair
talked about disturbances in the gallery and disturbances outside
the floor of the House.
Would the Speaker reread the exact sentence that would indicate
why and how a microphone could be turned off of a duly elected
Member of the House on the floor of the House? . . .
[[Page 10681]]
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Under rule I, clause 2--and I will
only read the half of it that applies, so as not to cause confusion
in the minds of those who appear to be confused--``He shall
preserve order and decorum.''
Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, the
sentence goes on.
Mrs. Martin of Illinois: I believe, Mr. Speaker, that you have
been requested specifically to quote that rule that affects a
Member of the House on the floor, and that is not that sentence. .
. . The Chair is not saying that a Member of the House, is subject
to the same rule, even though it does not state it, as applied to
the gallery, will apply to Members of the House. I do not believe
that that can happen in an elected representative body.
Mr. Speaker, would the Chair please quote how it affects an
elected Member speaking on the floor?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will read just what he read
before.
``He shall preserve order and decorum, and,--'' Then it
proceeds to speak about in another place.
``Order and decorum is not just in the halls and in the
galleries. The word ``and'' is followed by a comma.
Parliamentarian's Note: Clause 4 of Rule XIV (15) is, of
course, also applicable in situations such as that described above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 760 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Procedure Before Adoption of Rules
Sec. 48.21 Prior to adoption of the rules, the Speaker suggested that,
if necessary, he might maintain decorum by directing a Member who
had not been recognized in debate beyond an allotted time to be
removed from the well, and by directing the Sergeant at Arms to
present the mace as the traditional symbol of order.
The following exchange occurred on Jan. 3, 1991, during
consideration of House Resolution 5, adopting the rules of the 102d
Congress: (16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 137 Cong. Rec. 58, 59, 102d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (17) The time of the
gentlewoman has expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Steny H. Hoyer (Md.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mrs. [Nancy L.] Johnson of Connecticut: The majority party is
proposing a rules change. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The House will operate under proper
decorum.
Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut: Rather through the rule, they are
intending to abrogate the content and meaning of the laws. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentlewoman is out of order. . . .
Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut: . . . I am sorry. I know this is
unpleasant.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentlewoman will remove herself
from the well within 30 seconds.
Mr. [Henry B.] Gonzalez [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a
point of order. . . .
[[Page 10682]]
The gentlewoman is out of order . . . I am imploring the Chair
to exercise its authority to enforce the rules of the House by
summoning the Sergeant at Arms and presenting the mace.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair may do that.
CHAPTER 29
Consideration and Debate
E. RELEVANCY IN DEBATE
Sec. 49. -- The Demand That Words Be Taken Down
Pursuant to clause 5 of Rule XIV, the demand that a Member's words
be taken down must be made immediately after they are uttered and comes
too late if further debate has intervened.
A demand that words be taken down must indicate with specificity
the objectionable words,(18) and must come immediately after
the objectionable words were uttered.(19) If made after
intervening business or debate, the demand comes too
late,(20) unless the Member seeking to make the demand was
on his feet seeking recognition at the proper time.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See Sec. Sec. 49.2, 49.3, infra.
For an occasion where the Speaker ordered additional words
reported, to deliver an informed ruling, see Sec. 49.4, infra.
19. See Sec. Sec. 49.6, 49.7, infra.
20. See Rule XIV clause 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. 761 (1995): ``If
a Member is called to order for words spoken in debate, the
Member calling him to order shall indicate the words excepted
to, and they shall be taken down in writing at the Clerk's desk
and read aloud to the House; but he shall not be held to
answer, nor be subject to the censure of the House therefor, if
further debate or other business has intervened.''
Where words are not spoken in debate but are inserted in
the Record under leave to revise and extend, a question of
privilege may be based on the objectionable words after they
are published (see Sec. 48.16, supra).
1. See 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2528.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The demand should indicate the words excepted to and the identity
of the Member who uttered them; it may indicate briefly the grounds for
the demand, such as indulging in personalities, referring to a Senator,
or impugning the integrity of a colleague. But the Member making the
demand may not at that time debate the reasons for making the
demand.(2) Indeed, following the demand, no debate is in
order, and the Speaker does not entertain unanimous-consent requests,
other than for withdrawal of the words, or parliamentary inquiries
pending the report of the words and a ruling on them.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. See Sec. 49.18, infra.
3. See Sec. Sec. 49.14, 49.15, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pending disposition of the demand by a ruling of the Chair, the
demand may be withdrawn by the Member making it, and unani
[[Page 10683]]
mous consent is not required for withdrawing the demand.(4)
The demand may also be disposed of without a ruling pursuant to a
unanimous-consent request of the Member who uttered the words to
withdraw his remarks, which are thereby expunged from the
Record.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. See Sec. 49.24, infra.
5. See Sec. Sec. 51.1 et seq., infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unless the Member whose words are challenged asks unanimous consent
to withdraw his remarks, he is required to take his seat when the
demand is made,(6) and may not be recognized until the Chair
has ruled on the words or until he is permitted on motion to explain
his remarks pending the Speaker's ruling.(7) On several
occasions, the Speaker has recognized the Member called to order,
before definitively ruling on the words, to determine whether the
Member was in fact violating the rules of the House.(8)
Under clause 4 of Rule XIV, a motion to permit a Member to explain is,
in recent practice, only in order before the Speaker
rules.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. See Sec. 49.19, infra.
7. See Sec. 49.20, infra.
8. See Sec. 52.16, infra.
9. See Jefferson's Manual, Sec. 760.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Member called to order loses his right to proceed in debate
without the consent of the House but does not lose his right to demand
either a recorded or nonrecorded vote.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See Sec. 49.23, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where there is a demand that words be taken down, the Clerk reads
the words excepted to and the Chair decides if the words are in order;
once the words are held out of order the House may, by unanimous
consent, strike the words from the Congressional Record and permit the
offending Member to proceed in order for the remainder of his
time.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See, for example, the proceedings at 138 Cong. Rec. 25757, 25758,
102d Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 8, 1991.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When words are taken down and reported in the Committee of the
Whole, the Committee must immediately rise and the Chairman report the
words objected to to the House.(12) Consideration in the
House of such words is limited to the words reported.(13)
After the
[[Page 10684]]
Speaker has ruled on words taken down, the House automatically resolves
again into the Committee.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See, for example, 110 Cong. Rec. 13275, 88th Cong. 2d Sess., June
10, 1964; 110 Cong. Rec. 756, 757, 88th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan.
21, 1964; 80 Cong. Rec. 3465, 74th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 9,
1936; 79 Cong. Rec. 1680, 1681, 74th Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 7,
1935; 75 Cong. Rec. 10135, 10136, 72d Cong. 1st Sess., May 13,
1932; and 72 Cong. Rec. 1905-07, 71st Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 18,
1930.
13. 111 Cong. Rec. 18441, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., July 27, 1965; 86 Cong.
Rec. 1529, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., Feb. 15, 1940; and 84 Cong.
Rec. 2883, 2884, 76th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 16, 1939.
14. 111 Cong. Rec. 18441, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., July 27, 1965; and 111
Cong. Rec. 6107, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 26, 1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forms
Demand that words be taken down.
Member: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order, and ask
that the gentleman's words be taken down.
Chair: The gentleman will indicate the words objected to. .
. .
Chair: The Clerk will report the words indicated by the
gentleman.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Cannon's Procedure of the House of Representatives, 75, 76, H. Doc.
No. 122, 86th Cong. 1st Sess. (1959).
For the form of the motions and resolutions admissible
after a Member has been ruled out of order for words spoken in
debate--withdrawal, expungement, permission to proceed in
order, censure, investigation of charges, and expulsion--see
id. at pp. 87-89.
If words are to be withdrawn:
First Member: Mr. Chairman, I demand that the gentleman's
words be taken down.
The Chair: The Clerk will report the words.
Second Member: I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the
words.
First Member: I withdraw my demand.
Cross References
Permission to explain or proceed in relation to demand, see Sec. 52,
infra.
Withdrawing objectionable words pending demand, see Sec. 51,
infra. -------------------
Generally
Sec. 49.1 The Speaker drew attention to the overuse of the practice of
demanding that words uttered in debate be taken down.
On July 23, 1935,(16) Mr. Hamilton Fish, Jr., of New
York, demanded that words used in debate by Mr. John W. McCormack, of
Massachusetts, referring to Mr. Fish as guilty of a crime be taken
down. In delivering his ruling on the words objected to, Speaker Pro
Tempore John J. O'Connor, of New York, discussed recent overuse of the
demand that words be taken down:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 79 Cong. Rec. 11699, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair may state, even though it may be gratuitous, that
from his personal standpoint there has grown up in this House a
ridiculous habit of causing the words of a Member to be taken down,
which course often consumes a great deal of time; and, as the Chair
said on the floor the other day, it appears to have come to pass
recently that a Member cannot even say ``boo'' to another Member
without some Member demanding that the words be taken down. This
practice has become reductio ad absurdum.
The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. McCormack] has just
uttered the
[[Page 10685]]
words reported. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Fish] thereupon
demanded that the words be taken down.
For the gentleman from Massachusetts to state that what the
gentleman from New York did or said was a ``crime'', in the opinion
of the present occupant of the chair, is but a loose expression--a
word commonly used as a mere figure of speech. The word ``wrong''
in the dictionary is a synonym for ``crime'', and the Chair holds
that the use of the word ``crime'', under the particular
circumstances, is not unparliamentary language; and the gentleman
from Massachusetts may proceed.
Identification of Objectionable Words
Sec. 49.2 A Member calling another to order for words spoken in debate
must indicate specifically the words which shall be taken down.
On June 14, 1940,(17) a demand that certain words used
in debate be taken down was made:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 86 Cong. Rec. 8269, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Adolph J.] Sabath [of Illinois]: I felt these inserts are
unjustifiable and unwarranted. They are not founded on facts. You
cannot substantiate any of them--I think you should desist--taken
from Nazi elements who are feeding you with that stuff.
Mr. [Jacob] Thorkelson [of Montana]: What is a Nazi element?
Mr. Sabath: I am not going to argue with you.
Mr. Thorkelson: I demand that the remarks be taken down. I want
the gentleman to prove what he has said. I resent being called a
Nazi by this gentleman here. I want those remarks taken down.
Speaker Pro Tempore Emmet O'Neal, of Kentucky, asked Mr. Thorkelson
to state which words he objected to and Mr. Thorkelson responded that
he objected to the remarks made in regard to him. The Speaker Pro
Tempore stated ``The gentleman from Montana will have to be more
specific as to the words to which he objects.'' (18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Compare 78 Cong. Rec. 6947, 6948, 73d Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 19,
1934, where the words objected to were not specifically
indicated and an entire speech made upon offering of a pro
forma amendment was reported to the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 11, 1945,(19) Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York,
delivered a lengthy speech on the floor in relation to H.R. 3384,
offered by Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, relative to honorably
discharged veterans and labor unions. Mr. Celler referred to an
incident occurring on the prior day when a veteran was allegedly
ordered arrested by Mr. Rankin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 91 Cong. Rec. 7409, 7410, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further debate ensued following Mr. Celler's speech and then Mr.
Rankin arose to a point of order.
[[Page 10686]]
He demanded that Mr. Celler's entire speech be taken down as a
``deliberate false attack.'' Mr. Rankin added that he had not been in
the Chamber at the time Mr. Celler's speech was delivered. Speaker Pro
Tempore Robert Ramspeck, of Georgia, ruled as follows:
The gentleman from Mississippi must specify the words to be
taken down.
Mr. Rankin: I cannot get hold of the manuscript, but I know
what he was saying when I came in. No veteran was cuffed around. A
man who says he was a veteran discharged for nervous disability or
mental disorder came to the office and the officer took him
downstairs.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will suspend. The rule
provides that the gentleman must demand taking down of the words at
the time they are spoken, and specify the words.
Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, I demand the words be taken down in
which he deliberately and falsely charged that this veteran was
cuffed around and abused in the Veterans Committee or in my office.
It is a deliberate and dastardly falsehood, and I demand those
words be taken down.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is compelled to rule that
the gentleman's point comes too late. He did not demand the words
be taken down at the time the words were spoken.
Sec. 49.3 Consideration in the House of words taken down and reported
from the Committee of the Whole is limited to the words reported.
On July 27, 1965,(20) Mr. Neal Smith, of Iowa, demanded
in the Committee of the Whole that certain words used in debate by Mr.
Charles E. Goodell, of New York, be taken down. The Clerk read the
words objected to, the Committee rose, and the words were reported to
the House. Mr. Smith then stated that the Clerk did not read all of the
objectionable remarks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 111 Cong. Rec. 18441, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, stated that he could
rule only on the words that had been reported to the House as taken
down in the Committee of the Whole. The Speaker declined to pass upon
what could be done when the Committee of the Whole resumed sitting in
relation to additional words not initially reported.
On Feb. 15, 1940,(1) certain words used in debate in the
Committee of the Whole were demanded to be taken down. After the
Committee rose and the words were reported to the House, Mr. Clare E.
Hoffman, of Michigan, made the point of order ``that the
[[Page 10687]]
words to which I objected are not all reported. There was a further
statement there containing similar language.'' Speaker Pro Tempore Sam
Rayburn, of Texas, ruled that ``It is too late to raise that question
now.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 86 Cong. Rec. 1529, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Mar. 16, 1939,(2) Mr. Lee E. Geyer, of California,
described at length the personal characteristics of another Member
while on the floor. Mr. John Taber, of New York, demanded that the
words be taken down.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 84 Cong. Rec. 2871, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read one sentence and Mr. Taber stated ``Mr. Chairman,
there were some other words.'' The Clerk reported the additional words
and the Committee then arose for a ruling by the Speaker.
Sec. 49.4 The Speaker ordered the Clerk to report words uttered
previously to words to which objection was taken.
On July 23, 1935,(3) Mr. Hamilton Fish, Jr., of New
York, demanded that certain words used in debate by Mr. John W.
McCormack, of Massachusetts, be taken down. On the direction of Speaker
Pro Tempore John J. O'Connor, of New York, the Clerk read the following
words:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 79 Cong. Rec. 11699, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The gentleman from New York [Mr. Fish], whether he intended it
or not, is guilty of that crime; not only a few days ago, but is
again guilty of the same crime on this occasion.
Mr. Edward E. Cox, of Georgia, then made a point of order to insist
``in connection with those words, that the previous statement that he
had made an unfair argument also be included.''
The Speaker Pro Tempore responded:
The Chair was about to make that suggestion. To properly inform
the Chair, the words previously uttered should be read in
connection with the words just reported.
The Clerk will report the words uttered previously to the words
to which objection was taken.
The Clerk read as follows:
I respect men who fight hard. I
respect men, members of the Republican Party and the Democratic
Party, who fight hard for their party, but who fight clean. I
respect men who make constructive criticisms; but my general
respect for men is somewhat lost when they depart from what
should be and what ordinarily is their general conduct and
enter into the field of unnecessary, unfair, and unwarranted
attacks and arguments.
The Speaker Pro Tempore ruled that having alleged that a Member had
committed a ``crime'' in the manner used by Mr. McCormack, and when
taken in context, was not unparliamentary language.
[[Page 10688]]
Method of Challenging Member's Words
Sec. 49.5 The only method by which the words of the Member having the
floor may be challenged is through a demand that his words be taken
down.
The following proceedings occurred in the House on June 4,
1984,(4) during consideration of the Oregon Wilderness Act
of 1983 (H.R. 1149):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 130 Cong. Rec. 14805, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Les] AuCoin [of Oregon]: . . . The House has had its
opportunity to work its will. The only thing that would be gained
now by not voting for this bill as it is would be to delay a final
resolution, pushing it off further down the road . . . running this
issue up against all the other issues that the Congress is going to
be dealing with in its rush toward adjournment and that will
guarantee the doom of this bill.
Obviously, no responsible person on either side of this issue
wants such a thing to happen.
Mr. [Don] Young of Alaska: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (5) The gentleman will
state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Young of Alaska: Mr. Speaker, I would like to suggest that
the gentleman not use the term ``no responsible person.''
Both Members from Oregon are very responsible members of the
committee that I am ranking member of, and I consider my
responsibility very seriously and to say that we are not
responsible because we are in opposition to this bill is incorrect.
I would respectfully suggest that the gentleman reconsider his
words.
Mr. AuCoin: Mr. Speaker, this gentleman said that no
responsible person wants to see a resolution of this bill delayed
to such a date in which no passage of the bill dealing with the
Oregon RARE II problem would be possible. . . .
I assume it applies to the gentleman from Alaska. I think he is
responsible. I do not think he wants to see a resolution of this
bill delayed.
Mr. Young of Alaska: The bill is basically wrong. I rose
against the bill and to allude to the fact that we are
irresponsible does not become the gentleman at all. That disturbs
me a great deal. . . .
So I would suggest again to the gentleman to choose his words
very carefully.
Mr. AuCoin: Mr. Speaker, what is the regular order?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman may proceed. The
gentleman has not asked the words be taken down. The gentleman may
proceed.
Timeliness of Demand That Words Be Taken Down
Sec. 49.6 The demand that words used in debate be taken down must be
made directly after objectionable language is uttered and comes too
late if further debate has ensued.
[[Page 10689]]
On Sept. 4, 1969,(6) Mr. Albert W. Watson, of South
Carolina, referred in the Committee of the Whole to another Member who
``took a moment under the one-minute rule to praise Ho Chi Minh or to
compare him with Washington and Lincoln and other great leaders of the
past in this Nation.'' Subsequent to those remarks, further debate
ensued, including several points of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 115 Cong. Rec. 24372, 24373, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Richard L. Ottinger, of New York, then arose and demanded that
Mr. Watson's words be taken down and reported to the House. Chairman
Cornelius E. Gallagher, of New Jersey, ruled as follows:
The request comes too late. Further debate has continued beyond
that point and the gentleman's demand is not in order.
On Mar. 20, 1947,(7) Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi,
rose to a question of personal privilege. He stated that on the
preceding Monday, Mar. 17, he made a one-minute speech on the floor of
the House. He then stated that later on the same day when he was not
present on the floor Mr. Adolph J. Sabath, of Illinois, rose and made
insulting and false statements about him on the floor of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 93 Cong. Rec. 2314, 2315, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, ruled as follows
on the question of personal privilege:
. . . The gentleman has not stated a question of personal
privilege. The rules provide that strictures in debate do not give
rise to a question of privilege, but are properly contravened by a
demand that the words be taken down.
It is too late to make the demand that the words in question be
taken down after business has intervened. It is plainly indicated
that what transpired was in debate and the remedy of the gentleman
from Mississippi at that time was to demand that the words be taken
down.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. See also 89 Cong. Rec. 2787, 78th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 31, 1943;
87 Cong. Rec. 8893, 77th Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 13, 1941; and 79
Cong. Rec. 11423, 74th Cong. 1st Sess., July 18, 1935.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 49.7 A demand that words be taken down must be made immediately
after the words are uttered, and not ``at any time before the
Member uttering the words closes his speech.''
On July 11, 1945,(9) Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York,
addressed the House for 15 minutes on the subject of a bill offered by
Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, for the purpose of protecting
veterans and their rights with respect to joining labor unions. Mr.
Celler
[[Page 10690]]
referred to an incident on the prior day when Mr. Rankin had allegedly
caused a veteran to be arrested.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 91 Cong. Rec. 7409, 7410, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further debate intervened and then Mr. Rankin rose to a point of
order. He demanded that Mr. Celler's entire speech be taken down as a
``deliberate false attack.'' Mr. Rankin acknowledged that he had not
been in the Hall for the majority of Mr. Celler's speech.
Speaker Pro Tempore Robert Ramspeck, of Georgia, ruled that Mr.
Rankin's point of order came too late since further debate had
intervened following the objectionable words.
Mr. Rankin objected to the ruling but was overruled by the Speaker:
Mr. Rankin: Oh, no, Mr. Speaker. At any time before the Member
leaves the floor or closes his speech, because I did not know how
many times he would repeat it.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is compelled to hold that
the gentleman had to make his demand at the time the words were
spoken. Other debate has intervened and the gentleman has yielded
to other Members on the floor.
Mr. Rankin: Not other debate. Mr. Speaker, I am within the
rules, and any time before he closes his vicious speech I have a
right to have his words taken down.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair cannot agree with the
gentleman. The Chair overrules the point of order.
Sec. 49.8 Pursuant to clause 5 of Rule XIV, the demand that a Member's
words be taken down must be made immediately after they are uttered
and comes too late if further debate has intervened.
On Apr. 29, 1976,(10) during consideration of the first
concurrent resolution on the budget,(11) the following
exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 122 Cong. Rec. 11880, 11881, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
11. H. Con. Res. 611.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Ronald V.] Dellums [of California]: . . . What does this
budget do? Does it reflect human values? . . .
We continue to build monuments to our military madness,
spending over $100 billion in this budget for those purposes. . . .
Will we be attacked by the Warsaw Pact?
The answer to that is obviously no. However, we are being
attacked in this country with lack of attention, cynicism,
demagoguery, ineptness, inadequacy, expediency, pontificating, and
politicking. . . .
If we need to understand the reality, we are a third-rate power
right now in terms of our ability to sustain life. We are a third-
rate power in our ability to deal with human conditions in this
country. We are a third-rate power in many of the areas that speak
to the human misery of people.
This is the Bicentennial Year. Is the Congress of the United
States fighting
[[Page 10691]]
valiantly to make sure that democracy is real? No. The Bicentennial
has become a sham, a justification for selling red, white, and blue
everything. . . .
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: . . . I do not accept in
any way, the indictment the gentleman has laid upon the great
Nation that is the United States of America. I think his criticism
is totally misplaced. I think it comes to this House with
particular bad grace because, quite frankly, this Nation over the
years has done more to bring freedom to more people than any other
nation on the face of the Earth. . . .
Mr. Dellums: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a very brief
statement. I hope the gentleman's emotional feeling has calmed
down. I feel quite calm and rational, at least.
Mr. Bauman: That is a change from your condition when you last
spoke.
Mr. Dellums: I like to think that I am always rational. I would
like to simply state to the gentleman from Maryland, when you talk
about shame, and those of you on the right, when you talk about
waving the flag, all I know is what has happened. . . .
There is one thing that I am sure of and that is the fact of my
right to take that well of the House and make statements and
express my own convictions without fear.
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, I do not deny the gentleman the right
to speak his convictions but I do have the equal right not to agree
with them.
Mr. Dellums: I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy for telling
me that. . . .
Mr. [John] Conyers [Jr., of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I would
ask that the gentleman from Maryland's words be taken down in his
last presentation. I think that they were in violation of the Rules
of the House. I think that they insulted the gentleman from
California, and I make that request at this time.
The Chairman: (12) Will the gentleman from Michigan
inform the Chair precisely what words he has in mind? Were they the
last words spoken by the gentleman from Maryland?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Conyers: No, Mr. Chairman. They were the words spoken
during the time that he was speaking.
The Chairman: The Chair will have to advise the gentleman that
it is now too late to make any point of order on those words, since
there has been intervening debate.
--Intervening Debate
Sec. 49.9 A point of order may not be made or reserved against remarks
delivered in debate after subsequent debate has intervened, the
proper remedy being a demand that the words be taken down as soon
as they are spoken.
On Aug. 20, 1980,(13) the following proceedings occurred
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 126 Cong. Rec. 22150-54, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Federal Election Commission
salaries and expenses
For expense necessary to carry out the provisions of the
Federal Elec
[[Page 10692]]
tion Campaign Act Amendments of 1976, $9,283,000.
Mr. [Robert K.] Dornan [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Dornan: Page 14, after line 15,
insert the following: ``For expenses necessary to carry out the
provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of
1976, $8,195,000, of which not more than $1,700,000 may be
expended by the office of General Counsel.''.
Mr. Dornan: Mr. Chairman, had this bill been offered in a
timely fashion earlier this year, this might have been thoroughly
aired as to all the aspects that relate to politics, the FEC, and
the pursuit of justice. The amendment I am offering reduces the
appropriation to the Federal Election Commission. . . .
The FEC, through its Office of General Counsel, has allowed an
elected Federal official, just like ourselves, to keep for over 1
year, $1,150 of acknowledged illegal corporate campaign
contributions. The corporation--whatever it did is somewhat
unclear--laundered $13,000 into my opponent's campaign and $23,150
of illegal corporate money into this elected Federal official's
campaign coffers. Some of this $23,150 may have been given in cash.
. . .
The Chairman: (14) The gentleman from California
(Mr. Dornan) has . . . asked unanimous consent to withdraw his
amendment. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Richardson Preyer (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Henry A.] Waxman [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve
an objection. . . .
Mr. Chairman, and my colleagues, I am not familiar with the
allegations being made. This amendment has been offered for the
purpose of our colleague using the time of the House of
Representatives to engage in a good number of accusations attacking
the integrity of men in public office and
those who would seek to be in public
office and those who have assisted them. . . . It does, however,
seem to me quite curious to have an amendment offered for the sole
purpose of using the time of the House to air all these
accusations. If there are accusations of serious moment they ought
to be brought to the proper authorities. . . .
Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to take this opportunity to say
this strikes me as curious and gives me a great deal of hesitancy
to see that an amendment would be offered solely for the purpose of
discussing other matters than what is proposed in the amendment and
that relates to the gentleman's campaign for reelection. . . .
Mr. Chairman, I will reclaim my time by saying there must be
other ways to do what the gentleman proposes. It is awfully self-
serving for the gentleman to use the opportunity of the floor of
the House of Representatives to make all of these accusations in
order to benefit the gentleman's personal reelection.
Mr. Dornan: That is not why I am pursuing this. Were the
Members of Congress who used this well for Watergate self-serving?
Mr. Waxman: Mr. Chairman, I think it is improper. If the
gentleman has serious charges he has to make, this is not the place
to make them unless one
[[Page 10693]]
would assume it is being done for demagogic purposes.
Mr. Dornan: I assure the gentleman it is not.
Mr. Waxman: Or for reelection purposes. . . .
Mr. Dornan: I assure the gentleman it was not done for
demagogic purposes. I have lived with the knowledge of this scandal
for over a year. I sincerely intended to offer this amendment 4
months ago, 3 months ago, 2 months ago. . . .
The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California (Mr. Dornan) to withdraw his amendment?
If not, the amendment is withdrawn.
Mr. Dornan: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. Dornan: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order in
opposition to the Member's words against me.
To suggest that someone's remarks are demagogic is impugning
the motives of that Member. I could have had my good colleague's
words taken down. I reserve the point of order, but add that I am
emotionally concerned about a 1-year coverup by the Federal
officials who are charged with investigating these matters here. .
. .
The Chairman: The gentleman has no standing to raise the point
of order at this point. Debate has intervened. There is no other
amendment before the committee, and the Chair will ask the Clerk to
read.
Sec. 49.10 A demand in Committee of the Whole that words be taken down
is in order only if made in a timely manner; where debate has
intervened, the demand comes too late.
The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on
May 5, 1981,(15) during consideration of House Concurrent
Resolution 115 (pertaining to the congressional budget):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 127 Cong. Rec. 8496, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Paul S.] Trible [Jr., of Virginia]: . . . I still oppose
the Hefner amendment. I oppose it on two grounds. First, it is
wrong to hold the defense of this great Nation hostage to petty
political purposes, whatever they might be. Are these funds really
being sought to strengthen our Nation's defense or to strengthen
the prospects for passage of the Jones budget proposal?
The flawed approach of the majority cannot be saved. It ought
not to be saved. . . .
Mr. [W. G.] Hefner [of North Carolina]: I would just like to
repeat, did the gentleman refer to this as cheap, petty politics,
is that what the gentleman said? I am just curious.
Mr. Trible: Those were not my words, but I said that I
questioned whether today's effort was dictated by a requirement to
save this flawed package. I believe it is obvious from the
maneuvers of the last few minutes where the gentleman's amendment
was once again changed. It is a last-ditch effort to save this
flawed program, a program that will not be saved, a program that
will not gen
[[Page 10694]]
erate the economic growth and recovery so vital to this land, a
program that cannot support the substantial increases in defense
spending required in the context of this dangerous world.
Mr. Hefner: Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Trible: I would be happy to yield to my friend.
Mr. Hefner: Well, is the gentleman suggesting that I
deliberately--that the gentlewoman from California has suggested
earlier, it kind of makes me feel a little bit bad when the
gentleman would insinuate that I would deliberately miss a vote,
had I been there, I would have voted for the gentleman, that I have
no strong desires for defense spending and this is a last minute
ploy on the gentleman from North Carolina?
Mr. Trible: At no time did I suggest the motives of my friend,
the gentleman from North Carolina. The gentleman is in a far better
position to speak for his intentions than I am.
Mr. Hefner: I am the author of the amendment. . . .
Mr. [Parren J.] Mitchell of Maryland: Mr. Chairman, a point of
inquiry.
The Chairman: (16) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Martin Frost (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Mitchell of Maryland: I, too, thought I heard some words
spoken that might constitute a personal attack on the motives of a
Member. I would not like to proceed until such time as we have had
a clarification of what those words were. Is that possible?
The Chairman: Is the gentleman asking that words be taken down?
Mr. [Ed] Bethune [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
The Chairman: The gentleman from Arkansas.
Mr. Bethune: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Arkansas makes a
point of order that the gentleman's parliamentary inquiry and his
question comes too late.
The Chairman: Debate has intervened. The point is well taken.
Parliamentarian's Note: Mr. Trible's words as carried in the Record
did not violate the rules, since not referring to a specific Member or
his motives.
Sec. 49.11 Pursuant to clause 5
of Rule XIV, a demand during debate that a Member's words be taken
down comes too late if further debate has intervened.
During consideration of the military procurement authorization for
fiscal year 1985 (H.R. 5167) in the Committee of the Whole on May 23,
1984,(17) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 130 Cong. Rec. 13941, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Henry J.] Hyde [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I move to
strike the last word. . . .
I am sorry that our members of the Armed Services Committee
accepted this blatantly cowardly and political amendment, and I
reject it, and I am proud to vote no.
Mr. [Thomas S.] Foley [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, I move to
strike the necessary number of words. . . .
[[Page 10695]]
Mr. [Dan] Daniel [of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. Foley: I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. Daniel: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of personal
privilege.
Mr. Hyde: Would the gentleman let me respond before he makes
his point of personal privilege?
Mr. Foley: I yield first to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. Daniel: Mr. Chairman, if it is not too late, I demand that
the words of the gentleman from Illinois be taken down.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: (18) The Chair will advise
the Member that a point of personal privilege is not in order in
the Committee of the Whole, and the request that words be taken
down comes too late.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Frank Harrison (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hyde: Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield to me for a
moment?
Mr. Daniel: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman referred to members of
the Armed Services Committee as cowards.
The Chairman: The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Foley) has the
floor. . . .
Mr. Foley: I yield to the gentleman for the purpose of
responding.
Parliamentarian's Note: As noted by the Chairman, a question of
personal privilege under Rule IX may not be raised in the Committee of
the Whole.
Sec. 49.12 Papers read during debate are subject to a timely demand
that words be ``taken down'' as an unparliamentary reference to
other sitting Members, but the demand must be made before
subsequent reading intervenes.
The following proceedings occurred in the House on Feb. 25, 1985:
(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 131 Cong. Rec. 3344-46, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (20) Under a previous order
of the House, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich) is
recognized for 60 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Sam B. Hall, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Newt] Gingrich [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, I am going to
insert in the Record today and read into the Record several
editorials, one from the Atlanta Journal and Constitution
yesterday, Sunday, February 24, and one this morning from the Wall
Street Journal. . . .
Yet twice the House has voted to deny McIntyre the seat
while it investigates. . . .
The technicalities aside, the case is interesting for what
it says about the Congress. The votes on the McIntyre matter
went right along party lines. In the second vote
only five Democrats dared abandon O'Neill and the leadership. .
. .
A few Republicans near each election try to remind voters
that the Democrats' first vote will be for O'Neill and that
vote signals bondage. This year it meant the abandonment of
fairness.
It didn't use to happen this way. The 1966 election in the
Georgia 4th District saw Ben Blackburn nip Rep. James A. Mackay
by 360 votes. The Republican Blackburn was certified
[[Page 10696]]
by state officials and sent to Washington.
There, a little-known congressman was chairing a little-
known subcommittee. The congressman tried to deny Blackburn his
seat, but was overruled harshly by the speaker
of those days, Rep. John McCormack. . . .
Ms. [Mary Rose] Oakar [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, parliamentary
inquiry. . . .
Mr. Gingrich: Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman has not asked me to
yield, and I was in fact making an inquiry myself to the Chair. I
was asking the Chair to rule in this sort of setting if one is
reporting to the House on the written opinion of a columnist in
which the columnist has said very strong things, is it appropriate
for the House to be informed of this and, if so, what is the
correct procedure?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The ruling of the Chair is that the
gentleman should not read into the Record things which would
clearly be outside the rules of this House. . . .
Mr. Gingrich: Let me continue to ask the Chair, because I am a
little confused, in other words, if a columnist writing in the
largest newspaper in the State of Georgia says very strong things
about his concern about the House's behavior, would the House in
effect censor a report of that concern?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: No; the House does not censor any
report of that kind. The gentleman does take the responsibility,
however, for words uttered on the floor, and he is certainly
capable of leaving out those items which he knows would be outside
the rules of this House. . . .
Ms. Oakar: My primary inquiry is this, Mr. Chairman, the
gentleman from Georgia has already read into the House proceedings
what I consider to be a possible violation of the rules of the
House when he made reference to the Speaker of the House. I am
wondering if the Chair will rule on that, whether or not that item
violates the rules of the House.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair cannot rule on remarks that
have already been made. They have already been made and they are
now part of the Record. As the gentlewoman knows, she has to make
those objections timely.
Multiple Demands
Sec. 49.13 The words of two Members engaged in a colloquy have been
taken down in the House and ruled out of order.
On Feb. 12, 1946,(1) language used by two Members in
debate were demanded to be taken down and were reported and ruled on
simultaneously:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 92 Cong. Rec. 1241, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Hugh] De Lacy [of Washington]: Mr. Speaker, if there is no
parliamentary means of stopping the use of such language as
``slime-mongering kike,'' which appears in yesterday's Record, then
certainly we who believe in the right of people to stand up and
express their opinions should protest it visibly and audibly upon
this floor.
I am standing here today to state to the gentleman from
Mississippi that
[[Page 10697]]
we do not propose to permit this kind of language to be indulged in
on this floor. It is disgraceful.
Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I demand
that those words be taken down. I am not going to sit here and
listen to these communistic attacks made on me.
Mr. [John M.] Coffee [of Washington]: Mr. Speaker, I demand
that those words be taken down.
Mr. [Adolph J.] Sabath [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I demand
that the words of the gentleman from Mississippi be taken down.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (2) The gentlemen will both
take their seats, and the words will be taken down.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. John J. Sparkman (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk will report the words objected to.
The Clerk read as follows:
I am standing here today to state to the gentleman from
Mississippi that we do not propose to permit this kind of
language to be indulged in on this floor. It is disgraceful.
Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, I demand that those words be taken
down. I am not going to sit here and listen to these
communistic attacks made on me.
Mr. Coffee: Mr. Speaker, I demand that those words be taken
down.
The Speaker: (3) The Chair will be compelled to hold
that both gentlemen used language that was unparliamentary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motions and Requests Pending Demand
Sec. 49.14 The Chair does not entertain a unanimous-consent request
that a Member be allowed to proceed for one minute pending a demand
that another Member's words be taken down.
On Jan. 21, 1964,(4) certain words used in debate in the
Committee of the Whole were demanded to be taken down and reported to
the House. Before the Committee rose, Mr. James Roosevelt, of
California, asked unanimous consent to proceed for one minute, but
Chairman William S. Moorhead, of Pennsylvania, refused to entertain the
request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 110 Cong. Rec. 756, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 49.15 The Speaker does not entertain a parliamentary inquiry
pending a demand that words be taken down.
On Oct. 31, 1963,(5) after the words of a Member used in
debate were demanded to be taken down, Mr. Bruce R. Alger, of Texas,
attempted to state a parliamentary inquiry, but Speaker John W.
McCormack, of Massachusetts, ruled that it could not be entertained
pending the demand that words be taken down.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 109 Cong. Rec. 20742, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 49.16 Where a demand is made that certain words in
[[Page 10698]]
debate be taken down in the Committee of the Whole, such words must
be reported
to the House and a motion
to expunge words from the Record is not in order in the Committee.
On Feb. 18, 1941,(6) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan,
stated in debate in the Committee of the Whole in reference to a Member
``You are going to skin us.'' Mr. Robert F. Rich, of Pennsylvania,
demanded that the words be taken down.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 87 Cong. Rec. 1126, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before the Committee rose, Mr. Rich asked that the words he
had objected to be expunged from
the Record. Chairman Warren G. Magnuson, of Washington, ruled that
expungement was ``a matter for the House to decide.''
Sec. 49.17 Upon a timely demand that the words uttered in debate be
taken down as unparliamentary, the Speaker ruled that remarks
characterizing the relationship
between Senator and Vice-Presidential candidate J.
Danforth Quayle's political words and his living deeds
as ``hypocrisy'' were out of order and should be withdrawn;
subsequently, objection was made to a unanimous-consent request
that the offending language be stricken.
On Sept. 29, 1988,(7) during the period for one-minute
speeches in the House, the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 134 Cong. Rec. 26683, 26684, 100th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Mr. Williams asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. [Pat] Williams [of Montana]: Mr. Speaker, yesterday
Republican Vice-Presidential candidate Dan Quayle was in Texas. He
visited, he was kind enough to go by and visit a Job Corps center
in El Paso, and while there he looked 300 Job Corps students in the
eye and said, ``We believe in you.''
He did not tell them that he had voted to shut that center
down. He did not tell them that the Reagan-Bush administration in
fact has demanded that every Job Corps center in America, bar none,
be closed.
This is the same Senator Quayle that supports wars that he
won't fight, the same Senator Quayle who got into law school under
an entry minority program that he later votes against.
There is a word for it, my colleagues, it is called hypocrisy.
Mr. [Dan] Lungren [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the
gentleman's words be taken down. . . .
The Speaker: (8) The Clerk will report the words of
the gentleman from Montana.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 10699]]
The Clerk read as follows:
This is the same Senator Quayle that supports wars that he
won't fight, the same Senator Quayle who got into law school
under an entry minority program that he later votes against.
There is a word for it, my colleagues, it is called
hypocrisy.
The Speaker: The Chair has considered closely the question of
the use of words to distinguish policies as opposed to individuals.
There are precedents touching on proper and improper references in
debate and dealing with the preservation of comity between the
House and Senate. It is important to recognize that the individual
referenced in the remarks not only is a candidate for Vice
President of the United States but is a Member of the other body.
The precedents relating to references in debate to the
President, Vice President, or to a Member of the other body who is
a nominated or declared candidate for President or Vice President
permit criticisms of official policy, actions and opinions of that
person as a candidate, but do not permit personal abuse, do not
permit innuendo and do not permit ridicule, and they do require
that the proper rules of decorum must be followed during any debate
relating to the President of the United States or a Member of the
other body.
It could be argued that there is a distinction between calling
an individual a hypocrite, for example, and referring to some
policy as hypocrisy, but the Chair has discovered a precedent that
seems to be directly in point. In 1945, a Member of the House from
Georgia referred to another Member and said, ``I was reminded that
pretexts are never wanting when hypocrisy wishes to add malice to
falsehood or cowardice to stab a foe who cannot defend himself.''
Speaker Rayburn ruled that this was out of order as an
unparliamentary reference to another Member of the body.
By extension, the same identical words should be held out of
order in reference to a Member of the other body whether or not he
were a candidate for a high office, and under these circumstances
and citing this precedent, the Chair would suggest that the
gentleman from Montana withdraw the offending remarks, including
the particular word ``hypocrisy,'' and either amend his reference
in the permanent Record or delete it. . . .
Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, do I understand correctly that the
Speaker's ruling is based upon my characterization of a U.S.
Senator, in this case Senator Quayle, that had the Republican Vice-
Presidential candidate not been at this time a U.S. Senator, that
my remarks would, in fact, be in order? . . .
The Speaker: . . . The Chair would suggest to the gentleman
from Montana that there are standards that apply in the Chamber and
in the precedents with respect to nominated candidates for
President and Vice President. The Chair is not certain if they are
precisely the same as applied to a Member of the other body or a
Member of this body, but in this instance, it is not necessary to
make that hypothetical distinction since the individual involved is
a Member of the other body.
Mr. Williams: Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker: Would
it be
[[Page 10700]]
within the rules of the House if the last sentence of my 1-minute,
the one which characterizes Senator Quayle's actions as hypocrisy,
be removed by unanimous consent from my 1-minute statement?
The Speaker: The Chair would suggest to the gentleman from
Montana that this might be a satisfactory solution.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the
last sentence of my 1-minute statement, the sentence in which I
characterized Senator Quayle's actions as hypocrisy, be stricken.
Mr. Lungren: Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: Please, the Chair will recognize the gentleman for
a parliamentary inquiry, but, first, please permit the gentleman
from Montana to complete his request. . . .
Mr. Lungren: I reserve the right to object, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: That is fine. The gentleman may reserve his right
to object, but in the interests of orderly procedure, permit the
Chair to allow the gentleman from Montana to complete his request.
Mr. Williams: Let me be sure the Chair understands my request:
I have asked unanimous consent that the last sentence of my 1-
minute statement be stricken. . . .
The Speaker: . . . Has the gentleman from Montana completed his
request?
Mr. Williams: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not. Both times I have
been interrupted as I have attempted to ask unanimous consent that
the last sentence of my 1-minute statement be eliminated. That was
the sentence which referred to Senator Quayle's actions as
hypocrisy. I seek unanimous consent to strike the last sentence of
my 1-minute statement.
The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Montana?
Mr. Lungren: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, Mr.
Speaker, under normal circumstances and in the interests of comity
of this House and the relationship of this House and the other
body, I would not object. However, as is very obvious from the
statements of the gentleman, the insult, the language that is not
to be used under our rules was repeated three times in an effort to
make a point which violates, in my judgment, the sense of the rules
of the House and, therefore, since it is not, I believe,
appropriate to do that, I object.
The Speaker: Objection is heard.
Debating Reasons for Demand
Sec. 49.18 When a Member demands that certain words spoken in debate be
taken down, he may not at that time debate his reasons for making
such a demand.
On July 26, 1951,(9) in the Committee of the Whole, Mr.
John J. Rooney, of New York, referred in debate to other Members as
following ``slippery, snide, and sharp practices.'' Following those re
[[Page 10701]]
marks, Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, demanded that the words be
taken down and added that he wanted to ``state the grounds.'' Chairman
Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, ruled that Mr. Hoffman could not ``state
reasons when he makes the demand.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 97 Cong. Rec. 8968, 8969, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaking Member To Take His Seat
Sec. 49.19 Where a demand is made that the words of a Member be taken
down, such Member must immediately resume his seat.
On Mar. 24, 1961,(10) words used in debate by Mr. Neal
Smith, of Iowa, were demanded to be taken down. When Mr. Smith rose to
object to the demand on the grounds that he had not violated the rules
of the House, Chairman Eugene J. Keogh, of New York, ruled pursuant to
a point of order that Mr. Smith was required to take his seat pursuant
to a demand that his words be taken down.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 107 Cong. Rec. 4780, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Oct. 9, 1940,(11) Mr. Sol Bloom, of New York,
objected to certain words used in debate by Mr. John C. Schafer, of
Wisconsin, and demanded that they be taken down. When Mr. Schafer
attempted to explain his remarks and to contend that he was proceeding
in order, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled pursuant to a point of
order by Mr. Bloom that Mr. Schafer was required to take his seat.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 86 Cong. Rec. 13477, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After the words were reported to the House and prior to the Chair's
ruling, Speaker Rayburn recognized Mr. Schafer for the purpose of
explaining to the Chair whether he was referring to a Member of the
House or to another person.
On Feb. 7, 1935,(12) when Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of
Texas, demanded that certain words used in debate by Mr. George H.
Tinkham, of Massachusetts, be taken down, Mr. Tinkham interjected some
further remarks in relation to the demand.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 79 Cong. Rec. 1680, 1681, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman William N. Rogers, of New Hampshire, directed Mr. Tinkham
to take his seat.
Sec. 49.20 When the demand is made that certain words be taken down,
the Member uttering such words must take his seat and may not be
recognized until the Chair has ruled.
[[Page 10702]]
On May 4, 1943,(13) while Mr. Harold Knutson, of
Minnesota, had the floor in the Committee of the Whole, Mr. Wright
Patman, of Texas, asked him to yield, and Mr. Knutson replied, ``No. I
do not yield to any more demagogs.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 89 Cong. Rec. 3915, 3916, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After Mr. Patman demanded that the words be taken down, Chairman
Alfred L. Bulwinkle, of North Carolina, ruled that Mr. Knutson was
required to take his seat when such a demand was made.
After Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled that the words objected
to were a violation of the rules of the House, he recognized Mr.
Knutson for the purpose of withdrawing the words by unanimous
consent.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. But see 86 Cong. Rec. 13477, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., Oct. 9, 1940
(before ruling on objectionable words, Speaker inquired of
Member called to order whether he had been referring to a
Member of the House). Under clause 4 of Rule XIV, a Member may,
on motion or at the request of the Speaker, explain the words
objected to prior to the Chair's ruling (see Sec. 52, infra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Patman: Mr. Chairman, I ask that the words of the gentleman
be taken down.
Mr. Knutson: I withdraw them.
Mr. Patman: I object to that, Mr. Chairman. I ask that the
gentleman's words be taken down.
Mr. Chairman, I ask that the gentleman take his seat under the
rules.
Mr. Knutson: Mr. Chairman, I ask that the gentleman from Texas
take his seat.
The Chairman: The Clerk will report the words objected to.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Knutson: No; I do not yield to any more demagogs.
Mr. Knutson: Mr. Chairman----
Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, a point of
order.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Rankin: The gentleman from Minnesota has no right to speak
until this matter is disposed of. I demand that the gentleman take
his seat until the matter is disposed of.
The Chairman: The gentleman will please be seated.
Business Suspended Until Words Are Reported
Sec. 49.21 Pending a demand that words spoken in debate be taken down
and read by the Clerk, debate is suspended and no business is in
order.
On Feb. 8, 1978,(15) during proceedings related to H.R.
6805, the Consumer Protection Act of 1977, Mr. Benjamin S. Rosenthal,
of New York, stated, in reference to statements previously made in de
[[Page 10703]]
bate by Mr. Robert E. Bauman, of Maryland: ``I think that is really an
unfair statement, and I myself am sorry that I did not stand up to have
Mr. Bauman's words taken down earlier today. I regret that I hesitated,
because they impugned the motives of Members and groups supporting the
bill. It not only is extraordinarily bad taste, it is violative of the
Rules of the House.'' (16) The following exchange then
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 124 Cong. Rec. 2831, 2832, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
16. Note: The words in question would probably not in fact have been
ruled to be unparliamentary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, a point of order, Mr. Chairman, a
point of order.
The Chairman: (17) The time of the gentleman from
New York has expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Frank E. Evans (Colo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, I made the point of order while the
gentleman from New York was speaking, before the gentleman's time
expired.
The Chairman: There was so much noise the Chair did not hear
the gentleman from Maryland. The gentleman from Maryland will state
his point of order.
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, I demand that the words of the
gentleman from New York be taken down.
The Chairman: The gentleman from Maryland is referring to which
words?
Mr. Bauman: To the entire series of words of the gentleman from
New York, from the first reference to the gentleman from Maryland
to the last.
The Chairman: The Clerk will report the words the gentleman
from Maryland wishes taken down.
Mr. [Paul N.] McCloskey [Jr., of California]: Mr. Chairman, a
point of parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman from California will state the
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. McCloskey: Mr. Chairman, is it possible, while we are
waiting for the reporter, to continue in this dialog?
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
The committee cannot proceed under the rules.
Mr. McCloskey: That is the point of my inquiry.
The Chairman: The Chair will state we cannot proceed, not until
we have resolved the demand of the gentleman from Maryland that the
words be taken down.
Business Suspended Pending Speaker's Ruling on Words
Sec. 49.22 When a demand is made that words spoken in debate in
Committee of the Whole be taken down, the words are reported by the
Clerk, the Committee rises and the words are reported again to the
House, and the Speaker rules whether the words are in order; no
business or debate is in order after the demand that the words be
taken down and before the words are reported to the House for a
ruling by the Speaker, except unanimous-consent requests such
[[Page 10704]]
as requests to withdraw or modify the words or parliamentary
inquiries regarding the procedure to be followed.
The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on
May 26, 1983,(18) during consideration of H.R. 2969
(Department of Defense authorization for fiscal year 1984):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 129 Cong. Rec. 14048, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Thomas F.] Hartnett [of South Carolina]: . . . The
gentleman from California, for whom I have a great deal of respect,
is, through his proposals, through his amendment, advocating
unilateral disarmament on behalf of the United States. . . .
Mr. [Ronald V.] Dellums [of California]: . . . Mr. Chairman, I
object and I move that the gentleman's words be taken down. . . .
The Chairman Pro Tempore: (19) . . . Does the
gentleman from South Carolina seek to modify his previous
statement?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Thomas J. Downey (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hartnett: Mr. Chairman, I would have to read exactly what I
said.
Mr. Chairman, I believe I said that there is an element here in
this Congress--it has been referred to as the peace community, the
freeze community, the progressive community, or whatever, who
advocates unilateral disarmament, if that is what I said, sir.
Mr. [John F.] Seiberling [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I ask that
those words also be taken down.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the words
objected to. . . .
Mr. [Kenneth B.] Kramer [of Colorado]: Mr. Chairman, would the
Chair kindly tell us when a parliamentary inquiry would be in
order?
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. Kramer: The parliamentary inquiry is: Can the Chair tell us
the procedure that relates to taking down words and what will
follow?
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The procedure is as follows: After
the Clerk reports the words, the Speaker will review the words of
the gentleman from South Carolina, making a ruling thereon; unless,
of course, the gentleman from South Carolina wishes, by unanimous
consent, to withdraw his words.
Mr. Kramer: Mr. Chairman, I have a further parliamentary
inquiry.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Kramer: Mr. Chairman, is the ruling of the Speaker the
final word on that or is there an appeal process or how does that
work exactly?
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair would inform the gentleman
that the Speaker would rule on that but that after the Speaker has
ruled it would be in order to dictate the consequences of the
ruling of the Chair by proper motions in the House.
Rights of Member Called to Order To Vote or To Request Votes
Sec. 49.23 Although a Member when called to order must
[[Page 10705]]
take his seat and refrain from debate he is not prevented by the
rules from voting or from demanding a division vote, a teller vote,
or the yeas and nays.
On May 31, 1934,(20) Mr. Harold McGugin, of Kansas, was
called to order during debate in the Committee of the Whole for
impugning the integrity of the Speaker. The Committee rose, and Speaker
Pro Tempore Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, ruled that the language used
was out of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 78 Cong. Rec. 10167-70, 73d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When the previous question was moved on a motion to expunge the
remarks from the Record, Mr. John J. O'Connor, of New York, objected
that Mr. McGugin was standing and voting although he had been called to
order. The Speaker Pro Tempore ruled that he retained the right to
vote.
The Committee of the Whole resumed sitting, and a motion that Mr.
McGugin be allowed to proceed in order was rejected on a teller vote.
The Chairman then put the question on a motion to limit debate on a
pending amendment, and Mr. McGugin demanded a division vote thereon.
Following the vote Mr. McGugin demanded tellers. Mr. O'Connor then
stated a parliamentary inquiry:
Under the rule a Member who has been compelled to take his seat
after his words have been taken down can vote, and he can demand
the yeas and nays. I wish the Chair to rule whether or not he can
go further than that and demand divisions and demand tellers.
Mr. [Bertrand H.] Snell [of New York]: Oh, he is not out of
Congress yet. That does not preclude him from doing anything the
rest of the session, does it?
The Chairman: (1) The Chair holds that the gentleman
has a right to demand a division and to demand tellers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. John H. Kerr (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Withdrawing the Demand
Sec. 49.24 A demand that words spoken in debate in the House or in the
Committee of the Whole be taken down may be withdrawn without
unanimous consent.
On July 3, 1946,(2) Chairman Wright Patman, of Texas,
ruled that a demand that words spoken in debate be taken down could be
withdrawn without unanimous consent in the Committee of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 92 Cong. Rec. 8295, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike
out the last three words.
Mr. Chairman, I have just finished listening to two political
tirades by two political tyros, and I say to those gentlemen that
they cannot----
[[Page 10706]]
Mr. [Matthew M.] Neely [of West Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I
demand that those words be taken down.
Mr. Brown of Ohio: If the gentleman knows what the word
``tyro'' means he can have it taken down.
Mr. Neely: The gentleman knows that that statement is not true
and that the statement is not justified. I demand that the words be
taken down and stricken from the Record.
The Chairman: The Clerk will report the words objected to.
Mr. Neely: Mr. Chairman, for fear that this procedure will
delay the final vote on the bill, I withdraw my request.
Mr. [Earl] Wilson [of Indiana]: I object, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: It does not require unanimous consent to withdraw
the request.
On June 14, 1940,(3) Speaker Pro Tempore Emmet O'Neal,
of Kentucky, ruled that unanimous consent was not required to withdraw
a demand that words spoken in debate in the House be taken down:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 86 Cong. Rec. 8269, 8270, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Jacob] Thorkelson [of Montana]: Mr. Speaker, I will
withdraw the request that the remarks be taken down, because I do
not believe they are worth recording.
Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, that will
have to be done by unanimous consent, and I object, and, Mr.
Speaker, I demand recognition.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: For what purpose does the gentleman
from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] rise?
Mr. Dingell: The remarks of the gentleman cannot now be
withdrawn without unanimous consent.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Does the gentleman make that as a
point of order?
Mr. Dingell: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The point of order is overruled, and
the gentleman from Illinois is recognized.
On Feb. 10, 1964,(4) Mr. John J. Rooney, of New York,
demanded in the Committee of the Whole, during consideration of the
Civil Rights Act of 1963, that a reference in debate by Mr. Albert W.
Watson, of South Carolina, to other Members as ``bleeding hearts'' be
taken down. Mr. Rooney then withdrew his demand:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 110 Cong. Rec. 2780, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Chairman, in the interest of expediting passage of this
civil rights bill and although I feel that no Member has the right
to characterize another Member or Members as the gentleman from
South Carolina has done, I withdraw my demand that his words be
taken down.
Sec. 49.25 A demand that words spoken in debate be taken down may be
withdrawn by the Member making the demand, and unanimous consent is
not required for that purpose.
[[Page 10707]]
The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on
Aug. 3, 1978,(5) during consideration of the foreign aid
appropriation bill (H.R. 12931):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 124 Cong. Rec. 24238, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: . . . You use very good
grounds as an umbrella and a cover for some of the greatest
travesties, some of the greatest wastes. . . .
The programs are a travesty.
Mr. [Michael T.] Blouin [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I demand that
the gentleman's words be taken down. . . .
The Chairman: (6) Does the gentleman from Iowa (Mr.
Blouin) insist on his demand?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Abraham Kazen, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Blouin: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my request.
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: I object.
The Chairman: The request does not take unanimous consent to be
withdrawn.
Mr. Bauman: Did the gentleman not object to the words and
demand that they be taken down?
The Chairman: The gentleman can withdraw his objection, and it
does not take a unanimous-consent request to do that. The gentleman
can automatically withdraw his request. That is what the gentleman
is doing.
Sec. 49.26 Prior to a ruling by the Chair, unanimous consent is not
required for a Member to withdraw his demand that another Member's
words spoken in debate be ``taken down.''
On June 18, 1986,(7) the following proceedings occurred
in the Committee of the Whole during consideration of H.R. 4868 (Anti-
Apartheid Act of 1986):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 132 Cong. Rec. 14231, 14232, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Mark] Siljander [of Michigan]: . . . Mr. Chairman, there
are two dominating issues I would say about this debate. The first
one, which granted is less important than the overall concern of
apartheid, is the way this bill has been handled. The Subcommittee
on Africa has been holding hearings on apartheid, the implications
of the system, and how America can best influence change in that
country. . . .
It is quite obvious that one of the major motivations of the
ramrodding of this legislation was not so much because it was
imperative because of the deaths and the concerns in South Africa,
but rather to coincide the debate with the 10th anniversary of the
Soweto riots, seizing the political and media opportunities in a
manipulative way. So I think that is an important issue that the
membership of this body needs to understand. . . .
Mr. [Ronald V.] Dellums [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I would
like to move that the gentleman's words be taken down on the
grounds that the gentleman is challenging the motives of Members of
Congress, and as this gentleman understands, it is inappropriate to
challenge the motives of
[[Page 10708]]
Members of Congress. One can challenge the political position
asserted by Members of Congress, but I do not believe that it is
within the purview or the prerogatives of any Member to challenge
the motives. The gentleman has mischaracterized the motives of
Members of Congress. . . .
The Chairman: (8) The Chair would make an inquiry of
the gentleman: does he insist upon his demand?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Bob Traxler (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Dellums: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I think one gentleman earlier
said that this debate ought to move on a higher level. This
gentleman wants to insist upon it.
The Chairman: The Chair, under the rules, will ask that the
Clerk take down the words in question.
Mr. Dellums: Mr. Chairman, in order to allow the debate to
proceed, I will withdraw my point of order. The gentleman from
California has made his point.
I wish that this debate go forward on the merits of the issue,
rather than on impugning the motives or integrity of any Member of
Congress on either side of the aisle. I think I have made that
point. It is not necessary to rule, and I withdraw it.
The Chairman: The gentleman from California withdraws his
demand.
Mr. Siljander: Mr. Chairman, I object, if that is appropriate,
because I would like to have a ruling. . . .
The Chairman: The gentleman will suspend.
The Chair would observe that under the rules, unanimous consent
is not required for the gentleman to withdraw his request. The
gentleman's request is withdrawn.
Sec. 49.27 A demand that words spoken in debate in the Committee of the
Whole be taken down may be withdrawn without unanimous consent.
On July 3, 1946,(9) Mr. Clarence J. Brown, of Ohio,
stated in debate in the Committee of the Whole in reference to other
Members ``I have just finished listening to two political tirades by
two political tyros.'' Mr. Matthew M. Neely, of West Virginia, demanded
that the words be taken down and Chairman Wright Patman, of Texas,
directed that the Clerk report the words objected to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 92 Cong. Rec. 8295, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Neely then withdrew his demand that the words be taken down
``for fear that this procedure will delay the final vote on the bill.''
When Mr. Earl Wilson, of Indiana, objected to such withdrawal, Chairman
Patman ruled that it did not require unanimous consent to withdraw the
demand that the words be taken down.
Withdrawal of Offending Words
Sec. 49.28 A demand that certain words spoken in debate be taken down
must be made before further debate inter
[[Page 10709]]
venes, but a Member may
by unanimous consent withdraw from the Record words he had
previously spoken.
During debate on H.R. 11 (10) in the Committee of the
Whole on Feb. 24, 1977,(11) the proceedings described above
occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Local Public Works Capital Development and Investment Act
Amendments.
11. 123 Cong. Rec. 5349, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [E. G.] Shuster [of Pennsylvania]: I would like to call the
attention of the Committee to the very significant point just made
by the gentleman from Puerto Rico, which was that, in effect,
Puerto Rico received under the previous jobs bill $127 million--
more than almost any State of the Union.
Under the Shuster amendment, certainly Puerto Rico would not be
left out. They would receive $47 million. The gentleman has made a
good point. . . .
Mr. [Robert A.] Roe [of New Jersey]: Madam Chairman, I am glad
that came up. I am very glad that came up. So let us deal with that
[demagogic] approach.
In every other piece of legislation that we have had, so far as
I know, out of the public works end of it, what we are faced with
is that we treat Puerto Rico as a State.
Mr. Shuster: Madam Chairman, I ask that his words be taken
down.
The Chairman: (12) The gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Shuster) asks that the words of the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Roe) be taken down. The demand comes too late, since debate
has proceeded beyond that point.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Barbara Jordan (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Roe: Madam Chairman, if I have used the wrong words, I
apologize right here and now. I did not mean anything personal.
Mr. Shuster: Madam Chairman, I was on my feet.
The Chairman: The gentleman was not seeking recognition.
Does the gentleman from New Jersey ask unanimous consent to
withdraw his words?
Mr. Roe: Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I may be
allowed to withdraw any words that I may have used inappropriately.
Mr. Shuster: I thank the gentleman.
The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New Jersey?
There was no objection.
Sec. 49.29 Where a demand is made that words uttered in debate be taken
down, the Member using those words may, by unanimous consent,
withdraw them before the Chair rules on their propriety.
On Mar. 2, 1977,(13) during consideration of House
Resolution 287 (amending the rules of the House) in the Committee of
the Whole, the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 123 Cong. Rec. 5937, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [David R.] Obey [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I move to
strike the
[[Page 10710]]
requisite number of words, and I oppose the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, speeches like the one we just heard from the
gentleman from Minnesota are the reason that we have wound up with
so many Members of the House having the very kind of slush funds
that we are trying to abolish today. What we are trying to do is to
meet official expenses in an official, honest, aboveboard, open
fashion. That is all we are trying to do. The gentleman can toss
around all of the words he wants and all of the inflammatory words
he wants.
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I demand
the gentleman's words be taken down.
The Chairman: (14) Does the gentleman from Wisconsin
ask to withdraw the words that were objected to?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Edward P. Boland (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Obey: I have no idea which words he objected to, but to
satisfy the gentleman from Maryland, I will withdraw them.
Mr. Bauman: To clarify, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has referred to the language used by the
gentleman from Minnesota as ``phony words.'' He has also referred
to his remarks as ``baloney.''
I hardly think that the words do anything, I would say to the
Chairman, except impugn the motives of the gentleman from
Minnesota.
The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Wisconsin ask to withdraw
those words?
Mr. Obey: Mr. Chairman, since it is necessary for someone
around here to be responsible in the interest of getting things
done, surely I withdraw those words.
The Chairman: Without objection it is so ordered. The gentleman
may continue.
Sec. 49.30 Clause 1 of Rule XIV proscribes Members in debate from
engaging in personalities, including allegations that an
identifiable group of sitting Members have committed a crime; thus,
a Member by unanimous consent withdrew a statement in debate that
the majority Members of the House had ``stolen'' a seat, pending a
demand that those words be taken down.
On Feb. 27, 1985,(15) Mr. Andrew Jacobs, Jr., of
Indiana, demanded that words spoken by Mr. John Rowland, of
Connecticut, be taken down:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 131 Cong. Rec. 3898, 3899, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Jacobs: Mr. Speaker, I demand the gentleman's words be
taken down in that he said ``stolen.'' . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (16) The Clerk will read
the words taken down.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Tommy F. Robinson (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
The scary thing about it, as a person who served in the
legislature for 4 years, and as a person who happens to be
sitting as the youngest Member of Congress, I find it difficult
that the first situation that we
[[Page 10711]]
run into in this House, the first class project, as we may call
it, is trying to retain a seat that has been stolen from the
Republican side of the aisle, and I think it is rather
frustrating.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Would the gentleman care to modify his
remarks before the Chair rules?
Mr. Rowland of Connecticut: Yes, I would, Mr. Speaker. . . . I
would like to ask unanimous consent that the words objected to be
withdrawn.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: That what word be withdrawn?
Mr. Rowland of Connecticut. The word ``stolen,'' Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from Connecticut?
There was no objection. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Georgia is
recognized.
Mr. [Newt] Gingrich [of Georgia]: I would yield in just a
moment, after asking the Chair if in fact Members were convinced an
action were being taken which involved a word which was ruled by
the Chair to be inappropriate, how could a Member report to the
House on that action? Should we substitute the word ``banana''?
What is it one should say if in fact--not just as a joke, but if in
fact--Members of the Republican side honestly believed strongly
something is being done? In other words, is ``unconstitutional'' an
acceptable term but ``illegal'' not acceptable?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is the gentleman asking the Chair?
Mr. Gingrich: I am asking the Chair.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Simply put, Members should not accuse
other Members of committing a crime. When the majority is accused
of ``stealing,'' that may suggest illegality. Other words could be
used but not those accusing Members of committing a crime.
Mr. Gingrich: What if one honestly believes, for a moment, that
a crime is being committed? Would it in fact be against the rules--
--
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Members may not engage in
personalities.
Mr. Gingrich: But he did not talk in personalities. . . .
Mr. Rowland of Connecticut: . . . Mr. Speaker, I would simply
point out that I did not refer to anybody stealing an election. I
just referred to the frustration that we as freshmen are exhibiting
and fearing as we go through the deliberations. I did not refer to
anybody.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman seemed to refer to the
majority of the House, that it had stolen the election.
Sec. 49.31 After a demand was made that certain words used in debate in
the Committee of the Whole be taken down, the words were withdrawn
by unanimous consent.
On Feb. 10, 1964,(17) Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York,
stated in debate in the Committee of the Whole in reference to another
Member ``I want to state that the gentleman from Missouri has spo
[[Page 10712]]
ken longer and more often than any other Member in the Chamber and
contributed less.'' Mr. Paul C. Jones, of Missouri, demanded that those
words be taken down and Chairman Eugene J. Keogh, of New York, directed
that the Clerk report the words objected to. Mr. Celler then withdrew
his remarks by unanimous consent ``in the interests of expediency.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Cong. Rec. (daily ed.), 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: The permanent Record was corrected to show
that the words were actually withdrawn pursuant to the request.
Words Ruled Unparliamentary
Sec. 49.32 Where the demand is made that certain words used in debate
be taken down in the House, the business of the House is suspended
until the words are reported to the House.
The procedure (under Rule XIV clause 5) for taking down words in
the House was demonstrated on Aug. 21, 1974,(18) as
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 120 Cong. Rec. 29652, 29653, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Thomas P.] O'Neill [Jr., of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I
take this time so I may direct my remarks to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Bauman).
Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, by mutual consent of the leadership on
both sides of the aisle and by the members of the Judiciary
Committee, I offered to this House a resolution. At the completion
of the resolution, Mr. Speaker, I asked that all Members may have 5
legislative days in which to extend their remarks and it was
objected to, Mr. Speaker, by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Bauman). He gave a reason at that particular time.
I told him that I thought he should have cleared it with the
leadership on his own side of the aisle; but nevertheless, Mr.
Speaker, when all the Members had left last night, the gentleman
came to the well and asked unanimous consent of the then Speaker of
the House who was sitting there, if he may insert his remarks in
the Record, with unanimous consent, following the remarks where he
had objected.
So, Mr. Speaker, in today's Record on page H8724 you will find
the remarks of Mr. Bauman. You will not find the remarks of Mr.
McClory, one of the people who had asked me to do this. You will
not find the remarks of other members of the Judiciary Committee,
who were prepared at that time to put their remarks in the Record;
but you will find the remarks of Mr. Bauman and Mr. Bauman alone.
[I just want to say that I think in my opinion it was a cheap,
sneaky, sly way to operate.]
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I demand
that the gentleman's words be taken down.
The Speaker: (19) The gentleman demands that the
words be taken down.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk will report the words objected to. . . .
[[Page 10713]]
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman ask unanimous
consent to withdraw his remarks?
The Speaker: The Chair did not understand that.
Mr. Bauman: Does he not have to request that, or does not the
Chair have to rule?
The Speaker: The Chair will rule when the Clerk reports the
words taken down.
Mr. Bauman: Then, I demand the regular order.
The Speaker: Regular order is underway. . . .
The Clerk will report the words objected to.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. O'Neill: Mr. Speaker, I take this time so I may direct
my remarks to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman). . . .
I just want to say that I think in my opinion it was a
cheap, sneaky, sly way to operate.
The Speaker: The words in the last sentence are not
parliamentary. Without objection, the offending words will be
stricken from the Record.
Speaker Sometimes Takes Initiative Where Improper Remarks Are Uttered
Sec. 49.33 The Speaker cautioned a Member that it is a breach of order
under clause 1 of Rule XIV to allege in debate that a Member has
engaged in conduct similar to the subject of a complaint pending
before the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct against
another Member; and under clause 4 of that rule, the Chair takes
the initiative in calling to order Members improperly engaging in
personalities in debate.
Speaker Pro Tempore G. V. (Sonny) Montgomery, of Mississippi,
called a Member to order in the House on Mar. 22, 1989, (20)
as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 135 Cong. Rec. 5130, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Mr. Alexander asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks and to include extraneous material.)
Mr. [Bill] Alexander [of Arkansas]: Mr. Speaker, after arriving
at the Capitol a few minutes ago on this glorious spring day, I
learned that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have
conducted an election for minority whip resulting in the election
of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich) as minority whip. . .
.
I would note to those who are observing that the gentleman from
Georgia made his name, so to speak, by a sustained personal attack
on the good name of Jim Wright, the Speaker of the House of
Representatives who has devoted decades of meritorious service to
our country. The gentleman from Georgia alleged that the Speaker
has circumvented minimum income limits of Members of Congress by
writing a book for which he received a royalty.
Now, it is also to be noted that just this week it was learned
that the gen
[[Page 10714]]
tleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich) also allegedly has a book deal.
It is alleged in the Washington Post this week that the gentleman
from Georgia received a royalty or a payment in the nature of a
royalty. This is apparently similar to the Wright arrangement which
is the basis of the gentleman from Georgia's complaint before the
Ethics Committee.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would state to the gentleman
that he cannot make personal references, as the gentleman has done
in his remarks.
Chair's Request That Member Proceed in Order
Sec. 49.34 The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole requested Members
to proceed in order when a Member objected to remarks delivered in
debate impugning the honesty and motives of another Member but did
not demand that the words be taken down.
On May 10, 1978,(1) during debate in the Committee of
the Whole, the following exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 124 Cong. Rec. 13214, 13215, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Parren J.] Mitchell of Maryland: Mr. Chairman, I move to
strike the requisite number of words, and I rise in opposition to
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Krueger). .
. . I would suggest . . . that this amendment strains my tolerance
and engenders emotions in me because of the unintended evil that it
does.
What is this unintended evil? For the first time--and I
repeat--for the first time during our consideration of this issue
we have an amendment that will tend to pit one group against
another, one segment against another, one class against another.
I suggest that this kind of an amendment is, unwittingly, an
evil amendment, because that is what this cut is all about, this
cut that is proposed is about to pit one class against another.
That is what the amendment does. . . .
Ms. [Elizabeth] Holtzman [of New York]: . . . I want to
compliment my colleague for his eloquent statement with which I
wholeheartedly agree. I just want to point out that I think he does
the gentleman from Texas an injustice when he says that he acts
unwittingly or that the evil effects of the amendment are
unintended. I think that the gentleman from Texas, who is a
distinguished scholar, certainly knows well the effects of this
amendment. When he comes on the floor and says the people of the
United States want us to adopt this amendment, I do not know what
people he is talking about because this amendment would cut back
social security benefits and would affect over 80 million people in
this country who receive annual cost-of-living increases in their
social security checks. Surely there are old people who live in
Texas. I understand it is a paradise, but surely there are people
who receive social security benefits there and would be harmed by
this amendment. . . .
[[Page 10715]]
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, a point of
order.
The Chairman:(2) The gentleman will state the point
of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, it may well be the desire of the
gentleman from Maryland to demand that words be taken down if this
type of debate continues.
Mr. Mitchell of Maryland: Demand all you want.
Mr. Bauman: The gentleman from Maryland has listened closely to
the debate. It is not the intent of the gentleman from Maryland to
defend the honor of the gentleman from Texas; it needs no defense;
but the rules of the House do forbid certain types of words and
they require decorum.
The gentleman from Maryland has listened to characterizations
of ``lies'' and ``dishonesty'' and the use of amendments for the
promotion of political campaigns, none of which the gentleman from
Maryland feels fall within proper conduct in the House.
Now, I may well not be disposed to demand that the words be
taken down, including the words just spoken, but if this continues
and the Chair does not admonish those responsible, the gentleman
from Maryland will demand they be taken down.
I know passions are high on this issue. Neither the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Mitchell) or the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Krueger) need have their motives impugned or questioned. I grant
the best of motives to all Members.
The Chairman: The gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Bauman, has not
made a point of order; but, the Chair feels sure all Members
participating in the debate on this bill will proceed in order.
That is the way it should be and that is the way it will be.
Parliamentarian's Note: Mr. Mitchell deleted from his remarks the
reference to Mr. Krueger's amendment as ``wittingly or unwittingly a
lie.'' Ms. Holtzman's suggestion that Mr. Krueger had wittingly lied
was also subject to a demand that the words be taken down.
--Chair May Take Lead in ``Calming'' Debate
Sec. 49.35 A demand that words be taken down is untimely
if further debate has intervened.
The following proceedings occurred in the House on Mar. 4,
1985,(3) during consideration of House Resolution 97 (to
seat Richard D. McIntyre as a Member from Indiana):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 131 Cong. Rec. 4277, 4283-85, 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
[[Page 10716]]
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. . . .
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: (4) The gentleman is
entitled to 1 hour under that motion, during which time the
gentleman from Arkansas controls the time. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [William D.] Ford of Michigan: . . . Mr. Speaker, this
issue is being handled now in a manner being allowed in this House
that does not meet the dignity of this body which is very much
needed at the moment. At the time that the people of this country
are wondering whether or not the Congress is going to do the things
that are necessary, some of them painful, to protect our country,
we have Members playing petty politics over there in a way that is
calculated to do nothing except destroy public confidence in this
body.
I can see how people would lose confidence in the House, which
is put into this kind of mess by this bushwhacking method of
causing a vote. . . . [W]e count on assertions from our leaders on
both sides that on particular days you can take care of other
important matters because there will not be rollcalls. They know
that many of the Members are being deprived, who have been seated,
of representing their districts because of the way in which this
vote is called up. And if they want to show good faith at this
point, Mr. Speaker, then the gentleman should withdraw his motion
and move to take it up at a time when due notice has been given so
that my constituents and all of the districts in Michigan will have
their representative here to vote on them. . . .
Mr. [Carroll] Campbell [Jr., of South Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, I
have a parliamentary inquiry. . . .
Mr. Speaker, am I correct in saying that we do not seek to
impugn the motives of a Member when they bring a matter to the
floor? Is that correct under the way this House operates? And that
when a Member's motives have been impugned that that Member or
others on their behalf would have a right to ask that words be
stricken? Is that a correct assumption?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct that no
Member's motive is to be impugned by another Member in the course
of orderly debate on the House floor.
Mr. Campbell: Well, Mr. Speaker, my concern lies with the fact
that with the previous speaker that the motivation of those of us
who are concerned with this matter may have been impugned when the
accusation was made that this was being done under petty politics
and that it was bushwhacking and instead of the motivation of
trying to protect legitimately the rights of a
[[Page 10717]]
Member of the minority party who had been denied, though being
certified, his seat.
To make that charge I raise the point of order does impugn the
motivation of those of us who seek to seat Mr. McIntyre. I ask that
the gentleman's words be stricken.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman's point of order in this
particular instance comes too late. Intervening debate has
proceeded.
Mr. Campbell: The gentleman who previously spoke, Mr. Speaker,
I was on my feet asking to be recognized on a point of order, who
had made those accusations.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state the Chair expects
all Members to maintain the dignity of the Chamber, and that
includes the proper use of language in reference to their
colleagues of either political party.
The Chair will state that the point of order made by the
gentleman at this time is not timely made. But the Chair will
instruct all Members with the expectation that parliamentary
language will be observed.
Sec. 49.36 While the Chair will not rule on the propriety of words used
in debate and not challenged by a timely demand that they be
``taken down,'' the Chair may caution all Members not to question
the integrity or motivation of other Members in debate.
The following proceedings occurred in the House on Apr. 22, 1985:
(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 131 Cong. Rec. 8692, 8693, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Connie] Mack [3d, of Florida]: Possibly the reason he is
not here tonight is that this is too open a session, I mean it is
too much of an opportunity for people to question him as to what
happened during that discussion. . . .
Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry. . . .
Mr. Speaker, there was a reference by a colleague that maybe I
violated the rules of the House, and suggested that maybe my words
ought to be taken down.
Is that an idle threat that is being posed, or did I in fact
violate the rules? I certainly have no intention of violating the
rules of the House . . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (6) The Chair has received
no request from the floor to have the gentleman's words taken down.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Kenneth J. Gray (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Mack: So as far as the Chair is concerned, anything that I
have said so far this evening certainly would be within the rules?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would caution the Members
not to question the integrity of other Members or to impugn the
motivation of individual Members.
Mr. Mack: Mr. Speaker, when you say the ``motivation'' does
that mean a negative or a positive motivation? If I make a
statement about the positive motivation on the part of the Members,
does that certainly fall within the rules, I would take it?
[[Page 10718]]
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would rule as each
particular incident is brought to its attention. We ought to be
cautious as to our personal comments about our colleagues.
Sec. 49.37 On one occasion, upon a demand that certain words used in
debate (characterizing unnamed Members as taking ``potshots'' at
the Nicaraguan resistance and as lacking judgment) be taken down,
the Chair suggested that the words only questioned the judgment of
unspecified Members in a manner not in violation of House rules,
and the demand was withdrawn prior to a ruling thereon.
During the proceedings in the House on Mar. 18, 1986,(7)
the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 132 Cong. Rec. 5200, 5201, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I just
got back from Nicaragua, and in light of what I saw and heard, I
find today's speeches by the left wing of the Democratic Party
astonishing.
For Members of Congress to stand safely on this floor and take
potshots at men and women of tremendous courage who are struggling
against great odds to oppose Communist tyranny in Nicaragua is,
indeed, astonishing. That questions no one's patriotism; it
questions their judgment.
Mr. [Parren J.] Mitchell [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I request
the gentleman's words be taken down. He is questioning the judgment
of other Members of the House.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (8) The gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Mitchell) requests that the words of the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Walker) be taken down. The Chair would
inquire as to which words the gentleman refers to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Bill Alexander (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Mitchell: He questions the judgment of the Members of the
House who oppose the Reagan proposition.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would suggest that the
gentleman did not refer to any specific Member in violation of the
rules of the House. Does the gentleman insist on his request?
Mr. Mitchell: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I do because it followed a
statement that I just made where I indicated that I oppose the
President's position, and certainly by inference he is questioning
my judgment and I resent it.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman insists, and the Clerk
will report the words. . . .
Mr. Mitchell: If the Speaker so desires, I will not press the
point of order, but with the indulgence of the Speaker, I will
state that I personally resent any attempt to impugn my motives.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman withdraws his demand.
Chair's Role in Interpreting Proceedings
Sec. 49.38 It is appropriate for the Chair to interpret a point of
[[Page 10719]]
order to determine whether it is being raised under a particular
rule of the House; and a Member's point of order (that remarks just
made in debate impugn another Member's motives), and the Chair's
determination as to whether the point of order constitutes a demand
that those words be ``taken down,'' is not such intervening debate
or business as to render the demand untimely.
On Oct. 2, 1984,(9) during consideration of the balanced
budget bill (H.R. 6300), Mr. John V. Weber, of Minnesota, stated that
another Member had come to the floor with a gimmick ``which he thinks
will fool the people of Tulsa.''(10) A point of order was
made:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 130 Cong. Rec. 28522, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
10. The words were stricken from the Record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. [Mary Rose] Oakar [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
The Speaker Pro Tempore:(11) The gentlewoman will
state her point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Oakar: Mr. Speaker, I question the speaker regarding
impugning the motives of the chairman who has introduced this
legislation.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Does the gentlewoman insist that the
gentleman's words be taken down?
Ms. Oakar: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I do.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the words.
Mr. [Guy V.] Molinari [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. Molinari: Mr. Speaker, as an observer of what transpired
here, it was my impression that the point of order raised by the
gentlewoman was raised too late, and I would ask the Chair to make
a ruling that in fact a point of order was made too late.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would state that at the time
the point of order was made further debate had not taken place and
therefore the point is entertained.
Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. Walker: It was my impression that the gentlewoman never
asked that the words be taken down, that the Chair guided her into
that.
Ms. Oakar: I asked.
Mr. Walker: The gentlewoman never made that point in her
language. Is that usual procedure?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair was simply attempting to
understand the intent and the motive of the gentlewoman's point of
order.
Words Not Taken Down and Reported
Sec. 49.39 A demand for the reporting of certain additional
[[Page 10720]]
words uttered in the Committee of the Whole but not reported to the
House is not in order in the House, and the Speaker will not pass
upon what can be done in the Committee of the Whole regarding a new
demand.
On July 27, 1965,(12) Mr. Neal Smith, of Iowa, demanded
that certain words used in debate in the Committee of the Whole by Mr.
Charles E. Goodell, of New York, be taken down. In the House, Speaker
John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, directed the Clerk to read the
words that had been objected to, and the Clerk read two sentences that
were reported from the Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 111 Cong. Rec. 18441, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Smith then rose and objected that ``there was another sentence
following that. He did not read the last sentence.'' Speaker McCormack
ruled that the Chair could pass only on the words that had been
reported. After the Speaker delivered a ruling on the words, Mr. Smith
again rose to demand that the sentence following the words ruled on be
taken down. Speaker McCormack responded ``The Chair will state that the
Chair can only pass upon the words presented to the Chair and which
were taken down in the Committee of the Whole.'' Mr. Smith then raised
a parliamentary inquiry:
Are we not entitled to have the words taken down that were
objected to in the Committee of the Whole so that Members can
exercise their rights?
The Speaker stated that he was ``confronted with the words actually
reported by the Clerk.'' Mr. Smith then asked:
Then when we go back into the Committee of the Whole, am I
entitled to demand that the words be taken down that I objected to
and report them back?
Speaker McCormack ruled:
The Chair will not pass upon what can be done in the Committee
of the Whole. Of course, if the gentleman desires to renew his
request, that would be a matter for the Chairman of the Committee
of the Whole to consider on the question of whether or not the
words were taken down as demanded by the gentleman from Iowa.
The Committee will resume its sitting.
When the Committee resumed its sitting, Mr. Smith made a further
demand that additional words not reported in the House be taken down
and reported therein. The Clerk read the additional words objected to,
and Mr. Smith stated ``That is not all of it, Mr. Chairman. That is not
all of
[[Page 10721]]
the words.'' Chairman Leo W. O'Brien, of New York, responded that the
words reported were ``all that the Clerk was able to furnish the
Chairman.'' Mr. Smith then withdrew his objection to the words.
References to Motives of Senators
Sec. 49.40 Where a Member demanded that another Member's references in
debate to a Senator be stricken from the Record but did not demand
that the words be ``taken down'' (pursuant to Rule XIV clause 5),
the Speaker Pro Tempore sustained the point of order against
violation of the principle of comity (under section 374 of
Jefferson's Manual) but did not submit to the House the question of
striking the unparliamentary words.
On June 3, 1974,(13) it was demonstrated that the
principle of comity between the two Houses prohibits any reference in
debate in the House to actions of Senators within or outside the
Senate. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 120 Cong. Rec. 19083, 19085, 19086, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (14) Under a previous order
of the House, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Steiger) is
recognized for 45 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. John J. McFall (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Sam] Steiger [of Arizona]: Mr. Speaker, with a petulance
usually reserved to Secretaries of State, Mo Udall and Henry
Jackson have blamed the defeat of the land-use planning bill on
``impeachment politics.'' Mr. Udall states that the President
changed his position on land-use planning in order to retain the
support of conservative Members of the House regarding impeachment.
. . .
We can fully appreciate that the gentleman from Washington, who
is an active candidate for President, might be seeking ways to
present his case in some kind of a different manner.
Mr. [Thomas S.] Foley [of Washington]: Mr. Speaker, if the
gentleman will suspend for a minute, I would like to make a
parliamentary inquiry. . . .
I pose the parliamentary inquiry, whether or not discussion of
the motives of a Member of the other body is in order.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct. It is not in
order, in view of the rule of comity between the two Houses.
The gentleman will proceed.
Mr. Steiger of Arizona: Mr. Speaker, I would advise the
gentleman from California (Mr. Rousselot) that I am about to
continue to yield him the time; that I, too, think it is very
presumptive of the gentleman from Washington, who is running for
President;
[[Page 10722]]
all I heard the gentleman from California (Mr. Rousselot) say was
that the Senator was a candidate for President.
Mr. [John H.] Rousselot [of California]: He is a potential
candidate for President. If that is impugning his motives, I do not
see how it is.
Mr. Foley: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. The remarks of the
gentleman from California and the remarks of the gentleman from
Arizona are out of order. I ask that they be stricken.
Mr. Steiger of Arizona: Mr. Speaker, might I be heard on that
point of order?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will proceed on the
point of order.
Mr. Steiger of Arizona: I would restate what I said, that in my
view it is presumptuous of the gentleman from Washington to hold
himself up as a candidate for the Presidency of the United States.
I fail to see that that is impugning the gentleman's motives.
It is an accepted fact in political life that the gentleman
from Washington is, indeed, a candidate for the Presidency, at
least in his own eyes.
I suspect, and I am certainly entitled to a view of that
candidacy and I have stated that view, with no intent at all of
demeaning the gentleman from Washington.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: While the gentleman has not demanded
that words be taken down, the Chair will state that under the rules
of debate it is not in order for a Member to voice an opinion or
cast a reflection on either Members of the House or Members of the
other body and it is not in order to refer to Senators by name or
in terms of personal criticism, or even for the purpose of
complimenting and the inhibition extends to comments of criticism
of their actions outside the Senate.
The Chair would also point out to the gentlemen who are
carrying on this debate that it is Thursday afternoon and there is
no need to get involved in a big political debate.
So the gentleman in the well will proceed in order.
Procedure in House When Committee Rises
Sec. 49.41 Where the Speaker has ruled upon words taken down in the
Committee of the Whole and reported to the House, and has ordered
the Committee to resume its sitting, a point of order of no quorum
in the House comes too late and is not in order.
On Nov. 10, 1971,(15) the Committee of the Whole rose in
order that words used in debate by Mr. John H. Dent, of Pennsylvania,
demanded taken down by Mr. John N. Erlenborn, of Illinois, be reported
to the House. Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, ruled that the words
were not unparliamentary, after Mr. Dent explained that he had not been
referring to a Member of the House. The Speaker ordered the Committee
to resume its sitting. Mr. Durward
[[Page 10723]]
G. Hall, of Missouri, then attempted to make a point of order that a
quorum was not present, and the Speaker ruled that the point of order
could not be made at that time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 117 Cong. Rec. 40442, 40443, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee of Whole Resumes Sitting Automatically
Sec. 49.42 When the demand is made that certain words used in debate be
taken down in Committee of the Whole, the business of the Committee
is suspended until the words are reported to the House; after the
Speaker has ruled on words reported from the Committee of the
Whole, and after disposition of any motion that the Member whose
words are ruled out of order may proceed in order, the House
automatically resolves back into the Committee of the Whole.
During consideration of the Department of Education Organization
Act of 1979 (H.R. 2444) in the Committee of the Whole, certain words
used in debate were reported to the House, the Speaker ruled on those
words and the Committee resumed its deliberations. The proceedings on
June 12, 1979,(16) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 125 Cong. Rec. 14461, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Henry B.] Gonzalez [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I expected
resistance to this amendment and not necessarily my getting
involved. I am not a member of this committee. But this amendment
is probably the most detrimental to the main purposes of equal
opportunity of education to the most needed segments of our society
that has been presented thus far and probably could ever be
presented. The insidiousness of the amendment is compounded by the
sponsor's deceptive--I should say hypocritical--presentation of
this amendment, disguising it as a quota prohibition.
Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I
demand that the words be taken down.
The Chairman: (17) The Clerk will report the words
objected to. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Lucien N. Nedzi (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: The Committee will rise. . . .
The Speaker: (18) The Clerk will report the words
objected to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows: . . .
The insidiousness of the amendment is compounded by the
sponsor's deceptive--I should say hypocritical--presentation of
this amendment, disguising it as a quota prohibition.
The Speaker: The Chair is ready to rule.
The Chair, having read the references concerning deception and
hy
[[Page 10724]]
pocrisy, will state that there have been previous opinions by the
Chair that there is nothing wrong with using the word,
``deceptive,'' or the word, ``hypocritical,'' in characterizing an
amendment's effect but when a Member so characterizes the
motivation of a Member in offering an amendment that is not in
order.
Consequently, the words in the last sentence read by the Clerk
are unparliamentary and without objection, the offensive words are
stricken from the Record. . . .
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brooks).
Mr. [Jack] Brooks [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I move that the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez) be allowed to proceed in order.
The motion was agreed to.
The Speaker: The Committee will resume its sitting.
Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration
of the bill, H.R. 2444, with Mr. Nedzi in the chair.
The Chairman: The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez) has the
floor, and the gentleman will proceed in order.
Sec. 49.43 When a demand is made in Committee of the Whole that words
spoken in debate be taken down, the words are transcribed by the
Official Reporters of Debate to be read by the Clerk, and the
Committee then rises automatically and reports the words to the
House; following a decision by the Speaker that the words reported
to the House by the Committee of the Whole are in order, the
Committee resumes its sitting without motion.
The following proceedings occurred during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of H.R. 2760 (prohibition on covert aid to
Nicaragua) on July 28, 1983: (19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 129 Cong. Rec. 21461, 21462, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [David R.] Obey [of Wisconsin]: I am concerned, as I said,
about the statements that I have heard on the floor today, because
I believe that what they have a tendency to do, even though that
may not be the intention, I think they have the tendency to try to
assassinate the character of the person making the statement rather
than to effectively assassinate the argument.
Mr. [C. W. Bill] Young of Florida: Mr. Chairman, I demand that
the gentleman's words be taken down.
The Chairman: (20) Words will be taken down.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I have a
parliamentary inquiry. . . .
[W]hy could we not have the words read back promptly? . . .
Mr. Chairman, are we not taking down the proceedings of the
House verbatim?
The Chairman: As soon as the words can be transcribed, as the
gentleman knows, the Speaker will then
[[Page 10725]]
pass upon the words that are being taken down.
The Clerk will report the words.
The Clerk read as follows: (1) . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. It is still required, under the customs and traditions of the
House, for the Clerk to read the transcript, which, whether it
has been taken electronically or taken in shorthand, must be
reduced to writing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: The Committee will rise.
Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed
the chair, Mr. Natcher, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee,
having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2760) to amend the
Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 1983 . . . certain
words used in debate were objected to and on request were taken
down and read at the Clerk's desk, and he herewith reported the
same to the House.
The Speaker: (2) . . . The Clerk will report the
words objected to in the Committee of the Whole House on the State
of the Union.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows: . . .
The Speaker: The words having been read, and the gentleman from
Wisconsin having very definitely included in his statement a
disclaimer that he does not impugn the motives or intentions of any
Member of the House, in the opinion of the Chair, in his
legislative argument the words of the gentleman from Wisconsin are
not unparliamentary and the gentleman may proceed.
The Committee will resume its sitting.
Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration
of the bill, H.R. 2760, with Mr. Natcher in the chair.
CHAPTER 29
Consideration and Debate
E. RELEVANCY IN DEBATE
Sec. 50. --Ruling by the Speaker
The Speaker or Speaker Pro Tempore has the sole power to rule
whether words objected to violate the rules and precedents of the
House.(3) The question is not open to debate.(4)
Appeals may be taken from the Speaker's ruling on objectionable words
but such appeals are rare.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. See Sec. 50.9, infra; 2 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 1249; 5 Hinds'
Precedents Sec. Sec. 5163, 5169, 5187.
The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole does not rule on
objectionable words (see Rule XIV clause 4, House Rules and
Manual Sec. 760 (1995)).
4. See Sec. 50.7, infra.
5. See Sec. 50.8, infra. Under clause 4 of Rule XIV, appeals are in
order from the Speaker's ruling. The rule provides that: ``the
House shall, if appealed to, decide the case without debate.''
On a past occasion where an appeal was not allowed (see 5
Hinds' Precedents Sec. 6944), the appeal was demanded on a
ruling on words taken down in debate on a pending appeal. In
that situation, appeals could be multiplied indefinitely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In ruling on words, the Speaker considers not only past precedents
[[Page 10726]]
on exact or similar words,(6) but also weighs the importance
of preserving free debate and expression of opinion in the
House.(7) The Speaker has consulted a dictionary where he
was in doubt as to the meaning of colloquial expressions.(8)
The Speaker may seek further information than the exact words reported
in order to deliver an informed ruling. For example, the Speaker has
inquired of the Member called to order whether he was in fact referring
to certain persons or proceedings,(9) and has directed the
Clerk to report words uttered in the House in addition to those
objected to in order to judge the words in context.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. See Sec. 50.1, infra.
7. See Sec. 50.2, infra.
8. See Sec. 50.4, infra.
9. See Sec. 50.3, infra.
10. See Sec. 50.5, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross References
Courses of action if words ruled out of order, see Sec. Sec. 51, 52,
infra.
Necessity of ruling if words withdrawn, see Sec. 51, infra.
Speaker's rulings generally on points of order, see Ch. 31,
infra. -------------------
Factors Considered by the Speaker
Sec. 50.1 In ruling on words objected to in debate, the Speaker gives
weight to past precedent.
On Feb. 5, 1940,(11) a Member referred to another Member
in debate as ``President of the Demagogue Club.'' The words were
demanded to be taken down and Speaker Pro Tempore Sam Rayburn, of
Texas, ruled the language out of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 86 Cong. Rec. 1529, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 4, 1943,(12) when one Member called another
Member in debate a demagogue, Speaker Rayburn ruled that he had passed
upon identical language in the past and would conform to his prior
ruling, holding that words accusing a Member of demagoguery was a
breach of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 89 Cong. Rec. 3915, 3916, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Dec. 13, 1973,(13) a Member termed an amendment
offered by another as ``demagogic or racist because it is only
demagoguery or racism which impels an amendment like this.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 119 Cong. Rec. 11289, 11290, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, cited Speaker Rayburn's ruling of
May 4, 1943, ruling the use of the word ``demagogue'' or
``demagoguery'' in reference to another Member out of order. In
reliance on that ruling, Speaker Al
[[Page 10727]]
bert ruled that the language used was a breach of order in debate.
Sec. 50.2 In ruling on words objected to in debate, the Speaker gives
weight to the preservation of free debate in the House.
On Mar. 7, 1942,(14) Mr. Vito Marcantonio, of New York,
stated ``since the gentleman from Texas raised the question here of
dereliction of duty, I say that dereliction in this matter rests at the
doorstep of his committee.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 88 Cong. Rec. 2056, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A point of order was made and the words were taken down. Speaker
Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled as follows:
The Chair thinks that if he were to hold upon as fine a point
as that, at some time free debate in the House of Representatives
might cease. The Chair holds that the language does not violate the
rules of the House.
On July 26, 1951,(15) Mr. Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of
Massachusetts, demanded that words used in debate by Mr. John J.
Rooney, of New York, in reference to the Republican Conference be taken
down. Speaker Rayburn ruled as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 97 Cong. Rec. 8969, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair in every instance of this kind has been most liberal
with the Member who uttered the words objected to, because he has
always thought that great liberality must be indulged in so that we
may have free and full debate. On very few occasions has the
present occupant of the chair held that remarks were a violation of
the rules of the House.
The Chair can hardly agree, however, that the words, applied to
the meeting of the Republicans in caucus yesterday were quite
proper. . . .(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. For the exact words demanded to be taken down, see Sec. 53.3,
infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Explanation of Member Called to Order
Sec. 50.3 The Speaker has relied on the assurance of a Member called to
order that in using a word which was also the name of a Member he
was not referring to the other Member.
On Oct. 9, 1940,(17) Mr. Sol Bloom, of New York,
objected to the alleged use by Mr. John C. Schafer, of Wisconsin, of
Mr. Bloom's name in debate rather than referring to him as the
gentleman from New York. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled, on the
assurance of Mr. Schafer that he was not referring to his colleague Mr.
Bloom, that he was not speaking out of order.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 86 Cong. Rec. 13477, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
18. See also 113 Cong. Rec. 8411, 8412, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 5,
1967 (Speaker inquired of Member called to order whether he was
in fact quoting executive proceedings of a House committee).
Under normal practice, a Member whose words have been
objected to must take his seat and may not debate the demand
that his words be taken down or explain his words except on
motion pursuant to clause 4 of Rule XIV (see Sec. 52, infra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 10728]]
Dictionary Definitions
Sec. 50.4 The Speaker has consulted a dictionary in ruling on
colloquial expressions which have been objected to in debate.
On July 16, 1935,(19) Mr. Hamilton Fish, Jr., of New
York, referred to Mr. Wright Patman, of Texas, in debate as a
``snooper.'' The words were taken down, and Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of
Tennessee, held that the use of the term violated the rules of the
House, after consulting Webster's Dictionary and reading the following
definition to the House: ``to look or pry about or into others' affairs
in a sneaking way. One who snoops; a prying sneak.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 79 Cong. Rec. 11256, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 16, 1934,(20) Speaker Henry T. Rainey, of
Illinois, ruled that the word ``yapping'', used by Mr. George E.
Foulkes, of Michigan, in debate to refer to addresses on the floor by
Mr. John Taber, of New York, was not unparliamentary. The Speaker had
consulted the dictionary and stated that the term meant ``to talk
loudly; chatter; scold'' and was not objectionable.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 78 Cong. Rec. 12114, 73d Cong. 2d Sess.
1. See also 79 Cong. Rec. 11256, 74th Cong. 1st Sess., July 16, 1935
(when ruling out of order in debate the term ``stool pigeon,''
the Speaker stated it was not necessary to consult a dictionary
to ascertain the meaning of the expression).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaker Rules on Propriety of Words Objected to
Sec. 50.5 When there is a demand that certain words used in debate be
taken down, the words objected to may be withdrawn by unanimous
consent by the Member using them, but where the words are not
withdrawn, the Speaker will rule on the propriety of the words.
The following proceedings occurred in the House on Mar. 19, 1985:
(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 131 Cong. Rec. 5532, 5533, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Harry] Reid [of Nevada]: Mr. Speaker, on February 26 of
this year one of my constituents traveled nearly 3,000 miles to
Washington specifically to see me about a critical issue, but he
[[Page 10729]]
did not. . . . I was called away from something very important to
become captive, once again, to an abusive practice, an abuse
inflicted upon the entire House of Representatives and the
legislative process itself, voting on the Journal.
Mr. Reid made further comments, indicated below, which were the
subject of a demand that the words be taken down:
Mr. [Vin] Weber [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, I demand that the
gentleman's words be taken down. . . .
Mr. Speaker, would it be in order, in view of the gentleman's
statement a minute ago, for me to ask unanimous consent that he be
permitted to withdraw his words?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (3) Yes. The Chair would
entertain such a motion. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Kenneth J. Gray (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I respectfully submit that I appreciate
the request of the gentleman from Minnesota, but I do not think I
said anything offensive, and I would ask for a ruling on that.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will rule.
The Clerk will report the words.
The Clerk read as follows:
One of the most important things to remember is that those
Members who call for these wasteful votes are led by my
distinguished colleague from Pennsylvania, Mr. Walker, who
speaks constantly of the need to do away with government waste,
and he is literally speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would announce that it is
not proper to impugn the motive of another Member. We have
precedents here in the House. Mr. Knutson, of Minnesota: ``I cannot
believe that the gentleman from Mississippi is sincere in what he
has just said.'' And that was held not in order on November 2,
1942.
The Chair must state that the words of the gentleman from
Nevada have, in his opinion, an unparliamentary connotation and
shall be stricken.
Without objection, the gentleman from Nevada may proceed. Do I
hear an objection?
Mr. Weber: Yes, Mr. Speaker. . . .
Would the Chair clarify the parliamentary situation in which
the gentleman from Nevada finds himself?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: . . . The Chair has ruled that the
gentleman from Nevada misspoke on the words ``speaking out of both
sides of his mouth,'' and therefore those words shall be stricken.
The Member only can proceed by permission of the House.
Context of Words Used
Sec. 50.6 The Speaker ordered the Clerk to report words uttered
previously to words to which objection was taken in order to
deliver an informed ruling.
On July 23, 1935,(4) Mr. Hamilton Fish, Jr., of New
York, demanded that certain words used in debate by Mr. John W. McCor
[[Page 10730]]
mack, of Massachusetts, be taken down. On the direction of Speaker Pro
Tempore John J. O'Connor, of New York, the Clerk read the following
words:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 79 Cong. Rec. 11699, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The gentleman from New York [Mr. Fish], whether he intended it
or not, is guilty of that crime; not only a few days ago, but is
again guilty of the same crime on this occasion.
Mr. Edward E. Cox, of Georgia, then made a point of order to insist
``in connection with those words, that the previous statement that he
had made an unfair argument also be included.''
The Speaker Pro Tempore responded:
The Chair was about to make that suggestion. To properly inform
the Chair, the words previously uttered should be read in
connection with the words just reported.
The Clerk will report the words uttered previously to the words
to which objection was taken.
The Clerk read as follows:
I respect men who fight hard. I respect men, members of the
Republican Party and the Democratic Party, who fight hard for
their party, but who fight clean. I respect men who make
constructive criticisms; but my general respect for men is
somewhat lost when they depart from what should be and what
ordinarily is their general conduct and enter into the field of
unnecessary, unfair, and unwarranted attacks and arguments.
The Speaker Pro Tempore ruled that the word ``crime'' used by
Mr. McCormack, when taken in context, was not unparliamentary
language.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Under normal practice, the Chair rules only on the language
specifically objected to and reported to the House (see
Sec. Sec. 49.2, 49.3, supra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Debate
Sec. 50.7 The question of whether words taken down violate the rules is
for the Speaker to decide and is not debatable.
On Jan. 15, 1948,(6) Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York,
referred in debate to a statement by Mr. John E. Rankin, of
Mississippi, as ``damnable.'' Mr. Rankin demanded that the words be
taken down. After the words were read to the House, Speaker Joseph W.
Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, inquired of Mr. Rankin whether the word
``damnable'' was the word objected to. Mr. Rankin responded in the
affirmative and Mr. Celler interjected the inquiry ``Mr. Speaker, may I
be heard?''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 94 Cong. Rec. 205, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker ruled ``This is not debatable. The Chair will pass on
the question.''
On Mar. 9, 1948,(7) after Mr. Rankin had demanded that
cer
[[Page 10731]]
tain words used in debate be taken down and Speaker Martin had ruled
them not a breach of order, the following exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 94 Cong. Rec. 2408, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to be heard.
The Speaker: It is a matter for the Chair to determine.
Mr. Rankin: I understand; but I would like to be heard on the
matter. We have a right to be heard.
The Speaker: The Chair has held that the words are not
unparliamentary. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Celler] is merely
expressing his own opinion. The gentleman from New York will
proceed.
Parliamentarian's Note: Clause 4 of Rule XIV specifies that this
question of order is not debatable on appeal. On infrequent occasions,
the Chair has declined to rule directly on the propriety of words but
has implicitly ruled them out of order by entertaining a debatable
motion to expunge the words from the Record. See 8 Cannon's Precedents
Sec. 2539. See also 6 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 617.
Appealing the Chair's Ruling
Sec. 50.8 Appeals have been permitted from rulings of the Chair that
certain words spoken in debate were out of order or in order.
On Dec. 20, 1943,(8) Speaker Pro Tempore John W.
McCormack, of Massachusetts, ruled that a statement in debate that
remarks of another Member were ``false and slanderous'' was a breach of
the rules of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 89 Cong. Rec. 10922, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following the ruling, Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, who had
uttered the objectionable words, entered an appeal from the ruling of
the Chair on the ground the ruling was ``so one-sided I do not think
the House will sustain it.'' The House voted to sustain the ruling of
the Speaker Pro Tempore.
On July 23, 1935,(9) Mr. John W. McCormack, of
Massachusetts, was proceeding in House debate, and certain words were
deemed offensive by Mr. Hamilton Fish, of New York. The challenge was
to an allegation that a Member ``was guilty of that crime.'' The words
which were taken down were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 79 Cong. Rec. 11699, 74th Cong. 1st Sess. See also 75 Cong. Rec.
10019, 72d Cong. 1st Sess., May 11, 1932, where the Chair
sustained a point of order and an appeal thereto was
subsequently withdrawn.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I respect men who fight hard. I respect men, members of the
Republican Party and the Democratic Party, who fight hard for
their party, but who fight clean. I respect men who make
constructive criticisms; but my general respect for men is
somewhat lost when they depart from what should be and what
ordinarily is their general conduct and
[[Page 10732]]
enter into the field of unnecessary, unfair, and unwarranted
attacks and arguments.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will again report the words
to which objection was taken.
The Clerk read as follows:
The gentleman from New York [Mr. Fish], whether he intended
it or not, is guilty of that crime; not only a few days ago,
but is again guilty of the same crime on this occasion.
The Speaker Pro Tempore, Mr. John J. O'Connor, of New York, ruled
as follows:
The Chair may state, even though it may be gratuitous, that
from his personal standpoint there has grown up in this House a
ridiculous habit of causing the words of a Member to be taken down,
which course often consumes a great deal of time; and, as the Chair
said on the floor the other day, it appears to have come to pass
recently that a Member cannot even say ``boo'' to another Member
without some Member demanding that the words be taken down. This
practice has become reductio ad absurdum.
The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. McCormack] has just
uttered the words reported. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Fish]
thereupon demanded that the words be taken down.
For the gentleman from Massachusetts to state that what the
gentleman from New York did or said was a ``crime'', in the opinion
of the present occupant of the chair, is but a loose expression--a
word commonly used as a mere figure of speech. The word ``wrong''
in the dictionary is a synonym for ``crime'', and the Chair holds
that the use of the word ``crime'', under the particular
circumstances, is not unparliamentary language; and the gentleman
from Massachusetts may proceed.
Mr. John Taber, of New York, appealed the ruling and, on a division
vote of 165-35, the Chair's ruling was upheld.
Speaker's Ruling, Challenges to
Sec. 50.9 The Speaker, and not the Chairman of the Committee of the
Whole, rules on whether words spoken and objected to in the
Committee of the Whole are in order; and the House may by proper
motion dictate the consequences of the Chair's ruling the words out
of order, such as whether the words should be expunged from the
Record and whether the Member called to order may proceed in
debate.
The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on
May 26, 1983,(10) during consideration of H.R. 2969
(Department of Defense authorization for fiscal year 1984):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 129 Cong. Rec. 14048, 14049, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Thomas F.] Hartnett [of South Carolina]: . . . The
gentleman
[[Page 10733]]
from California, for whom I have a great deal of respect, is,
through his proposals, through his amendment, advocating unilateral
disarmament on behalf of the United States. . . .
I would say to my colleague from Indiana that when we are told
by the gentleman from California that we go beyond a deterrence to
a war-fighting capability, that when your deterrence is no longer a
deterrence it is probably time that you build that deterrence at
least to a war-fighting capability.
I do not want my colleague from Indiana to be ashamed
whatsoever or to let this element over here who advocates
unilateral disarmament to browbeat you into thinking they know more
than you do.
Mr. [Ronald V.] Dellums [of California]: . . . Mr. Chairman, I
object and I move that the gentleman's words be taken down. . . .
Mr. [Kenneth B.] Kramer [of Colorado]: The parliamentary
inquiry is: Can the Chair tell us the procedure that relates to
taking down words and what will follow?
The Chairman Pro Tempore: (11) The procedure is as
follows: After the Clerk reports the words, the Speaker will review
the words of the gentleman from South Carolina, making a ruling
thereon; unless, of course, the gentleman from South Carolina
wishes, by unanimous consent, to withdraw his words. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Thomas J. Downey (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Kramer: Mr. Chairman, is the ruling of the Speaker the
final word on that or is there an appeal process or how does that
work exactly?
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair would inform the gentleman
that the Speaker would rule on that but that after the Speaker has
ruled it would be in order to dictate the consequences of the
ruling of the Chair by proper motions in the House. . . .
Mr. Hartnett: Mr. Chairman, I am not certain as to which of my
remarks struck such a sensitive chord among my colleagues here this
afternoon. My words that have been now requested to have been taken
down were to the point that there is an element here in the House
that would advocate unilateral disarmament. Now it is my
understanding, Mr. Chairman, and I would like a ruling on this,
that the element means a section, a portion, a fraction or a part
or less than the whole and my statement was that there was an
element or a less than the whole membership of this House who would
advocate a unilateral disarmament and I would like the Chair to
rule.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: It is neither the intention nor the
privilege of the current presiding officer of the Committee of the
Whole to make such a ruling. That is the prerogative of the Speaker
and when the gentleman's words are read to the House, the Speaker
will so rule.
Rulings on Words Reported From Committee of the Whole
Sec. 50.10 Where words uttered in the Committee of the Whole are taken
down and reported to the House, the Speaker will not rule on other
words that may have been used in the Committee.
On July 27, 1965,(12) Mr. Howard W. Smith, of Virginia,
de
[[Page 10734]]
manded that certain words used in debate in the Committee of the Whole
by Mr. Charles E. Goodell, of New York, be taken down. Speaker John W.
McCormack, of Massachusetts, directed the Clerk to read the words that
had been objected to, and the Clerk read two sentences that were
reported from the Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 111 Cong. Rec. 18441, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Smith rose and objected that the Clerk had failed to read all
of the language used. Speaker McCormack ruled that the Chair could pass
only on the words that had been reported. After the Speaker delivered a
ruling on the words, Mr. Smith arose to demand that the sentence
following the words ruled out be taken down. Speaker McCormack
responded ``The Chair will state that the Chair can only pass upon the
words presented to the Chair and which were taken down in the Committee
of the Whole.''
Senate Practice
Sec. 50.11 Where a Senator is called to order for words spoken in
debate, the Presiding Officer makes a determination as to whether
the words transgress the rules; an appeal from his decision is in
order and is debatable within any time limitations adopted by the
Senate.
On May 14, 1964,(13) Senator Spessard L. Holland, of
Florida, asked unanimous consent to interrupt pending business for the
consideration of Senate Resolution 330, such consideration not to
exceed 40 minutes (the resolution extended the time and scope of a
committee investigation). Senator Michael J. Mansfield, of Montana,
made some remarks on the resolution and was called to order by Senator
Clifford P. Case, of New Jersey, for stating: ``The intemperate
inference, the thinly veiled implication in which some have indulged.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 110 Cong. Rec. 10926-31, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Presiding Officer Edward M. Kennedy, of Massachusetts, ruled that
the words indicated did not violate the rules of debate, and Senator
Case appealed that ruling and suggested the appeal was debatable. The
Presiding Officer responded:
Under paragraph 4 of rule XIX, the appeal from the ruling of
the Chair is debatable. The rule provides that if any Senator, in
speaking or otherwise, in the opinion of the Presiding Officer
transgress the rule, such Senator may appeal from the ruling of the
Chair, which appeal shall be open to debate.
The Presiding Officer then stated that the time limitation had
expired, and that the question
[[Page 10735]]
was on the consideration of the resolution. Senator Case asked for
recognition on his appeal, but the Presiding Officer ruled that the
expiration of the time limitation, and the intervening motion of
Senator Mansfield to lay the resolution on the table, precluded further
debate.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. For a memorandum, prepared by the Senate Parliamentarian and
inserted in the Record by the Senate Majority Leader,
explaining the parliamentary situation on S. Res. 330, see 110
Cong. Rec. 11087, 88th Cong. 2d Sess., May 16, 1964.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAPTER 29
Consideration and Debate
E. RELEVANCY IN DEBATE
Sec. 51. -- Withdrawal or Expungement of Words; Disciplinary Measures
Rule XIV clause 4 provides for action by the House where a Member
is called to order:
If any Member, in speaking or otherwise, transgress the rules
of the House, the Speaker shall, or any Member may, call him to
order . . . if the decision is in favor of the Member called to
order, he shall be at liberty to proceed, but not otherwise; and,
if the case requires it, he shall be liable to censure or such
punishment as the House may deem proper.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. House Rules and Manual Sec. 760 (1995).
See also Jefferson's Manual, House Rules and Manual
Sec. 303 (1995): ``[W]hatever is spoken in the House is subject
to the censure of the House; and offenses of this kind have
been severely punished by calling the person to the bar to make
submission, committing him to the tower, expelling the House,
etc.''
For obsolete parliamentary procedure in relation to
disorderly words, see Jefferson's Manual, House Rules and
Manual Sec. Sec. 366, 368 (1995).
For the remedy of one House against a Member of the other
House for disorderly words in debate reflecting upon the
former, see Sec. Sec. 44.9, 46.13, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the rule, a Member whose words are taken down must take his
seat and may not be recognized until the House permits him to proceed
in order (16) or unless the House by motion permits him to
explain the words before a ruling. But he may be recognized in the
discretion of the Speaker, either before or after the words have been
reported, for the limited purpose of requesting unanimous consent to
withdraw the words in question.(17) Where such request is
granted, the objectionable words are no longer before the House and the
Member called to order may proceed without the consent of the
House.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See Sec. Sec. 52.4, 52.5, infra.
17. See Sec. Sec. 51.1-51.3, infra.
18. See Sec. 52.3, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where the words are not withdrawn and are ruled unparliamentary by
the Speaker, the fol
[[Page 10736]]
lowing motions and resolutions have been entertained:
--unanimous-consent request by the Member called to order to
withdraw the words;
--unanimous-consent request to explain the words ruled offensive;
--debatable motion to expunge the words;
--debatable motion that the Member called to order be allowed to
proceed in order;
--resolution to punish the Member for the offense of uttering
unparliamentary words, which can take the form of a reprimand, censure,
or even expulsion.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Cannon's Procedure of the House of Representatives, 78, 79, H. Doc.
No. 122, 86th Cong. 1st Sess. (1959).
For motions to permit the Member called to order to proceed
or to explain, see Sec. 52, infra. Resolutions of expulsion are
not discussed herein, as the House has never expelled a Member
for disorderly words.
See also House Rules and Manual Sec. 760 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the Speaker has ordered unparliamentary remarks stricken
from the Record,(20) a motion is usually made by a Member
and voted upon by the House to determine whether objectionable words
shall be expunged. The motion is privileged after the words have been
ruled out of order.(1) The motion to expunge is debatable
under the hour rule,(2) and may be moved even after the
House has authorized the Member called to order to proceed in
order.(3) The House may expunge certain words, or an entire
speech, or remarks inserted in the Record in abuse of leave to revise
and extend.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See Sec. 51.36, infra.
1. See Sec. 51.22, infra.
2. See Sec. 51.26, infra.
3. See Sec. 51.23, infra. To a motion to expunge the remarks of one
Member, an amendment to expunge the remarks of another is not
germane. See Sec. 51.32, infra.
4. See Sec. Sec. 51.18, 51.35, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In past Congresses, the House has censured Members for disorderly
words.(5) On a recent occasion, a resolution of censure was
introduced and later withdrawn.(6) Censure or other
disciplinary action is a matter for the House and not the Chair to
decide,(7) but no action is in order until the Chair has
ruled on the words objected to.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. See 2 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 1253, 1254, 1259, 1305; 6
Cannon's Precedents Sec. 236.
6. See Sec. 51.28, infra.
7. See Sec. 51.27, infra.
8. See Sec. 51.21, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the precedents,(9) where a Member is granted
permission
[[Page 10737]]
to withdraw disorderly remarks from the Record, he must personally
delete the words from the transcript, and the Official Reporters of
Debate will not assume that responsibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. For an example under the former practice of an instance where
remarks were not deleted because the Member did not take the
necessary action, see 110 Cong. Rec. 13254, 88th Cong. 2d
Sess., June 10, 1964.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under a new provision of House Rule XIV clause 9(b),(10)
unparliamentary remarks may be deleted only by permission or order of
the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. House Rules and Manual Sec. 764a (1995), adopted on Jan. 4, 1995
(H. Res. 6), 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forms
Request by Member called to order to withdraw words objected
to.
I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the words objected
to.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2544.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motion to expunge words objected to from the Record.
I move that the words just read by the Clerk be expunged
from the Record, and on that motion I demand the previous
question.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2538.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolution as question of privilege of the House to expunge
objectionable words inserted in the Record.
Resolved, That as much of the extension in the Record
referred to by the gentleman from [State] and which refers to
the gentleman from [State] be and hereby is ordered
expunged.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Cannon's Procedure of the House of Representatives, 78, H. Doc. No.
122, 86th Cong. 1st Sess. (1959).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolution to censure Member called to order for objectionable
words.
Resolved, That the gentleman from [State], in the language
used by him in the Committee of the Whole, and taken down and
reported to the House and read at the Clerk's desk, has been
guilty of a violation of the rules and privileges of the House,
and merits the censure of the House for the same.
Resolved, That the said gentleman be now brought to the bar
of the House by the Sergeant-at-Arms, and there the censure of
the House be administered by the Speaker.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 2 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 1259; 91 Cong. Rec. 1371, 1445, 79th Cong.
1st Sess., Feb. 22, 26, 1945.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Privileged resolution to expunge words from the Record.
Whereas the gentleman from [State] referring to the
gentleman from [State], stated on the floor of the House on
``______'', as appears in the Record on page ``____'',
``______'', [words objected to] and
Whereas such words were a violation of the rules of the
House and, as reprinted in the Record, charge the gentleman
from [State] with a lack of patriotism, and with disloyalty to
his country, reflect upon him in his representative capacity
and upon the dignity of the House: Therefore, be it
Resolved, That the words, ``______'', be expunged from the
Record.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 86 Cong. Rec. 11552, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., Sept. 5, 1940
(expungement of remarks inserted in the Record under leave to
revise and extend).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Privileged resolution to investigate charges made by one Member
against another.
Whereas, in ________, purporting to have been written by
________, a Member of the House of Representa
[[Page 10738]]
tives from [State], the following charge appears:
``__________''; and
Whereas the said gentleman has reiterated the same on the
floor of the House: Therefore, be it
Resolved, That a committee of five Members be appointed by
the Speaker to investigate and report to the House whether such
charges are true, and if untrue, whether the said gentleman has
violated the privileges of the House, and their recommendations
to the same. That said committee have leave to sit during the
sessions of the House, to send for persons and papers, to swear
witnesses, and to compel their attendance.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 3 Hinds' Precedents
Sec. 2637. -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Withdrawal of Words Before Ruling
Sec. 51.1 When a demand is made that certain words used in debate be
taken down, such words may be withdrawn by unanimous consent in the
House or in the Committee of the Whole before being reported to the
House.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 110 Cong. Rec. 13275, 88th Cong. 2d Sess., June 10, 1964; 110 Cong.
Rec. 13254, 88th Cong. 2d Sess., June 10, 1964; 110 Cong. Rec.
10448, 88th Cong. 2d Sess., May 11, 1964; 110 Cong. Rec. 2698,
88th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 10, 1964; 109 Cong. Rec. 13865,
13866, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 1, 1963; 92 Cong. Rec. 533,
79th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 29, 1946; 86 Cong. Rec. 11516, 11517,
76th Cong. 3d Sess., Sept. 4, 1940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 51.2 Although a Member's words have been taken down on demand and
read to the House, the Speaker may recognize the Member who uttered
the words to ask unanimous consent to withdraw or modify the words.
On June 5, 1962,(18) Mr. John D. Dingell, Jr., of
Michigan, referred to another Member as a ``mouthpiece'' for the
American Medical Association. Mr. Thomas B. Curtis, of Missouri,
demanded those words be taken down, and the Clerk read them to the
House on the direction of Speaker Pro Tempore Arnold Olsen, of
Missouri.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 108 Cong. Rec. 9739, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Dingell then asked unanimous consent to change the words
complained of to ``self-appointed spokesman'' instead of
``mouthpiece.'' There was no objection to the request, and Mr. Curtis
withdrew his point of order.
On June 12, 1947,(19) Mr. John E. Rankin, of
Mississippi, objected to certain words used in debate by Mr. Chet
Holifield, of California. Before the Clerk could report the words
objected to, Mr. Holifield attempted to address the House and Mr.
Rankin objected that he
[[Page 10739]]
could not speak until his objectionable words were disposed of. Mr.
Rankin stated that Mr. Holifield could not even make a unanimous-
consent request in relation to the words. Speaker Joseph W. Martin,
Jr., of Massachusetts, responded:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 93 Cong. Rec. 6895, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair can always recognize anyone to propound a unanimous-
consent request. Of course, it would be within the province of the
gentleman from Mississippi to object, but the Chair can put
unanimous-consent requests at any time.
Sec. 51.3 The Speaker suggested that a Member who had uttered
unparliamentary words request unanimous consent to withdraw them.
On July 29, 1948,(20) Mr. Abraham J. Multer, of New
York, characterized the remarks of Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi,
in debate as offensive. Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of
Massachusetts, stated that the language used was a reflection upon Mr.
Rankin and requested that Mr. Multer ask unanimous consent to strike
the words from his remarks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 94 Cong. Rec. 9532, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Multer asked unanimous consent to so strike the words and there
was no objection.
Sec. 51.4 Where a demand is made that words uttered in debate be taken
down, the Member using those words may, by unanimous consent,
withdraw them before the Chair rules on their propriety.
On Mar. 2, 1977,(1) during consideration of House
Resolution 287 (amending the rules of the House) in the Committee of
the Whole, the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 123 Cong. Rec. 5937, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [David R.] Obey [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I move to
strike the requisite number of words, and I oppose the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, speeches like the one we just heard from the
gentleman from Minnesota are the reason that we have wound up with
so many Members of the House having the very kind of slush funds
that we are trying to abolish today. What we are trying to do is to
meet official expenses in an official, honest, aboveboard, open
fashion. That is all we are trying to do. The gentleman can toss
around all of the words he wants and all of the inflammatory words
he wants.
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I demand
the gentleman's words be taken down.
The Chairman: (2) Does the gentleman from Wisconsin
ask to withdraw the words that were objected to?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Edward P. Boland (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Obey: I have no idea which words he objected to, but to
satisfy the gentleman from Maryland, I will withdraw them.
[[Page 10740]]
Mr. Bauman: To clarify, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has referred to the language used by the
gentleman from Minnesota as ``phony words.'' He has also referred
to his remarks as ``baloney.''
I hardly think that the words do anything, I would say to the
Chairman, except impugn the motives of the gentleman from
Minnesota.
The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Wisconsin ask to withdraw
those words?
Mr. Obey: Mr. Chairman, since it is necessary for someone
around here to be responsible in the interest of getting things
done, surely I withdraw those words.
The Chairman: Without objection it is so ordered. The gentleman
may continue.
Sec. 51.5 On one occasion, two Members demanded that each other's words
be taken down and then, by unanimous consent, withdrew their
remarks in Committee of the Whole before they were reported to the
House.
On Apr. 29, 1976,(3) during consideration of the first
concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal 1977,(4)
remarks were exchanged in which one Member characterized remarks made
by another as racist, and the latter Member referred to the other as a
``pipsqueak.'' (The remarks in question do not appear in the Record,
because both Members received permission to withdraw their remarks
before they were reported to the House.) The following exchange
occurred during the proceedings:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 122 Cong. Rec. 11882, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
4. H. Con. Res. 611.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I demand
that the gentleman's words be taken down. . . .
The Chairman: (5) The Clerk will report the words.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Richard L.] Ottinger [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent to withdraw my remark.
The Chairman: Does the Chair understand that the gentleman
desires to withdraw the remark?
Mr. Ottinger: That is correct, the remarks that the gentleman
made, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the remarks.
The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, I likewise make a similar request. I
ask unanimous consent that my characterization of the gentleman be
withdrawn.
The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Maryland that his remark be withdrawn from the
record?
There was no objection.
Parliamentarian's Note: Under the precedents,(6) where a
Member
[[Page 10741]]
is granted permission to withdraw disorderly remarks from the Record,
he must personally delete the words from the transcript, and the
Official Reporters of Debate will not assume that responsibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. See, for example, 110 Cong. Rec. 13254, 88th Cong. 2d Sess., June
10, 1964, where the Member did not take the necessary action to
delete.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 51.6 Words objected to in Committee of the Whole may be withdrawn
by unanimous consent.
On Feb. 8, 1978,(7) during proceedings related to H.R.
6805, the Consumer Protection Act of 1977, Mr. Benjamin S. Rosenthal,
of New York, stated, in reference to statements previously made in
debate by Mr. Robert E. Bauman, of Maryland: ``I think that is really
an unfair statement, and I myself am sorry that I did not stand up to
have Mr. Bauman's words taken down earlier today. I regret that I
hesitated, because they impugned the motives of Members and groups
supporting the bill. It not only is extraordinarily bad taste, it is
violative of the rules of the House.'' (8) The following
exchange then occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 124 Cong. Rec. 2831, 2832, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
8. Note: The words in question would probably not in fact have been
ruled to be unparliamentary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, a point of order, Mr. Chairman, a
point of order.
The Chairman: (9) The time of the gentleman from New
York has expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Frank E. Evans (Colo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, I made the point of order while the
gentleman from New York was speaking, before the gentleman's time
expired.
The Chairman: There was so much noise the Chair did not hear
the gentleman from Maryland. The gentleman from Maryland will state
his point of order.
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, I demand that the words of the
gentleman from New York be taken down.
The Chairman: The gentleman from Maryland is referring to which
words?
Mr. Bauman: To the entire series of words of the gentleman from
New York, from the first reference to the gentleman from Maryland
to the last.
The Chairman: The Clerk will report the words the gentleman
from Maryland wishes taken down. . . .
Mr. Rosenthal: Mr. Chairman, in the interest of expediency, I
would ask unanimous consent that the words the gentleman from
Maryland thought offensive be withdrawn.
The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, do I understand that all reference
made by the gentleman from New York to the gentleman from Maryland
will be withdrawn completely from the remarks of the gentleman from
New York as they will appear in the Record?
Mr. Rosenthal: Yes, in this particular case.
The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
[[Page 10742]]
There was no objection.
Sec. 51.7 Words in debate demanded to be taken down were withdrawn by
unanimous consent.
On July 13, 1978,(10) Mr. Ronald V. Dellums, of
California, made the following remarks with reference to House
Resolution 1267, a resolution to impeach Andrew Young, United States
Ambassador to the United Nations, on the basis of statements made by
Mr. Young concerning ``political prisoners'' in the United States:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 124 Cong. Rec. 20714-15, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Any] citizen of America has a right to free speech. So, Andrew
Young exercised that.
It seems to me that there is no legal justification for
offering a resolution of impeachment of Andrew Young.
Mr. Dellums further stated:
It seems to me folly and absolute madness, total insanity,
totally devoid of intellectual capability, no legal backup, to
offer a resolution of impeachment of Andrew Young, for there is no
treason for making a statement. That is a violation of freedom.
A demand was made that these words be taken down:
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I make a
point of order against the last remarks made by the gentleman, and
I demand that his words be taken down.
Mr. Dellums: Which points is the gentleman responding to?
Mr. Bauman: I would say to the Chair that the Chair well knows
the precedents of the House to require Members to respect the
motives of other Members. . . .
Mr. Dellums: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the term ``madness'' and
``insanity'' and make my case without those two words. . . .
Mr. Bauman: Is my understanding correct that unanimous consent
has been granted to withdraw those words from the Record?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (11) Without objection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. John Joseph Moakley (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 51.8 Words objected to in debate may be withdrawn by unanimous
consent, but no debate is in order pending such a request.
During consideration of the foreign aid authorization bill (H.R.
12514) in the Committee of the Whole on Aug. 2, 1978,(12)
the following exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 124 Cong. Rec. 23944, 23945, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John J.] Cavanaugh [of Nebraska]: . . . I am highly
offended and irritated by much of the language presented here by
Mr. Bauman and by our colleague from Minnesota concerning the
administration support.
[Mr. Cavanaugh further characterized Mr. Bauman's language as
``outrageous,'' the characterization in question.]
[[Page 10743]]
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I make a
point
of order against the language of the
gentleman from Nebraska if he cannot conduct himself civilly in
debate. . . . I demand his words be taken down. . . .
Mr. Cavanaugh: Mr. Chairman, insofar as the characterization
that I used regarding the gentleman's language could in any way be
construed to impugn the gentleman's character, I would ask
unanimous consent to withdraw it. It was an attempt to simply
convey my feelings of the inappropriateness of the language that
the gentleman had used in putting forth his argument.
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
The Chairman: (13) The gentleman will state his
point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Don Fuqua (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Bauman: Is not the only request the gentleman from Nebraska
(Mr. Cavanaugh) can make, under the rules of the House, a
unanimous-consent request to withdraw his remarks, and not to make
a speech?
The Chairman: The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman) is
correct.
Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Nebraska?
There was no objection.
Sec. 51.9 Words objected to in
debate were withdrawn by unanimous consent prior to being reported
to the House.
The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on
Aug. 3, 1978,(14) during consideration of the foreign aid
appropriation bill (H.R. 12931):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 124 Cong. Rec. 24238, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John F.] Seiberling [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I just want
to say I think it is too bad all the Members of the House are not
here. I think we have heard from the gentleman from Wisconsin one
of the most outstanding and refreshing statements I have heard on
the subject of foreign affairs in many, many months. We heard a
voice of reason and responsibility bringing us all back to our
senses and asking us whether or not the American people are still
ready to assert leadership in the world, to work through to a more
sane and rational world state of affairs, or whether we are going
to heed all the extreme voices that would tear apart the structure
we have so painstakingly built up over the last 30 years to try to
make sense out of the world.
[Mr. Seiberling further characterized some discussion of the
subject as ``hysterical.'']
Mr. [C. W. Bill] Young of Florida: Mr. Chairman, I demand the
gentleman's words be taken down. I just do not think my remarks
should be considered as hysterical and I demand the gentleman's
words be taken down. . . .
Mr. Seiberling: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
withdraw whatever the remarks are that the gentleman from Florida
found objectionable. They were not addressed to him or against any
other Member. I did not mention his name. Whatever the words are
that he finds objectionable, then, in the interest of an amicable
debate, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw them.
The Chairman: (15) Is there objection to the
unanimous-consent request of the gentleman from Ohio?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Abraham Kazen, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 10744]]
There was no objection.
Parliamentarian's Note: The words in question, characterizing some
discussion of the issues as ``hysterical'', would probably not have
been ruled out of order, since not in the context used referring to any
Member.
Sec. 51.10 By unanimous consent, the Speaker was permitted to withdraw
remarks he delivered from the floor in debate in reference to a
specific Member, following a demand that the words be taken down.
During consideration of H.R. 7542 (supplemental appropriations and
rescission bill for fiscal year 1980) in the House on July 2,
1980,(16) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 126 Cong. Rec. 18361, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Thomas P.] O'Neill [Jr., of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I
have served in legislative bodies for . . . years. In my
legislative lifetime I have never seen a Speaker ever make a wrong
ruling. . . .
I was 16 years in the Massachusetts Legislature, and only once
did I ever see anybody appeal the Chair's ruling. . . .
I am sorry that the gentlewoman from Massachusetts was duped
the way she was. I am sorry, in my opinion----
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I demand
that the gentleman's words be taken down. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (17) Does the gentleman
from Massachusetts withdraw the word that was used?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Paul Simon (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. O'Neill: The Speaker will withdraw the word. . . .
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the
gentleman be permitted to withdraw the word ``duped.''
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from Maryland?
There was no objection.
Parliamentarian's Note: The word ``duped,'' used to mean
``fooled,'' was arguably not out of order.
Sec. 51.11 Pending a demand that words spoken in debate be taken down
and ruled unparliamentary, the Chair may inquire whether the Member
whose remarks are challenged wishes to request unanimous consent to
modify his remarks before directing the Clerk to read them.
On Dec. 8, 1982,(18) during consideration of the Defense
appropriation bill (H.R. 7355) in the Committee of the Whole, demand
was made that the following
[[Page 10745]]
words of Mr. Robert K. Dornan, of California, be taken down:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 128 Cong. Rec. 29466, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Dornan of California: . . . When I overheard Mr. Harkin in
Communist China as he put on a Mao hat say, and he did not realize
I could hear him, ``It is an honor to wear a worker's hat''; that
is the hat of Mao who killed 30, 40, maybe 50 million people, I
realized what is Mr. Harkin's terrorist is my freedom fighter, and
what is my freedom fighter is his terrorist.
I implore the Members to vote down this mischievous amendment.
. . .
Mr. John L. Burton [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I demand the
gentleman's words be taken down about our colleague, Mr. Harkin
supporting terrorists.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: (19) Does the gentleman
from California (Mr. Burton) withdraw his request?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Don Bailey (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. John L. Burton: No, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: Is the gentleman from California (Mr.
Dornan) willing to request that his remarks be modified in any way?
Mr. Dornan of California: Did you ask, Would I modify my
remarks, Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman Pro Tempore: Yes.
Mr. Dornan of California: No; it is a matter of personal
perception. I repeat, what is Mr. Harkin's terrorist is my freedom
fighter. What is my freedom fighter is obviously his terrorist. I
may be wrong. He may be wrong. That is up to the judgment of the
Members, but my perception about his misperceptions stands.
Mr. John L. Burton: I have seen people crawfish. That is good
enough for me.
Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my request.
Sec. 51.12 Clause 1 of Rule XIV proscribes Members in debate from
engaging in personalities, including allegations that an
identifiable group of sitting Members have committed a crime; thus,
a Member by unanimous consent withdrew a statement in debate that
the majority members of the House had ``stolen'' a seat, pending a
demand that those words be taken down.
On Feb. 27, 1985,(20) Mr. Andrew Jacobs, Jr., of
Indiana, demanded that words spoken by Mr. John Rowland, of
Connecticut, be taken down:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 131 Cong. Rec. 3898, 3899, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Jacobs: Mr. Speaker, I demand the gentleman's words be
taken down in that he said ``stolen.'' . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (1) The Clerk will read the
words taken down.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Tommy F. Robinson (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
The scary thing about it, as a person who served in the
legislature for 4 years, and as a person who happens to be
sitting as the youngest Member of Congress, I find it difficult
that the first situation that we
[[Page 10746]]
run into in this House, the first class project, as we may call
it, is trying to retain a seat that has been stolen from the
Republican side of the aisle, and I think it is rather
frustrating.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Would the gentleman care to modify his
remarks before the Chair rules?
Mr. Rowland of Connecticut: Yes, I would, Mr. Speaker. . . . I
would like to ask unanimous consent that the words objected to be
withdrawn.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: That what word be withdrawn?
Mr. Rowland of Connecticut. The word ``stolen,'' Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from Connecticut?
There was no objection. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Georgia is
recognized.
Mr. [Newt] Gingrich [of Georgia]: I would yield in just a
moment, after asking the Chair if in fact Members were convinced an
action were being taken which involved a word which was ruled by
the Chair to be inappropriate, how could a Member report to the
House on that action? Should we substitute the word ``banana''?
What is it one should say if in fact--not just
as a joke, but if in fact--Members of
the Republican side honestly believed strongly something is being
done? In other words, is ``unconstitutional'' an acceptable term
but ``illegal'' not acceptable?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is the gentleman asking the Chair?
Mr. Gingrich: I am asking the Chair.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Simply put, Members should not accuse
other Members of committing a crime. When the majority is accused
of ``stealing,'' that may suggest illegality. Other words could be
used but not those accusing Members of committing a crime.
Mr. Gingrich: What if one honestly believes, for a moment, that
a crime is being committed? Would it in fact be against the rules--
--
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Members may not engage in
personalities.
Mr. Gingrich: But he did not talk in personalities. . . .
Mr. Rowland of Connecticut: . . . Mr. Speaker, I would simply
point out that I did not refer to anybody stealing an election. I
just referred to the frustration that we as freshmen are exhibiting
and fearing as we go through the deliberations. I did not refer to
anybody.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman seemed to refer to the
majority of the House, that it had stolen the election.
Sec. 51.13 Words taken down may be withdrawn only by unanimous consent.
In the 100th Congress, upon a timely demand that certain words
uttered in debate be taken down as unparliamentary, the Speaker ruled
that the remarks characterizing the relationship between Senator and
Vice-Presidential candidate J. Danforth Quayle's political words and
his living deeds as ``hypocrisy'' were out of order and should be
withdrawn. Subsequently, objection was made to a unanimous-consent
request
[[Page 10747]]
that the offending language be stricken. The proceedings of Sept. 29,
1988, are discussed in Sec. 47.10, supra.
Sec. 51.14 A Member, by unanimous consent, withdrew a statement in
debate that the majority members of the House had ``stolen'' a
seat, pending a demand that those words be taken down.
The proceedings of Feb. 27, 1985, concerning remarks alleging that
certain Members of the House had ``stolen'' an election, are discussed
in Sec. 53.7, infra.
--Modifying Words
Sec. 51.15 Where a demand is made that a Member's words be taken down,
he may by unanimous consent be allowed to proceed in debate if
permission is first granted to modify the words in order to delete
the objectionable matter.
On Oct. 2, 1984,(2) during consideration of the balanced
budget bill (H.R. 6300), Mr. John V. Weber, of Minnesota, stated that
another Member had come to the floor with a gimmick ``which he thinks
will fool the people of Tulsa.'' (3) A point of order was
made:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 130 Cong. Rec. 28522, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
3. The words were stricken from the Record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. [Mary Rose] Oakar [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (4) The gentlewoman will
state her point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Oakar: Mr. Speaker, I question the speaker regarding
impugning the motives of the chairman who has introduced this
legislation.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Does the gentlewoman insist that the
gentleman's words be taken down?
Ms. Oakar: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I do.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the words.
After several parliamentary inquiries, the following occurred:
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Does the gentleman have a unanimous-
consent request?
Mr. [Guy V.] Molinari [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I repeat my
request that the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Weber) be permitted
to speak in order . . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from New York?
Does the gentleman from Minnesota first ask unanimous consent
to modify his words?
Mr. Weber: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to modify my
words.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection?
[[Page 10748]]
Ms. Oakar: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I would
like to know what his words are going to be that he is going to
modify. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The words that were uttered just prior
to the gentlewoman's demand.
Ms. Oakar: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from Minnesota?
There was no objection.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Weber) may proceed in order.
Parliamentarian's Note: Permission for a Member to proceed in
debate should not be granted until the words have been ruled on, or
modified or withdrawn.
Withdrawal of Demand That Words Be Taken Down
Sec. 51.16 On one occasion, upon a demand that certain words used in
debate (characterizing unnamed Members as taking ``potshots'' at
the Nicaraguan resistance and as lacking judgment) be taken down,
the Chair suggested that the words only questioned the judgment of
unspecified Members in a manner not in violation of House rules,
and the demand was withdrawn prior to a ruling thereon.
During the proceedings in the House on Mar. 18, 1986,(5)
the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 132 Cong. Rec. 5200, 5201, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I just
got back from Nicaragua, and in light of what I saw and heard, I
find today's speeches by the left wing of the Democratic Party
astonishing.
For Members of Congress to stand safely on this floor and take
potshots at men and women of tremendous courage who are struggling
against great odds to oppose Communist tyranny in Nicaragua is,
indeed, astonishing. That questions no one's patriotism; it
questions their judgment.
Mr. [Parren J.] Mitchell [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I request
the gentleman's words be taken down. He is questioning the judgment
of other Members of the House.
The Speaker Pro Tempore:(6) The gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Mitchell) requests that the words of the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Walker) be taken down. The Chair would
inquire as to which words the gentleman refers to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Bill Alexander (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Mitchell: He questions the judgment of the Members of the
House who oppose the Reagan proposition.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would suggest that the
gentleman did not refer to any specific Member in violation of the
rules of the House. Does the gentleman insist on his request?
Mr. Mitchell: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I do because it followed a
statement that
[[Page 10749]]
I just made where I indicated that I oppose the President's
position, and certainly by inference he is questioning my judgment
and I resent it.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman insists, and the Clerk
will report the words. . . .
Mr. Mitchell: If the Speaker so desires, I will not press the
point of order, but with the indulgence of the Speaker, I will
state that I personally resent any attempt to impugn my motives.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman withdraws his demand.
Striking Words From Record
Sec. 51.17 Where allegedly unparliamentary words were used in debate
but not objected to nor taken down, the House rejected a later
resolution called up by unanimous consent proposing to strike those
words from the Record.
On May 10, 1948, the House granted unanimous consent for the
immediate consideration of House Resolution 587, to strike from the
Record allegedly unparliamentary words made on the floor of the House
on May 6, 1948.(7) When the words were uttered, they were
not objected to nor taken down and ruled upon by the Speaker.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 94 Cong. Rec. 5507, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The House rejected the resolution proposing to strike the words
from the Record and the sponsor of the resolution objected to a
unanimous-consent request of the Member who uttered the words that he
be permitted to withdraw them. A discussion ensued as to the practice
to be followed when alleged unparliamentary words are used in debate
but not taken down, and whether the unanimous-consent consideration of
the resolution proposed by Mr. Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, furnished
a precedent to permit future Members to move to strike out words in the
Record because allegedly not heard at the time of
utterance.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Id. at pp. 5507-09. The Speaker has consistently held that words
uttered in debate must be objected to at the time they are made
(see Sec. Sec. 49.6, 49.7, supra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 51.18 The Speaker having ruled out of order certain words used by
a Member in debate, the House expunged from the Record his entire
speech.
On Feb. 11, 1941,(9) Mr. Samuel Dickstein, of New York,
was recognized for five minutes and was granted permission to revise
and extend his remarks. Following Mr. Dickstein's address, Mr. John E.
Rankin, of Mississippi, demanded
[[Page 10750]]
that certain words used in debate by Mr. Dickstein be taken down. The
Clerk read the following words:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 87 Cong. Rec. 894, 895, 899, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Dickstein: I also charge, Mr. Speaker, that 110 facist
organizations in this country had the back key, and have now the
back key to the backdoor of the Dies committee.
Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Tex-as, ruled that the language reported
was a breach of order and Mr. Rankin moved to expunge the entire speech
of Mr. Dickstein from the Record. Following debate by Mr. Rankin, the
House agreed to the motion.
Sec. 51.19 On one occasion, the proceedings under which a Member's
remarks were tak-en down were by unanimous consent deleted from the
Record and the Member was granted the privilege of revising and
extending his remarks.
On May 31, 1939,(10) Mr. Sam Rayburn, of Texas, asked
unanimous consent that ``the proceedings under which the remarks of the
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Sam C. Massingale], in reference to the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Carl E. Mapes], were taken down may be
deleted from the Record and that the gentleman from Oklahoma may have
the right to revise and extend his own remarks.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 84 Cong. Rec. 6465, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The request was granted after Mr. Rayburn gave assurances that the
request was made with the approval of both Mr. Mapes and Mr.
Massingale.
Sec. 51.20 A Member, having been called to order for words spoken in
debate and those words having been held unparliamentary may not
proceed without the permission of the House; and, on motion, the
unparliamentary words may be stricken from the Record by the House.
On Aug. 21, 1974,(11) it was demonstrated that where the
demand is made that certain words used in debate be taken down in the
House, the business of the House is suspended until the situation is
properly resolved. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 120 Cong. Rec. 29652, 29653, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Thomas P.] O'Neill [Jr., of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I
take this time so I may direct my remarks to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Bauman).
Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, by mutual consent of the leadership on
both sides of the aisle and by the members of the Judiciary
Committee, I offered to this
[[Page 10751]]
House a resolution. At the completion of the resolution, Mr.
Speaker, I asked that all Members may have 5 legislative days in
which to extend their remarks and it was objected to, Mr. Speaker,
by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman). He gave a reason at
that particular time.
I told him that I thought he should have cleared it with the
leadership on his own side of the aisle; but nevertheless, Mr.
Speaker, when all the Members had left last night, the gentleman
came to the well and asked unanimous consent of the then Speaker of
the House who was sitting there, if he may insert his remarks in
the Record, with unanimous consent, following the remarks where he
had objected.
So, Mr. Speaker, in today's Record on page H8724 you will find
the remarks of Mr. Bauman. You will not find the remarks of Mr.
McClory, one of the people who had asked me to do this. You will
not find the remarks of other members of the Judiciary Committee,
who were prepared at that time to put their remarks in the Record;
but you will find the remarks of Mr. Bauman and Mr. Bauman alone.
[I just want to say that I think in my opinion it was a cheap,
sneaky, sly way to operate.]
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I demand
that the gentleman's words be taken down.
The Speaker: (12) The gentleman demands that the
words be taken down.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk will report the words objected to. . . .
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. O'Neill: Mr. Speaker, I take this time so I may direct
my remarks to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman). . . .
I just want to say that I think in my opinion it was a
cheap, sneaky, sly way to operate.
The Speaker: The words in the last sentence are not
parliamentary. Without objection, the offending words will be
stricken from the Record.
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I would
only like to say to the gentleman from Massachusetts and to the
House that as for the gentleman from Massachusetts, I can
understand his concern about my objection yesterday. It was the
only possible way in which I or any other Member could have
actually spoken on the resolution pending.
If he will look at the page numbers he cited, he will find
subsequent to that, that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Devine), the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Dennis), and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Wiggins), all in my presence asked permission and
did extend their remarks. And, of course, the gentleman from
Massachusetts got 5 legislative days to extend on his special
order. I did not object to any of these requests.
Mr. O'Neill: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield on that
point?
The Speaker: The gentleman from Massachusetts cannot proceed at
this point.
Mr. Bauman: And, Mr. Speaker, a number of other Members did
extend their remarks, and I did not object.
The Speaker: Is there objection? . . .
Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I do object. . . .
Mr. [B. F.] Sisk [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
motion.
[[Page 10752]]
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Sisk moves that the words of the gentleman from
Massachusetts, Mr. O'Neill, be stricken from the Record.
Mr. Sisk: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the
motion.
The previous question was ordered.
The Speaker: The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from California.
The motion was agreed to.
Parliamentarian's Note: 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2546 seems to
support the proposition that the restriction imposed upon a Member
whose words are held unparliamentary, which prevents that Member from
proceeding further in debate, extends only to further debate on the
``immediately pending question'' and not to subsequent debate during
that day. But on Jan. 29, 1946,(13) it was held that a
Member may not again proceed the same day without the permission of the
House. The prohibition should in any case extend for the entire day
unless permission of the House to proceed in order is granted, in order
to properly enforce the Chair's ruling holding the words to be
unparliamentary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 92 Cong. Rec. 533, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Time To Strike Words
Sec. 51.21 When objectionable words are reported to the House from the
Committee of the Whole it is the duty of the Chair first to
determine whether the words violate the rules of the House before
motions are in order for the disposition of the matter.
On May 13, 1932,(14) certain words used in debate in the
Committee of the Whole were demanded to be taken down. The Committee
rose and the Clerk read to the House the words reported from the
Committee. After the words were reported, Mr. Homer C. Parker, of
Georgia, addressed Speaker Pro Tempore William B. Bankhead, of Alabama,
in order to make a motion with respect to the words objected to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 75 Cong. Rec. 10135, 10136, 72d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Parker of Georgia: Mr. Speaker, I move that the words that
have been taken down----
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state to the gentleman
from Georgia that the preliminary question for the Chair to decide
is whether or not the words taken down are opprobrious or in
contravention of the rules of the House and of orderly debate. The
statement made by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Blanton] has been
reported by the Clerk and is now before the House for
consideration.
The present occupant of the chair, of course, regrets
personally that he is
[[Page 10753]]
called upon to make a decision affecting this matter, because the
Chair can readily understand how the words in question may have
been construed to disparage the gentleman from Georgia, but it is
only the duty of the Chair, under the circumstances, to undertake
to construe, from a parliamentary standpoint, whether or not the
words used are offensive in their nature or tend to bring the
gentleman from Georgia into contempt or disrepute before the House.
However much the Chair would like to have an expression of the
House on this language (15) that has been taken down,
the Chair is compelled to come to the conclusion that the language
in itself does not offend the rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. The words objected to involved the characterization by one Member
(Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas) of another (Mr. Parker, of
Georgia) as ``the general who won the war.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 51.22 A motion to exclude words from the Record is not privileged
until the Chair has decided that the words are out of order.
On June 14, 1929,(16) Mr. B. Frank Murphy, of Ohio,
demanded that certain words used in debate by Mr. Fiorello H.
LaGuardia, of New York, condemning the government as having become
``something hated, something oppressive'' be taken down. Speaker Pro
Tempore Thomas S. Williams, of Illinois, directed the Clerk to report
the words objected to. Immediately following the reading of the words,
Mr. Murphy moved to exclude the words taken down from the Congressional
Record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 71 Cong. Rec. 2924, 71st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker Pro Tempore ruled that the motion was not in order:
The Chair will say to the gentleman from Ohio that his motion
is not in order until the Chair has ruled as to whether the words
objected to and demanded to be taken down are out of order.
On Jan. 17, 1933,(17) Mr. Louis T. McFadden, of
Pennsylvania, sought to impeach President Herbert C. Hoover for high
crimes and misdemeanors and introduced a resolution impeaching the
President. After the resolution was read, Mr. Henry T. Rainey, of
Illinois, moved to lay the resolution of impeachment on the table. Mr.
Fred A. Britten, of Illinois, then raised a parliamentary inquiry: ``Is
a motion to expunge the language which has just transpired in the House
in order at this time?''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 76 Cong. Rec. 1965-68, 72d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaker John N. Garner, of Texas, indicated that the request could
be made at that time only by unanimous consent.
Sec. 51.23 A motion to expunge a Member's remarks from the
[[Page 10754]]
Record, the Chair having held them to be unparliamentary, is in
order even though the House by vote has authorized the Member to
proceed.
On June 7, 1933,(18) Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas,
was called to order for referring to Mr. Bertrand H. Snell, of New
York, by name in debate and for holding him up to ridicule. Mr. John
E. Rankin, of Mississippi, then moved that Mr. Blanton be permitted to
proceed in order, and the House by vote so authorized Mr. Blanton to
proceed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 77 Cong. Rec. 5203-05, 73d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Frederick R. Lehlbach, of New Jersey, then arose to move that
the words spoken by Mr. Blanton be expunged from the Record. Mr. Rankin
made the point of order that the motion came too late. Speaker Henry T.
Rainey, of Illinois, ruled that the motion to expunge was in order
since no business intervened between the vote on the motion to proceed
in order and the entering of the motion to expunge words from the
Record.
Sec. 51.24 A demand that certain words spoken in debate be taken down
must be made before further debate intervenes, but a Member may
by unanimous consent withdraw from the Record words he had
previously spoken.
During debate on H.R. 11(19) in the Committee of the
Whole on Feb. 24, 1977,(20) the proceedings described above
occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Local Public Works Capital Development and Investment Act
Amendments.
20. 123 Cong. Rec. 5349, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [E. G.] Shuster [of Pennsylvania]: I would like to call the
attention of the Committee to the very significant point just made
by the gentleman from Puerto Rico, which was that, in effect,
Puerto Rico received under the previous jobs bill $127 million--
more than almost any State of the Union.
Under the Shuster amendment, certainly Puerto Rico would not be
left out. They would receive $47 million. The gentleman has made a
good point. . . .
Mr. [Robert A.] Roe [of New Jersey]: Madam Chairman, I am glad
that came up. I am very glad that came up. So let us deal with that
[demagogic] approach.
In every other piece of legislation that we have had, so far as
I know, out of the public works end of it, what we are faced with
is that we treat Puerto Rico as a State.
Mr. Shuster: Madam Chairman, I ask that his words be taken
down.
The Chairman: (1) The gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Shuster) asks
[[Page 10755]]
that the words of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Roe) be taken
down. The demand comes too late, since debate has proceeded beyond
that point.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Barbara Jordan (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Roe: Madam Chairman, if I have used the wrong words, I
apologize right here and now. I did not mean anything personal.
Mr. Shuster: Madam Chairman, I was on my feet.
The Chairman: The gentleman was not seeking recognition.
Does the gentleman from New Jersey ask unanimous consent to
withdraw his words?
Mr. Roe: Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I may be
allowed to withdraw any words that I may have used inappropriately.
Mr. Shuster: I thank the gentleman.
The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New Jersey?
There was no objection.
Sec. 51.25 When there is a demand that certain words used in debate be
taken down, the words objected to may be withdrawn by unanimous
consent by the Member using them, but where the words are not
withdrawn, the Speaker will rule on the propriety of the words.
The proceedings of Mar. 19, 1985, concerning the propriety of words
spoken in debate by Mr. Harry Reid, of Nevada, are discussed in
Sec. 51.36, infra.
--Debate on Motion To Strike
Sec. 51.26 Debate on a motion to expunge from the Record certain
remarks used in debate and ruled out of order is under the hour
rule.
On Feb. 11, 1941,(2) Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi,
demanded that certain words used in debate by Mr. Samuel Dickstein, of
New York, impugning the motives and actions of a House committee be
taken down. After Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled that the words
used were a breach of order in debate, Mr. Rankin moved to expunge the
entire speech of Mr. Dickstein from the Record, and asked for
recognition on his motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 87 Cong. Rec. 894, 895, 899, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When Mr. Rankin asked whether he was recognized for one hour, the
Speaker responded in the affirmative.
On June 12, 1947,(3) Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of
Massachusetts, ruled that words used in debate referring to the
Committee on Un-American Activities as ``the Un-American Committee''
were a breach of order. Following the Speaker's ruling, Mr. Rankin
moved to strike those words from
[[Page 10756]]
the Record and asked for recognition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 93 Cong. Rec. 6896, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker responded to a question by Mr. Rankin as to the time of
debate allowed him on the motion to strike words from the Record:
Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, I am recognized now for 1 hour and I
have a right to yield to any other Member I desire in this
discussion?
The Speaker: As long as the gentleman retains the floor he may
yield, of course, but he must retain the floor for 1 hour, if he so
desires.
Discipline of Member for Unparliamentary Words
Sec. 51.27 When words used in debate are taken down on demand, ruled
out of order and stricken from the Record by the House, it is for
the House and not for the Chair to decide what further action by
way of discipline or censure shall be taken by motion or
resolution.
On Feb. 22, 1945,(4) Mr. Frank E. Hook, of Michigan,
used allegedly blasphemous language in relation to Mr. John E. Rankin,
of Mississippi, in House debate. The words were demanded to be taken
down and Speaker Pro Tempore Robert Ramspeck, of Georgia, ruled the
words out of order and by unanimous consent ordered that they be
stricken from the Record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 91 Cong. Rec. 1371, 1372, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Howard W. Smith, of Virginia, then stated a parliamentary
inquiry whether ``it is in order for this House to enforce some
discipline or whether the mere striking of such outrageous language
from the Record is all that is going to occur today.''
Speaker Pro Tempore Ramspeck responded ``The Chair thinks that is a
matter for the House to determine by proper action.'' A resolution to
censure Mr. Hook for his disorderly language was later offered but
withdrawn.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 91 Cong. Rec. 1390, 1391, 1445, 79th Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 23, 26,
1945.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 51.28 A Member having introduced a resolution to censure another
for words spoken in debate later withdrew the resolution by
unanimous consent.
On Feb. 22, 1945,(6) Mr. Frank E. Hook, of Michigan,
used allegedly blasphemous language in criticism of Mr. John E. Rankin,
of Mississippi. Speaker Pro Tempore Robert Ramspeck, of Georgia, ruled
that the words were a
[[Page 10757]]
breach of order and directed the language to be stricken from the
Record. The Speaker Pro Tempore then stated in response to a
parliamentary inquiry by Mr. Howard W. Smith, of Virginia, that the
House could take further action by way of enforcing discipline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 91 Cong. Rec. 1371, 1372, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Feb. 23, the following day,(7) both Mr. Hook and Mr.
Rankin apologized to the House for their actions on the preceding day.
Mr. Smith addressed the House in relation to a resolution of the
censure against Mr. Hook:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Id. at p. 1396.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
. . . I feel today as I felt yesterday, that there should be a
resolution of censure. I think that, regardless of who the person
may be, when language of the type that was used yesterday on the
floor of this House is used by a Member, the House cannot ignore it
without lowering the dignity and the standing of the House in the
Country.
Mr. Smith introduced House Resolution 147, to censure Mr. Hook; the
resolution was referred to the Committee on Rules.
The resolution read as follows:
Whereas during a discussion in the House of Representatives on
the twenty-second day of February, 1945, while Mr. Hoffman of
Michigan had the floor, a colloquy occurred between the Member from
Mississippi, Mr. Rankin, and the Member from Michigan, Mr. Hook;
and
Whereas the Member from Michigan, Mr. Hook, in response to a
remark by the Member from Mississippi, Mr. Rankin, used the
following words, ``You are a God damn liar when you say Communist
Party.''; and
Whereas the language of the Member from Michigan, Mr. Hook,
flagrantly violated the rules of order of the House, and was
unbecoming a gentleman and a Member of this body; and
Whereas the conduct of the Member from Michigan, Mr. Hook,
impinged the dignity and reflected upon the good repute and orderly
conduct of the House of Representatives in a manner tending to
lower the public regard for the proceedings of the House, and
merits the severe censure of the House for the same: Therefore be
it
Resolved, That the said Frank Hook be now brought to the bar of
the House by the Sergeant at Arms, and be there publicly censured
by the Speaker in the name of the House.
On Feb. 26, 1945,(8) Mr. Smith obtained unanimous
consent to ``withdraw'' the resolution (Speaker Pro Tempore John
McCormack, of Massachusetts, presiding).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 91 Cong. Rec. 1445, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: It is technically not in order, even by
unanimous consent, to ``withdraw'' a measure which has been introduced
and referred.
Sec. 51.29 Words uttered by a Member when not under recognition by the
Chair are ex
[[Page 10758]]
cluded from the Record; and while a Member who is held to have
breached the rules of decorum in debate is
presumptively disabled from further recognition on that day, by
tradition the Speaker's ruling and any necessary expungement of the
Record are deemed sufficient sanction, and by custom the chastened
Member is permitted to proceed in order (usually by unanimous
consent).
The proceedings of July 29, 1994,(9) demonstrate the
procedures following a breach of decorum in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 140 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 103d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. [Maxine] Waters [of California]: Madam Speaker, last
evening a Member of this House, Peter King, had to be gaveled out
of order at the Whitewater hearings of the Banking Committee. He
had to be gaveled out of order because he badgered a woman who was
a witness from the White House, Maggie Williams. I am pleased I was
able to come to her defense. Madam Speaker, the day is over
when men can badger and intimidate women.
Mr. [F. James] Sensenbrenner [Jr., of Wisconsin]: Madam
Speaker, I demand the gentlewoman's words be taken down.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (10) The gentlewoman from
California [Ms. Waters] must suspend and be seated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Carrie Meek (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk will report the words.
Ms. Waters:----
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentlewoman will please desist and
take her seat.
Ms. Waters:----
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is about to direct the
Sergeant at Arms to present the mace.
The Speaker: (11) The Clerk will report the words. .
. .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Thomas S. Foley (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While in the opinion of the Chair the word ``badgering'' is not
in itself unparliamentary, the Chair believes that the demeanor of
the gentlewoman from California was not in good order in the
subsequent period immediately following those words having been
uttered.
Accordingly, the Chair rules that without leave of the House,
the gentlewoman from California may not proceed for the rest of
today. . . .
Mr. [Gerald B. H.] Solomon [of New York]: Reserving the right
to object, Mr. Speaker, does that mean that all of the words will
be taken down subsequent to the point that she was ruled out of
order and stricken from the Record?
The Speaker: None of those words will be in the Record, the
Chair will state to the gentleman. None of the words will be in the
Record subsequent to that since she was not recognized. . . .
Mrs. [Patricia] Schroeder [of Colorado]: Reserving the right to
object, Mr. Speaker, I am a little puzzled by the word
``demeanor.'' I was in the Chamber at the time, and I did see the
Chair try to gavel the gentlewoman
[[Page 10759]]
down, but I can understand why she could not hear, because there
were so many people at mikes and I think she was confused by that.
So I am a little troubled about that. How can you challenge
``demeanor''?
The Speaker: The Chair wishes to advise the gentlewoman from
Colorado that it is the opinion of the Chair that the Chair at the
time was attempting to insist that the gentlewoman from California
desist with any further statements and sit down. She did not accord
cooperation to the Chair and follow the Chair's instructions.
Consequently, it is the finding of the Chair that her demeanor at
that point in refusing to accept the Chair's instructions was out
of order.
The Chair wishes to ask if there is objection to the
gentlewoman from California proceeding in good order.
Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Reserving the right
to object, Mr. Speaker, do I understand that the Chair is putting
the question to the House under unanimous consent of the
gentlewoman being able to proceed for the rest of the day?
The Speaker: That is correct.
Mr. Walker: I thank the Chair.
The Speaker: Without objection, so ordered.
There was no objection.
Sec. 51.30 A Member was disciplined for stating that the President had
given ``aid and comfort to the enemy,'' and the Chair indicated
that the Member would not be allowed to speak on the floor of the
House or to insert remarks in the Record in any manner or form for
24 hours.
On Jan. 25, 1995,(12) a Member was disciplined for
remarks relating to the President:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 141 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Mr. Dornan asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. [Robert K.] Dornan [of California]: . . . I was offended by
Clinton's speech last night on 15 points.
I will do a 5-minute special order tonight I have just signed
up for. I can only mention four.
The first one is new covenant. The Ark of the Covenant was the
Old Covenant. The New Covenant was the Son of God, Jesus Christ. .
. .
No. 2, to put a Medal of Honor winner in the gallery that
joined the Marine Corps at 16, fudging his birth certificate, that
pulled that second grenade under his stomach, miraculously
surviving and saving his four friends, he did that 6 days past his
17th birthday.
Does Clinton think putting a Medal of Honor winner up there is
not going to recall for most of us that he avoided the draft three
times and put teenagers in his place possibly to go to Vietnam?
No. 3, the line on the cold war. . . .
By the way, Mr. Speaker, the second amendment is not for
killing little ducks and leaving Huey and Dewey and Louie without
an aunt and uncle. It is for hunting politicians, like Grozny,
1776, when they take your independence away. . . .
[[Page 10760]]
Mr. [Vic] Fazio of California: Mr. Speaker, I move the
gentleman's words be taken down. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (13) All Members will
suspend. The Clerk will report the words spoken by the gentleman. .
. .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. John J. Duncan, Jr. (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Even Andrea Mitchell of NBC took note that [it] is Ronald
Reagan's prerogative, George Bush's and all of us who wore the
uniform or served in a civilian capacity to crush the evil
empire. Clinton gave aid and comfort to the enemy.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: In the opinion of the Chair, that is
not a proper reference to the President. Without objection, the
words are stricken from the Record. . . .
Mr. Fazio of California: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to
object, I think the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan] owes the
entire institution, the Congress, and the President an apology.
Mr. Dornan: Hell no; hell, no. . . .
Unanimous consent to proceed for 15 seconds? . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from California [Mr.
Fazio] has the floor at this moment.
Mr. Fazio of California: I would be happy to yield to my
colleague from California, since I have the time, to hear his
response.
Mr. Dornan: Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Fazio of California: I yield to the gentleman from
California.
Mr. Dornan: To my distinguished friend and colleague, Maj. Earl
Kolbile, Lt. Comdr. J. J. Connell was beaten to death in Hanoi. I
have had friends beaten to death in Hanoi, tortured and beaten. You
have not. . . .
I will not withdraw my remarks. I will not only not apologize.
. . .
Mr. [Harold L.] Volkmer [of Missouri]: I ask that the words of
the gentleman from California be taken down.
Mr. Dornan: Good. I will leave the floor, no apology, and I
will not speak the rest of the day. The truth is the truth.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The House will be in order. The
gentleman's words have already been taken down. . . .
Mr. Fazio of California: The gentleman is challenging the words
that were uttered in response to my question.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair rules that those words as
follows ``I believe the President did give aid and comfort to the
enemy, Hanoi,'' were also out of order. The Chair has ruled that,
based on the precedents of the House, the words of the gentleman
from California were out of order, and without objection, both sets
of words will be stricken from the Record. . . .
Mr. Fazio of California: I have a parliamentary inquiry of the
Speaker at this point.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his inquiry.
Mr. Fazio of California: When the Speaker rules that the
gentleman should not be allowed to speak for 24 hours, does that
encompass remarks that might be placed in the Record, participation
in special orders, and other activities that might not involve the
gentleman speaking on the floor?
[[Page 10761]]
The Speaker Pro Tempore: It is the House's determination as to
whether or not the Member should be allowed to proceed in order for
the remainder of the day. That determination shall not be made by
the Chair.
Mr. Fazio of California: In other words, is the House required
to vote on whether or not remarks should be placed in the Record?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Unparliamentary remarks cannot be
inserted in the Record.
Mr. Fazio of California: But remarks that are not ruled
unparliamentary may be placed in the Record if they are not uttered
on the floor; is that the ruling of the Speaker?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Unparliamentary remarks should not be
inserted in the Record in any manner or form. . . .
Mr. Fazio of California: So in other words, just to confirm the
Speaker's ruling, we will not read or hear from the gentleman from
California [Mr. Dornan] for the next 24 hours; is that correct?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Unless the House permits him to
proceed in order, the gentleman is correct.
Mr. Fazio of California: And for the House to permit that would
require a majority vote?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: It would require either unanimous
consent or a majority vote of the House to permit the gentleman to
proceed in order. . . .
Mr. [David E.] Bonior [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman
from California [Mr. Dornan] is on his feet. Is he not supposed to
remain seated until the determination?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman can either be seated or
leave the Chamber.
Mr. Bonior: He chose to leave the Chamber; OK. . . .
In a further ruling, the Chair stated that the following words were
not unparliamentary:
By the way, Mr. Speaker, the Second Amendment is not for
killing little ducks and leaving Huey, Duey and Louie without
an aunt and uncle. It is for hunting politicians, like Grozny,
1776, when they take your independence away. Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
Motion To Strike Words
Sec. 51.31 A motion to table is
a preferential motion which may be raised to dispose of a motion to
expunge certain words from the Record.
On June 16, 1947,(14) certain words used in debate
characterizing a committee report as containing ``lies and half-
truths''
were demanded to be taken down. Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr.,
of Massachusetts, ruled that the words used were unparliamentary. Mr.
John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, moved to strike the entire statement
from the Record. On that motion he asked for recognition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 93 Cong. Rec. 7065, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Vito Marcantonio, of New York, moved to lay the motion to
[[Page 10762]]
strike words on the table. Mr. Rankin objected that he had already been
recognized. Speaker Martin ruled that the motion to table was
``preferential and not debatable.'' The House rejected the motion to
table.
--Subject to Germane Amendment
Sec. 51.32 Where a motion was made to expunge the remarks of a Member,
an amendment to it proposing to expunge the remarks of another
Member was held not germane.
On June 7, 1933,(15) Mr. Frederick R. Lehlbach, of New
Jersey, made a motion to expunge from the Record certain words used in
debate by Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, which had been ruled out of
order by Speaker Henry T. Rainey, of Illinois. Before the question was
put on the motion to expunge, Mr. William B. Oliver, of Alabama,
offered an amendment to the motion:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 77 Cong. Rec. 5205, 73d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Speaker, I move to amend the motion of the gentleman from
New Jersey [Mr. Lehlbach] by including in the language to be
stricken out the language used by the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Snell], which reflects on the President.
Mr. Lehlbach made the point of order that Mr. Oliver's amendment
was not germane since the House was ``dealing with language reported to
the House and uttered by the gentleman from Texas, and language spoken
in committee by anybody else is not a germane amendment, to my
motion.''
Speaker Rainey sustained the point of order.
--Question of Privilege--To Strike Words
Sec. 51.33 On occasion, a resolution seeking to expunge unparliamentary
words from the Record has been offered as a question of privilege
of the House and agreed to.
A resolution offered on Sept. 5, 1940,(16) sought to
expunge from the Record certain unparliamentary remarks uttered on
Sept. 4. Timely objection to the remarks had been made, and there had
subsequently been some dispute as to whether unanimous consent had been
given for the withdrawal of some or all of the remarks in question. The
proceedings of Sept. 5 were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 86 Cong. Rec. 11552, 11553, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a
question of the privilege of the House.
[[Page 10763]]
The Speaker: (17) The gentleman will state his
question of privilege.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hoffman: Mr. Speaker, I will not make a lengthy statement--
--
Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, a point of
order. In order to get recognition on the question of the privilege
of the House it is necessary for a Member to offer a resolution
first?
The Speaker: That is the rule. . . .
Mr. Hoffman: Must I offer the resolution before I state my
question?
The Speaker: The gentleman must offer his resolution first,
under the rule.
Mr. Hoffman: Very well, but I desire to be heard on the
question. However, I will not take more than 5 minutes.
The Speaker: The Chair will hear the gentleman. The Clerk will
report the resolution.
House Resolution 591
Whereas the gentleman from the Second District of Kentucky
[Mr. Vincent], referring to the gentleman from the Twentieth
District of Ohio [Mr. Sweeney], stated on the floor of the
House on September 4, 1940, as appears in the [daily] Record on
page 17450, ``I said I did not want to sit by a traitor to my
country;'' and
Whereas such words were a violation of the rules of the
House and, as reprinted in the Record, charge the Member from
Ohio with a lack of patriotism, and with disloyalty to his
country, reflect upon him in his representative capacity and
upon the dignity of the House: Therefore, be it
Resolved, That the words, ``I said I did not want to sit by
a traitor to
my country,'' be expunged from the Record. . . .
Mr. Hoffman: Mr. Speaker, the Record this morning contains that
statement. Most of the Members of the House are familiar with what
occurred last night. It is not my purpose to take the time of the
House to discuss the question of the privilege of the House. I will
present the resolution, and then move the previous question. The
facts upon which the question of the privilege of the House which I
raise are these:
Yesterday, September 4, 1940, on the floor of the House, the
following occurred:
The gentleman from the Second District of Kentucky rose and
made the following statement, as appears from the official
transcript of the reporter:
Mr. Vincent of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I served in the World
War, and the World War, as I understood it then and as I
understand it now, was fought because we were being attacked by
submarines and women and children murdered on the high seas. To
say that my President of that time brought on that war to me
was an untruth. . . .
When he came down to sit with me, I got up and moved. . . .
I said I did not want to sit by a traitor to my country. Then
he attacked me and you know what happened.
Following the word ``happened,'' the gentleman from the Second
District of Kentucky continued:
I have no apology to make--
And followed that by a sentence consisting of 18 words, which
were subsequently deleted from the stenographer's copy sent to the
printer.
Then the following occurred:
Mr. Hoffman. Mr. Speaker, I demand recognition on a point
of order.
[[Page 10764]]
The Speaker pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Hoffman. Mr. Speaker, I demand that the words of the
gentleman who just left the floor be taken down, because they
violate the rules of the House.
The Speaker pro tempore. The Clerk will report the words
complained of.
Mr. Vincent of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent to withdraw the last sentence of my statement.
Mr. Dworshak. I object, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker pro tempore. The gentleman from Kentucky asks
unanimous consent to withdraw the statement. Is there
objection? The Chair hears none.
Mr. Bradley of Michigan. I object, Mr. Speaker. . . .
Later, the following occurred: . . .
Mr. Hoffman. Mr. Speaker, a moment ago certain words were
uttered by the gentleman on the floor of the House which I
demanded be taken down. No report was made of those words. I
demand the regular order--the taking down of the words, the
report of the words, and the reading by the Clerk.
The Speaker pro tempore. Subsequently, unanimous consent
was granted for the words to be withdrawn.
Mr. Hoffman. Oh, no, Mr. Speaker; three Members were on
their feet--I was one of them--and objecting to that.
The Speaker pro tempore. That was the ruling of the Chair.
. . .
If it be true that there was no objection to the unanimous-
consent request of the gentleman from the Second District of
Kentucky, that consent, according to the printed Record and
according to the reporter's record, was as follows:
Mr. Vincent of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent to withdraw the last sentence of my statement.
The last sentence of the statement was the sentence consisting
of 18 words and, had unanimous consent been granted to withdraw the
last sentence of the previous statement made by the gentleman from
the Second District of Kentucky, there was no consent to withdraw
the words, ``I have no apology to make.''
The striking out of those words from the official transcript
furnished by the reporter and the failure to print them in the
record of the House renders the Record inaccurate and untrue.
The words, as they now appear in the daily printed Record,
September 4, page 17450--
I said I did not want to sit by a traitor to my country--
Were a violation of the rules of the House and, as reprinted in
the Record, charge the Member from Ohio with a lack of patriotism,
and with disloyalty to his country, reflect upon him in his
representative capacity and upon the dignity of the House.
These words were objected to; a demand was made that they be
taken down; and, under the rules of the House, they should either
have been taken down or unanimous consent should have been obtained
to withdraw them from the Record.
Unanimous consent to withdraw these words just quoted--that
is--
I said I did not want to sit by a traitor to my country--
Was not given. The words were not taken down and read to the
House.
[[Page 10765]]
They now appear in the Record. They reflect upon the Member from
Ohio. They bring disrepute upon the House and reflect upon the
integrity of the House, if permitted to remain in the Record.
Mr. Speaker, I therefore move the adoption of the resolution,
and, upon that, move the previous question.
The Speaker: The question is on agreeing to the resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
Sec. 51.34 The House, on a question of privilege of the House, ordered
expunged from the Record unparliamentary remarks after the Member
using them failed to withdraw them pursuant to a leave to revise.
The proceedings of Sept. 5, 1940, are discussed in Sec. 51.33,
supra.
Sec. 51.35 The House considered as a question of privilege of the House
and adopted a resolution expunging from the Record unparliamentary
remarks inserted by a Member without permission to revise and
extend.
On Aug. 27, 1940,(18) Mr. Jacob Thorkelson, of Montana,
arose to a question of personal privilege and to a question of the
privilege of the House. He introduced the following resolution:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 86 Cong. Rec. 11046-49, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whereas the gentleman from the Fifth District of Illinois, Mr.
Sabath, caused to be inserted in the Congressional Record of August
14, 1940, on page 10342, the following remarks:
``The House will recall that in Appendix of the Record, pages
3006-3010, I showed that he had placed in the Record up to that
time 210 full pages of scurrilous matter at a cost of $9,400 to
taxpayers. I showed that he had imposed upon the House by inserting
in one of his leaves to print a forged letter of Col. E. M. House,
confidant of the late Woodrow Wilson, in which Colonel House was
placed in the false position of being in a conspiracy to restore
the American Colonies to Great Britain. After that performance, and
before, I lost all confidence in him.''
And whereas such insertion is a violation of the privilege of
the House, in that said remarks charge a Member of the House with
having inserted in the Record a forged letter; and
Whereas the insertion of said remarks results in the Record
being inaccurate, in that the Record as printed contains statements
which from the Record appear to have been made on the floor of the
House, but for which permission for insertion in the Record was not
obtained; and
Whereas said remarks, as so inserted, were not in order and
were an abuse of the privilege of the House: Therefore, be it
Resolved, That the remarks appearing on page 15814 of the
Congressional Record under date of August 14, 1940, to wit: ``The
House will recall that in the Appendix of the Record, pages
[[Page 10766]]
3006-3010, I showed that he had placed in the Record up to that
time 210 full pages of scurrilous matter at a cost of $9,400 to
taxpayers. I showed that he had imposed upon the House by inserting
in one of his leaves to print a forged letter of Col. E. M. House,
confidant of the late Woodrow Wilson, in which Colonel House was
placed in the false position of being in a conspiracy to restore
the American Colonies to Great Britain. After that performance, and
even before, I lost all confidence in him'' be, and they hereby
are, expunged from the Congressional Record, and are declared to be
not a legitimate part of the official Record of the House.
Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, first ruled that a
statement by a Member that another Member had introduced a forged
letter into the Record was not grounds for a question of personal
privilege. However, the Speaker requested Mr. Thorkelson to withhold
his question of privilege of the House for the time being so that the
Chair could have the opportunity to find out from the reporters' notes
whether Mr. Adolph J. Sabath had been granted permission to revise and
extend his remarks in the Record.
On the following day, Aug. 28, 1940,(19) the question of
privilege presented by Mr. Thorkelson was considered in the House as
the unfinished business from the preceding day. Speaker Bankhead ruled
that extension of remarks in the Record by a Member without first
obtaining permission of the House to revise and extend was grounds for
a question of privilege of the House. The House then adopted the
resolution offered by Mr. Thorkelson expunging from the Record remarks
inserted by Mr. Sabath without such permission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 86 Cong. Rec. 11150-58, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motion To Proceed in Order
Sec. 51.36 Where unparliamentary words used in debate have been
stricken from the Record, the offending Member may be permitted to
proceed in order by unanimous consent or by nondebatable motion;
but a Member who is not permitted by the House to proceed in order
loses the floor and may not participate in debate on the same day
even on time yielded to him by another Member.
The following proceedings occurred in the House on Mar. 19, 1985:
(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 131 Cong. Rec. 5532, 5533, 5537, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Harry] Reid [of Nevada]: Mr. Speaker, on February 26 of
this year one of my constituents traveled nearly
[[Page 10767]]
3,000 miles to Washington specifically to see me about a critical
issue, but he did not. . . . I was called away from something very
important to become captive, once again, to an abusive practice, an
abuse inflicted upon the entire House of Representatives and the
legislative process itself, voting on the Journal.
Mr. Reid made further comments, indicated below, which were the
subject of a demand that the words be taken down:
Mr. [Vin] Weber [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, I demand that the
gentleman's words be taken down. . . .
Mr. Speaker, would it be in order, in view of the gentleman's
statement a minute ago, for me to ask unanimous consent that he be
permitted to withdraw his words?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (1) Yes. The Chair would
entertain such a motion. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Kenneth J. Gray (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I respectfully submit that I appreciate
the request of the gentleman from Minnesota, but I do not think I
said anything offensive, and I would ask for a ruling on that.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will rule.
The Clerk will report the words.
The Clerk read as follows:
One of the most important things to remember is that those
Members who call for these wasteful votes are led by my
distinguished colleague from Pennsylvania, Mr. Walker, who
speaks constantly of the need to do away with government waste,
and he is literally speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would announce that it is
not proper to impugn the motive of another Member. We have
precedents here in the House. Mr. Knutson, of Minnesota: ``I cannot
believe that the gentleman from Mississippi is sincere in what he
has just said.'' And that was held not in order on November 2,
1942.
The Chair must state that the words of the gentleman from
Nevada have, in his opinion, an unparliamentary connotation and
shall be stricken.
Without objection, the gentleman from Nevada may proceed. Do I
hear an objection?
Mr. Weber: Yes, Mr. Speaker. . . .
Would the Chair clarify the parliamentary situation in which
the gentleman from Nevada finds himself?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: . . . The Chair has ruled that the
gentleman from Nevada misspoke on the words ``speaking out of both
sides of his mouth,'' and therefore those words shall be stricken.
The Member only can proceed by permission of the House. . . .
Mr. [Thomas S.] Foley [of Washington]: Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that the gentleman from Nevada may be permitted
to proceed.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from Washington that the gentleman from Nevada be
allowed to finish his remarks?
Mr. [Daniel E.] Lungren [of California]: Reserving the right to
object----
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from California reserves
the right to object. . . .
[[Page 10768]]
Let the Chair restate what has occurred here.
The gentleman has propounded a parliamentary inquiry, and the
Chair has responded that the Chair has ruled that those words are
offensive and shall be stricken. It is not a matter of further
debate.
Mr. Lungren: I understand. I am still proceeding under my
reservation, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question occurs now on whether or
not the gentleman is allowed to proceed with the understanding that
those words have been stricken. . . .
Mr. Lungren: . . . Mr. Speaker, under my reservation, I ask the
gentleman at this point in time whether he would agree to withdraw
his remarks. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: It is not in the parliamentary
procedures or rules of the House for any further debate on this
matter. The Chair has ruled affirmatively that the words shall be
stricken.
The only question now before this House is whether or not----
Mr. Lungren: Mr. Speaker, you have constrained me to object,
and I do object at this time. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Objection is heard.
Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Alexander) is recognized for 5 minutes. . . .
Mr. [William V.] Alexander [of Arkansas]: Mr. Speaker, I
recognize the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Reid). I yield to the
gentleman from Nevada. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman cannot be yielded to at
this time. . . .
Is there objection to the gentleman from Arkansas yielding
further to the gentleman from Nevada?
Mr. Alexander: . . . Do I not have a right to yield to any
Member of this House? . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will rule that if a Member
in this particular case has been precluded from continuing, he
cannot be yielded to on this subject without unanimous consent.
If the gentleman wants to propound the unanimous-consent
request, and hearing no objection, he could yield.
Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Arkansas to yield to the gentleman from Nevada? . . .
Mr. Lungren: . . . I will be constrained to object, and I do
object at this time. . . .
Mr. Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I have not announced the subject
which I intend to address. How can the Chair rule against me
yielding to another Member when the Chair does not know the subject
that I intend to address?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would announce to the
distinguished gentleman from Arkansas that, under the rules of the
House, at any time a Member's words are taken down, under the rules
he is not permitted on that particular legislative business day to
speak to the House without permission of the body. An objection was
heard to the unanimous-consent request. . . .
Mr. Weber: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the
gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Reid) be allowed to proceed.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from Minnesota?
[[Page 10769]]
There was no objection.
Sec. 51.37 The motion that a Member ruled out of order for words spoken
in debate be permitted to proceed in order is not inconsistent with
the prohibition in clause 4 of Rule XIV that the offending Member
may not automatically proceed, since it permits the House to
determine the extent of the sanction for the breach of order.
On May 9, 1990,(2) the following proceedings occurred in
the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 136 Cong. Rec. 9828, 9829, 101st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Mr. Torricelli asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. [Robert G.] Torricelli [of New Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, you
heard it here today: Republican Member after Republican Member
taking the floor, predicting that the President will never raise
taxes.
I am here to predict that he will raise taxes. And, Mr.
Speaker, we are both right because no doubt, for the President's
friends, for those of privilege in American, he will never raise
taxes.
But for you and for me and for the overwhelming majority of
Americans, he is--he says that he is going to, and he is about
doing it. It isn't, Mr. Speaker, that the President is
intellectually dishonest, though indeed in the last election he
was. It is about the fact that he has a $500 billion----
Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I ask
that the gentleman's words be taken down.
[The words in question were held to be unparliamentary, the
Speaker Pro Tempore (3) stating as follows:]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. John P. Murtha (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In referring to the President during debate a Member shall
abstain from ``terms of approbrium,'' such as calling the President
a ``liar''--V, 5094, VIII, 2498.
Without objection the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr.
Torricelli] may proceed in order.
[Objection was heard.]
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Does any Member move that the
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Torricelli] may proceed in order? .
. .
Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I make that
motion.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the motion of the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates]. . . .
So the motion was agreed to. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: . . . The House has voted to allow the
gentleman to proceed in order. The gentleman has 16 seconds
remaining. . . .
Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Pennsylvania will
state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. Walker: If I understand correctly what just happened in the
course of events, it was that the Chair did rule that the
gentleman's words were inappropriate, is that correct?
[[Page 10770]]
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair did so rule.
Mr. Walker: And the penalty for such a ruling would normally be
that the gentleman would not be allowed to speak for the rest of
the day in the House Chamber, is that not correct?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The House permitted him to proceed in
order.
Mr. Walker: Under the rules, Mr. Speaker, the rules state that
someone having had the Chair so rule is not permitted to speak in
the House for the rest of the day, is that not correct?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct.
Mr. Walker: So by taking the action which the party did a few
minutes ago, the majority party did, what they did was basically
overrule the rules with regard to the penalty for having words
taken down.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The motion to allow the gentleman to
proceed is a proper parliamentary motion under the same rule.
Mr. Walker: Yes. I understand. But the effect of the action,
the effect of the motion, was to override the rules of the House.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Under the rules of the House the Chair
cannot say that one part of the rule has precedence over the
practice of the House paramount to that rule.
Mr. Walker: Well, I have a further parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. Walker: If the motion had not been made, the gentleman
would not have been permitted to speak for the rest of the day, is
that correct?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct.
Mr. Walker: So the effect of the motion was to allow the
gentleman to do something which the rules would otherwise not
permit him.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The House has followed the normal
practice. There are two aspects to the rule. The House proceeded
under the rules, and both procedures are proper. The House voted
and the gentleman was allowed to proceed for 16 seconds.
Mr. Walker: I have a further parliamentary inquiry. So in other
words what the Chair is saying is that the will of the majority can
prevail, even though it is over and above the rules that are
adopted by the----
Mr. Yates: Mr. Speaker, regular order.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
Yates] is absolutely correct. That is not a parliamentary inquiry.
Parliamentarian's Note: Where the House has voted to allow a Member
called to order to proceed in order, the offending Member is recognized
for the remainder of his debate time, as indicated above.
CHAPTER 29
Consideration and Debate
E. RELEVANCY IN DEBATE
Sec. 52. --Permission To Explain or To Proceed in Order
A Member whose words are demanded to be taken down must take his
seat and if his words are
[[Page 10771]]
held unparliamentary may not proceed on the same day without the
consent of the House.(4) But he may be recognized to ask
unanimous consent to modify or withdraw his remarks before a ruling is
made, and, if granted, he thereby retains the right to proceed in
debate.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. See Sec. Sec. 52.4-52.6, infra.
Parliamentarian's Note: The dicta of the Speaker Pro
Tempore in 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2546 that a Member called
to order can proceed without the consent of the House after the
disposition of the pending question is at variance with the
other rulings of the Chair that the disability remains
throughout the legislative day.
5. See Sec. Sec. 52.1, 52.2, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The rules provide for motions to allow the Member to explain and to
proceed in order, which motions must be made by another Member before
the Speaker rules on the words.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Rule XIV clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 760 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On occasion, the Speaker has recognized the Member called to order,
before ruling on the words, to ask unanimous consent to make a limited
explanation of his remarks. And the Speaker has permitted explanation,
by unanimous consent, after ruling the words out of
order.(7) Generally, however, the Member called to order may
not debate the demand that his words be taken down or explain his
remarks pending a ruling in the absence of a motion to that
effect.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. See Sec. 52.16, infra.
8. See Sec. 52.15, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under clause 4 of Rule XIV in recent practice, the motion to permit
the Member to explain must be disposed of prior to the Chair's ruling,
and should not be used in the absence of unanimous consent, to question
the Chair's ruling.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 760 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After the words have been ruled out of order, the Member may be
permitted to proceed in order either by motion (10) or by
unanimous consent,(11) but this is generally preceded by the
motion to expunge the words from the Record.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See Sec. Sec. 52.9, 52.12, infra.
11. See Sec. 52.7, infra.
12. See Sec. 52.14, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the motion to allow the Member to explain is not normally
made in contemporary practice, that motion has precedence over the
motion to allow the Member to proceed in order since it should be made
prior to the Chair's ruling.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5187.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the House declines to grant permission to proceed in order, the
Member may not proceed in
[[Page 10772]]
debate on the same day,(14) but does not lose the right to
demand either a recorded or unrecorded vote in subsequent
proceedings.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See Sec. Sec. 52.5, 52.17, infra.
15. See Sec. 49.23, supra. -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modification of Objectionable Words
Sec. 52.1 Where words are demanded to be taken down, the Member
uttering them may by unanimous consent modify his remarks before a
ruling is made.
On June 5, 1962,(16) Mr. John D. Dingell, Jr., of
Michigan, accused another Member as speaking as ``a mouthpiece for the
AMA and as a mouthpiece for the house of delegates of the AMA [American
Medical Association].'' Mr. Thomas B. Curtis, of Missouri, demanded
that the words be taken down and the Clerk reported the words objected
to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 108 Cong. Rec. 9739, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Dingell then asked unanimous consent to change the words
complained of to ``self-appointed spokesman'' instead of
``mouthpiece.'' There was no objection to the request, and Mr. Curtis
withdrew his point of order.
Sec. 52.2 Where a demand is made that a Member's words be taken down,
he may by unanimous consent be allowed to proceed in debate if
permission is first granted to modify the words in order to delete
the objectionable matter.
On Oct. 2, 1984,(17) during consideration of the
balanced budget bill (H.R. 6300), Mr. John V. Weber, of Minnesota,
stated that another Member had come to the floor with a gimmick ``which
he thinks will fool the people of Tulsa.'' (18) A point of
order was made:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 130 Cong. Rec. 28522, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
18. The words were stricken from the Record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. [Mary Rose] Oakar [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (19) The gentlewoman will
state her point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Oakar: Mr. Speaker, I question the speaker regarding
impugning the motives of the chairman who has introduced this
legislation.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Does the gentlewoman insist that the
gentleman's words be taken down?
Ms. Oakar: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I do.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the words.
After several parliamentary inquiries, the following occurred:
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Does the gentleman have a unanimous-
consent request?
[[Page 10773]]
Mr. [Guy V.] Molinari [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I repeat my
request that the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Weber) be permitted
to speak in order. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from New York?
Does the gentleman from Minnesota first ask unanimous consent
to modify his words?
Mr. Weber: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to modify my
words.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection?
Ms. Oakar: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I would
like to know what his words are going to be that he is going to
modify. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The words that were uttered just prior
to the gentlewoman's demand.
Ms. Oakar: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from Minnesota?
There was no objection.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Weber) may proceed in order.
Parliamentarian's Note: Permission for a Member to proceed in
debate should not be granted until the words have been ruled on, or
modified or withdrawn.
Withdrawal of Words
Sec. 52.3 Where a Member is granted unanimous consent to withdraw words
ruled out of order by the Speaker, the Member may proceed in debate
without the consent of the House, provided his time has not
expired.
On Mar. 16, 1939,(20) Mr. Lee E. Geyer, of California,
moved to strike out the last two words of a pending bill and then
described in critical terms the personal characteristics of another
Member while on the floor. The critical words were demanded to be taken
down, the Committee of the Whole rose, and the words were reported to
the House. Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, ruled that the
words objected to violated the rules of the House because directed to
personality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 84 Cong. Rec. 2871, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. John C. Schafer, of Wisconsin, to whom Mr. Geyer's
objectionable remarks had referred, then asked if the words could not
be withdrawn by unanimous consent since Mr. Geyer was ``just carried
away by the debate.'' The Speaker responded that the words could so be
withdrawn, and Mr. Geyer was granted unanimous consent to withdraw the
words in question.
The Committee resumed its sitting and Chairman Frank H. Buck, of
California, then ruled
[[Page 10774]]
that the granting of the unanimous-consent request permitted Mr. Geyer
to proceed in order without a motion provided his time had not expired:
The Chairman: The gentleman from California is recognized for
3\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. [James W.] Mott [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary
inquiry.
The Chairman: Does the gentleman from California yield for a
parliamentary inquiry?
Mr. Geyer of California: I do not yield, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mott: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Mott: As I understand, Mr. Chairman, the proceeding just
had takes the gentleman off the floor, and he may proceed only by
unanimous consent.
The Chairman: The Chair may state that, by unanimous consent,
the House permitted the gentleman to withdraw his words. That
leaves the gentleman in the position he was before the words were
uttered.
The gentleman from California will proceed.
Mr. Mott: Mr. Chairman, a further parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: Does the gentleman yield for a parliamentary
inquiry?
Mr. Geyer of California: I do not care to yield for another
one, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mott: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Mott: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the time
of the gentleman has expired.
The Chairman: The time of the gentleman has not expired. The
point of order is overruled.
Consent of House To Proceed in Order
Sec. 52.4 Where a Member is called to order for words spoken in debate,
and such words are held unparliamentary, he may not proceed without
the consent of the House.
On Oct. 31, 1963,(1) Mr. Edgar Franklin Foreman, of
Texas, was called to order for referring to another Member of the House
as a ``pinko.'' Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, ruled that
``to characterize any Member of the House as a `pinko' is in violation
of the rules.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 109 Cong. Rec. 20742, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Objection was then made to unanimous-consent requests to explain
the remarks objected to and to allow Mr. Foreman to proceed in order:
Mr. [Bruce R.] Alger [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I ask to be
recognized.
The Speaker: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Alger].
[[Page 10775]]
Mr. Alger: Mr. Speaker, I have a copy of the statement the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Foreman] was attempting to deliver. If I
understand this copy which he has not been permitted to continue
with, the gentleman from Texas was just about to add something
which would make the gentleman's objection to what he has had to
say really out of order, if he knew what next followed.
The Speaker: Does the gentleman ask unanimous consent to
proceed for 1 minute?
Mr. Alger: I do, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Texas?
Mr. [John J.] Rooney of New York: Mr. Speaker, I object.
Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to proceed for 1 minute.
The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Indiana?
There was no objection.
Mr. Halleck: Mr. Speaker, I desire to propound a parliamentary
inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Halleck: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the ruling of the
Chair was that the use of the word ``pinko'' involves a violation
of the rules of the House.
The Speaker: That is correct.
Mr. Halleck: Under those circumstances may not the gentleman
from Texas be permitted to continue with the balance of his
statement?
The Speaker: Only by permission of the House.
Mr. Halleck: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Foreman] be permitted to continue with
the balance of his statement.
The Speaker: In order?
Mr. Halleck: Yes, sir.
The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Indiana?
Mr. Rooney of New York: Mr. Speaker, I object.
On Feb. 22, 1945,(2) Mr. Frank E. Hook, of Michigan, was
called to order for using blasphemous words in debate in reference to
another Member. After Speaker Pro Tempore Robert Ramspeck, of Georgia,
ruled that the words were a violation of the rules of the House and the
House ordered them stricken from the Record, Mr. Hook sought
recognition to propose a parliamentary inquiry. The Speaker Pro Tempore
ruled that Mr. Hook was required to take his seat and could not proceed
in debate without the permission of the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 91 Cong. Rec. 1371, 1372, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hook: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for a
parliamentary inquiry?
Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, a point of
order. The Member from Michigan [Mr. Hook] must keep his seat the
rest of the day and keep his mouth shut, under the Rules of the
House.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Michigan [Mr.
Hoffman] will proceed.
[[Page 10776]]
Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, my point of order must be ruled on. I
am speaking about the Member from Michigan [Mr. Hook] on my left.
He has just said he used the word ``------ liar,'' and I do not
intend for him to speak in this House again today.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair sustains the point of order
made by the gentleman from Mississippi. That is the rule. The
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hook] will be seated.
Sec. 52.5 A Member whose words are taken down and ruled out of order
may not again proceed on the same day (even for a previously
granted special order) without consent of the House.
On Jan. 29, 1946,(3) Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi,
demanded that words used in debate referring to certain Senators by Mr.
Emanuel Celler, of New York, be taken down. The words were reported to
the House. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, recognized Mr. Celler, over
the objection of Mr. Rankin, to ask unanimous consent to withdraw the
remarks objected to. Mr. Rankin objected to that request, and the
Speaker held that the words uttered by Mr. Celler were unparliamentary
in referring to the action of the membership of another body.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 92 Cong. Rec. 533, 534, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: Although Mr. Celler had a special order to
address the House later in the day the Speaker did not recognize him,
thereby holding in effect that Mr. Celler could not again proceed that
day without the consent of the House.
On Aug. 14, 1967,(4) certain words used in debate by Mr.
F. Edward Hebert, of Louisiana, accusing another Member of having
prejudicial and bigoted views were demanded to be taken down. Speaker
John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, ruled that the words used were a
breach of the rules of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 113 Cong. Rec. 22443, 22444, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker then stated as follows: ``Without objection, the
gentleman from Louisiana is recognized for the remainder of his one
minute and the words will be stricken.'' There was no objection, and
Mr. Hebert concluded his remarks. Further debate took place, and Mr.
Hebert delivered remarks in response to an inquiry by another Member.
Mr. William F. Ryan, of New York, then stated a point of order that Mr.
Hebert had lost the right to proceed in debate on the same day, his
remarks having been ruled out of order. The Speaker overruled the point
of order, since no objection had been voiced to the unanimous-consent
request that Mr. Hebert be allowed to proceed in order.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Compare 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2546, where Speaker Pro Tempore
Philip P. Campbell (Kans.), held that a Member called to order
was not precluded from demanding the yeas and nays, and stated
that in his opinion the disability from debate remained only
until the disposition of the pending question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 10777]]
Sec. 52.6 A Member, having been called to order for words spoken in
debate and those words having been held unparliamentary, may not
proceed without the permission of the House.
On Aug. 21, 1974,(6) the following proceedings occurred
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 120 Cong. Rec. 29652, 29653, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Thomas P.] O'Neill [Jr., of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I
take this time so I may direct my remarks to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Bauman). . . .
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I demand
that the gentleman's words be taken down.
The Speaker: (7) The gentleman demands that the
words be taken down. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk will report the words objected to.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. O'Neill. Mr. Speaker, I take this time so I may direct
my remarks to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman).
Yesterday, by mutual consent of the leadership on both
sides of the aisle and by the Members of the Judiciary
Committee, I offered to this House a resolution. At the
completion of the resolution, Mr. Speaker, I asked that all
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to extend their
remarks and it was objected to, Mr. Speaker, by the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Bauman). He gave a reason at that particular
time.
I told him that I thought he should have cleared it with
the leadership on his own side of the aisle; but nevertheless,
Mr. Speaker, when all the Members had left last night, the
gentleman came to the well and asked unanimous consent of the
then Speaker of the House who was sitting there, if he may
insert his remarks in the Record, with unanimous consent,
following the remarks where he had objected. . . .
I just want to say that I think in my opinion it was a
cheap, sneaky, sly way to operate.
The Speaker: The words in the last sentence are not
parliamentary. Without objection, the offending words will be
stricken from the Record.
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I would
only like to say to the gentleman from Massachusetts and to the
House that as for the gentleman from Massachusetts, I can
understand his concern about my objection yesterday. It was the
only possible way in which I or any other Member could have
actually spoken on the resolution pending.
If he will look at the page numbers he cited, he will find
subsequent to that, that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Devine), the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Dennis), and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Wiggins), all in my presence asked permission and
did extend their remarks. And, of course, the gentleman from
Massachusetts got 5 legislative days to extend on his special
order. I did not object to any of these requests.
[[Page 10778]]
Mr. O'Neill: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield on that
point?
The Speaker: The gentleman from Massachusetts cannot proceed at
this point. . . .
Is there objection? . . .
Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I do object. . . .
Mr. [B. F.] Sisk [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Sisk moves that the words of the gentleman from
Massachusetts, Mr. O'Neill, be stricken from the Record.
Mr. Sisk: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the
motion.
The previous question was ordered.
The Speaker: The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from California.
The motion was agreed to.
Sec. 52.7 A Member may be allowed to proceed in order by motion or by
unanimous consent where the Speaker has ruled that words spoken by
the Member in debate were unparliamentary.
On Mar. 24, 1961,(8) Mr. Neal Smith, of Iowa, referred
in debate to the ``Goldwater-Ayres bill because it is an example of
exempting multimillion dollar stores in Arizona'' [Where Goldwater was
the name of a Senator from Arizona]. Mr. Thomas B. Curtis, of Missouri,
demanded that the words be taken down, the Committee of the Whole
arose, and the words were reported to the House. Speaker Sam Rayburn,
of Texas, ruled that the words were out of order as ``a reference to a
member of the other body by name.'' Speaker Rayburn then ruled that the
House could by unanimous consent permit the Member called to order to
proceed in order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 107 Cong. Rec. 4780, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [James] Roosevelt [of California]: Would it be in order at
this time to ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Iowa be
allowed to proceed in order?
The Speaker: It would.
Mr. [Carroll D.] Kearns [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I
object to that.
The Speaker: Let the Chair first state the request.
Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California that the gentleman from Iowa be allowed to proceed in
order?
Mr. Curtis of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Curtis of Missouri: The ruling means that these words will
be stricken from the Record?
The Speaker: If a motion is made to strike them from the
Record.
Mr. Curtis of Missouri: I would make such a motion and then I
would not object.
The Speaker: The question is on the motion.
The motion was agreed to.
[[Page 10779]]
The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from California that the gentleman from Iowa be allowed to proceed
in order?
There was no objection.
On Apr. 19, 1934,(9) certain words used in the Committee
of the Whole in reference to another Member were demanded to be taken
down. The Committee arose, the words were reported to the House, and
Speaker Henry T. Rainey, of Illinois, ruled the words objectionable as
impugning the motives of another Member. The House agreed to a motion
to strike the words from the Record. The Speaker then ruled that a
motion to allow the Member called to order to proceed could be made:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 78 Cong. Rec. 6947, 6948, 73d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Wright] Patman [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I move that the
gentleman from Texas be allowed to proceed in order.
Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, should not that
motion be made in the Committee rather than in the House?
Mr. Patman: It can be made either in the House or in the
Committee. The motion was agreed to.
The Speaker: The Chair has now permitted the gentleman from
Texas to proceed in order in the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union.
The Committee will resume its session. . . .
The Chairman: (10) The gentleman from Texas is
recognized to proceed in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. William J. Sears (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 52.8 A Member having uttered objectionable words in debate and
such words having been ruled unparliamentary, the Chair may
recognize the Member to proceed in order by unanimous consent.
On Aug. 14, 1967,(11) certain words used in debate by
Mr. F. Edward Hebert, of Louisiana, accusing another Member of having
prejudicial and bigoted views were demanded to be taken down. Speaker
John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, ruled that the words used were a
breach of the rules of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 113 Cong. Rec. 22443, 22444, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker then stated as follows: ``Without objection, the
gentleman from Louisiana is recognized for the remainder of his one
minute and the words will be stricken.'' There was no objection, and
Mr. Hebert concluded his remarks.
Thereafter, Mr. Hebert delivered some remarks in debate in response
to another Member. The Speaker ruled that he had the right to proceed
in order pursuant to the unanimous-consent request:
[[Page 10780]]
Mr. [William F.] Ryan [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman
from Louisiana is out of order. His words have been taken down, and
the Speaker has ruled that they were of an unparliamentary nature.
The Speaker: The Chair has already recognized the gentleman
without objection. The gentleman from Louisiana is properly
addressing the House. The point of order is overruled.
Motion To Proceed in Order
Sec. 52.9 A motion that a Member be permitted to proceed in order is a
privileged motion after the Chair has held the Member to be out of
order.
On June 7, 1933,(12) Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas,
referred to another Member of the House, Bertrand H. Snell, of New
York, critically and by name in debate. Mr. Frederick R. Lehlbach, of
New Jersey, demanded that the words be taken down, and Speaker Henry T.
Rainey, of Illinois, ruled that the words were a violation of the rules
of the House in that they referred to a Member by name and held him up
to ridicule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 77 Cong. Rec. 5203-05, 73d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Rankin then moved that Mr. Blanton be permitted to proceed in
order and the question was immediately put on the motion.
Sec. 52.10 After words taken down in debate in Committee of the Whole
have been reported to the House and ruled out of order by the
Speaker, a privileged motion that the Member whose words were ruled
out of order be permitted to proceed in order may be made.
During consideration of the Department of Education Organization
Act of 1979 (H.R. 2444) in the Committee of the Whole, certain words
used in debate were reported to the House, the Speaker ruled on those
words and a motion to allow the Member whose words were ruled out of
order to proceed in order was agreed to. The proceedings of June 12,
1979,(13) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 125 Cong. Rec. 14461, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: (14) The Clerk will report the words
objected to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. [Henry B.] Gonzalez [of Texas]: . . . The insidiousness
of the amendment is compounded by the sponsor's deceptive--I
should say hypocritical--presentation of this amendment,
disguising it as a quota prohibition.
The Speaker: The Chair is ready to rule.
The Chair, having read the references concerning deception and
hypocrisy, will state that there have been previous opinions by the
Chair that there is nothing wrong with using the
[[Page 10781]]
word, ``deceptive,'' or the word, ``hypocritical,'' in
characterizing an amendment's effect but when a Member so
characterizes the motivation of a Member in offering an amendment
that is not in order.
Consequently, the words in the last sentence read by the Clerk
are unparliamentary and without objection, the offensive words are
stricken from the Record. . . .
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brooks).
Mr. [Jack] Brooks [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I move that the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez) be allowed to proceed in order.
The motion was agreed to.
The Speaker: The Committee will resume its sitting.
Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration
of the bill, H.R. 2444, with Mr. Nedzi in the chair.
The Chairman: (15) The gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Gonzalez) has the floor, and the gentleman will proceed in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Lucien N. Nedzi (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 52.11 While clause 4 of Rule XIV provides that a Member whose
words are ruled out of order may not automatically proceed in
debate, the precedents of the House authorize a motion to permit
the offending Member to proceed in order.
On May 9, 1990,(16) it was demonstrated that the motion
that a Member ruled out of order for words spoken in debate be
permitted to proceed in order is not inconsistent with the prohibition
in clause 4 of Rule XIV that the offending Member may not automatically
proceed, since it permits the House to determine the extent of the
sanction for the breach of order. The proceedings in the House were as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 136 Cong. Rec. 9828, 9829, 101st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Mr. Torricelli asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. [Robert G.] Torricelli [of New Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, you
heard it here today: Republican Member after Republican Member
taking the floor, predicting that the President will never raise
taxes.
I am here to predict that he will raise taxes. And, Mr.
Speaker, we are both right because no doubt, for the President's
friends, for those of privilege in America, he will never raise
taxes.
But for you and for me and for the overwhelming majority of
Americans, he is--he says that he is going to, and he is about
doing it. It isn't, Mr. Speaker, that the President is
intellectually dishonest, though indeed in the last election he
was. It is about the fact that he has a $500 billion----
Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I ask
that the gentleman's words be taken down.
The words in question were held to be unparliamentary, the Speaker
Pro Tempore (17) stating as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. John P. Murtha (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 10782]]
In referring to the President during debate a Member shall
abstain from ``terms of approbrium,'' such as calling the President
a ``liar''--V, 5094, VIII, 2498.
Without objection the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr.
Torricelli] may proceed in order.
[Objection was heard.]
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Does any Member move that the
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Torricelli] may proceed in order? .
. .
Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I make that
motion.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the motion of the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates]. . . .
So the motion was agreed to. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: . . . The House has voted to allow the
gentleman to proceed in order. The gentleman has 16 seconds
remaining. . . .
Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Pennsylvania will
state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. Walker: If I understand correctly what just happened in the
course of events, it was that the Chair did rule that the
gentleman's words were inappropriate, is that correct?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair did so rule.
Mr. Walker: And the penalty for such a ruling would normally be
that the gentleman would not be allowed to speak for the rest of
the day in the House Chamber, is that not correct?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The House permitted him to proceed in
order.
Mr. Walker: Under the rules, Mr. Speaker, the rules state that
someone having had the Chair so rule is not permitted to speak in
the House for the rest of the day, is that not correct?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct.
Mr. Walker: So by taking the action which the party did a few
minutes ago, the majority party did, what they did was basically
overrule the rules with regard to the penalty for having words
taken down.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The motion to allow the gentleman to
proceed is a proper parliamentary motion under the same rule.
Mr. Walker: Yes. I understand. But the effect of the action,
the effect of the motion, was to override the rules of the House.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Under the rules of the House the Chair
cannot say that one part of the rule has precedence over the
practice of the House paramount to that rule.
Mr. Walker: Well, I have a further parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. Walker: If the motion had not been made, the gentleman
would not have been permitted to speak for the rest of the day, is
that correct?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct.
Mr. Walker: So the effect of the motion was to allow the
gentleman to do something which the rules would otherwise not
permit him.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The House has followed the normal
practice. There are two aspects to the rule. The House proceeded
under the rules, and both procedures are proper. The
[[Page 10783]]
House voted and the gentleman was allowed to proceed for 16
seconds.
Mr. Walker: I have a further parliamentary inquiry. So in other
words what the Chair is saying is that the will of the majority can
prevail, even though it is over and above the rules that are
adopted by the----
Mr. Yates: Mr. Speaker, regular order.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
Yates] is absolutely correct. That is not a parliamentary inquiry.
Parliamentarian's Note: Where the House has voted to allow a Member
called to order to proceed in order, the offending Member is recognized
for the remainder of his debate time, as indicated above.
Sec. 52.12 When a Member is called to order for words used in debate,
he may be permitted to proceed in or-der by unanimous consent, or
by a motion ``that the gentleman be allowed to proceed in order''
which may be stated on the initiative of the Chair.
The proceedings of Mar. 29, 1995,(18) where Speaker Pro
Tempore Peter G. Torkildsen, of Massachusetts, took the initiative in
moving that a Member called to order for words used in debate be
permitted to proceed in order, were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 141 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker Pro Tempore: . . . The Clerk will report the words
objected to in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the
Union.
The Clerk read as follows:
I had specific conversation with the gentleman from
Michigan, and he stated to me very clearly that it is his
intention to vote against this bill on final. Now, if that is
not a cynical manipulation and exploitation of the American
public, then what is? What could be more cynical? What could be
more hypocritical?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: In the opinion of the Chair, ascribing
hypocrisy to another Member has been ruled out of order in the
past, and is unparliamentary.
Without objection, the words are stricken from the record.
There was no objection.
Without objection, the gentleman may proceed in order.
Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Reserving the right to
object, Mr. Speaker. I have been waiting for an apology from the
gentleman. I know he wants to apologize and does not want to leave
these things on the record, because I am sure he realizes that it
reflects unfavorably upon him, as it does upon me, so I am waiting
for the apology. I know the gentleman wants to give it to me.
Mr. [Martin R.] Hoke [of Ohio]: Mr. Dingell, I very clearly
stated that I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my words, and I
requested that that be done. You objected to that.
I have told you on the Record that I will not apologize.
[[Page 10784]]
Mr. Dingell: Mr. Speaker. I object.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Objection is heard.
The question is: Shall the gentleman be allowed to proceed in
order?
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced
that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. [John] Conyers [Jr., of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, I object to
the vote on the grounds 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
212, nays 197, answered ``present'' 2, not voting 23, as follows: .
. .
So the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke] was allowed to proceed in
order.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. [Richard J.] Durbin [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state the nature of
his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. Durbin: Mr. Speaker, I would like the Chair to clarify the
vote that was just taken. It is my understanding that words were
taken down, words uttered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke] and
those words were determined by the Speaker to be out of order. At
which point, if I recall correctly, the words were stricken, and
the Chair stated a unanimous-consent request that the gentleman be
able to proceed.
There was objection to that unanimous-consent request, at which
point, if I am not mistaken, the Chair then stated a motion to give
the gentleman the opportunity to proceed and speak.
Is my recollection correct, is that the motion which we just
voted on?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman's recollection is
correct.
Mr. Durbin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask this of the Chair
then; it is my understanding that the Chair has the right under the
rules to make a unanimous-consent request that an individual be
allowed to proceed after his words have been stricken, but in this
case I wonder if it is the prerogative of the Chair to make such a
motion, or whether it should have been made by a Member of the
body?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair has the right to entertain
unanimous-consent requests. Under previous rulings of the Chair in
1991, the Chair does have the right to put that question to the
body.
Mr. Durbin: Beyond the unanimous-consent request?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Beyond the unanimous-consent request,
since it is ultimately the House's decision, no Member sought to
question the ruling of the Chair, the question was put to the
House.
Parliamentarian's Note: While under section 394 of Jefferson's
Manual no motion can be made without rising and addressing
the Chair (5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 4984, 4985), in the
circumstance where the House must decide whether to permit a Member who
has been ruled out of order in debate to proceed in order, the
[[Page 10785]]
Speaker has put that question to a vote without necessarily
entertaining a motion from the floor. See Sec. 52.13, infra.
Sec. 52.13 The motion to permit a Member called to order to proceed in
order is debatable (and as such may be laid on the table under
clause 4 of Rule XVI).
As demonstrated by the proceedings of Oct. 8, 1991,(19)
the motion ``shall (a Member) be permitted to proceed in order?'' may
be put by the Chair sua sponte and is debatable under the hour rule.
Since the motion is debatable, it is subject to the motion to table.
Where the Chair states the motion on his own initiative, the Chair has
discretion in recognition of a Member to control one hour of debate.
Debate is limited to the question of whether to permit the offending
Member to proceed in order. Finally, adoption of the motion permits the
offending Member to proceed in order for the remainder of his/her
debate time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See 137 Cong. Rec. 25757-25760, 102d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. [Rosa L.] DeLauro [of Connecticut]: Mr. Speaker, the Senate
is about to embark on a misguided journey.
Mr. [F. James] Sensenbrenner [Jr., of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker,
point of order.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (20) The gentlewoman will
refrain from direct reference to the other body.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Michael R. McNulty (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. DeLauro: How can there be a vote to place Judge Thomas in a
lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court under this cloud? To be
sure, a person is innocent until proven guilty, but without a full
and public hearing about the veracity of these very serious charges
of sexual harassment, a decision this evening to elevate Judge
Thomas to the Supreme Court casts doubt on the entire process.
Mr. Sensenbrenner: Mr. Speaker, I demand the gentlewoman's
words be taken down.
Ms. DeLauro: The actions of the Committee on the Judiciary say
loud and clear----
Mr. Sensenbrenner: Mr. Speaker, I demand the words of the
gentlewoman be taken down.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentlewoman will suspend.
The Chair has repeatedly asked Members to refrain from specific
reference to the other body and would admonish the gentlewoman to
do so.
Does the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner] insist on
his request?
Mr. Sensenbrenner: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I do. I think the
precedent ought to be set and put in the precedents of the House on
what the extent of the prohibition against discussing the
proceedings in the other body are.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair's rulings previously today
are consistent with and constitute the precedents of the House. The
Chair
[[Page 10786]]
will insist upon compliance with those precedents.
Under those circumstances, does the gentleman from Wisconsin
[Mr. Sensenbrenner] still insist?
Mr. Sensenbrenner: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I do.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the words that
are objected to. . . .
The Clerk read as follows:
. . . to be sure a person is innocent until proven guilty,
but without a full and public hearing about these very serious
charges a decision this evening to elevate Judge Thomas to the
Supreme Court casts doubt on the entire process.
The Speaker: (1) It is the Chair's opinion that the
words inevitably relate to an action to be taken by the Senate with
respect to a nomination by the President subject to the
confirmation of the Senate and, accordingly, are not in order, and
the words, accordingly without objection, will be stricken from the
Record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Thomas S. Foley (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
Without objection the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms.
DeLauro] may proceed in order.
Mr. Sensenbrenner: Mr. Speaker, I object.
The Speaker: Objection is heard.
The question is: Shall the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms.
DeLauro] be permitted to proceed in order?
Mr. Sensenbrenner: Mr. Speaker, I offer a preferential motion.
The Speaker: The Clerk will report the preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Sensenbrenner moves to table the motion.
The Speaker: The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner] to lay on the table
the motion to proceed in order. . . .
So the motion to table was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. . . .
Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: This is my
parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker: Is the motion now before the
House a motion which is debatable?
The Speaker: The motion now before the House is subject to
debate, the gentleman is correct, within the narrow limits of the
motion.
Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, who would control the time?
The Speaker: The Chair intends to recognize the majority
leader, Mr. Gephardt, to control the time, since the Chair put the
question sue sponte on the motion when objection was heard.
Mr. Walker: And the subject matter would be strictly----
The Speaker: The question is whether the gentlewoman from
Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro] should be permitted to proceed in order.
Mr. Walker: I thank the Chair.
If the gentlewoman was permitted to proceed in order, would she
be allowed to continue the remarks that she was engaged in at the
time that she was called to order by the Chair?
The Speaker: The gentlewoman from Connecticut will be permitted
to
[[Page 10787]]
proceed in order as long as her remarks are in order. Members are
allowed to proceed as long as their remarks are in order. . . .
The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt] is recognized for 1
hour. . . .
Mr. [Richard A.] Gephardt [of Missouri]: . . . Mr. Speaker, I
would say to the Members that the resolution we have before us
makes it clear that the gentlewoman's words are to be taken down.
The resolution calls for her being allowed to proceed with her
statement. . . .
Mr. Walker: . . . Mr. Speaker, our concern I think is that we
are developing a pattern where the taking down of words carries
with it no penalty. I think the gentleman from Pennsylvania is
correct in stating that taking down of words is supposed to carry
with it the penalty that the Member
of Congress who utters the unparliamentary words is to be taken off
their
feet for the rest of that legislative day. . . .
Mr. Gephardt: The motion that is in front of us is to take
words down and to proceed, obviously with the admonition that the
precedents which are now clear will be followed.
Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the motion.
The Speaker: Without objection, the previous question is
ordered.
There was no objection.
The Speaker: The question is, Will the gentlewoman from
Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro] be allowed to proceed in order?
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. Sensenbrenner: Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes
260, noes 145, answered ``present'' 2, not voting 26. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentlewoman from Connecticut is
recognized for the balance of her 1 minute which shall constitute
28 seconds.
Ms. DeLauro: I thank the Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, allegations of sexual harassment are serious
charges which deserve serious consideration. The Justices of the
Supreme Court must demonstrate respect for law and for individual
rights. To impugn the integrity of Professor Hill, to elevate that
of Judge Thomas, is not appropriate nor is it a credible tactic.
The American people deserve more than a dismissal of Professor
Hill's charges. They deserve to know the truth.
Mr. Speaker, let us take the time to uncover the truth.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The time of the gentlewoman from
Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro] has expired.
Parliamentarian's Note: While clause 4 of Rule XIV suggests that a
Member whose words are ruled out of order may not automatically proceed
in debate, traditionally the Speaker's ruling is sufficient sanction
and the chastized Member is permitted to proceed in order by unanimous
consent; however the House may dictate the further consequences of the
ruling by proper motions under clauses 4 or 5 of Rule XIV to strike the
unparliamentary remarks from the Record and to proceed in order.
[[Page 10788]]
Striking Words From Record
Sec. 52.14 Where a unanimous-consent request that a Member be permitted
to proceed in order is pending, the Speaker having held certain
words unparliamentary, a motion to strike those words from the
Record is in order.
On Mar. 24, 1961,(2) certain words used in debate in the
Committee of the Whole and objected to were reported to the House.
Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled that the words were a violation of
the rules of the House. A unanimous-consent request that the Member
called to order be allowed to proceed in order was then made and stated
by the Chair. Pending the request, a parliamentary inquiry was stated
and Speaker Rayburn ruled that pending the unanimous-consent request a
motion to strike the words from the Record was in order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 107 Cong. Rec. 4780, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [James] Roosevelt [of California]: Would it be in order at
this time to ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Iowa be
allowed to proceed in order?
The Speaker: It would.
Mr. [Carroll D.] Kearns [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I
object to that.
The Speaker: Let the Chair first state the request.
Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California that the gentleman from Iowa be allowed to proceed in
order?
Mr. [Thomas B.] Curtis of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Curtis of Missouri: The ruling means that these words will
be stricken from the Record?
The Speaker: If a motion is made to strike them from the
Record.
Mr. Curtis of Missouri: I would make such a motion and then I
would not object.
The Speaker: The question is on the motion.
The motion was agreed to.
The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from California that the gentleman from Iowa be allowed to proceed
in order?
There was no objection.
Explanation by Member Called to Order
Sec. 52.15 When a demand is made that the words of a Member be taken
down, such Member may not debate the demand or explain his remarks
absent special permission from the House.
On Mar. 24, 1961,(3) words used in debate by Mr. Neal
Smith, of Iowa, were demanded to be taken down. When Mr. Smith rose to
ob
[[Page 10789]]
ject to the demand on the ground that he had not violated the rules of
the House, Chairman Francis E. Walter, of Pennsylvania, ruled pursuant
to a point of order that Mr. Smith was required to take his seat
pursuant to a demand that his words be taken down.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 107 Cong. Rec. 4780, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Oct. 9, 1940,(4) Mr. Sol Bloom, of New York, objected
to certain words used in debate by Mr. John C. Schafer, of Wisconsin,
and demanded that they be taken down. When Mr. Schafer attempted to
explain his remarks and to contend that he was proceeding in order,
Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled pursuant to a point of order by
Mr. Bloom that Mr. Schafer was required to take his seat.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 86 Cong. Rec. 13477, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
5. See also 94 Cong. Rec. 205, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 15, 1948; and
87 Cong. Rec. 894, 895, 899, 77th Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 11,
1941.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 52.16 When words are taken down, the Speaker may, without
objection, permit the offending Member to explain his words,
following which the Speaker may make his final ruling on whether
the remarks are in violation of the rules.
On Nov. 10, 1971,(6) certain words used in debate by Mr.
John H. Dent, of Pennsylvania, were demanded to be taken down by Mr.
John N. Erlenborn, of Illinois, and reported to the House, whereupon
Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, ruled them out of order. The Speaker
allowed Mr. Dent, by unanimous consent, to explain the objectionable
words and on the basis of the explanation ruled that the words were not
in fact unparliamentary:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 117 Cong. Rec. 40442, 92d Cong. 1st Sess. See also 86 Cong. Rec.
954, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., Feb. 1, 1940, in which the Chair
overruled a point of order that a Member was quoting testimony
taken before an executive session of a committee, upon the
Member's assurance that he was not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: The Clerk will report the words objected to.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Dent: The second lie which is deliberate, in my
opinion, and ought not to be brought back time after time into
this controversy, is that there is no such thing----
The Speaker: The Chair will state that the words ``second lie''
are not parliamentary, and without objection will be stricken from
the Record.
Mr. Dent: Mr. Speaker, what part of that was being stricken?
The Speaker: The Chair will state that the words are ``the
second lie.''
Mr. Dent: Mr. Speaker, I have not said what the second lie is.
How can you strike it?
The Speaker: The manner in which the gentleman referred to the
words in the following statement: ``the second lie which is
deliberate.'' Without objection,
[[Page 10790]]
the gentleman may explain his statement.
Mr. Dent: But I have not said what the lie is. I have not
accused anybody here of lying. I have accused the second lie of
being propagandized all over the State, and through different
individuals, and the third lie and the fourth lie. I have not
accused the gentleman. There have been many persons on this floor--
not many on the floor--but many persons who have put out the word
that this deliberately wipes out X-rays as a means of determining
pneumoconiosis, and the bill does not do that. And if it does not
do that it is all untrue.
The Speaker: The Chair will request the gentleman from
Pennsylvania to state whether the gentleman was referring to any
Member of the Congress.
Mr. Dent: Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker. I will be glad to have
that cleared up. But I have not said or named a Member's name yet.
The Speaker: If the gentleman was not referring to a Member of
the House----
Mr. Dent: I was not. I was referring to two lies, and they are
lies, and they have been put out all over the State in letters and
newspaper items.
The Speaker: But the gentleman from Pennsylvania states that he
was not referring to a Member of the House?
Mr. Dent: The Record will show that I did not refer to a Member
of the House.
The Speaker: Does the gentleman state again that he was not
referring to a Member of the House?
Mr. Dent: Yes; if I said it, it would have been in the Record.
The Speaker: Then the Chair will state that the gentleman's
words are not unparliamentary, and the Committee will resume its
sitting.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Rule XIV clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 760 (1995) provides
that a Member called to order ``immediately sit down, unless
permitted, on motion of another Member, to explain. . . .''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Cannot Proceed for Balance of Day
Sec. 52.17 Where unparliamentary words used in debate have been
stricken from the Record, the offending Member may be permitted to
proceed in order by unanimous consent or by motion; but a Member
who is not permitted by the House to proceed in order loses the
floor and may not participate in debate on the same day even in
time yielded to him by another Member.
The following proceedings occurred in the House on Mar. 19,
1985:(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 131 Cong. Rec. 5532, 5533, 5537, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Harry] Reid [of Nevada]: Mr. Speaker, on February 26 of
this year one of my constituents traveled nearly 3,000 miles to
Washington specifically to see me about a critical issue, but he
did not. . . . I was called away from something very important to
become
[[Page 10791]]
captive, once again, to an abusive practice, an abuse inflicted
upon the entire House of Representatives and the legislative
process itself, voting on the Journal.
Mr. Reid made further comments, indicated below, which were the
subject of a demand that the words be taken down:
Mr. [Vin] Weber [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, I demand that the
gentleman's words be taken down. . . .
Mr. Speaker, would it be in order, in view of the gentleman's
statement a minute ago, for me to ask unanimous consent that he be
permitted to withdraw his words?
The Speaker Pro Tempore:(9) Yes. The Chair would
entertain such a motion. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Kenneth J. Gray (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I respectfully submit that I appreciate
the request of the gentleman from Minnesota, but I do not think I
said anything offensive, and I would ask for a ruling on that.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will rule.
The Clerk will report the words.
The Clerk read as follows:
One of the most important things to remember is that those
Members who call for these wasteful votes are led by my
distinguished colleague from Pennsylvania, Mr. Walker, who
speaks constantly of the need to do away with government waste,
and he is literally speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would announce that it is
not proper to impugn the motive of another Member. We have
precedents here in the House. Mr. Knutson, of Minnesota: ``I cannot
believe that the gentleman from Mississippi is sincere in what he
has just said.'' And that was held not in order on November 2,
1942.
The Chair must state that the words of the gentleman from
Nevada have, in his opinion, an unparliamentary connotation and
shall be stricken.
Without objection, the gentleman from Nevada may proceed. Do I
hear an objection?
Mr. Weber: Yes, Mr. Speaker. . . .
Would the Chair clarify the parliamentary situation in which
the gentleman from Nevada finds himself?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: . . . The Chair has ruled that the
gentleman from Nevada misspoke on the words ``speaking out of both
sides of his mouth,'' and therefore those words shall be stricken.
The Member only can proceed by permission of the House. . . .
Mr. [Thomas S.] Foley [of Washington]: Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that the gentleman from Nevada may be permitted
to proceed.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from Washington that the gentleman from Nevada be
allowed to finish his remarks?
Mr. [Daniel E.] Lungren [of California]: Reserving the right to
object----
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from California reserves
the right to object. . . .
Let the Chair restate what has occurred here.
[[Page 10792]]
The gentleman has propounded a parliamentary inquiry, and the
Chair has responded that the Chair has ruled that those words are
offensive and shall be stricken. It is not a matter of further
debate.
Mr. Lungren: I understand. I am still proceeding under my
reservation, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question occurs now on whether or
not the gentleman is allowed to proceed with the understanding that
those words have been stricken. . . .
Mr. Lungren: . . . Mr. Speaker, under my reservation, I ask the
gentleman at this point in time whether he would agree to withdraw
his re-marks. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: It is not in the parliamentary
procedures or rules of the House for any further debate on this
matter. The Chair has ruled affirmatively that the words shall be
stricken.
The only question now before this House is whether or not----
Mr. Lungren: Mr. Speaker, you have constrained me to object,
and I do object at this time. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Objection is heard.
Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Alexander) is recognized for 5 minutes. . . .
Mr. [William V.] Alexander [of Arkansas]: Mr. Speaker, I
recognize the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Reid). I yield to the
gentleman from Nevada. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman cannot be yielded to at
this time. . . .
Is there objection to the gentleman from Arkansas yielding
further to the gentleman from Nevada?
Mr. Alexander: . . . Do I not have a right to yield to any
Member of this House? . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will rule that if a Member
in this particular case has been precluded from continuing, he
cannot be yielded to on this subject without unanimous consent.
If the gentleman wants to propound the unanimous-consent
request, and hearing no objection, he could yield.
Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Arkansas to yield to the gentleman from Nevada? . . .
Mr. Lungren: . . . I will be constrained to object, and I do
object at this time. . . .
Mr. Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I have not announced the subject
which I intend to address. How can the Chair rule against me
yielding to another Member when the Chair does not know the subject
that I intend to address?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would announce to the
distinguished gentleman from Arkansas that, under the rules of the
House, at any time a Member's words are taken down, under the rules
he is not permitted on that particular legislative business day to
speak to the House without permission of the body. An objection was
heard to the unanimous-consent request. . . .
Mr. Weber: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the
gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Reid) be allowed to proceed.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from Minnesota?
[[Page 10793]]
There was no objection.
Sec. 52.18 While a Member who is held to have breached the rules of
decorum in debate is presumptively disabled from further
recognition on that day, by tradition the Speaker's ruling and any
necessary expungement of the Record are deemed sufficient sanction,
and by custom the chastened Member is permitted to proceed in order
(usually by unanimous consent).
See the proceedings of July 29, 1994, discussed in Sec. 48.13,
supra.
CHAPTER 29
Consideration and Debate
G. REFERENCES TO HOUSE, COMMITTEES, OR MEMBERS
Sec. 53. Criticism of House or Party
In order that free debate not be hindered in the deliberations of
the House, Members are permitted to voice critical opinions of
Congress, of the House, and of the political parties.(10) In
this regard, a wider latitude is permitted Members today than in early
Congresses.(11) However, critical opinions in debate of the
House or of its membership may not extend to gross misstatements of
motive(12) or to descriptions employing language
objectionable in itself.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See the statements of Speaker Sam Rayburn (Tex.), cited at
Sec. Sec. 53.2, 53.3, infra.
11. In early Congresses it was held not in order to cast reflections on
the House or its membership present or past, 5 Hinds'
Precedents Sec. Sec. 5132-5138, 5161, 5162, and the Speaker
would intervene on his own initiative to prevent objectionable
references. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 5132, 5137, 5163. For
a recent occasion of such intervention, see Sec. 54.10, infra.
12. See Sec. 53.3, infra.
13. See 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5135 (``damnable
heresies''). -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress
Sec. 53.1 Statements that are critical of Congress will not be ruled
out of order for that reason alone; thus, a statement in debate
claiming that the campaign expenses of Members were paid by certain
interests was held not to be a personal reflection on any Member of
the House and to be in order.
On Mar. 16, 1939,(14) Mr. Francis D. Culkin, of New
York, demanded that the following
[[Page 10794]]
words used in debate be taken down:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 84 Cong. Rec. 2883, 2884, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Chairman, I will tell you what is behind all this. You need
not camouflage it. The Power Trust that paid a lot of campaign
expenses last year. That is what is behind it.
The Committee rose and the words objected to were reported
to the House whereupon Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, ruled
that since the language was not a personal reflection upon any
individual Member of the House, the words did not violate the rules or
proprieties of debate.
On Sept. 25, 1961,(15) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of
Michigan, asked unanimous consent that at the conclusion of the
business of the House he be permitted to proceed for five minutes on
the topic ``Is the Congress Mentally Ill?''. Mr. Frank T. Bow, of Ohio,
raised
a parliamentary inquiry as to whether that was a proper subject for
debate on the floor of the House, and Speaker Pro Tempore John W.
McCormack, of Massachusetts, declined to rule in advance as to whether
the speech would be unparliamentary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 107 Cong. Rec. 21466, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Political Parties
Sec. 53.2 A statement in debate referring to ``irresponsible actions by
members of the President's own party'' was held in order as not
reflecting on the character of any House Member.
On Mar. 27, 1957,(16) Mr. B. F. Sisk, of California,
delivered the following words in debate which were demanded to be taken
down:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 103 Cong. Rec. 4557, 4558, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I could not help but admire him [Mr. John E. Fogarty, of Rhode
Island] for his courage and for his devotion to the American people
to get up here time after time after time to defend the
administration's budget against irresponsible actions by members of
the President's own party.
Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Tex-as, ruled that the words were not
unparliamentary since they did not reflect on the character of
any House Member. The Speaker added that objections to words
in debate could reach the point where a Member could not criticize,
thereby restricting debate in the House.
Sec. 53.3 A statement in debate referring to members of the Republican
Conference as avoiding an issue and describing lynching as a
``proper means of justice'' was held to be in violation of the
rules of debate.
[[Page 10795]]
On July 26, 1951,(17) Mr. Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of
Massachusetts, demanded that words used in debate by Mr. John J.
Rooney, of New York, in reference to the Republican Conference be taken
down. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 97 Cong. Rec. 8969, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair in every instance of this kind has been most liberal
with the Member who uttered the words objected to, because he has
always thought that great liberality must be indulged in so that we
may have free and full debate. On very few occasions has the
present occupant of the chair held that remarks were a violation of
the rules of the House.
The Chair can hardly agree, however, that the words, applied to
the meeting of the Republicans in caucus yesterday were quite
proper.
Parliamentarian's Note: The words used, which were stricken from
the Record, read as follows: ``The way to handle the situation is to
work up to it squarely, unashamedly, and straight forwardly, and not
peek through keyholes, hide behind doors, and tremble at the first sign
of opposition as you did yesterday [referring to the Republican
Conference]; they are saying nothing less than lynching is a proper
means of justice.''
Sec. 53.4 It was not out of order to ask in debate whether it was a
proper parliamentary inquiry to ask that a bill be printed in such
a way that the Republicans could understand it.
On Mar. 31, 1938,(18) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan,
demanded that the following words used in debate by Mr. Thomas F. Ford,
of California, be taken down: ``Mr. Chairman, is it a parliamentary
inquiry then to ask that the bill be reprinted in words of one syllable
so that the Republicans can understand it?''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 83 Cong. Rec. 4484, 4485, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, ruled that the language
was not objectionable under the House rules.
Sec. 53.5 A statement in debate that a Member was leading the
Republican party in a policy of opportunism was held not to
transgress the rules of the House or reflect upon the integrity of
Members and therefore to be in order.
On Feb. 8, 1941,(19) the following words used by Mr.
John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, in debate were demanded to be
[[Page 10796]]
taken down by Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 87 Cong. Rec. 796, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The gentleman from New York who was leading the Republican
Party in the policy of opportunism that is being engaged in in
connection with a bill serious to the fate of our country relating
to our national defense.
The Committee of the Whole rose and the words were reported to the
House, where Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled that the words did
not reflect upon the integrity of any Members and were therefore not
violative of the rules of the House.
Sec. 53.6 Reference in debate to the minority party as ``having some
motivation other than fully objective concern for the House in the
timing of a resolution'' and the assertion that the House could
proceed with ``greater dignity and honor'' at another time,
together with the disclaimer that the minority leader did not
necessarily share that motivation, was held not to impugn the
motives of any Member and to be parliamentary.
During consideration of House Resolution 578 (directing the
Committee on Rules to make certain inquiries) on Feb. 13,
1980,(20) the following proceedings occurred in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 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, 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; '' . . .
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. . . .
Mr. Bolling: . . . The gentleman from Missouri has not felt
more strongly about a matter in a very long time than he does about
this. . . . The gentleman from Missouri obviously has no difficulty
with the content of the resolution and feels that he could in honor
offer it. The gentleman from Missouri has a very, very strong
feeling about the timing of the offering of this proposal by the
minority, and the gentleman from Missouri has carefully
differentiated between what he has said earlier about the minority
leader and what he is now saying about the minority.
I fear me, and I do not suspect the gentleman from Arizona of
having this
[[Page 10797]]
view, I fear me that there is some motivation other than fully
objective concern for the House in the timing of the resolution,
not in the content. And that is the reason that the gentleman from
Missouri took the unusual course of offering the minority's
proposition. He feels that it is appropriate for the House, through
the Rules Committee initially, to look into this matter. But he
thinks it might be done with greater dignity, and one might say
with greater honor, if it were not done at this particular time of
confusion. . . .
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I demand
that the words of the gentleman from Missouri be taken down. . . .
If the record is read back by the Clerk, I believe the Chair
will find that the gentleman from Missouri referred to the
motivation behind the offering of this resolution at this time and
referred to the minority leader and the members of the minority
party. Subsequent to that the gentleman from Missouri referred to
that motivation being dishonorable. I think this falls within the
rules of the House that clearly say that a Member of the House
cannot question the motivation of other Members of the House in
their actions. The gentleman from Missouri did refer to the
minority leader, and all of the Members of the minority and their
motivation.
The Speaker: (1) The Clerk will report the words. .
. .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The gentleman from Missouri has referred in his remarks that he
feels that it is appropriate for the House, through the Rules
Committee, initially to look into this matter, and he thinks it
might be done with greater dignity and, one might say, with greater
honor if done by the committee or considered at another time.
The Chair, in its opinion, feels that he has not transgressed
on the honor or the dignity of the minority party or the minority
leader, and the point of order is not well taken.
The gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, would the Chair address himself to the
issue of motivation the gentleman from Missouri raised, as to
whether that is a correct use of parliamentary language.
The Speaker: In the opinion of the Chair the gentleman did not
talk about or refer to the dishonor of any Member of the House, nor
did he characterize the motives of any specific Member in an
unparliamentary way.
The Chair repeats, the point of order is not well taken.
Stealing an Election
Sec. 53.7 In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Chair indicated
that it was not in order in debate to refer to an identifiable
group of sitting Members as having committed a crime, such as
``stealing'' an election.
The prohibition in Rule XIV, clause 1,(2) against
Members' engaging in ``personality'' during debate, applies to
allegations that an identifiable group of sitting
[[Page 10798]]
Members have committed a crime. Such application of the rule is shown
by the proceedings of Feb. 27, 1985,(3) in which a statement
made by Mr. John Rowland, of Connecticut, as indicated below,
concerning an allegedly ``stolen'' election, was the subject of a
demand that the words be taken down:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 749 (1995).
3. 131 Cong. Rec. 3898, 3899, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Andrew] Jacobs [Jr., of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, I demand
the gentleman's words be taken down in that he said ``stolen.''
The Chairman: Words will be taken down.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (4) The Clerk will read the
words taken down.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Tommy F. Robinson (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
The scary thing about it, as a person who served in the
legislature for 4 years, and as a person who happens to be
sitting as the youngest Member of Congress, I find it difficult
that the first situation that we run into in this House, the
first class project, as we may call it, is trying to retain a
seat that has been stolen from the Republican side of the
aisle, and I think it is rather frustrating.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Would the gentleman care to modify his
remarks before the Chair rules?
Mr. Rowland of Connecticut: Yes, I would, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: In what way does the gentleman care to
modify?
Mr. Rowland of Connecticut: I would like to ask unanimous
consent that the words objected to be withdrawn. . . .
The word ``stolen,'' Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from Connecticut?
There was no objection. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Georgia is
recognized.
Mr. [Newt] Gingrich [of Georgia]: I would yield in just a
moment, after asking the Chair if in fact Members were convinced an
action were being taken which involved a word which was ruled by
the Chair to be inappropriate, how could a Member report to the
House on that action? Should we substitute the word ``banana''?
What is it one should say if in fact--not just as a joke, but if in
fact--Members of
the Republican side honestly believed strongly something is being
done? In other words, is ``unconstitutional'' an acceptable term
but ``illegal'' not acceptable? . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Simply put, Members should not accuse
other Members of committing a crime. When the majority is accused
of ``stealing,'' that may suggest illegality. Other words could be
used but not those accusing Members of committing a crime.
Mr. Gingrich: What if one honestly believes, for a moment, that
a crime is being committed? Would it in fact be against the rules--
--
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Members may not engage in
personalities.
Mr. Gingrich: But he did not talk in personalities.
Mr. Rowland of Connecticut: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman
yield?
Mr. Gingrich: I will be glad to yield to the gentleman.
[[Page 10799]]
Mr. Rowland of Connecticut: I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I would simply point out that I did not refer to
anybody stealing an election. I just referred to the frustration
that we as freshmen are exhibiting and fearing as we go through the
deliberations. I did not refer to anybody.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman seemed to refer to the
majority of the House, that it had stolen the election.
CHAPTER 29
Consideration and Debate
G. REFERENCES TO HOUSE, COMMITTEES, OR MEMBERS
Sec. 54. Criticism of Committees or Their Members
Although a Member may generally criticize the action or inaction of
a House committee or subcommittee or a member thereof,(5) he
may not impugn the motives or honesty of committee members
(6) such as charging that a committee proceeding is
motivated by a desire to violate House rules in order to defame a
witness.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. See Sec. Sec. 54.6, 54.8, 54.13, infra.
6. See Sec. Sec. 54.1-54.5, infra.
7. See Sec. Sec. 54.1 et seq.,
infra. -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Particular Allegations; Abuse of Committee Power
Sec. 54.1 Although improper charges of unlawful committee activity have
been stricken from the Record, a Member in debate may generally
criticize the actions of a committee, as by alleging an abuse of
its powers.
On Jan. 17, 1949,(8) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan,
objected to the following language used in debate by Mr. Chet
Holifield, of California, in reference to a House committee: ``The
gentleman from California [Mr. Havenner] has been the victim of the
abusive, vicious, and irresponsible use of the power of a congressional
committee twice.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 95 Cong. Rec. 428, 429, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Tex-as, ruled as follows:
The Chair thinks that the gentleman would be going quite far
afield if he said a Member of the House would not have the right to
criticize the actions of a committee of the House. The gentleman
from California will proceed in order.
On June 24, 1958,(9) during a discussion on the floor of
the House about the proceedings in a subcommittee hearing, allegations
were made that the subcommittee was deliberately trying to defame
certain individuals. The precise words (which do not appear in the
Record) were: ``There is no question but that this procedure is the
[[Page 10800]]
very thing that the House sought to forbid in Rule XI, paragraph m. and
o. [now Rule XI, clause 2(k)]. Indeed the purpose of the tactics of the
subcommittee on this measure demonstrate that its real purpose was to
use the forum of the subcommittee to defame and degrade a person.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 104 Cong. Rec. 12120, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The words were objected to and taken down; and Speaker Rayburn held
the words unparliamentary, stating:
The Chair thinks it is very clear that this is a reflection on
a committee of the House of a very serious type and, therefore,
holds that the language is not parliamentary.
The words were expunged by unanimous consent from the Congressional
Record.
Sec. 54.2 A statement in debate charging an investigative committee
with ``unlawful prying'' was held unparliamentary and on motion
stricken from the Record.
On Apr. 16, 1946,(10) the following words by Mr. Herman
P. Kopplemann, of Connecticut, in relation to the Committee on Un-
American Activities were objected to and ordered taken down:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 92 Cong. Rec. 3761, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This would mean that all of our institutions up to and
including our churches would be exposed to the unlawful prying of a
committee.
Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Tex-as, ruled as follows:
The Chair does not want it to be understood that he is ever
going to hold out of order proper words that express the opinion of
a Member of the House of Representatives.
Two words, especially one in this statement, are very strong
words. . . .
The Chair holds that the words ``unlawful prying'' attributed
to a committee of the House are improper words and therefore
unparliamentary.
The words were then on motion stricken from the Congressional
Record.
External Influence
Sec. 54.3 A statement by a Member that certain fascist organizations
exercised extensive influence on a special House committee was held
to impugn the motives and actions of a committee and of the
individual members and was ruled a breach of order.
On Feb. 11, 1941, during consideration of House Resolution 90 to
continue investigation by a special committee [the Dies Committee] on
un-American activities, Mr. Samuel Dickstein, of New York, asked and
was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 87 Cong. Rec. 894, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 10801]]
Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, interrupted Mr. Dickstein's
remarks and demanded that the following words be taken down as a
violation of the rules of the House:
I also charge, Mr. Speaker, that 110 Fascist organizations in
this country had the back key, and have now the back key to the
back door of the Dies committee.
Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Tex-as, ruled that the language noted
``certainly impugns the motives and actions of a committee and the
individual members thereof.'' The House then expunged Mr. Dickstein's
entire speech from the Congressional Record.
Charges Reflecting on Integrity; Falsehood
Sec. 54.4 Language in a telegram read in debate in the House which
repudiated ``lies and half-truths'' of a House committee report was
held out of order as reflecting on the integrity of committee
members.
On June 16, 1947,(12) Mr. Chet Holifield, of California,
read in the House a telegram from the Southern Conference for Human
Welfare. Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, made a point of order
against certain words in the telegram and demanded that they be taken
down: ``We completely repudiate the lies and half-truths of the report
that was issued and consider it un-American'' (in reference to a report
of the Committee on Un-American Activities).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 93 Cong. Rec. 7065, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, ruled that the
words objected to were unparliamentary, since they ``reflect upon the
character and integrity of the membership of a committee.'' The words
were stricken by motion from the Congressional Record.
Sec. 54.5 A statement in debate in reference to a House committee ``I
cannot respect the actions or even the sincerity of some of the
committee members'' was ruled out of order.
On June 26, 1946,(13) Mr. John E. Rankin, of
Mississippi, demanded that the following words used by Mr. Donald L.
O'Toole, of New York, in reference to a House committee be taken down:
``I cannot respect the actions or even the sincerity of some of the
committee members.'' Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled that the
words ob
[[Page 10802]]
jected to were clearly offending remarks and improperly used in debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 92 Cong. Rec. 7596, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The objectionable words were stricken by motion from the Record.
Committee Inaction
Sec. 54.6 An editorial read by a Member charging a committee with
``pigeon-holing'' certain legislation was held in order as not
reflecting on
the personal conduct of any Member but rather criticizing committee
procedure.
On May 6, 1940,(14) Mr. C.
Arthur Anderson, of Missouri, quoted the following language from a
newspaper editorial:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 86 Cong. Rec. 5628, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unadulterated, self-seeking politics cast the vote that pigeon-
holed the supplementary Hatch measure in the House Judiciary
Committee Wednesday. Election-year jitters had solons by the napes
of their necks. Rather than risk crippling State machines they
chose to sink a harpoon into this excellent Government reform.
Objection was made to the language by Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of
Michigan, and the words were taken down. Speaker Pro Tempore Jere
Cooper, of Tennessee, ruled that the ``words reported do not go to the
personal conduct of any Member of the House and are rather a criticism
of procedure that may have been employed. Therefore the point of order
is overruled.''
Sec. 54.7 A statement by a Member in debate that ``somebody is going to
have the idea that the action of that committee was more or less
pusillanimous'' was held in order.
On May 31, 1939,(15) Mr. Sam C. Massingale, of Oklahoma,
in discussing a general welfare bill stated of the Committee on Ways
and Means ``somebody is going to have the idea that the action of that
committee was more or less pusillanimous, because that committee . . .
has done nothing.'' Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, raised a point
of order against Mr. Massingale and asked that the allegedly
objectionable words be taken down. The Committee of the Whole rose and
the words were reported to the House, but Speaker William B. Bankhead,
of Alabama, ruled that he could find nothing objectionable in the words
reported.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 84 Cong. Rec. 6445, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 54.8 A statement in debate accusing a committee of dereliction was
held not to violate the rules of the House.
[[Page 10803]]
On Mar. 7, 1942,(16) Mr. Vito Marcantonio, of New York,
stated ``since the gentleman from Texas raised the question here of
dereliction of duty, I say that dereliction in this manner rests at the
doorstep of his committee.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 88 Cong. Rec. 2056, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A point of order was made
and the words were taken down. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled as
follows:
The Chair thinks that if he were to hold upon as fine a point
as that, at some time free debate in the House
of Representatives might cease. The Chair holds that the language
does not violate the rules of the House.
Sec. 54.9 A statement in debate, ``When this committee investigates the
recent wave of policy lynch murder in Mississippi'' was held in
order.
On Mar. 9, 1948,(17) the following words in debate,
referring to the Committee on Un-American Activities, were objected to
by
Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, and demanded taken down: ``When
this committee investigates the recent wave of policy lynch murder in
Mississippi, in the area of Jackson, and in the capital itself--''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 94 Cong. Rec. 2408, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Rankin based his point of order on the fact that the Member
speaking was accusing Mr. Rankin's home state of an act of murder.
Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, ruled that the words
were not unparliamentary and that the Member speaking was merely
expressing his opinion.
``Packing'' a Committee
Sec. 54.10 A statement referring to the ``painless method of packing
the Rules Committee'' received the disapproval of the Speaker
(against whom the allegation was directed) but the House adjourned
before a decision was reached on the question.
On Jan. 12, 1961,(18) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, on
his own initiative called Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, to order for
referring in debate to the ``so-called painless method of packing the
Rules Committee.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 107 Cong. Rec. 650, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impugning Motives
Sec. 54.11 A reference in debate to the Committee on Un-American
Activities as ``the Un-American Committee'' was held out of order.
[[Page 10804]]
On June 12, 1947,(19) Mr. John E. Rankin, of
Mississippi, demanded the taking down of the reference by Mr. Chet
Holifield, of California, in debate to the Committee on Un-American
Activities as the ``Un-American Committee.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 93 Cong. Rec. 6895, 6896, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, ruled that the
reference impugned the motives of the committee in question and were
used in debate in violation of the rules of the House.
Sec. 54.12 The asking of the question ``Did the gentleman's committee
also find paid agents of Hitler on the congressional payroll?'' was
held not in violation of House rules.
On Mar. 31, 1943,(20) the following question by Mr.
Howard J. McMurray, of Wisconsin, in debate was ordered taken down as a
violation of the rules of the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 89 Cong. Rec. 2787, 2788, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did the gentleman's committee also find paid agents of Hitler
on the congressional payroll?
Speaker Pro Tempore William M. Whittington, of Mississippi, ruled
as follows:
The gentleman from Wisconsin asked a question. The mere asking
of the question propounded by the gentleman from Wisconsin is not
in violation of any rule of the House so far as the Chair has been
advised.
Sec. 54.13 It is not a personality to characterize as ``badgering'' a
colleague's questioning of a witness in a committee hearing.
On July 29, 1994,(1) the Chair, while ruling that words
objected to were not unparliamentary, ruled that a Member's subsequent
behavior was a breach of decorum:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 140 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 103d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. [Maxine] Waters [of California]: Madam Speaker, last
evening a Member of this House, Peter King, had to be gaveled out
of order at the Whitewater hearings of the Banking Committee. He
had to be gaveled out of order because he badgered a woman who was
a witness from the White House, Maggie Williams. I am pleased I was
able to come to her defense. Madam Speaker, the day is over
when men can badger and intimidate women.
Mr. [F. James] Sensenbrenner [Jr., of Wisconsin]: Madam
Speaker, I demand the gentlewoman's words be taken down. . . .
The Speaker: (2) The Clerk will report the words. .
. .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Thomas S. Foley (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While in the opinion of the Chair the word ``badgering'' is not
in itself unparliamentary, the Chair believes that the demeanor of
the gentlewoman from
[[Page 10805]]
California was not in good order in the subsequent period
immediately following those words having been uttered.
Accordingly, the Chair rules that without leave of the House,
the gentlewoman from California may not proceed for the rest of
today.
CHAPTER 29
Consideration and Debate
G. REFERENCES TO HOUSE, COMMITTEES, OR MEMBERS
Sec. 55. References to Unreported Committee Proceedings; Discussion of
Ethics Committee Deliberations
Under parliamentary law and under the practice of the House, it has
been held a breach of order in debate to refer to committee proceedings
which have not been formally reported to the House.(3) Under
the more modern practice, where committee meetings and hearings are
open to the public, the rationale for not permitting floor discussion
of committee proceedings is tenuous. However, it is still true that the
minutes of executive committee sessions may not be read, quoted from,
or paraphrased in debate, unless the committee has voted to make the
minutes public.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. See Jefferson's Manual, House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 319, 360
(1995).
4. See Sec. Sec. 55.2-55.4, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A point of order must be made, however, and the Speaker does not on
his own initiative call a Member to order for violating the
rule.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. See Sec. 55.4, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clause 4(e)(2)(F) of Rule X requires a vote of the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct to authorize the public disclosure of the
content of a complaint or the fact of its filing. That rule applies
only to members of that committee and its staff; however, references in
floor debate to the content of a complaint or the fact of its filing
are nevertheless governed by the rules of order in debate. Unlike the
calling up of a resolution of censure, the filing of a complaint does
not embark the House on consideration of a proposition to which such
references would be relevant. That a complaint may be pending in its
own right rather than only as the assertion of a Member in debate does
not legitimize reference even to the mere fact of its pendency much
less to its content.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. See Sec. Sec. 55.8 and 55.9, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where the House has under consideration a resolution involving the
conduct of a Member, a wider range of debate is permitted. In the
context of a specific legislative proposal involving censure,
reprimand, or expulsion, or a proposal advocating an investigation of
misconduct, the facts
[[Page 10806]]
surrounding the resolution may be discussed, but even in these
situations debate personally offensive has not been
permitted. -------------------
References Prohibited
Sec. 55.1 Where improper references are made to committee proceedings
not yet reported to the House, the remedy is to lodge a point of
order against the reference.
On Feb. 7, 1935,(7) Mr. Sam D. McReynolds, of Tennessee,
was discussing the manner in which the Committee on Appropriations, of
which he was a member, had voted on H.R. 5255, an appropriations bill,
then before the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Hamilton Fish, Jr., of New
York, arose to make the point of order that Mr. McReynolds was speaking
out of order in stating how a member of his committee voted, where the
committee proceedings were not formally reported to the House. Chairman
William N. Rogers, of New Hampshire, sustained the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 79 Cong. Rec. 1690, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. McReynolds then raised a parliamentary inquiry:
Mr. Chairman, when a member of a committee appears before this
House and undertakes to state how he or she voted and says that the
chairman of the committee misrepresented the matter, would the
present occupant of the chair hold that the chairman of the
committee could not say what the records show?
The Chairman: As the Chair understands it, the action to be
taken is to make a point of order against the statement being made
originally. This is the Chair's understanding of the rules.
Sec. 55.2 If a committee has not voted to make the proceedings of an
executive session public, it is not in order in debate to read or
quote from the minutes thereof.
On Apr. 5, 1967,(8) during debate on a resolution
funding the Committee on Science and Astronautics, Mr. Joe D.
Waggonner, Jr., of Louisiana, a member of the committee, began
referring to proceedings of the committee and quoting dialogue from a
session thereof. Mr. John W. Wydler, of New York, whose words were
being quoted, stated a point of order that quotation in debate of
minutes of an executive committee session was improper.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 113 Cong. Rec. 8411, 8412, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, ruled as follows:
The Chair would like to inquire of either the gentleman from
Louisiana or
[[Page 10807]]
the gentleman from Texas whether the gentleman from Louisiana is
reading from the executive session record? . . .
Mr. [Olin E.] Teague of Texas: Mr. Speaker, it is my
remembrance that what he is quoting was what took place at an
executive session.
The Speaker: The Chair would like to make the further inquiry
as to whether or not the members in the executive session voted to
make public what took place in the executive session?
Mr. Teague of Texas: It is my memory that we did not vote on
that and it was not discussed.
The Speaker: The Chair would suggest to the gentleman from
Louisiana that he refrain from referring to what took place in the
executive session.
Similarly, on Apr. 25, 1930,(9) when Mr. S. Wallace
Dempsey, of New York, attempted to read from the minutes of his
committee on a certain bill, Chairman William P. Holaday, of Illinois,
sustained a point of order that Mr. Dempsey was out of order in
bringing to
the House floor the minutes of
his committee and reading from them.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 72 Cong. Rec. 7773, 71st Cong. 2d Sess.
10. See also 104 Cong. Rec. 12120-22, 85th Cong. 2d Sess., June 24,
1958; and 72 Cong. Rec. 8931, 71st Cong. 2d Sess., May 14,
1930.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paraphrase of Minutes
Sec. 55.3 It is not in order in debate to paraphrase the minutes of the
executive proceedings of a committee.
On June 26, 1961,(11) Mr. Bruce R. Alger, of Texas,
stated that he had an exhibit consisting of the transcript of the
record of the Committee on Public Works in executive session. He stated
that since reading the transcript would be a violation of the House
rules, he intended to paraphrase it. A point of order was made that the
paraphrasing of a transcript of an executive session as well as the
reading of it was prohibited by House rules. Speaker Pro Tempore Wilbur
D. Mills, of Arkansas, sustained the point of order.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 107 Cong. Rec. 11233, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
12. See also 113 Cong. Rec. 8411, 8412, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 5,
1967; and 86 Cong. Rec. 954, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., Feb. 1, 1940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Necessity of Point of Order
Sec. 55.4 While a Member may by unanimous consent divulge matters which
occurred in a committee which have not been reported to the House,
the Chair will not interpose restrictions on such remarks absent a
point of order.
On July 28, 1939,(13) Mr. Matthew A. Dunn, of
Pennsylvania,
[[Page 10808]]
was granted unanimous consent to proceed for an additional minute. He
proceeded to divulge matters which occurred on the previous day in the
Committee on Labor, of which he was a member. Mr. Joseph W. Martin,
Jr., of Massachusetts, made a point of order that Mr. Dunn could not
divulge such matters. Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama,
sustained the point of order, although Mr. Dunn objected that the
Member speaking before him had similarly divulged matters occurring in
a committee whose proceedings were not formerly reported to the House.
The Speaker ruled as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 84 Cong. Rec. 10352, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gross] did divulge matters
which occurred before the committee, but no point of order was
made, and, therefore, the Chair could not act on his own
motion.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See also the statement of Chairman William N. Rogers (N.H.) cited
at Sec. 55.1, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reliance on Statement of Speaking Member
Sec. 55.5 The Chair may rely on the statement of a Member that he is
not quoting the proceedings of an executive session of a House
committee.
On Feb. 1, 1940,(15) a point of order was made against
the remarks of Mr. Frank B. Keefe, of Wisconsin, on the grounds that he
was quoting testimony taken before an executive meeting of a House
committee. The following exchange then took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 86 Cong. Rec. 954, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (16) If the gentleman from
Wisconsin purports to discuss the executive proceedings of a
committee it will not be in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. R. Ewing Thomason (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Keefe: I am not discussing the executive proceedings.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: But if he is just quoting on his own
responsibility----
Mr. [Frank E.] Hook [of Michigan]: He has referred to the
testimony.
Mr. Keefe: I am quoting on my own responsibility.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Does the gentleman purport to quote
the proceedings of a committee in executive session?
Mr. Keefe: No.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: If that is what the gentleman
undertakes to do, the point of order will be sustained.
Mr. Hook: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. I will have to ask,
then, that the remarks, if any, referring to the testimony taken in
the executive meeting be stricken.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: All the Chair knows is that the
gentleman says he is not purporting to quote the proceedings of an
executive session of a committee of this House. If that be true,
the point of order is overruled.
Reference to Committee Action Permitted
Sec. 55.6 Where a Member introduced a resolution providing
[[Page 10809]]
for an inquiry into the actions of a House subcommittee, another
Member was permitted to refer to subcommittee proceedings to
justify his point of order that the resolution was not privileged.
On June 30, 1958,(17) House Resolution 610, establishing
a special committee to inquire into proceedings of the Subcommittee on
Legislative Oversight of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce, was introduced in the House; the resolution alleged that the
subcommittee had allowed the dissemination of defamatory testimony in
violation of House rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 104 Cong. Rec. 12690, 12691, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Oren Harris, of Arkansas, made a point of order against the
resolution, on the ground that it was not privileged. He referred to
the proceedings of the subcommittee, in executive session, to justify
his point of order.
Mr. Timothy P. Sheehan, of Illinois, arose to object to Mr. Harris'
reference under the principle that a Member could not in debate refer
to executive proceedings of committees and subcommittees. Speaker Sam
Rayburn, of Texas, ruled as follows:
. . . [H]ere is a question of privilege of the House being
raised by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Curtis], and in order
for the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Harris] to justify his point
of order, he has got to discuss these matters. And, they are in the
printed record.
Sec. 55.7 Where a question of House privilege involving the procedure
of a conference committee is stated in debate, it is in order to
state what occurred in the committee session but not in order to
refer in a critical way to a named Senate conferee.
On July 29, 1935,(18) where a point of order was made
against a Member who was discussing a question of privilege of the
House involving the procedure of a conference committee, Speaker Joseph
W. Byrns, of Tennessee, ruled that the Member could state what occurred
in the conference committee but could not refer to or criticize a
member of the Senate by name.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 79 Cong. Rec. 12011, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
References to Matters Pending Before Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct
Sec. 55.8 The Chair cautioned all Members to refrain from references in
debate to the offi
[[Page 10810]]
cial conduct of other Members where the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct had not filed a report on the conduct of a
particular Member or where that Member's conduct was not the
subject of a question of the privilege of the House then pending
before the House, and similarly not to refer to the motivations of
Members who may have filed complaints before that committee.
On June 14, 1988,(19) several one-minute speeches
contained references to charges made by a Member against the Speaker:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 134 Cong. Rec. 14317, 14318, 100th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Newt] Gingrich [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, every Member of
the House should be offended by a June 10 letter sent to Members by
the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. That letter says,
``You were apparently duped by Newt.'' It goes on to suggest, ``It
has become obvious his actions are generated by self-serving
partisan political motives.''
That letter from the Democratic Congressional Campaign
Committee insults the Committee on Ethics which voted unanimously
to investigate the Speaker. It insults Common Cause, the Wall
Street Journal, the Washington Post, the New York Times, and 35
other newspapers which have called for an investigation.
Frankly, this House is rapidly dividing up between those who
favor openness, honesty and ethics and those who delay, obscure and
defend unethical behavior.
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has apparently
chosen to cover up rather than clean up. . . .
Mr. [William M.] Thomas of California: Mr. Speaker, I really do
not understand what all the controversy is over the book, if we
were talking about the book itself, the book, of course, being
``Reflections of a Public Man.'' It only costs $6. I mean, what can
one buy for $6 today? Not much. That is what it is--not much. . . .
The question is not over the book. It is over the procedures
involved with the book. On that point, I totally agree with the
Washington Post editorial this morning that said that if the
procedures surrounding the book are not against the rules of the
House of Representatives, then we ought to change the rules. . . .
Mr. [Mervyn M.] Dymally [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I believe
it was last Friday that the New York Times carried a story on the
so-called Gingrich charges against the Speaker. In that article the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich) openly admits that some of
the charges were not founded, but he ``just threw them in there for
curiosity,'' recognizing very well that it would make partisan
news. . . .
The politics involved in these charges, in my judgment, are
shameful.
On June 15, 1988,(20) Speaker Pro Tempore Thomas S.
Foley, of
[[Page 10811]]
Washington, made the following announcement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 134 Cong. Rec. 14623, 100th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Before the Chair recognizes the
distinguished gentleman from Kentucky, the Chair has an
announcement.
The Chair wishes to announce that clause 1 of rule XIV prevents
Members in debate from engaging in ``personalities.'' Clause 4 of
that rule provides that if any Member transgress the rules of the
House, the Speaker shall, or any Member may, call him to order.
Members may recall that on December 18, 1987, the Chair
enunciated the standard that debate would not be proper if it
attempted to focus on the conduct of a Member about whom a report
had not been filed by the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct or whose conduct was not the subject of a privileged matter
then pending before the House. Similarly, the Chair would suggest
that debate is not proper which speculates as to the motivations of
a Member who may have filed a complaint before the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct against another Member.
Thus, the Chair would caution all Members not to use the 1-
minute period or special orders, as has already happened, to
discuss the conduct of Members of the House in a way that
inevitably engages in personalities.
Parliamentarian's Note: A complaint against the conduct of the
Speaker should be presented directly for the action of the House and
not by way of debate on other matters. On one occasion, Speaker Thomas
B. Reed, of Maine, in sustaining a call to order, stated that criticism
of past conduct of the Chair is out of order, not because the Chair is
above criticism but because such piecemeal criticism is not conducive
to the good order of the House.(1) Indeed, an insult to the
Speaker has been held to raise a question of privilege not governed by
the ordinary rule that disorderly words, to be actionable, need be
taken down as soon as uttered.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5188.
2. 2 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 1248.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 55.9 Reference should not be made in debate to pending
investigations undertaken by the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct, including suggestions of courses of action, nor should
critical characterizations be made
of members of that committee who have investigated a Member's
conduct.
On Mar. 3, 1995,(3) the Chair responded to inquiries
made about the propriety of remarks made by a Member with reference to
certain investigations:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 141 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 104th Cong. 1st Sess. See also the
proceedings of Apr. 1, 1992 (138 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 102d
Cong. 2d Sess.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Harold L.] Volkmer [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, last year
Members
[[Page 10812]]
of the present majority complained about the investigation by
Special Counsel Robert Fiske. They claimed that Fiske was a friend
of the White House and that his investigation of Whitewater was not
going far enough.
I ask the Members of the House to consider these facts. The
current chairman of the House Ethics Committee cast the deciding
vote for the Speaker in the 1989 whip's race. The chairman of the
Ethics Committee seconded the nomination for Speaker this year. The
chairman of our Ethics Committee last year tried to help our
current Speaker by closing the pending Ethics Committee complaint
against him.
Two other majority members of the House Ethics Committee have
had personal dealings with the personal PAC of the Speaker, GOPAC,
one of them as a contributor, and another as a recipient for his
reelection.
Given these facts, I am sure those who call for a replacement
of Special Counsel Fiske will now join me in calling for a special
counsel to investigate the allegations against Speaker Gingrich,
and it should not take 100 days.
Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (4) The gentleman will
state his parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. John T. Doolittle (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, was not the entire speech of the
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer], just a moment ago, out of
order, because it was a direct reference to Members of this body? .
. .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Members should not refer to pending
Standards Committee investigations.
Mr. Walker: I have a further parliamentary inquiry, Mr.
Speaker.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Walker: Beyond the pending ethics investigation, he also
may have had personal references to the chairman of the Ethics
Committee. Is that also not out of order?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Members should not so refer to the
Standards Committee or any Members thereof.
Mr. Walker: A further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. My
understanding is that what the gentleman has just done in the House
was a speech which was entirely out of order before the body; is
that correct?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is responding in a general
way to the proper debate in the House with respect to ethics
investigations.
Mr. Walker: I thank the Chair.
Mr. Volkmer: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. Volkmer: Is the Chair ruling that it is improper for any
Member to request a special counsel in an investigation being
conducted by the Ethics Committee, which action has not been taken
by the Ethics Committee?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Members should not refer to pending
Standards Committee investigations, or suggest courses of action
within that committee.
Mr. Volkmer: I thank the Chair.
[[Page 10813]]
CHAPTER 29
Consideration and Debate
G. REFERENCES TO HOUSE, COMMITTEES, OR MEMBERS
Sec. 56. Form of Reference to Members
In delivering remarks on the floor, Members must refer to other
Members--not by name or by personal pronoun--but by the third-person
form, ``the gentleman/gentlewoman from --------------
[state]''.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. See Rule XIV clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 749 (1995).
Parliamentary law as to the form of reference to Members is
contained in Jefferson's Manual, House Rules and Manual
Sec. Sec. 354, 361 (1995). See also 5 Hinds' Precedents
Sec. Sec. 5131, 5140-5146; and 8 Cannon's Precedents
Sec. Sec. 2526, 2536.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Form; References to Members by Name
Sec. 56.1 Reference in debate to another Member by name is not in order
and Members must be referred to as ``the gentleman from'' or ``the
gentlewoman from'' a certain state.
On Feb. 27, 1946,(6) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas,
ruled in answer to a parliamentary inquiry that in referring to another
Member in debate Members should ``refer to the gentleman from a certain
state or the gentlewoman from a certain state.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 92 Cong. Rec. 1726, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker has so ruled on numerous occasions,(7) and
the Speaker or the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may on his
own initiative call a Member to order for violating the
rule,(8) although the Presiding Officer normally waits for a
point of order on the subject.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. See, for example, 103 Cong. Rec. 4813, 85th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar.
29, 1957; 86 Cong. Rec. 13477, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., Oct. 9,
1940; 81 Cong. Rec. 2846, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 29, 1937;
80 Cong. Rec. 5075, 5076, 74th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 7, 1936; 80
Cong. Rec. 3577, 74th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 11, 1936; and 80
Cong. Rec. 3286, 74th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 4, 1936.
On Mar. 21, 1938 [83 Cong. Rec. 3768, 3769, 75th Cong. 3d
Sess.], while the House was discussing the proper form of
reference to Members, Mr. Fritz G. Lanham (Tex.), inquired
whether it would be proper to mention the name of a Member in
debate in order to differentiate between two Members from the
same state who had addressed themselves to the same
proposition. Speaker William B. Bankhead (Ala.), in discussing
that inquiry and several others, stated that a Member could not
be referred to by name in debate.
8. See, for example, 103 Cong. Rec. 4813, 85th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar.
29, 1957; and 80 Cong. Rec. 3577, 74th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 11,
1936 (comment of Speaker Joseph W. Byrns [Tenn.]).
9. See, for example, 103 Cong. Rec. 4813, 85th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar.
29, 1957 (remarks of Mr. Clare E. Hoffman [Mich.]); and 81
Cong. Rec. 2846, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 29, 1937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 10814]]
Sec. 56.2 It is not in order in debate to address remarks to an
individual Member in his seat by use of the personal pronoun
``you.''
On Apr. 7, 1936,(10) Mr. Marion A. Zioncheck, of
Washington, was challenging the revision of his remarks by Mr. Thomas
L. Blanton, of Texas, in the Congressional Record. In the course of
challenging Mr. Blanton, Mr. Zioncheck interrogated him and repeatedly
addressed Mr. Blanton as ``you.'' ``Did you write this in or did you
not? Did you or did you not?'' Mr. John J. O'Connor, of New York, arose
to make the point of order that the person who has the floor and who is
addressing the House has no right to address a Member in his seat.
Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, sustained the point of order and
stated that ``the Member who is speaking does not have the right to
address his remarks to any individual Member in his seat.''
(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 80 Cong. Rec. 5075, 5076, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
11. For other occasions where it has been held out of order to address
a Member as ``you,'' see 91 Cong. Rec. 9515, 79th Cong. 1st
Sess., Oct. 10, 1945; and 80 Cong. Rec. 3286, 74th Cong. 2d
Sess., Mar. 4, 1936.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 56.3 A Member in debate may not refer to another by name even
though he preface it by referring to him as ``the gentleman from .
. .''
On June 7, 1933,(12) Mr. Bertrand H. Snell, of New York,
made the point of order that Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, was
referring to him by name. Speaker Henry T. Rainey, of Illinois,
sustained the point of order, ruling that Mr. Blanton could not refer
to Mr. Snell by name even if he used the form ``the gentleman from New
York, Mr. Snell.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 77 Cong. Rec. 5206, 5207, 73d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 56.4 A statement in debate using a word which was also the name of
a Member was held not to be a breach of the rule requiring Members
to address colleagues in the third person where the Member speaking
assured the Speaker that he was not referring to a Member of the
House.
On Oct. 9, 1940,(13) Mr. Sol Bloom, of New York,
objected to the alleged use by Mr. John C. Schafer, of Wisconsin, of
Mr.
[[Page 10815]]
Bloom's name in debate rather than referring to him as the gentleman
from New York. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled, on the assurance
of Mr. Schafer he was not referring to his colleague Mr. Bloom, that he
was not speaking out of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 86 Cong. Rec. 13477, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 56.5 In referring to another Member in debate the proper reference
is ``the gentleman from `the state from which he comes' '' and not
``the
Jewish gentleman from New York.''
On Oct. 24, 1945,(14) Mr. John E. Rankin, of
Mississippi, in debate referred to Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, as
``the Jewish gentleman from New York.'' The words were demanded to be
taken down by Mr. Celler, and Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 91 Cong. Rec. 10032, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the gentleman will allow the Chair, there is one way to
refer to a Member of the House of Representatives and that is,
``the gentleman from'' the State from which he comes. Any other
appellation is a violation of the rules.
The Speaker then ruled that Mr. Rankin could refer to Mr. Celler as
a member of a minority group without violating House rules.
Sec. 56.6 Where a Member referred in debate to a Member as ``another
guy,'' a question of personal privilege was stated, the reference
was stricken from the Record, and the phrase ``the gentleman from
Massachusetts'' substituted therefor.
On Aug. 4, 1970,(15) Mr. Page H. Belcher, of Oklahoma,
referred to Mr. Silvio O. Conte, of Massachusetts, in debate as
``another guy'' who was ``horning in on the act'' in relation to a
certain measure before the House. Rather than demand that the words be
taken down, Mr. Conte rose to a point of personal privilege and
requested a definition from Mr. Belcher of ``another guy'' and
``horning in.'' After some discussion, Mr. Thomas G. Abernethy, of
Mississippi, stated the point of order that the proper procedure was to
take the words down and have a ruling by the Chair on whether they were
in order. Speaker Pro Tempore Edward P. Boland, of Massachusetts, ruled
that the point of order came too late and entertained a unanimous-
consent request that the words ``another guy'' used by Mr. Belcher be
stricken from the
[[Page 10816]]
Record and be replaced by ``the gentleman from Massachusetts.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 116 Cong. Rec. 27130, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Responding to a ``Colleague''
Sec. 56.7 The Speaker advised a Member as to the use of the term
``colleague'' in replying to the question of a Member.
On Mar. 1, 1940,(16) Speaker William B. Bankhead, of
Alabama, ruled that certain words used in debate by Mr. Clare E.
Hoffman, of Michigan, in relation to Mr. Frank E. Hook, of Michigan,
were out of order, being directed to personality. Mr. Hoffman stated
that he had been attempting to reply to a question of Mr. Hook and
submitted the parliamentary inquiry to the Speaker as to how he could
reply to a question by another Member without referring to him
personally.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 86 Cong. Rec. 2229, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaker Bankhead ruled as follows:
In reply to the question, the Chair suggests that the gentleman
might say, ``In response to the inquiry of my colleague from
Michigan.''
Sec. 56.8 Under section 361 of Jefferson's Manual, it is not in order
in debate to refer to or to address a Member by his or her first
name.
The Chairman (17) made the following statement on Sept.
29, 1977,(18) during consideration of H.R. 6566 (the ERDA
military authorization for fiscal 1978) in the Committee of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. John Brademas (Ind.).
18. 123 Cong. Rec. 31515, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: . . . The Chair would advise the Members it is
against the rules to use first names and would advise the Members
not to further use first names.
Sec. 56.9 Clause 1 of Rule XIV and section 361 of Jefferson's Manual
prohibit a Member from engaging in personalities in debate and
specifically require references to another Member only ``by his
seat in the House, or who spoke last, or on the other side of the
question'', and not by name or in the second person.
During debate on the Military Procurement Authorization for fiscal
year 1983 (H.R. 6030) in Committee of the Whole on July 21,
1982,(19) the following exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 128 Cong. Rec. 17314, 17315, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, the
gentleman is in a sense remaking his speech again and not
responding to my point.
Mr. [Nicholas] Mavroules [of Massachusetts]: Well, Sam, I am
responding to you. I am going to ask a basic question.
[[Page 10817]]
If we are going to discuss basic defense posture for this
country, why
is it always we go on to the MX missile . . . .
The Chairman Pro Tempore: (20) The Chair will state
to the gentleman that references to Members should not be by
familiar name but by reference to the gentleman from the State of
New York or the gentleman from the State of Massachusetts, rather
than their familiar names. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Les AuCoin (Oreg.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair will . . . advise all Members that references to
Members shall not be by their familiar names, under House rules. .
. .
The Chair is not addressing the gentleman from New York. The
Chair is addressing all Members, on the basis of what he has heard
in the discussion.
Sec. 56.10 The proper form of reference to another Member is to the
``gentleman (or gentlewoman) from (state),'' and not any other
appellation or characterization.
On Oct. 2, 1984,(1) during consideration of the balanced
budget bill (H.R. 6300) in the House, the Chair, in responding to a
parliamentary inquiry, reminded the Members of the proper form of
reference to other Members:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 130 Cong. Rec. 28519, 28520, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Daniel E.] Lungren [of California]: Well, Mr. Speaker,
thank God this is not a medical research center, because if you
believe laetrile cures cancer, you think that Dr. ``Feelgood's''
bill here on the floor is going to do something, but the fact of
the matter is that it has nothing to do with the legislation on the
floor; it has to do with the will of the Members of Congress. . . .
Mr. [Ronald V.] Dellums [of California]: Mr. Speaker, is it a
violation of the comity and custom of the House to refer to a
Member of this body in terms other than as the gentleman from a
particular State?
The Chairman of this committee was referred to as ``Dr.
Feelgood Jones,'' and I would think that is in violation of the
comity and custom of the House. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (2) The gentleman is
correct in stating that it is the custom and practice and tradition
of the body that Members of the body should be referred to as the
gentleman or gentlewoman from a certain State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 56.11 Members in debate should not refer to other Members by their
first names; rather such references should be in the third person,
by state delegation.
The following proceedings occurred in the House on Mar. 7, 1985:
(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 131 Cong. Rec. 5028, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Sure, I do very much,
and
[[Page 10818]]
that is the reason why I want every one of those votes counted to
determine the result. . . .
Mr. [Mickey] Leland [of Texas]: Yes, but now, Bob, you will
admit----
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (4) Will the gentleman
refrain from using personal names and use formal address in
addressing another Member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Dale E. Kildee (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAPTER 29
Consideration and Debate
G. REFERENCES TO HOUSE, COMMITTEES, OR MEMBERS
Sec. 57. Criticism of Speaker
It is not in order to refer invidiously or discourteously to the
Speaker or the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole.(5) If
words impugning the Speaker are uttered, the Speaker does not rule on
the words himself but customarily appoints a Member to occupy the Chair
and to deliver a decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. For past rulings, see 2 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 1653; 8 Cannon's
Precedents Sec. 2531.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In recent Congresses, more explicit standards have been enunciated
relating to debate regarding ethics charges against the
Speaker.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. See Sec. Sec. 57.5 and 57.7,
infra. -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Criticism of Speaker's Performance of Duty
Sec. 57.1 It is out of order in debate for a Member to charge that the
Speaker committed a dishonest act or that the Speaker repudiated
and ignored the rules of the House.
On Feb. 7, 1935, Mr. George H. Tinkham, of Massachusetts,
addressed the House as follows:
Mr. Chairman, before beginning the argument I want to say that
this is an opportunity not only for this House but for the country
to see who in this House are international eunuchs, who in this
House wish to put us into Europe, who in this House wish us to sit
down with Fascist Italy, sit down with national socialistic
Germany, with murderous, homicidal communistic Russia. That is the
issue in its largest aspect in relation to this appropriation [H.R.
5255].(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 79 Cong. Rec. 1680-82, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, then demanded that certain words
of Mr. Tinkham, made as part of the above statement and referring to
former Speaker Henry T. Rainey, of Illinois, and present Speaker Joseph
W. Byrns, of Tennessee, be taken down. The Committee rose, and Chairman
William N. Rogers, of New Hampshire, reported the words objected to to
the House. Speaker Byrns left the Chair and Mr. John J. O'Connor, of
New York, assumed the Chair as Speaker Pro Tempore. The Speaker Pro
Tempore then ruled, relying on a former ruling on words critical of the
[[Page 10819]]
Speaker of the House, that Mr. Tinkham's words violated the rules of
the House and were out of order. The words were then ordered ``expunged
from the Record.'' On an appeal from the ruling of the Speaker Pro
Tempore, the House affirmed the decision.
Sec. 57.2 Language used in debate charging that the Speaker dishonestly
resolved the House into a Committee of the Whole, and that he
repudiated and ignored the rules of the House, was held out of
order.
On May 31, 1934, Mr. Harold McGugin, of Kansas, was called to order
and certain words used by him in debate were ordered taken down:
I take the position I am in order because I am charging that
the House is not lawfully or honestly, under the rules of this
House, in Committee of the Whole . . . for the good and sufficient
reason that this House is not now honestly, fairly, truthfully, and
within the rules of the House, in the Committee of the Whole, for
the good and sufficient reason that the Speaker completely
repudiated and ignored the rules of this House.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 78 Cong. Rec. 10167, 73d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After the Committee rose and Chairman John H. Kerr, of North
Carolina, reported the objectionable words to the House, the Speaker
left the chair and Speaker Pro Tempore Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee,
ruled that the words were clearly out of order. The House ordered that
the objectionable words be stricken from the Congressional
Record.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. For the entire proceedings on the disorderly words, see id. at pp.
10167-70.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 57.3 The Speaker is addressed as ``the Speaker'' or as ``the
gentleman from ---- (his state)'' and not by his nickname or
surname (``Tip O'Neill'') and it is improper to refer to him in a
manner personally critical.
On June 25, 1981,(10) the following exchange occurred in
the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 127 Cong. Rec. 14056, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Mr. Smith of Oregon asked and was given permission to address
the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. [Denny] Smith of Oregon: Mr. Speaker, today we in the House
face a test of the courage of our convictions. We will vote up or
down on a motion that is much more than just a procedural vote. It
is a motion that pits Tip O'Neill and his backroom political
flimflam against one of the most strongly supported American
Presidents in history.
If you vote with Mr. O'Neill, you vote against President
Reagan, against the
[[Page 10820]]
American people, and against what is best for our country. If you
vote with Mr. O'Neill, you are voting for higher taxes and higher
Government spending.
The Speaker: (11) The Chair will remind the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Smith)--the Chair appreciates the fact
that he is a new Member--that under the precedents which govern
conduct in debate in the House, it is not proper to refer to
another Member by his name in that manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Smith of Oregon: I apologize, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: The Speaker knows that the gentleman is not fully
acquainted with all the rules and this time will let it pass.
Mr. Smith of Oregon: Yes, sir.
Sec. 57.4 It is not in order to speak disrespectfully in debate of the
Chair by charging dishonesty or disregard of the rules, and pending
a point of order, the Speaker Pro Tempore has admonished a Member
who had improperly criticized the count of a previous occupant of
the chair; but the Member's subsequent assertion of a personal
belief that a sufficient number had been standing
to demand a recorded vote
was held parliamentary as
not necessarily charging the Chair with disregard of the rules.
On July 11, 1985,(12) the House had under discussion a
motion to instruct conferees on the Defense Authorization bill
(13) to insist on the House position on an amendment
relating to the creation of a peacetime espionage offense with a death
penalty in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Several Members
questioned an earlier count by Speaker Pro Tempore James C. Wright,
Jr., of Texas, of Members standing when a recorded vote was demanded on
a motion to recommit which included the same amendment.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 131 Cong. Rec. 18545, 18550, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
13. S. 1160.
14. The ``McCollum'' amendment, by Mr. Ira W. McCollum, of Florida. On
June 27, 1985, also, several Members had taken the floor during
special orders to complain about counts by the Chair on related
demands for record votes. See 131 Cong. Rec. 17893 et seq.,
99th Cong. 1st Sess. The debate on that occasion was similarly
unparliamentary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Daniel E.] Lungren [of California]: I appreciate the
remarks of the gentleman from Wisconsin, and I do not attribute any
conspiracy to him or to anybody else. I will state emphatically,
however, I was on the floor when we made the second attempt on a
separate vote on the gentleman's amendment, and I will tell him
that I believe absolutely there were more than 44 people standing.
I know one Member did a quick count on our side and
[[Page 10821]]
counted 50, at least 50; our staff counted 60 back there.
I understand what the gentleman is saying. But I will not take
lightly what occurred to us on our side. When our side feels that
we cannot get a proper vote. It goes to the very fundamental
questions of this House, because, frankly, there is a certain
amount of comity that is necessary in this House.
Mr. [Theodore S.] Weiss [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I wish to
make a point of order. . . .
I think that this last statement of the gentleman impugns the
motives of the Members of this body. I do not want to ask for the
words to be taken down, but I think that maybe the gentleman would
want to withdraw whatever insinuation along those lines that he has
made. . . .
Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order that motives of a Member
of this body have been impugned by the suggestion that there was a
deliberate miscount of votes by the Chair.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (15) The Chair will make a
general response to the point of order. Under the precedents of the
House, it is not in order in debate to speak disrespectfully of the
Chair, to charge dishonesty or disregard of the rules. May 31,
1934, Speaker pro tempore Burns; February 7, 1935, Speaker pro
tempore O'Connor; Hinds' Volume V, 5192, 5188; Cannon's Volume
VIII, 2531.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Beryl F. Anthony, Jr. (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair believes that any Member assigned to perform the
duties of the Chair does so in a nonpartisan and forthright way,
and the Chair will not permit to go unchallenged any improper
references to the performance or motives of the Chair.
Mr. Weiss: I thank the Speaker.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is making this as a general
admonition.
The point of order is withdrawn.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. Lungren: I respect the gentleman's statement, because I
would not withdraw those words even if a point of order were raised
against me. I tried to state a fact as to what occurred, which I
believe, and I said I believed there were, and I cited the number
of people that were standing. I will be glad to stand on that at
any point in time. I do not think the rules of the House prevent me
from saying what I believe actually occurred or stating the truth.
. . .
Mr. Weiss: Mr. Speaker, I wish to state a point of order. . . .
Mr. Speaker, my point of order is that once again the
distinguished gentleman from California has, in fact, impugned the
motives and behavior of a Member of this body, particularly the
Member sitting in the chair at the time that that vote was taken.
Mr. Lungren: Mr. Speaker, if I might be heard on the point of
order----
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that he has read
a general statement. The Chair would hope that the gentleman from
California would adhere to the principles as contained within that
general admonition to the House.
Mr. Lungren: Mr. Speaker, if the Speaker would look at the
words that I said, he would see that I spoke very
[[Page 10822]]
carefully about what I said I observed occurred, what I thought
occurred, from my perception. And I do not appreciate the fact that
on our side of the aisle we are told that we are to accept
everything that happens in this House and if we bring to the
attention of our other Members what we believe occurred that
somehow rules will be interpreted such that we are not even allowed
to utter what we thought occurred.
I did not cast aspersions on anybody's motivations. I stated
what I thought occurred. I stated facts as I saw them. I said that
I believe there were more than 44 people standing. I stated that a
Member on our side counted at least 50. I stated that several
members of our staff counted 60 Members. That is what I stated.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair cannot comment on something
that occurred previously. The Chair has the ability to regulate the
debate as it occurs today. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiss)
should consider the comment of the gentleman from California (Mr.
Lungren) at the present time.
Mr. Weiss: If the Speaker will allow, I have no problem with
what the gentleman believes. I have a problem that he states as a
matter of fact that there were x number of people standing when the
Speaker, the Member who was in the chair, ruled otherwise and
counted otherwise. That is not belief. That is in fact questioning
the honesty of the vote count. That is what I am objecting to.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: It is the opinion of the Chair that
while the gentleman from California (Mr. Lungren) may not in debate
charge the Chair with disregard of the rules, he has only stated
his personal belief as to something that may have occurred
factually.
Parliamentarian's Note: Allegations of impropriety by the Chair,
such as a charge of deliberate disregard of the rules, may be raised as
questions of the privilege of the House, but may not be permitted
during debate.
Sec. 57.5 Where several Members had improperly engaged in personalities
during debate by references to the Speaker and to a Member who had
filed a complaint regarding the Speaker's official conduct, the
Speaker Pro Tempore (the Majority Leader) took the Chair to
announce to the House that Members should not engage in such
debate.
On June 14, 1988,(16) several one-minute speeches
contained references to charges made by a Member against the Speaker:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 134 Cong. Rec. 14317, 14318, 100th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Newt] Gingrich [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, every Member of
the House should be offended by a June 10 letter sent to Members by
the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. That letter says,
``You were apparently duped by Newt.'' It goes on to
[[Page 10823]]
suggest, ``It has become obvious his actions are generated by self-
serving partisan political motives.''
That letter from the Democratic Congressional Campaign
Committee insults the Committee on Ethics which voted unanimously
to investigate the Speaker. It insults Common Cause, the Wall
Street Journal, the Washington Post, the New York Times, and 35
other newspapers which have called for an investigation.
Frankly, this House is rapidly dividing up between those who
favor openness, honesty and ethics and those who delay, obscure and
defend unethical behavior.
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has apparently
chosen to cover up rather than clean up. . . .
Mr. [William M.] Thomas of California: Mr. Speaker, I really do
not understand what all the controversy is over the book, if we
were talking about the book itself, the book, of course, being
``Reflections of a Public Man.'' It only costs $6. I mean, what can
one buy for $6 today? Not much. That is what it is--not much. . . .
The question is not over the book. It is over the procedures
involved with the book. On that point, I totally agree with the
Washington Post editorial this morning that said that if the
procedures surrounding the book are not against the rules of the
House of Representatives, then we ought to change the rules. . . .
Mr. [Mervyn M.] Dymally [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I believe
it was last Friday that the New York Times carried a story on the
so-called Gingrich charges against the Speaker. In that article the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich) openly admits that some of
the charges were not founded, but he ``just threw them in there for
curiosity,'' recognizing very well that it would make partisan
news. . . .
The politics involved in these charges, in my judgment, are
shameful.
On June 15, 1988,(17) Speaker Pro Tempore Thomas S.
Foley, of Washington, made the following announcement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 134 Cong. Rec. 14623, 100th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Before the Chair recognizes the
distinguished gentleman from Kentucky, the Chair has an
announcement.
The Chair wishes to announce that clause 1 of rule XIV prevents
Members in debate from engaging in ``personalities.'' Clause 4 of
that rule provides that if any Member transgress the rules of the
House, the Speaker shall, or any Member may, call him to order.
Members may recall that on December 18, 1987, the Chair
enunciated the standard that debate would not be proper if it
attempted to focus on the conduct of a Member about whom a report
had not been filed by the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct or whose conduct was not the subject of a privileged matter
then pending before the House. Similarly, the Chair would suggest
that debate is not proper which speculates as to the motivations of
a Member who may have filed a complaint before the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct against another Member.
[[Page 10824]]
Thus, the Chair would caution all Members not to use the 1-
minute period or special orders, as has already happened, to
discuss the conduct of Members of the House in a way that
inevitably engages in personalities.
Parliamentarian's Note: A complaint against the conduct of the
Speaker should be presented directly for the action of the House and
not by way of debate on other matters. On one occasion, Speaker Thomas
B. Reed, of Maine, in sustaining a call to order, stated that criticism
of past conduct of the Chair is out of order, not because the Chair is
above criticism but because such piecemeal criticism is not conducive
to the good order of the House.(18) Indeed, an insult to the
Speaker has been held to raise a question of privilege not governed by
the ordinary rule that disorderly words, to be actionable, need be
taken down as soon as uttered.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5188.
19. 2 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 1248.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 57.6 The Minority Leader took the floor to criticize
the Speaker for making certain remarks in his daily
press conference concerning
the President of the United States.
On July 25, 1984,(20) the following statement was made
on the floor by Minority Leader Robert H. Michel, of Illinois:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 130 Cong. Rec. 20931, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Michel: Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago the distinguished
majority leader referred to the President as ``intellectually
dishonest.''
Mr. Speaker, on July 19, 1984, United Press International
reported that the Speaker of the House said the following things
about the President of the United States--and I quote:
The evil is in the White House at the present time . . .
and that evil is a man who has no care and no concern for the
working class . . . He's cold. He's mean. He's got ice water
for blood.
In almost 30 years in the House, I have never heard such
abusive language used by a Speaker of the House about the President
of the United States. . . .
There are precedents in our House rules forbidding personal
abuse of a President on the floor of the House.
Surely the spirit of these rules ought to be adhered to by the
Speaker off the floor as well as on the floor.
Parliamentarian's Note: While there are precedents indicating that
it is a breach of order in debate to refer to the President
disrespectfully,(1) the principle has not been extended to
statements made outside the Chamber.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. See 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 2497, 2498.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 57.7 The Chair has reaffirmed that it is not in order to speak
disrespectfully of
[[Page 10825]]
the Speaker or to arraign
the personal conduct of the Speaker, and that under the precedents
the sanctions for such violations transcend the ordinary
requirements for timeliness of challenges.
On Jan. 4, 1995,(2) the Chair made the following
announcement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 141 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: (3) The Chair would like all Members to
be on notice that the Chair intends to strictly enforce time
limitations on debate. . . . Furthermore, the Chair may immediately
interrupt Members in debate who transgress rule XIV by failing to
avoid ``personalities'' in debate with respect to references to the
Senate, the President, and other Members, rather than wait for
Members to complete their remarks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Newt Gingrich (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, it is not in order to speak disrespectfully of the
Speaker, and under the precedents the sanctions for such violations
transcend the ordinary requirements for timeliness of challenges.
This separate treatment is recorded in volume 2 of Hinds'
Precedents, at section 1248.
On Jan. 18, 1995,(4) remarks pertaining to the Speaker
were ordered to be taken down, and discussion ensued as to the proper
limits of references to the Speaker and other Members:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 141 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Mrs. Meek of Florida asked and was given permission to address
the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. [Carrie P.] Meek of Florida: Mr. Speaker, the Speaker's
unbelievably good book deal, after all these secret meetings and
behind the scenes deal-making, which each day brings to light new
and more startling revelations, I am still not satisfied with the
answers I am getting about this very large and lucrative deal our
Speaker has negotiated for himself.
Now more than ever before the perception of impropriety, not to
mention the potential conflict of interest, still exists and cannot
be ignored. . . .
Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I demand
the gentlewoman's words be taken down. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (5) The Clerk will read the
gentlewoman's words.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Cliff B. Stearns (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
News accounts tell us that while the Speaker may have given
up the $4.5 million advance, he stands to gain that amount and
much more. That is a whole lot of dust where I come from. If
anything now, how much the Speaker earns has grown much more
dependent on how hard his publishing house hawks his book.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: It is the Speaker's opinion that
innuendo and critical references to the Speaker's personal conduct
are not in order.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. [Harold L.] Volkmer [of Missouri]: I have a parliamentary
inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his inquiry.
[[Page 10826]]
Mr. Volkmer: Is the Speaker now saying it is the ruling of the
Chair that any statements as to activity, whether it is illegal or
not, by the Speaker of the House in his private actions cannot be
brought to the floor of this House? Is that the Chair's ruling? It
appears that it is. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: In answer to the gentleman's question,
first, it has been the Chair's ruling, and the precedents of the
House support this, a proper level of respect is due to the
Speaker. . . .
Mr. Volkmer: Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.
Motion To Table Offered by Mr. Linder
Mr. [John] Linder [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Linder moves to lay the Volkmer motion on the table. .
. .
So the motion to table was agreed to. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Without objection, the words will be
stricken from the Record.
Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, I object. . .
.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: . . . The question is: Shall the words
be stricken from the Record? . . .
So the motion to strike the words was agreed to. . . .
Mrs. Meek of Florida: Mr. Speaker, may I be recognized?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Without objection, the gentlewoman
from Florida [Mrs. Meek] may proceed in order.
(There was no objection.)
Mrs. Meek of Florida: Mr. Speaker, I have reviewed my statement
carefully. I do not see anything in my statement that should be so
objectionable and obnoxious. I have been elected to this House to
speak the truth. . . .
Mr. [Robert E.] Wise, [Jr., of West Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I
have a parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary inquiry is based upon the
Speaker's recent ruling and the action by this Chair and by this
body. The question I have may involve several Members about to
speak.
Is the Speaker entitled to a higher level of avoidance than
other Members? That seems to be the issue raised in the Speaker's
response on this. . . .
Does the body refrain from raising certain questions about the
Speaker that it could raise about other Members in the Chamber?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: All Members are entitled to have no
personal references made about them when that question is brought
up.
Mr. Wise: Mr. Speaker, continuing my parliamentary inquiry,
then the Speaker is not entitled to any higher standard than any
other Member in regard to personal references, is that correct, or
any lower standard?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair has already ruled, but the
Speaker as a Member and as presiding officer is entitled to the
respect of all Members.
Mr. Wise: But what about the Speaker? Is the Speaker as Speaker
entitled to any different level of attention or respect than any
other Member in the Chamber?
[[Page 10827]]
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Speaker is entitled to respect. .
. .
Mr. Wise: Is it the Chair's position that no questions can be
raised about the Speaker's personal financial dealings?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: There are proper channels in the House
for questioning the conduct of Members, including the Speaker. . .
.
Mr. Wise: With a privileged resolution or an ethics resolution
not pending, is it appropriate to question any of the financial
dealings of the Speaker in the context of 1-minute speeches or
other activities?
Mr. [Tom] DeLay [of Texas]: Regular order.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is entertaining a
parliamentary inquiry. . . .
Simply put, in debate references personally to the Speaker are
not in order. . . .
Mr. [Robert G.] Torricelli [of New Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, a
further parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. Speaker, while the Chair has ruled, it must now be clear to
all Members that the comity of this House and our ability to
proceed depends upon an understanding of the Chair's ruling. I
would therefore inquire as to what precedents the Chair has relied
upon. . . .
Clearly there are Members of the institution who recall that .
. . a Member of this institution came to the floor raising
questions about former Speaker Wright's publishing activities. Did
therefore the Parliamentarian at any time rule that those inquiries
were inappropriate? . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would state that on June 15,
1988, Speaker pro tempore at that point Tom Foley cautioned all
Members to avoid personal references to the conduct of the Speaker
and to those who brought charges.
Mr. Torricelli: Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary inquiry was this:
Was the Member from Georgia's words . . . ever taken down when he
rose on the floor and raised questions about the $12,000 publishing
deal of Mr. Wright? . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: . . . [T]he Speaker pro tempore
announced a standard but did not rule in response to a point of
order on that occasion. And more importantly, those words were not
challenged at the time. . . .
Mr. Dingell: Mr. Speaker, the Chair has made the ruling that it
is not parliamentary language to raise questions by innuendo. May I
inquire of the Chair what that means with regard to the right of
Members to raise questions about the propriety of the behavior of
other Members of this body under either the rules or the statutes
of the United States and the House of Representatives?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Personal references to Members are
clearly not in order.
Mr. Dingell: What about questions, though, Mr. Speaker,
relative to the propriety of the behavior of Members under the
rules of the House of Representatives and the laws of the United
States? Are those questions still permitted to be raised under the
rules and have the rules of the House been changed with regard to
those matters? . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman realizes, there are
rules and
[[Page 10828]]
proper channels for bringing conduct of Members before the House.
Mr. Dingell: And I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker, but that does
not respond to my question. I asked, are Members now precluded from
raising questions about the behavior of other Members of this body?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: It would depend upon whether it was a
personality in the debate.
Mr. Dingell: Have the rules been changed to effect a different
order of precedents and dignity to the Speaker? Is he now treated
differently than other Members of this body so that questions about
propriety of behavior of other Members may be raised but questions
about the propriety of the behavior of the Speaker may not now be
raised?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Simply put, personalities in regard to
all Members should not be part of the debate.
On the following day,(6) a point of order was raised
concerning
the account in the Congressional Record of the Chair's ruling, and
further discussion ensued with
respect to the limits placed on
Members' references to others, including the Speaker:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. See 141 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 104th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 19, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Barney] Frank of Massachusetts: Mr. Speaker, I make a
point of order.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (7) The gentleman from
Massachusetts is recognized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. David Dreier (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Frank of Massachusetts: Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of
this session, the House adopted a new rule which says the
Congressional Record shall be a substantially verbatim account of
remarks made during the proceedings of the House, subject only
to technical, grammatical, and typographical corrections authorized
by the Member making the remarks involved.
In the Congressional Record that we received this morning,
reflecting yesterday's proceedings, at page H301 in the transcript
of the remarks of the Speaker pro tempore, the gentleman from
Florida, there are two changes that were made between what he, in
fact, said and what is in the Record.
The first change is as follows:
He said yesterday with regard to the statements of the
gentlewoman from Florida about the book of the Speaker, ``It is the
Speaker's opinion that innuendo and personal references to the
Speaker's conduct are not in order.''
That has been altered and that does not appear verbatim in the
Congressional Record. Instead, it says, ``It is the Speaker's
opinion that innuendo and critical references to the Speaker's
personal conduct are not in order.''
Additionally, later on in response to a parliamentary inquiry
from the gentleman from Missouri, the Speaker pro tempore said, as
I recollect it, ``It has been the Chair's ruling, and the
precedents of the House support this, a higher level of respect is
due to the Speaker.''
In the Congressional Record that has been changed to ``a proper
level of respect.''
Now, I do not believe that changing ``personal'' to
``critical'' and ``proper'' to
[[Page 10829]]
``higher'' is either technical, grammatical, or typographical. . .
.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair might respond to the
gentleman.
The Chair would recite from the manual that in accordance with
existing, accepted practices, the Speaker may make such technical
or parliamentary insertions, or corrections in transcript as may be
necessary to conform to rule, custom, or precedent. The Chair does
not believe that any revision changed the meaning of the ruling.
The Chair would under the circumstances inform the House on
behalf of the Parliamentarian that the new rule is as it might
apply to the role of the Chair will be examined. . . .
Mr. Dingell: . . . Yesterday the Speaker then presiding made a
ruling which now appears in the precedents of the House. It
interpreted the precedents of the House. It related to the rights,
the behaviors, the dignities of the Members, and it dictated the
future course of conduct of Members of this body.
Is the Chair informing us that the rulings of the Chair
yesterday stand, that the rulings of the Chair yesterday have been
changed without approval by the House? . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair must reiterate that the
principles of decorum in debate relied on by the Chair yesterday
with respect to words taken down are not new to the 104th Congress.
First, clause 1 of rule XIV establishes an absolute rule
against engaging in personality in debate where the subject of a
Member's conduct is not the pending question.
Second, it is the long and settled practice of the House over
many Congresses to enforce that standard by demands from the floor
that words be taken down under rule XIV. Although the rule enables
the Chair to take initiative to address breaches of order, the
Chair normally defers to demands that words be taken down in the
case of references to Members of the House. On occasion, however,
the Chair has announced general standards of proper reference to
Members, as was the case on June 15, 1988. There, in response to a
series of 1-minute speeches and special order debates focusing on
the conduct of the Speaker as the subject of an ethical complaint
and on the motives of the Member who filed the complaint, the Chair
stated as follows:
Thus, the Chair would caution all Members not to use the 1-
minute period or special orders, as has already happened, to
discuss the conduct of Members of the House in a way that
inevitably engages in personalities.
Third, longstanding precedents of the House provide that the
stricture against personalities has been enforced collaterally with
respect to criticism of the Speaker even when intervening debate
has occurred. This separate treatment is recorded in volume 2 of
Hinds' Precedents, at section 1248.
Finally, a complaint against the conduct of the Speaker is
presented directly for the action of the House and not by way of
debate on other matters. As Speaker Thomas B. Reed of Maine
explained in 1897, criticism of past conduct of the presiding
officer is out of order not because he is above criticism but,
instead, because of the tendency of piecemeal criticism to impair
the good order of the House.
[[Page 10830]]
Speaker Reed's rationale is recorded in volume 5 of Hinds'
Precedents section 5188 from which the Chair now quotes as follows:
The Chair submits to the House that allusions or criticisms
of what the Chair did at some past time is certainly not in
order not because the Chair is above criticism or above attack
but for two reasons: first, because the Speaker is the Speaker
of the House, and such attacks are not conducive to the good
order of the House; and, second, because the Speaker cannot
reply to them except in a very fragmentary fashion, and it is
not desirable that he should reply to them. For these reasons,
such attacks ought not be made.
Based on these precedents, the Chair was justified in
concluding that the words challenged on yesterday were in their
full context out of order as engaging in personalities. . . .
Mr. Dingell: . . . My question is: What is now the status of
the original ruling by the previous occupant of the chair in
connection with the matter of the 1-minutes yesterday and the
remarks of the gentlewoman from Florida? . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: In response to the gentleman's
parliamentary inquiry, the Chair has interpreted there will not be
a change based on the precedents that have been established. The
statement that appeared in the Record was not different than that
that had been provided. . . . [T]he revisions that were made were
technical and not substantive. That is the ruling of the Chair. . .
.
Mr. [Richard J.] Durbin [of Illinois]: . . . If I might, I
would like to ask the Chair's position as to whether Members in
statements on the floor can make any references to activities of
Members which may raise ethical questions.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair must reiterate that the
principles of decorum in debate relied on by the Chair yesterday
with respect to words taken down are not new to the 104th Congress.
First, clause 1 of rule 14 establishes an absolute rule against
engaging in personality in debate where the subject of a Member's
conduct is not the pending question.
Second, it is the long and settled practice of the House over
many Congresses to enforce that standard by demands from the floor
that words be taken down under rule 14. Although the rule enables
the Chair to take initiative to address breaches of order, the
Chair normally defers to demands that words be taken down in the
case of references to Members of the House. . . .
Mr. Durbin: . . . I just would like to ask two questions by
parliamentary inquiry and then I will sit down. I thank the Chair
for rereading the ruling. It is improving every time he reads. But
I would ask this question. Can a Member during the course of a 1-
minute make any reference to an activity of another Member,
including the Speaker, which has taken place outside this Chamber?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Based on the precedents, only a
factual reference can be made.
Mr. Durbin: A factual reference can be made.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Without any suggestions whatsoever of
impropriety.
[[Page 10831]]
Mr. Durbin: One further inquiry. Does this limitation in terms
of reference to personal conduct beyond factual conduct apply to
those who serve in Government and the executive branch as well as
the legislative branch?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: It applies to the President of the
United States.
Mr. Durbin: Does it apply to anyone else serving in the
executive branch?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: It applies to the President of the
United States.
The gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. [David E.] Bonior [of Michigan]: Parliamentary inquiry, Mr.
Speaker, and this will be the final comment by me on this issue. We
are eager to get on with the business of the House. But there are
some very fundamental issues, as we have heard on the floor this
morning, at stake here. We are being told that the Speaker is being
placed above criticism and comments.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is incorrect in drawing
that conclusion.
CHAPTER 29
Consideration and Debate
G. REFERENCES TO HOUSE, COMMITTEES, OR MEMBERS
Sec. 58. Criticism of Legislative Actions or Proposals
While it has been held unparliamentary to arraign the motives of
Members (8) or their legislative actions, the content of an
introduced bill or amendment can be criticized.(9) Whether a
legislative action is good or bad, needed or not, is after all the
essence of legislative deliberation.(10) The forces in
society which sway legislative decisions are ``fair game'' in debate;
(11) and it has been held within the bounds of propriety to
indicate the relative importance of Member-sponsorship.(12)
Criticism of legislative tactics has been upheld.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. See Sec. Sec. 58.6, 58.12, infra.
9. See Sec. Sec. 58.1, 58.3, 58.5, infra.
10. See Sec. 58.4, infra.
11. See Sec. Sec. 58.7-58.9, infra.
12. See Sec. 58.2, infra.
13. See Sec. 58.10, infra. -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Criticism of Bills
Sec. 58.1 Words uttered in debate criticizing a bill, as distinguished
from a Member, are held in order.
On Jan. 31, 1946,(14) while the Committee of the Whole
was considering a bill providing for appointment of fact-finding boards
to investigate labor disputes, the following words were used by Mr.
Emanuel Celler, of New York, in criticism of the bill: ``and, to quote
the Bible, `would they be like a fool who returneth to his folly,
or a dog that returneth to his vomit?' ''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 92 Cong. Rec. 675, 676, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Tex-as, ruled that since the name of
[[Page 10832]]
no Member was mentioned, the words taken down were merely an opinion of
a measure before the House and therefore not unparliamentary.
Sec. 58.2 A statement in debate that if a certain Member sponsors a
measure it would receive one or two votes was held in order.
On June 12, 1934,(15) Mr. Claude A. Fuller, of Arkansas,
stated in debate, referring to Mr. Charles V. Truax, of Ohio, ``The
very fact that he espouses a measure . . . is a self-evident fact that
it will only receive 1 or 2 votes in the entire House.'' Speaker Henry
T. Rainey, of Illinois, ruled that the words were not objectionable but
a matter of judgment, and declined to sustain Mr. Truax's claim that
the language was a deliberate falsehood.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 78 Cong. Rec. 11177, 73d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Criticism of Amendments
Sec. 58.3 A statement in debate that an amendment offered to a bill
would be viewed by every lawyer in America as having no effect on
the bill was held in order.
On Feb. 20, 1946,(16) Mr. Malcolm C. Tarver, of Georgia,
stated as follows on an amendment to a bill for school lunch programs:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 92 Cong. Rec. 1500, 1501, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
. . . There is not a lawyer in America who is worthy to be
called a lawyer but who knows that the adoption of this language
neither adds to nor takes from a single item of the substance of
this bill.
The Committee of the Whole rose and Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas,
ruled that the language used was an opinion expressed on a measure
which did not reflect upon the character of any Member, and was
therefore in order.
Sec. 58.4 A statement in debate that a member ``has already admitted
that his amendment does not make sense, and he will take any
alternative that is offered'' was held not a breach of order.
On Jan. 21, 1964,(17) Mr. Peter H. B. Frelinghuysen,
Jr., of New Jersey, stated of an amendment offered by Mr. Adam C.
Powell, of New York, ``Mr. Chairman, it seems to me the gentleman from
New York has already admitted his amendment does not make sense, and he
will take any alternative that is offered.'' Mr. Powell demanded that
the words be taken down, and Speaker John W. McCormack, of
Massachusetts,
[[Page 10833]]
ruled that the words objected to were not violative of the rules of the
House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 110 Cong. Rec. 756, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 58.5 A reference to an amendment that ``where I come from the
people do
not like slippery, snide, and sharp practices'' was held in order
as not reflecting on any Member.
On July 26, 1951,(18) Mr. John J. Rooney, of New York,
while discussing opposition amendments to a pending bill, stated as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 97 Cong. Rec. 8968, 8969, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
. . . Where I come from great faith is put on a man's ability
to stand up and fight for what he believes and what he thinks is
best for the country. The people in my district do not like
slippery, snide, and sharp practices.
Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, demanded that the words be taken
down, and Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled as follows:
. . . The Chair does not think that it should offend anybody
for the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rooney] to brag of his
constituents, as to their character or as to their ability. It
appears to the Chair that these words were spoken with reference to
an amendment and not with respect to a Member of the House of
Representatives; and therefore, there is no reflection on any
Member of the House.
Sec. 58.6 The Speaker ruled out of order remarks in debate
characterizing the motivation for an amendment as ``demagogic'' and
``racist.''
On Dec. 13, 1973,(19) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 11450, the Energy Emergency Act. Mr. John D. Dingell,
of Michigan, offered an amendment to prohibit the use of petroleum for
the busing of school children beyond the nearest public school. In
debate on the amendment, Ms. Bella S. Abzug, of New York, stated as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 119 Cong. Rec. 41270, 41271, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An amendment like this can only be demagogic or racist because
it is only demagoguery or racism which impels such an amendment
like this.
Mr. Robert E. Bauman, of Maryland, demanded that the words be taken
down, and Ms. Abzug responded that her language had not in any way
impugned the motives of Mr. Dingell.
The Committee rose and Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, ruled as
follows:
On May 4, 1943 . . . Speaker Rayburn held:
Statement by Newsome of Minnesota that, ``I do not yield to any
more demagogues,'' held not in order.
It is the opinion of the Chair that the statements reported to
the House
[[Page 10834]]
are within the framework of this ruling, and without objection the
words are therefore stricken from the Record.
Criticism of Opponents
Sec. 58.7 A reference in debate accusing opponents of the repeal of a
law of possessing blind, slavish, and shameful opposition to repeal
was held in order as merely an argument for the repeal or amendment
of a law.
On Feb. 6, 1950,(20) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan,
demanded that the following words used in debate by Mr. Anthony
Cavalcante, of Pennsylvania, be taken down:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 96 Cong. Rec. 1513, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Speaker, the friends of the Taft-Hartley law show the
nature of their mind by their constant opposition to all
congressional effort to pass laws that will protect labor against
the predatory traits of their masters. This nature is seen in their
blind opposition to the repeal of any part of that infamous law; in
their slavish opposition to the passage of a more adequate and just
social-security law; in their shameful opposition to a Federal
national-health program; and in their illogical opposition to put
teeth in the coal-mine inspection law.
Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled that the words were not
unparliamentary since merely an argument for the repeal or amendment of
law.
Sec. 58.8 A statement in debate accusing colleagues who opposed a
measure of ``loose talk'' was held merely an expression of opinion
mentioning no Member by name and not a breach of order.
On May 6, 1941,(1) the following words used in debate in
the Committee of the Whole were demanded to be taken down:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 87 Cong. Rec. 3670, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If everybody would talk as loosely and recklessly with the
truth as some of these opponents of the administration measures
that they are carrying on, it is no wonder there is confusion.
The Committee rose, and Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled that
the language objected to simply expressed an opinion that certain
things bring about confusion in the House and mentioned no Member of
the House by name. Therefore the words were not violative of the rules
of the House.
Sec. 58.9 A statement in debate that sinister influences were working
to the interest of certain Members allegedly conducting a
filibuster was held not to be a breach of order.
[[Page 10835]]
On Mar. 23, 1936,(2) the following words used in debate
were demanded to be taken down:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 80 Cong. Rec. 4235, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Owing to the fact that one or two men want to carry on a
filibuster, opposed to the people of the District of Columbia
receiving some relief. They are today being gouged by real-estate
men. I wonder if the sinister influences are working to the best
interests of these gentlemen.
The Committee of the Whole rose and the words objected to were
reported to the House. Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, ruled as
follows:
There is no reference in the language to just who is carrying
on a filibuster, if one has been carried on during the day.
[Laughter.] The Chair is not in position to say that there has been
a filibuster carried on. We have had a number of roll calls. The
Chair is not going to say officially that there has been an actual
filibuster. No reference is made to any particular Member of the
House in the remarks of the gentleman from Indiana.
The Chair fails to see anything objectionable in the language
referred to, and so holds.
``Withholding'' Votes
Sec. 58.10 A statement in debate referring to a tactic of
``withholding'' votes until it could be determined whether they
would be necessary on the pending question was held in order.
On July 27, 1965,(3) the following words used in debate
by Mr. Charles E. Goodell, of New York, were taken down:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 111 Cong. Rec. 18441, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would be very interested on this particular issue if we are
going to have a repeat of the exhibition on the housing vote with
the gentlemen withholding votes and seeing how they are necessary
on the issue that comes before us. I hope that this will not be
repeated.
Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, overruled the point of
order, stating that the remarks did not reflect on any Member's motives
or votes.
Criticizing Action of House Conferees
Sec. 58.11 The Speaker has applied the rules governing propriety of
debate to posters and charts in the Speaker's Lobby, ordering their
removal if the language would have given rise to a challenge if
uttered on the floor of the House.
On June 5, 1930, the House discussed the action of the Speaker in
ordering removed from the Speaker's Lobby placards posted
[[Page 10836]]
by a Member criticizing the action of House conferees on a particular
bill (H.R. 2667, a tariff bill).(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 72 Cong. Rec. 10122, 10123, 71st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaker Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, stated that he had ordered
removed the placard under his authority granted by Rule I clause 3,
empowering him to exercise control over the corridors and passages and
unappropriated rooms in the House side of the Capitol. The Speaker also
stated that ``the Chair was of the opinion that at least two of the
sentences in that document were sentences which, if pronounced on the
floor of the House, would have been subject to being taken down, and
were not in order, and, by analogy, the Chair thinks it is even more
improper to have such publications posted where no one can criticize
them.''
The Speaker read the following objectionable language of the
placard:
3. The House conferees, in violation of the gentleman's
agreement and in disregard of the positive mandate of the House,
voted lumber used by the farmers on the dutiable list and polls and
ties used by the public utilities on the free list.
4. The conferees are the servants of the House, not its
masters. Will the Members by their votes condone the violation of
the gentleman's agreement and the disregard of the positive mandate
of the House on the part of its conferees?
The Speaker stated that the truth or falsity of the document was
not material, but whether the document cast doubt upon the worthiness
of the motives of the conferees was relevant to his
decision.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Rule I clause 3, House Rules and Manual Sec. 623 (1995) provides:
``He [the Speaker] shall have general control, except as
provided by rule or law, of the Hall of the House, and of the
corridors and passages and the disposal of the unappropriated
rooms in that part of the Capitol assigned to the use of the
House, until further order.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 58.12 While it may be appropriate in debate to characterize the
effect of an amendment as deceptive or hypocritical, the Speaker
has ruled out of order words taken down in Committee of the Whole
characterizing the motivation of a Member in offering an amendment
as deceptive and hypocritical.
During consideration of the Department of Education Organization
Act of 1979 (H.R. 2444) in the Committee of the Whole, certain words
used in debate were reported to the House and ruled out of order by the
Speaker. The pro
[[Page 10837]]
ceedings of June 12, 1979,(6) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 125 Cong. Rec. 14461, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Henry B.] Gonzalez [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I expected
resistance to this amendment and not necessarily my getting
involved. I am not a member of this committee. But this amendment
is probably the most detrimental to the main purposes of equal
opportunity of education to the most needed segments of our society
that has been presented thus far and probably could ever be
presented. The insidiousness of the amendment is compounded by the
sponsor's deceptive--I should say hypocritical--presentation of
this amendment, disguising it as a quota prohibition.
Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I
demand that the words be taken down.
The Chairman: (7) The Clerk will report the words
objected to. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Lucien N. Nedzi (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: The Committee will rise. . . .
The Speaker: (8) The Clerk will report the words
objected to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows: . . .
The insidiousness of the amendment is compounded by the
sponsor's deceptive--I should say hypocritical--presentation of
this amendment, disguising it as a quota prohibition.
The Speaker: The Chair is ready to rule.
The Chair, having read the references concerning deception and
hypocrisy, will state that there have been previous opinions by the
Chair that there is nothing wrong with using the word,
``deceptive,'' or the word, ``hypocritical,'' in characterizing an
amendment's effect but when a Member so characterizes the
motivation of a Member in offering an amendment that is not in
order.
Consequently, the words in the last sentence read by the Clerk
are unparliamentary and without objection, the offensive words are
stricken from the Record.
CHAPTER 29
Consideration and Debate
G. REFERENCES TO HOUSE, COMMITTEES, OR MEMBERS
Sec. 59. Criticism of Statements or Tactics in Debate
In order that free debate and discussion be preserved in the House,
Members may argue with wide latitude against statements made on the
floor by other Members.(9) But criticism of a Member's
statements in debate may not extend to personal attacks,(10)
and the use of certain derogatory terms, such as ``disgraceful''
(11) or ``demagogic'' (12) may be ruled out
[[Page 10838]]
as unparliamentary. However, criticism of legislative tactics has been
upheld.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. See the statement of Speaker Pro Tempore John J. O'Connor (N.Y.)
cited at Sec. 59.2, infra.
10. See Sec. 59.9, infra. For the rule against invoking personalities
in debate, see Sec. 60, infra. A Member may not impugn the
motives of another for statements made in debate, see Sec. 62,
infra.
11. See Sec. Sec. 59.3, 59.4, 59.9, infra.
12. See Sec. Sec. 60.3-60.6, infra. See also 5 Hinds' Precedents
Sec. Sec. 5150, 5151, 5163, 5164, for past rulings on
unparliamentary criticism of statements made in debate.
13. See Sec. 58.10, supra. -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``Confusing the Issue'' in Debate
Sec. 59.1 A statement in debate accusing a Member of intentionally
confusing an issue was held in order.
On Sept. 25, 1951,(14) Mr. Wayne L. Hays, of Ohio,
stated in debate: ``I do not want you to stand up there and try to
becloud the issue. What you are trying to do is make out that we are
helping our enemies, when the very purpose of this act is to encourage
our friends and to make them strong so that we can combat the people
that we may have to fight against.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 97 Cong. Rec. 12074, 12075, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Howard H. Buffett, of Nebraska, demanded that the words be
taken down and Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled that they were not
unparliamentary and that there was nothing in the words that should be
offensive to anybody.
Characterizing Argument as ``Crime''
Sec. 59.2 A statement in debate that another Member ``was guilty of
that crime''--referring to such Member's allegedly unwarranted
attacks and arguments--was held to be in order.
On July 23, 1935,(15) Mr. Hamilton Fish, Jr., of New
York, rose to object to the following language used in debate by Mr.
John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 79 Cong. Rec. 11699, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The gentleman from New York [Mr. Fish], whether he intended it
or not, is guilty of that crime; not only a few days ago, but is
again guilty of the same crime on this occasion.
On the request of Speaker Pro Tempore John J. O'Connor, of New
York, the words immediately preceding the language objected to were
also read:
I respect men who fight hard. I respect men, members of the
Republican Party and the Democratic Party, who fight hard for their
party, but who fight clean. I respect men who make constructive
criticisms; but my general respect for men is somewhat lost when
they depart from what should be and what ordinarily is their
general conduct and enter into the field of unnecessary, unfair,
and unwarranted attacks and arguments.
[[Page 10839]]
The Speaker Pro Tempore ruled as follows on the point of order:
The Chair may state, even though it may be gratuitous, that
from his personal standpoint there has grown up in this House a
ridiculous habit of causing the words of a Member to be taken down,
which course often consumes a great deal of time; and, as the Chair
said on the floor the other day, it appears to have come to pass
recently that a Member cannot even say ``boo'' to another Member
without some Member demanding that the words be taken down. This
practice has become reductio ad absurdum. . . .
For the gentleman from Massachusetts to state that what the
gentleman from New York did or said was a ``crime'', in the opinion
of the present occupant of the chair, is but a loose expression--a
word commonly used as a mere figure of speech. The word ``wrong''
in the dictionary is a synonym for ``crime'', and the Chair holds
that the use of the word ``crime'', under the particular
circumstances, is not unparliamentary language; and the gentleman
from Massachusetts may proceed.
The House then rejected an appeal from the decision of the Chair.
``Disgraceful'' Argument
Sec. 59.3 A statement in debate referring to another Member as speaking
in a disgraceful and unparliamentary manner was held not in order.
On May 16, 1946,(16) Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi,
objected to the use of certain words in debate by Mr. Arthur G. Klein,
of New York, in the Committee of the Whole. The words were taken down,
the Committee rose, and Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled that the
words were unparliamentary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 92 Cong. Rec. 5106, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: The words objected to and stricken from the
Record read as follows: ``The gentleman took the floor
and in his self-appointed role as spokesman for the Committee referred
to me in my absence in a disgraceful and unparliamentary manner.''
Sec. 59.4 A statement in debate charging another Member with using
disgraceful language was on demand taken down and ruled out of
order.
On Feb. 12, 1946,(17) Mr. Hugh DeLacy, of Washington,
used the following language in debate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 92 Cong. Rec. 1241, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am standing here today to state to the gentleman from
Mississippi [Mr. Rankin] that we do not propose to permit this kind
of language to be indulged in on this floor. It is disgraceful.
Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled that the language used was
unparliamentary.
[[Page 10840]]
``Intemperate'' Argument
Sec. 59.5 A reference in debate to another Member's statement as
``intemperate'' was held not to be a breach of order.
On Aug. 1, 1963,(18) Mr. James C. Wright, Jr., of Texas,
referred to Mr. H.R. Gross, of Iowa, as attacking the Secretary of the
Navy in an ``intemperate way.'' Mr. Gross demanded that the words be
taken down and Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, ruled that
the language used was not objectionable, since the word ``intemperate''
might be used just as the word ``improper'' might be used in debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 109 Cong. Rec. 13865, 13866, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 59.6 The Presiding Officer of the Senate ruled that the words
``the intemperate inference, the thinly veiled implication in which
some have indulged'' in reference to his colleagues were not
unparliamentary.
On May 14, 1964,(19) during debate on a resolution
relating to an investigation, Senator Michael J. Mansfield, of Montana,
described his colleagues arguments with the words, ``the intemperate
inference, the thinly veiled implication in which some have indulged.''
Senator Clifford P. Case, of New Jersey, rose to make a point of order
against the language used by Senator Mansfield. Presiding Officer
Edward M. Kennedy, of Massachusetts, ruled that under the rules of the
Senate, the language used was not objectionable. Senator Case attempted
to appeal the ruling of the Chair but the Chair ruled that the
expiration of the time limitation for debate and adoption of a motion
to table carried the appeal to the table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 110 Cong. Rec. 10926-31, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``Ludicrous'' Argument
Sec. 59.7 A reference to another Member's remarks in debate as
``ludicrous'' were objected to but withdrawn before a ruling was
made.
On May 11, 1964,(20) Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, stated as
follows: ``Does the gentleman think this will give the gentleman from
New York [Mr. John J. Rooney], ample opportunity to make ludicrous
statements such as he did the other day with respect to the cost of
amendments?''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 110 Cong. Rec. 10448, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When Mr. Rooney demanded that the words be taken down, Mr. Gross
obtained unanimous
[[Page 10841]]
consent to withdraw the word ``ludicrous.''
Characterizing Debate as Unfair
Sec. 59.8 It was held not unparliamentary to assert that remarks in
debate tended to attack the character of other speakers rather than
meet their arguments, particularly since the assertion included a
disclaimer conceding possible lack of intention to impugn any
Member's motives.
During consideration of H.R. 2760 (prohibition on covert aid in
Nicaragua) in the Committee of the Whole on July 28,
1983,(1) it was demonstrated that when a demand is made in
Committee for words to be taken down, the Committee rises automatically
and reports the words to the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 129 Cong. Rec. 21461, 21462, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [David R.] Obey [of Wisconsin]: I am concerned, as I said,
about the statements that I have heard on the floor today, because
I believe that what they have a tendency to do, even though that
may not be the intention, I think they have the tendency to try to
assassinate the character of the person making the statement rather
than to effectively assassinate the argument.
Mr. [C.W. Bill] Young of Florida: Mr. Chairman, I demand that
the gentleman's words be taken down. . . .
The Chairman: (2) The Committee will rise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed
the chair, Mr. Natcher, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee,
having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2760) to amend the
Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 1983 to prohibit
U.S. support for military or paramilitary operations in Nicaragua
and to authorize assistance, to be openly provided to governments
of countries in Central America, to interdict the supply of
military equipment from Nicaragua and Cuba . . . certain words used
in debate were objected to and on request were taken down and read
at the Clerk's desk, and he herewith reported the same to the
House.
The Speaker: (3) The Chairman of the Committee of
the Whole House on the State of the Union reports that during the
consideration of the bill, H.R. 2760, certain words used in the
debate were objected to [and] taken down and read at the Clerk's
desk and does now report the words objected to to the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk will report the words objected to. . . .
The words having been read, and the gentleman from Wisconsin
having very definitely included in his statement a disclaimer that
he does not impugn the motives or intentions of any Member of the
House, in the opinion of the Chair, in his legislative argument the
words of the gentleman from Wisconsin are not unparliamentary and
the gentleman may proceed.
[[Page 10842]]
The Committee will resume its sitting.
Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration
of the bill, H.R. 2760, with Mr. Natcher in the chair.
Parliamentarian's Note: The Speaker's ruling should not be taken to
mean that a Member may say anything in debate as long as it is
accompanied by a disclaimer of intent to impugn the motives of another
Member, although in this instance the inclusion of the disclaimer made
it easier to hold the words in order.
Sec. 59.9 Clause 1 of Rule XIV,
requiring all Members engaging in debate to ``avoid
personality'' applies to the Speaker when he takes the floor in
debate; and on one occasion, the Speaker's opinion expressed in
debate that a Member had deliberately stood in the well before an
empty House and challenged the Americanism of other Members, ``and
it is the lowest thing that I have ever seen in my thirty-two years
in Congress'' was held to
constitute an unparliamentary characterization of that Member's
motives and actions and was ruled out of order on a demand that the
words be taken down.
On May 15, 1984,(4) a demand was made that Speaker
Thomas P. O'Neill's words, spoken from the floor, be taken down, as
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 130 Cong. Rec. 12201, 12202, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Thomas P.] O'Neill [Jr., of Massachusetts]: . . . My
personal opinion is this: You deliberately stood in that well
before an empty House and challenged these people, and you
challenged their Americanism, and it is the lowest thing that I
have ever seen in my 32 years in Congress.
Mr. [Newt] Gingrich [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, if I may reclaim
my time, let me say first of all that----
Mr. [Trent] Lott [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I demand that
the Speaker's words be taken down.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. On an earlier occasion (Feb. 12, 1798), words spoken by Speaker
Jonathan Dayton, of New Jersey, were ruled out of order as he
participated in debate in Committee of the Whole. See 2 Hinds'
Precedents Sec. 1367 (note).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (6) Words will be taken
down.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. John Joseph Moakley (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk will report the words.
The Clerk read as follows:
My personal opinion is that you deliberately stood in that
well before an empty House and challenged these people and you
challenged their Americanism and it is the lowest thing that I
have ever seen in my 32 years in Congress. . . .
Mr. Lott: If the Chair would rule, I have a request that I
would like to make.
[[Page 10843]]
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair feels that that type of
characterization should not be used in debate.
Mr. Lott: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent at this point
that the Speaker be allowed to continue in order. . . .
Our point has been made. I think that we want to change the
tenor of this debate and we should now proceed on a higher plane
with this debate. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from Mississippi?
There was no objection. . . .
Mr. O'Neill: I am not questioning the gentleman's patriotism, I
am questioning his judgment. I also question the judgment of the
Chair. . . .
Mr. [Vin] Weber [of Minnesota]: A point of parliamentary
inquiry. . . .
Do the rules of the House apply to the Speaker of the House?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The rules of the House apply to all
Members of the House.
Parliamentarian's Note: The Speaker's words, though ruled to be
unparliamentary, were not ordered stricken from the Record by the
House; the Chair did not so order and no other Member moved that the
words be stricken.
Sec. 59.10 A Member's statement during debate that another Member's
demand that words be taken down during a special-order speech was
``an unfair stealing of time'' was held not to be unparliamentary,
as not necessarily implying an illegal action.
The following proceedings occurred in the House on Feb. 27, 1985:
(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 131 Cong. Rec. 3899, 3900, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Bob] McEwen [of Ohio]: . . . I [have] observed what I see
as an increasing parliamentary maneuver to destroy and steal the
time of people who are trying to present their position on the
floor of this House. . . . I have seen a significant deterioration
over recent years of the privilege and courtesy of Members to yield
time. When a debate is progressing in a direction [with] which they
disagree, they take upon themselves the courtesy that is usually
extended another Member, that of yielding, grab the microphone and
continue to shout, ``Will the gentleman yield''? until such time as
his train of thought is destroyed or his point has been stopped.
When that is unsuccessful, I have observed on more recent
occasions an effort to request that words be taken down which, upon
their repetition by the Clerk, are obviously not offensive to
anyone, and yet the debate has been destroyed and an effort has
been made to prevent the point that the speaker was attempting to
present from going forward. . . . I think the Members should be
allowed to express themselves during special orders without this
kind of unfair stealing of time. . . .
Mr. [Andrew] Jacobs [Jr., of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, I demand
the words be taken down.
[[Page 10844]]
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (8) The Clerk will report
the words taken down.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Tommy F. Robinson (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
. . . I think the Members should be allowed to express
themselves during special orders without this kind of unfair
stealing of time.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair thinks in the connotation
that the words were used, there is no allegation of illegality. The
words are not unparliamentary, in the opinion of the Chair. . . .
Mr. McEwen: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make it abundantly clear
that at no time in my presentation did I accuse anyone or intend to
imply that anyone was stealing anything.
Mr. Jacobs: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my point of order.
CHAPTER 29
Consideration and Debate
G. REFERENCES TO HOUSE, COMMITTEES, OR MEMBERS
Sec. 60. Critical References to Members
The form and the substance of
a Member's reference to another Member in debate are regulated by the
rules and longstanding practice of the House. So that ``order, decency,
and regularity be preserved in a dignified public body,''
(9) the motives of Members may not be impugned or their
personalities attacked,(10) and indecent or grossly
accusatory language may not be used in criticizing a Member. Indeed,
Rule XIV provides that a Member must confine himself to the question
under debate, avoiding personality.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Jefferson's Manual, House Rules and Manual Sec. 285 (1995). See
also id. at Sec. Sec. 353-379, for parliamentary principles as
to order in debate.
10. For a distinction between general language used in debate and that
involving personalities, see 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5153.
The Speaker may intervene in debate to prevent breaches of
order
in referring to personalities. See 5 Hinds' Precedents
Sec. 5163.
Breaches of order include sarcastic or satirical
compliments; see 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 5165, 5167,
5168.
Members may be censured for invoking personalities in
debate; see
2 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 1251, 1253, 1254, 1259.
11. Rule XIV clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 749 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proper procedure to be followed when objectionable words are
used in reference to a Member is the demand that they be ``taken
down,'' (12) and the House has on occasion demanded an
apology from or reconciliation between hostile Members.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See Sec. 49, supra.
13. See 2 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 1651, 2648, 2650.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate rules of proceedings are similar to those of the House, the
Standing Rules of the Senate prohibiting remarks in debate imputing
conduct or motive unworthy of a Senator to one or more of his
colleagues.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See Rule XIX clause 2, Standing Rules of the Senate Sec. 19.2
(1975).
For a discussion of Senate principles governing references
in debate to Members, see 94 Cong. Rec. 8966, 80th Cong. 2d
Sess., June 19, 1948 (President Pro Tempore Irving M. Ives
[N.Y.]).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 10845]]
The rules against engaging in personalities in debate have applied
uniformly whenever questions of order have been raised
respecting personal references, whether in legislative debate, during
special orders, or in extension of remarks. Obtaining a special order
with the specific purpose of discussing a topic such as ``ethics in the
House'' does not change these standards precluding personal references
in debate. Neither does informing a colleague that his conduct is going
to be the subject of discussion on the floor make a subsequent personal
reflection less objectionable. ``Engaging in personalities'' remains
contrary to accepted House practice notwithstanding such notification.
Where the House has under consideration a resolution involving the
conduct of a Member, a wider range of debate is permitted. In the
context of a specific legislative proposal involving censure,
reprimand, or expulsion, or a proposal advocating an investigation of
misconduct, the facts surrounding the resolution may be discussed, but
even in these situations debate personally offensive has not been
permitted.
Rule XIV, clause 1, prohibits references by one Member in debate to
newspaper accounts personally critical of another Member in a way that
would be unparliamentary if uttered as the first Member's own words.
Generally, the publication of charges in
another forum does not necessarily legitimize references to such
charges on the floor of the House. In 1868, a Member from Illinois
leveled charges against a Member from Minnesota in an article
(apparently a letter to the editor)
in a Minnesota newspaper. The House adopted as a question of privilege
a resolution enabling a select committee to investigate the matter. The
select committee found that the words of the letter, if uttered on the
floor of the House, would have been unparliamentary for their tendency
to provoke disturbance and disorder in the proceedings but that, as
uttered in a newspaper, had no equal tendency.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See 3 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 2691.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A statement on the floor personally critical of another Member is
properly challenged by a demand that the ``words be taken down.'' A
question of personal privilege cannot ordinarily be raised against
words used in debate,(16) whether or not the Member making
the
[[Page 10846]]
statement purports to assert it on his own responsibility. However, in
1910, a Member from Arkansas stated on the floor his understanding,
apparently derived from the accounts of others, of matters reflecting
on the conduct of a Member from New York. The Member from New York was
recognized on a question of personal privilege notwithstanding the
argument of the Member from Arkansas that he had not made the assertion
on his own responsibility but instead had said that he was so
informed.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See Sec. 60.26, infra.
17. See 6 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 594.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although debate on a privileged resolution recommending
disciplinary action against a Member may include comparisons with other
such actions taken by or reported to the House for purposes of
measuring severity of punishment, it is not in order to discuss the
conduct of another Member not the subject of a committee report, or
make references to similar conduct of another which is not then the
subject of a question pending before the House.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See the proceedings of Dec. 18, 1987, at Sec. 60.18, infra and Apr.
1, 1992. -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indulging in Personalities
Sec. 60.1 It is a breach of order in debate to indulge in personalities
of other Members or to use unparliamentary language in relation to
them.
On Mar. 11, 1936,(19) Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of
Tennessee, commented on the subject of the conduct of debate in the
House. He cited Rule XIV of the House rules governing the subject and
quoted relevant sections of Jefferson's Manual. The Speaker expressed
the hope that Members would cease indulging in the personalities of
other Members in debate, cease addressing a Member in other than the
third person, and expressed his intention to call any Member violating
rules of decorum and debate to order. He also requested any Members who
would be called upon to preside as Chairman of the Committee of the
Whole to pursue a similar practice.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 80 Cong. Rec. 3577, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
20. See also 96 Cong. Rec. 5539, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 12, 1950; 80
Cong. Rec. 3894, 3895, 74th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 17, 1936.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Proper Form of Address
Sec. 60.2 The proper form of reference to another Member is ``the
gentleman (or gentlewoman) from (state),'' and not any other
appellation or characterization.
[[Page 10847]]
On Oct. 2, 1984,(1) during consideration of the balanced
budget bill (H.R. 6300) in the House, the Chair, in responding to a
parliamentary inquiry, reminded the Members of the proper form of
reference to other Members:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 130 Cong. Rec. 28519, 28520, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Daniel E.] Lungren [of California]: Well, Mr. Speaker,
thank God this is not a medical research center, because if you
believe laetrile cures cancer, you think that Dr. ``Feelgood's''
bill here on the floor is going to do something, but the fact of
the matter is that it has nothing to do with the legislation on the
floor; it has to do with the will of the Members of Congress. . . .
Mr. [Ronald V.] Dellums [of California]: Mr. Speaker, is it a
violation of the comity and custom of the House to refer to a
Member of this body in terms other than as the gentleman from a
particular State?
The Chairman of this committee was referred to as ``Dr.
Feelgood Jones,'' and I would think that is in violation of the
comity and custom of the House. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (2) The gentleman is
correct in stating that it is the custom and practice and tradition
of the body that Members of the body should be referred to as the
gentleman or gentlewoman from a certain State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
References to Demagoguery
Sec. 60.3 A statement in debate that a Member would not ``yield to any
more demagogs'' was held not to avoid personalities and therefore
to be unparliamentary and out of order.
On May 4, 1943,(3) while Mr. Harold Knutson, of
Minnesota, had the floor, Mr. Wright Patman, of Texas, asked him to
yield. Mr. Knutson replied ``No. I do not yield to any more demagogs.''
Mr. Patman rose to a point of order and demanded that the words be
taken down, and the Committee of the Whole rose. In the House, a third
Member, Mr. J. William Ditter, of Pennsylvania, opposed the point of
order and cited the dictionary definition of a demagog: ``A leader or
orator and popular with or identified with the people.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 89 Cong. Rec. 3915, 3916, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Tex-as, stated that he had passed upon
identical language in the past and would conform to his prior ruling,
holding that words accusing a Member of demagoguery does not avoid
personalities and is therefore a breach of order.
Sec. 60.4 Reference in debate to a Member as ``president of the Demagog
Club'' was held to be a breach of order.
On Feb. 15, 1940,(4) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan,
de
[[Page 10848]]
manded that the following words used by Mr. Michael J. Bradley, of
Pennsylvania, in debate in relation to Mr. Martin Dies, Jr., of Texas,
also a Member of the House, be taken down:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 86 Cong. Rec. 1529, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I say, he is a pretty smart fellow, and, after all, he has
not been president of the Demagog Club for 8 years for nothing,
without learning how to take care of his prerogatives as far as
publicity is concerned.
Speaker Pro Tempore Sam Rayburn, of Texas, found that the point of
order presented a ``pretty close question, but the Chair feels
constrained to hold that in the language the gentleman used he did not
avoid personality.''
Sec. 60.5 The Speaker ruled that language characterizing debate as
demagogic was not a breach of order.
On Mar. 26, 1965,(5) Mr. Frank Thompson, Jr., of New
Jersey, stated as follows in debate: ``I might suggest further you can
beat this dog all you want for political purposes; you can demagog
however subtly and try to scare people off at the expense of the
Nation's schoolchildren with your demagoguery--''. Mr. Charles E.
Goodell, of New York, demanded that the words be taken down. Speaker
John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, ruled that the language did not
violate the rules of the House since Members in debate have reasonable
flexibility in expressing their thoughts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 111 Cong. Rec. 6107, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 60.6 The Speaker ruled out
of order in debate remarks characterizing the motives behind
certain legislation as ``demagogic and racist.''
On Dec. 13, 1973,(6) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 11450, the Energy Emergency Act. Mr. John D. Dingell,
of Michigan, offered an amendment to prohibit the use of petroleum for
the busing of schoolchildren beyond the nearest public school. In
debate on the amendment, Ms. Bella S. Abzug, of New York, stated as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 119 Cong. Rec. 41271, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An amendment like this can only be demagogic or racist because
it is only demagoguery or racism which impels such an amendment
like this.
Mr. Robert E. Bauman, of Maryland, demanded that the words be taken
down; Ms. Abzug responded that her language had not in any way impugned
the motives of Mr. Dingell. The Committee rose and Speaker Carl Albert,
of Oklahoma, ruled as follows:
[[Page 10849]]
On May 4, 1943 . . . Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, held:
Statement by Newsome of Minnesota that, ``I do not yield to any
more demagogues,'' held not in order.
It is the opinion of the Chair that the statements reported to
the House are within the framework of this ruling, and without
objection the words are therefore stricken from the Record.
References to Member's Representative Capacity
Sec. 60.7 A reference in debate to another Member as not representing a
certain class of people in his state was held not unparliamentary.
On Apr. 28, 1953,(7) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan,
stated of Mr. Herman P. Eberharter, of Pennsylvania: ``you do not
represent the hard-working Dutch people up there--not by a long shot.
You live in the city where you want everything brought to you.'' Mr.
Eberharter demanded that the words be taken down, but Speaker Joseph W.
Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, ruled that the words used by Mr. Hoffman
did not indicate any intent to reflect upon the character or integrity
of Mr. Eberharter, and were therefore not objectionable under House
rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 99 Cong. Rec. 4126, 83d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 60.8 A statement by a Member (referring to the actions of another
Member on the floor) that ``I think in my opinion it was a cheap,
sneaky, sly way to operate'' was held to be unparliamentary by the
Speaker and those words were, on motion, stricken from the Record
by the House.
On Aug. 21, 1974,(8) the procedure for taking down words
in the House, finding those words unparliamentary and striking the
offending words from the Record was demonstrated, as set out below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 120 Cong. Rec. 29652, 29653, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Thomas P.] O'Neill [Jr., of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I
take this time so I may direct my remarks to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Bauman).
Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, by mutual consent of the leadership on
both sides of the aisle and by the members of the Judiciary
Committee, I offered to this House a resolution. At the completion
of the resolution, Mr. Speaker, I asked that all Members may have 5
legislative days in which to extend their remarks and it was
objected to, Mr. Speaker, by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Bauman). He gave a reason at that particular time.
I told him that I thought he should have cleared it with the
leadership on his own side of the aisle; but nevertheless, Mr.
Speaker, when all the Members had left last night, the gentleman
[[Page 10850]]
came to the well and asked unanimous consent of the then Speaker of
the House who was sitting there, if he may insert his remarks in
the Record, with unanimous consent, following the remarks where he
had objected.
So, Mr. Speaker, in today's Record on page H8724 you will find
the remarks of Mr. Bauman. You will not find the remarks of Mr.
McClory, one of the people who had asked me to do this. You will
not find the remarks of other members of the Judiciary Committee,
who were prepared at that time to put their remarks in the Record;
but you will find the remarks of Mr. Bauman and Mr. Bauman alone.
[I just want to say that I think in my opinion it was a cheap,
sneaky, sly way to operate.]
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I demand
that the gentleman's words be taken down.
The Speaker: (9) The gentleman demands that the
words be taken down.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk will report the words objected to. . . .
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. O'Neill: Mr. Speaker, I take this time so I may direct
my remarks to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman). . . .
I just want to say that I think in my opinion it was a
cheap, sneaky, sly way to operate.
The Speaker: The words in the last sentence are not
parliamentary. Without objection, the offending words will be
stricken from the Record. . . .
Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I do object . . . .
Mr. [B. F.] Sisk [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Sisk moves that the words of the gentleman from
Massachusetts, Mr. O'Neill, be stricken from the Record.
Mr. Sisk: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the
motion.
The previous question was ordered.
The Speaker: The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from California.
The motion was agreed to.
Sec. 60.9 Words that would ordinarily be subject to a point of order in
debate as inappropriate references to another Member may be
permissible when a resolution to expel such Member is pending, if
the words are within the scope of the subject matter of the
resolution.
During consideration, on Mar. 1, 1979,(10) of a
resolution to expel a Member, such Member was characterized as
``arrogant'' by another Member.(11) No objection was raised,
and probably the reference would not in any event have been ruled out
of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 125 Cong. Rec. 3746-53, 96th Cong. 1st Sess. Proceedings relating
to the resolution to expel Mr. Charles C. Diggs, Jr., of
Michigan, are discussed further at Sec. Sec. 23.58, supra, and
80.7, infra.
11. 125 Cong. Rec. 3751, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 60.10 It is not unparliamentary in debate to charac
[[Page 10851]]
terize Members as having praised a foreign dictator in the past in
prior debate.
The following proceedings occurred in the House on Apr. 12,
1984,(12) during consideration of House Concurrent
Resolution 290 (expressing the sense of Congress that no appropriated
funds be used for the purpose of mining the ports or territorial waters
of Nicaragua):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 130 Cong. Rec. 9480, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Tom] Harkin [of Iowa]: I ask the Members to turn the clock
back to 1978 and 1979 when all the debates were going on about
supporting Somoza. And the same Members who are taking the floor
tonight to argue against this resolution are the same Members in
1978 and early 1979 who rose time and time again to tell us how
great Somoza was and to tell us how we had to keep arming and
supporting General Somoza in Nicaragua. They continually voted to
send more arms to Somoza.
Mr. [Henry J.] Hyde [of Illinois]: Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Harkin: No, of course not.
Mr. Hyde: A statement has been made, a misstatement.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (13) The gentleman is out
of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Steny H. Hoyer (Md.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hyde: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the gentleman's words be
taken down. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The words of the gentleman will be
taken down. What specific words?
Mr. Hyde: He said the same people that stood up here tonight
were praising Somoza, and I was here in this House then and I have
never said a syllable of praise for that man. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the words.
The Clerk read as follows: . . .
The Speaker: (14) In the opinion of the Chair, the
words do not apply to any specific Member (15) in an
unparliamentary manner and consequently there has been no
infraction of the rules of the House by the gentleman from Iowa.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
15. Note: The remarks would probably not be ruled out of order even if
referring to a specific Member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
References to Ethics Charges and Disciplinary Proceedings
Sec. 60.11 Although debate must avoid personalities under Rule XIV
clause 1, discussion as to a Member's official conduct is
appropriate, including evidence of charges not sustained by the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, where a disciplinary
resolution relating to that Member is pending.
For examples of debate in the House relating to disciplinary
resolutions against Members, see Sec. 35.13, supra, discussing the
proceedings at 124 Cong. Rec. 36976 et seq., 95th Cong. 2d Sess., Oct.
[[Page 10852]]
13, 1978, relating to House Resolution 1414, in the matter of
Representative Charles H. Wilson of California; and see 124 Cong. Rec.
37005 et seq. for proceedings relating to House Resolution 1415, in the
matter of Representative John J. McFall of California.
Sec. 60.12 Where a resolution to expel a Member is pending before the
House, a transcript of court proceedings on which the proposal of
expulsion is based may be read or inserted in the Record with the
permission of the House, and no point of order lies that the House
may not consider such information.
For an illustration of proceedings in which permission was sought
to read from a transcript
of court proceedings, see Sec. 80.7, infra.
Sec. 60.13 In one instance, during a special-order speech urging the
future expulsion of a Member who refused to refrain from voting in
the House pending his appeal of federal felony convictions relating
to his official conduct, another Member read into the Congressional
Record the indictment in federal court of the Member in question,
where no point of order was raised.
On Feb. 28, 1979,(16) the following proceedings occurred
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 125 Cong. Rec. 3495, 3496, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: (17) Under a previous order of the
House, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich) is recognized for
60 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Newton L.] Gingrich [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, this
evening I have asked for this special order to talk briefly about .
. . the question of whether or not a Member should be expelled.
I have requested the gentleman from the 13th District of
Michigan refrain from voting precisely because something did
happen--he did violate his oath to this House. . . .
[T]omorrow I will offer a privileged motion, the motion of
expulsion, immediately before the House takes up
its other legislative business for the day. . . .
One of our former colleagues has commented on this issue. . . .
I would like to share with my colleagues a letter he wrote
earlier this year:
The letter from Mr. Charles E. Wiggins, former Member from
California, stated in part:
There are two aspects to the question posed: Does the House
have the power to act under the circumstances? And, if so, should
it do so as a matter of sound policy?
The first question is, I believe, free of serious doubt. The
source of Con
[[Page 10853]]
gressional power is Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution. . . .
Congressman Diggs has been convicted of multiple counts of a
felony which, stripped to its essentials, involves stealing from
the public. Whether such an offense is sufficiently serious as to
justify his expulsion, I submit to your good judgment. Personally,
I believe it does, for the public itself is uniquely the victim of
his crime and the circumstances of its commission involve a
criminal misuse of the office itself.
Parliamentarian's Note: The reading and insertion of the
indictment, and possibly portions of the Wiggins letter, would have
been subject to a point of order since in effect impugning the
integrity, motives, and official conduct of a Member when a
disciplinary measure against the Member was not pending on the floor of
the House. Subsequently, Mr. M. Caldwell Butler, of Virginia, obtained
unanimous consent to insert the entire indictment in the Record rather
than read it from the floor. The effect of such request was to preclude
a demand that the words be taken down, inasmuch as the words were not
being uttered on the floor. A question of privileges of the House could
thereafter have been raised by a resolution to strike the offending
words from the Record.
Sec. 60.14 The Speaker reminded the Members, pending the consideration
of a resolution to censure and punish a Member, that while a wide
range of discussion relative to such Member was permitted during
debate, Rule XIV, clause 1, prohibited personalities in debate and
the use of language which is personally abusive.
On July 31, 1979,(18) the Speaker (19) made a
statement regarding procedures to be followed during debate of a
privileged resolution reported from the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct censuring and punishing a Member, as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 125 Cong. Rec. 21584, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
19. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Charles E.] Bennett [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, I call up a
privileged resolution (H. Res. 378) in the matter of Representative
Charles C. Diggs, Jr., and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 378
Resolved,
(1) that Representative Charles C. Diggs, Junior, be
censured . . . .
The Speaker: The Chair wishes to make a statement after which
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bennett) will be recognized for 1
hour.
The Chair must acknowledge the gravity of the pending
resolution inso
[[Page 10854]]
far as the House will be called up to discipline one of its
Members. While there should, of course, be an opportunity to debate
all aspects of this matter, the Chair wishes to remind Members of
the restrictions imposed by clause I, rule XIV, and by the
precedents relating to references to Members in debate. These
restrictions indicate that Members should refrain from using
language which is personally abusive. While a wide range of
discussion relating to conduct of the Member in question will be
permitted, it is the duty of the Chair to maintain proper decorum
in debate. It is the intention of the Chair to enforce the rules.
Sec. 60.15 Where several Members had improperly engaged in
personalities during debate by references to the Speaker and to a
Member who had filed a complaint regarding the Speaker's official
conduct, the Speaker Pro Tempore (the Majority Leader) took the
Chair to announce to the House that Members should not engage in
such debate.
The proceedings of June 14 and 15, 1988, are discussed in
Sec. 57.5, supra.
Sec. 60.16 It is not in order in debate to ``list Members of the House
who have had ethical clouds cast upon them'' unless the subjects of
a pending report from the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct or otherwise before the House on a question of privilege.
On June 15, 1988,(20) Speaker Thomas S. Foley, of
Washington, responded to an inquiry regarding the use of personalities
in debate. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 134 Cong. Rec. 16629, 16630, 100th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Mr. Schumer asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. [Charles E.] Schumer [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, Attorney
General Meese said yesterday that he had to step down to pursue
opportunities in the private sector. . . .
The issue was not just Ed Meese. It was this administration's
disdain for Government that led to its appalling lack of ethical
standards. Ed Meese is just one fish in a foul sea.
Just consider a partial list of Bush-Reagan appointees who have
resigned under a cloud: Richard Allen, Anne Gorsuch Burford,
Michael Deaver, John Fedders, Edwin Gray, Rita Lavelle, Robert
McFarlane, Lyn Nofziger, Oliver North, Theodore Olsen, Melvyn
Paisley, John Poindexter, Paul Thayer, and James Watt. American
voters will remember the hall of shame in November.
Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, if a
Member were to list a similar group of Members of the House who
have had an ethical cloud cast upon them, would it
[[Page 10855]]
be proper to read such a list on the House floor?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: It is not proper, as the Chair has
previously stated, under the rule against personalities in debate,
unless the Members' names are subjects of a report being debated
from the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct or are
otherwise being raised under questions of privilege.
Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Chair, because it is very
interesting that once again we have this double standard in the
House of Representatives, that a Member can come on and criticize
the administration and criticize a whole list of people, some of
whom have never had any charges brought against them whatsoever,
and call that a sleaze factor; but in the House of Representatives,
if we have Members of the House who have similar kinds of clouds
assigned to them, it cannot be mentioned in this well.
Sec. 60.17 It is a breach of order under clause 1 of Rule XIV to allege
in debate that a Member has engaged in conduct similar to the
subject of a complaint pending before the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct against another Member; and under clause 4 of that
rule, the Chair takes the initiative in calling to order Members
improperly engaging in personalities in debate.
Speaker Pro Tempore G. V. (Sonny) Montgomery, of Mississippi,
called a Member to order in the House on Mar. 22, 1989,(1)
as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 135 Cong. Rec. 5130, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Mr. Alexander asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks and to include extraneous material.)
Mr. [Bill] Alexander [of Arkansas]: Mr. Speaker, after arriving
at the Capitol a few minutes ago on this glorious spring day, I
learned that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have
conducted an election for minority whip resulting in the election
of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich) as minority whip. . .
.
I would note to those who are observing that the gentleman from
Georgia made his name, so to speak, by a sustained personal attack
on the good name of Jim Wright, the Speaker of the House of
Representatives who has devoted decades of meritorious service to
our country. The gentleman from Georgia alleged that the Speaker
has circumvented minimum income limits of Members of Congress by
writing a book for which he received a royalty.
Now, it is also to be noted that just this week it was learned
that the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich) also allegedly has a
book deal. It is alleged in the Washington Post this week that the
gentleman from Georgia received a royalty or a payment in the
nature of a royalty. This is apparently similar to the Wright
arrangement which is the basis of the gentleman from Georgia's
complaint before the Ethics Committee.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would state to the gentleman
[[Page 10856]]
that he cannot make personal references, as the gentleman has done
in his remarks.
Sec. 60.18 While comparisons of the recommended disciplinary action
pending before the House in a privileged resolution may be made
with other such actions taken by or reported to the House by an
investigating committee for the purpose of measuring severity of
punishment, it is not in order to discuss the conduct of other
Members where such conduct has not been the result of a committee
reported action.
On Dec. 18, 1987,(2) during consideration of a
privileged resolution (H. Res. 335, disciplining a Member) in the
House, it was held that debate on a resolution recommending a
disciplinary sanction against a Member may not exceed the scope of the
conduct of the accused Member. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 133 Cong. Rec. 36266, 36271, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Julian C.] Dixon [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I call up a
privileged resolution (H. Res. 335) in the matter of Representative
Austin J. Murphy, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 335
Resolved, That the House of Representatives adopt the
report by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct dated
December 16, 1987, in the matter of Representative Austin J.
Murphy of Pennsylvania.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (3) The gentleman from
California [Mr. Dixon] is recognized for 1 hour. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Dave McCurdy (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Newt] Gingrich [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, I commend the
committee for its report and its recommendation. Given the facts, a
reprimand is a reasonable recommendation and I will vote ``yes''
but I sympathize with the plight of Mr. Murphy. We must be careful
not to make a scapegoat of the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
This committee's earlier report on the gentleman from Rhode
Island should be reexamined with this new yardstick. The
committee's letter on the gentlewoman from Ohio should be
scrutinized with this new yardstick. The admission of $24,000 in
election law violations by the gentleman from California should be
held up to this new yardstick.
Finally, the numerous allegations about the Speaker must be----
Mr. [Tommy F.] Robinson [of Arkansas]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry. . . .
I thought we were here today to hear a very serious charge
against one of our colleagues from Pennsylvania, not from
California or other States.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Will the gentleman suspend? Does the
gentleman from Georgia yield?
[[Page 10857]]
Mr. Gingrich: No, I do not yield, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his point of
order.
Mr. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is that we are
here to consider the committee's report against our colleague
Austin Murphy and not against other Members today that the charges
have not been substantiated or presented to the committee. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: . . . On the debate currently ongoing,
there can be references made to other cases reported by the
committee, not by individual or by name. The gentleman from
Georgia, as the Chair understands, has not mentioned other
individuals and the gentleman from Arkansas----
Mr. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, he has, too.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman may compare disciplinary
actions reported by the committee and should confine his remarks to
the matters before the House.
Mr. Robinson: I have a further parliamentary inquiry, Mr.
Speaker. To my knowledge, these charges are not before the
committee.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Georgia will
proceed in order.
Sec. 60.19 Reference should not be made in debate to pending
investigations undertaken by the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct, including suggestions of courses of action, nor should
critical characterizations be made of members of that committee who
have investigated a Member's conduct.
On Mar. 3, 1995,(4) the Speaker responded to inquiries
made about the propriety of remarks made by a Member with reference to
certain investigations:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 141 Cong. Rec. p.____, 104th Cong. 1st Sess. See also the
proceedings of Apr. 1, 1992 (138 Cong. Rec. p.____, 102d Cong.
2d Sess.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Harold L.] Volkmer [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, last year
Members of the present majority complained about the investigation
by Special Counsel Robert Fiske. They claimed that Fiske was a
friend of the White House and that his investigation of Whitewater
was not going far enough.
I ask the Members of the House to consider these facts. The
current chairman of the House Ethics Committee cast the deciding
vote for the Speaker in the 1989 whip's race. The chairman of the
Ethics Committee seconded the nomination for Speaker this year. The
chairman of our Ethics Committee last year tried to help our
current Speaker by closing the pending Ethics Committee complaint
against him.
Two other majority members of the House Ethics Committee have
had personal dealings with the personal PAC of the Speaker, GOPAC,
one of them as a contributor, and another as a recipient for his
reelection.
Given these facts, I am sure those who call for a replacement
of Special
[[Page 10858]]
Counsel Fiske will now join me in calling for a special counsel to
investigate the allegations against Speaker Gingrich, and it should
not take 100 days.
Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (5) The gentleman will
state his parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. John T. Doolittle (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, was not the entire speech of the
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer], just a moment ago, out of
order, because it was a direct reference to Members of this body? .
. .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Members should not refer to pending
Standards Committee investigations.
Mr. Walker: I have a further parliamentary inquiry, Mr.
Speaker.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Walker: Beyond the pending ethics investigation, he also
may have had personal references to the chairman of the Ethics
Committee. Is that also not out of order?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Members should not so refer to the
Standards Committee or any Members thereof.
Mr. Walker: A further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. My
understanding is that what the gentleman has just done in the House
was a speech which was entirely out of order before the body: is
that correct?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is responding in a general
way to the proper debate in the House with respect to ethics
investigations.
Mr. Walker: I thank the Chair.
Mr. Volkmer: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. Volkmer: Is the Chair ruling that it is improper for any
Member to request a special counsel in an investigation being
conducted by the Ethics Committee, which action has not been taken
by the Ethics Committee?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Members should not refer to pending
Standards Committee investigations, or suggest courses of action
within that committee.
Mr. Volkmer: I thank the Chair.
References to Groups of Members
Sec. 60.20 Clause 1 of Rule XIV proscribes Members in debate from
engaging in personalities, including references that an
identifiable group of Members (``the Democratic leadership'')
committed a crime (``stole'' an election).
On Mar. 21, 1989,(6) the Speaker took the initiative to
focus the attention of Members on the prohibition in clause 1 of Rule
XIV against Members engaging in personalities during debate and called
to order a Member alleging
[[Page 10859]]
that an identifiable group of sitting Members had committed a crime.
The proceedings in the House were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 135 Cong. Rec. 5016, 5017, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker,
bipartisanship in the House has taken a curious twist. It now
appears that the Democrat leadership is attempting to influence and
interfere in the race for Republican whip. . . .
To those Democrats who have been a part of trying to influence
the outcome of this election, let it be noted that the last time
you played this game, you stole the Indiana seat from the
Republican Party. That outrage and this one tell us more than we
need to know about your definition of bipartisanship.
The Speaker: (7) The gentleman is not proceeding in
a parliamentary manner. He used the word ``stole.'' His accusation
that Members of the House stole an election is improper, and the
gentleman realizes that.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, his imputation that individuals on the broad
generic term ``House leadership'' in an attempt to interfere with
his election is also, I think, incorrect, and I would ask the
gentleman to reconsider his thoughts on that. . . .
Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, instead of ``House leadership,''
should I name names?
The Speaker: The gentleman is engaging in personalities and
when he uses words like the word ``stole'' with reference to an
identifiable group of Members, that has been held improper.
Sec. 60.21 The Speaker ruled that a statement made in Committee of the
Whole that another Member should not ``let this element over here
who advocates unilateral disarmament to browbeat you into thinking
they know more than you do'' did not refer to or reflect on a
particular Member of the House and was therefore in order, but the
Speaker cautioned that in the tone or mannerisms of a Member
speaking in debate it is not in order to make any statement which
would be personally offensive to another Member.
On May 26, 1983,(8) it was demonstrated that, when a
demand is made that words spoken in debate in Committee of the Whole be
taken down, the words are reported by the Clerk, the Committee rises
and the words are reported again to the House, and the Speaker rules
whether the words are in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 129 Cong. Rec. 14048, 14049, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Thomas F.] Hartnett [of South Carolina]: . . . The
gentleman from California, for whom I have a great deal of respect,
is, through his proposals, through his amendment, advocating
unilateral disarmament on behalf of the United States. . . .
I would say to my colleague from Indiana that when we are told
by the gentleman from California that we go
[[Page 10860]]
beyond a deterrence to a war-fighting capability, that when your
deterrence is no longer a deterrence it is probably time that you
build that deterrence at least to a war-fighting capability.
I do not want my colleague from Indiana to be ashamed
whatsoever or to let this element over here who advocates
unilateral disarmament to browbeat you into thinking they know more
than you do.
Mr. [Ronald V.] Dellums [of California]: . . . Mr. Chairman, I
object and I move that the gentleman's words be taken down. . . .
The Chairman Pro Tempore: (9) . . . The Clerk will
report the words of the gentleman from South Carolina.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Thomas J. Downey (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Hartnett. I do not want my colleague from Indiana to be
ashamed whatsoever or to let this element over here who
advocates unilateral disarmament to browbeat you into thinking
they know more than you do. . . .
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Committee will rise.
Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed
the chair, Mr. Downey of New York, Chairman pro tempore of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported
that the Committee having had under consideration the bill (H.R.
2969) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1984 for the
Armed Forces . . . and for other purposes, reported that certain
words used in the debate were objected to and on request were taken
down and read at the Clerk's desk, and he herewith reported the
same to the House.
The Speaker: (10) The Clerk will report the words
objected to. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair is ready to rule.
The statement as made by the gentleman from South Carolina is
apparently not directed at any particular Member.
The House has had rulings in situations, perhaps analogous to
this in the past. A statement by the gentleman from Mississippi
(Mr. Rankin), that ``It has been amazing to me to hear these
Members rise on the floor and give aid and comfort to those
enemies, those traitors within our gates, for every Communist in
America is a traitor to our Government and is dedicated to its
overthrow.'' That was held in order by Speaker Martin on November
24, 1947, since it did not reflect on any individual Members.
This is a ruling that has been made by this House before and it
seems that there is an established precedent.
While the remarks of the gentleman are in order, the Chair
would caution him that in the tone of his voice or things of that
manner it is against the rules of the House to make any statement
that would be personally offensive.
The Chair has ruled that both the gentleman's statements were
not personal to any particular Member of the House.
The Committee will resume its sitting.
Sec. 60.22 In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Chair indicated
that it was not in order in debate to
[[Page 10861]]
refer to an identifiable group of sitting Members as having
committed a crime, such as ``stealing'' an election.
The prohibition in Rule XIV, clause 1,(11) against
Members' engaging in ``personality'' during debate, applies to
allegations that an identifiable group of sitting Members have
committed a crime. Such application of the rule is shown by the
proceedings of Feb. 27, 1985,(12) in which a statement made
by Mr. John Rowland, of Connecticut, as indicated below, concerning an
allegedly ``stolen'' election, was the subject of a demand that the
words be taken down:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 749 (1995).
12. 131 Cong. Rec. 3898, 3899, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Andrew] Jacobs [Jr., of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, I demand
the gentleman's words be taken down in that he said ``stolen.''
The Chairman: Words will be taken down.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (13) The Clerk will read
the words taken down.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Tommy F. Robinson (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
The scary thing about it, as a person who served in the
legislature for 4 years, and as a person who happens to be
sitting as the youngest Member of Congress, I find it difficult
that the first situation that we run into in this House, the
first class project, as we may call it, is trying to retain a
seat that has been stolen from the Republican side of the
aisle, and I think it is rather frustrating.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Would the gentleman care to modify his
remarks before the Chair rules?
Mr. Rowland of Connecticut: Yes, I would, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: In what way does the gentleman care to
modify?
Mr. Rowland of Connecticut: I would like to ask unanimous
consent that the words objected to be withdrawn. . . .
The word ``stolen,'' Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from Connecticut?
There was no objection. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Georgia is
recognized.
Mr. [Newt] Gingrich [of Georgia]: I would yield in just a
moment, after asking the Chair if in fact Members were convinced an
action were being taken which involved a word which was ruled by
the Chair to be inappropriate, how could a Member report to the
House on that action? Should we substitute the word ``banana''?
What is it one should say if in fact--not just as a joke, but if in
fact--Members of the Republican side honestly believed strongly
something is being done? In other words, is ``unconstitutional'' an
acceptable term but ``illegal'' not acceptable? . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Simply put, Members should not accuse
other Members of committing a crime. When the majority is accused
of ``stealing,'' that may suggest illegality. Other
[[Page 10862]]
words could be used but not those accusing Members of committing a
crime.
Mr. Gingrich: What if one honestly believes, for a moment, that
a crime is being committed? Would it in fact be against the rules--
--
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Members may not engage in
personalities.
Mr. Gingrich: But he did not talk in personalities.
Mr. Rowland of Connecticut: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman
yield?
Mr. Gingrich: I will be glad to yield to the gentleman.
Mr. Rowland of Connecticut: I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I would simply point out that I did not refer to
anybody stealing an election. I just referred to the frustration
that we as freshmen are exhibiting and fearing as we go through the
deliberations. I did not refer to anybody.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman seemed to refer to the
majority of the House, that it had stolen the election.
Characterizations of Member
Sec. 60.23 A statement in debate attacking personal characteristics of
another Member while on the floor is not in order.
On Mar. 16, 1939,(14) Mr. John Taber, of New York,
demanded that certain words used by Mr. Lee E. Geyer, of California, in
reference to another Member be taken down. Mr. Geyer used derogatory
terms in describing the Member's physical characteristics and his
overbearing manner in debate. Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama,
ruled as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 84 Cong. Rec. 2871, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The words objected to and which have been taken down and read
from the Clerk's desk very patently violate the rule, because the
words alleged do involve matters of personal reference and
personality.
Mr. Geyer then asked and was granted unanimous consent to withdraw
the words in question.
Sec. 60.24 A statement in debate referring to another Member's record
with the FBI was held unparliamentary.
On Apr. 30, 1945,(15) certain words used in debate by
Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, were objected to by Mr. Vito
Marcantonio, of New York, and demanded to be taken down. Speaker Sam
Rayburn, of Texas, ruled that the words were not parliamentary and by
unanimous consent the words were stricken from the Congressional
Record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 91 Cong. Rec. 3992, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: The statement objected to read as follows:
``I will say to the gentleman
[[Page 10863]]
now, don't you start--don't you start comparing anybody's record,
because I have got yours for a long time back with both the Dies
Committee and the FBI.''
Sec. 60.25 In response to a parliamentary inquiry during debate on a
question of personal privilege (involving derogatory statements to
the press by one Member against others), the Speaker Pro Tempore
advised that the term ``crybaby'' would not be an appropriate
phrase to be used in the debate as a reference to a particular
Member.
On May 31, 1984,(16) the following proceedings occurred
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 130 Cong. Rec. 14624, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Barney] Frank [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry. . . .
Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: I yield for a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (17) The gentleman will
state his parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. John P. Murtha (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Frank: The parliamentary inquiry is dealing with the
question of propriety. Is the term ``crybaby'' an appropriate
phrase to be used in a debate in the House?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would hope that the phrase
would not be used.
Questions of Personal Privilege Arising Out of Personal Attacks
Sec. 60.26 A Member may not rise to a question of personal privilege
under Rule IX merely to complain of words previously spoken of him
in debate.
On Mar. 16, 1988,(18) the Chair responded to a
parliamentary inquiry regarding a point of personal privilege, as
indicated be-low:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 134 Cong. Rec. 4087, 100th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert K.] Dornan of California: Mr. Speaker, I have a
point of parliamentary inquiry. . . .
I would like to inquire if this Member is able to take a point
of personal privilege, that is 1 hour of debate on the House floor
at the moment it is granted, if I feel that my honor was impugned
when the majority whip, who also spoke way beyond 1 minute . . . if
Mr. Coelho tells me that I have sold out the young men and women
that I visited with not more than a month ago who are at this
moment being strafed and rocketed by Soviet gunships, to tell me to
my face--and I am sitting in the front row--that I sold them out
impugned my honor.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (19) The gentleman will
state a parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Gary L. Ackerman (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 10864]]
Mr. Dornan of California: Do I have a right for a point of
personal privilege on that?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: That is not a remedy that the
gentleman has under the circumstances.
Mr. Dornan of California: May I ask the ruling of the Chair as
to why I cannot maintain a point of personal privilege that my
honor was impugned.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The point of personal privilege does
not derive from words spoken in debate.
--Press Attacks
Sec. 60.27 Press accounts of a Member's criticisms, both during debate
and off the floor, of another Member may give rise to a question of
personal privilege; thus, on one occasion, Members including the
Majority Leader rose to questions of personal privilege under Rule
IX to respond to press accounts of another Member's criticisms of
their efforts to communicate with a foreign government concerning
that country's human rights policies.
The following proceedings occurred in the House on May 15, 1984:
(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 130 Cong. Rec. 12207, 12211, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [James C.] Wright [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a
point of personal privilege. . . .
My point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker, is that in the
Washington Post on Monday, yesterday, appeared an article which
characterizes a communication signed by 10 Members of the Congress,
including this Member, as the Democratic foreign policy
establishment writing a letter which states explicitly that it
opposes the policies of the American Government and that it amounts
to a virtual teaching document to bring Third World Soviet colonies
into the process of manipulating American politics and politicians.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (1) The gentleman has
stated a question of personal privilege and is recognized for 1
hour. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. John Joseph Moakley (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [David R.] Obey [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a
point of personal privilege, citing the same letter referred to by
the majority leader.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his
privilege.
Mr. Obey: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of personal privilege
because I am a signator of the same letter which was referred to by
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich) in the press.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey) is recognized for 1 hour.
--Insertions in Record
Sec. 60.28 Clause 1 of Rule XIV, requiring Members to ``avoid
personality'' during debate, prohibits references in debate to
newspaper accounts used in support of a Member's personal criticism
of a
[[Page 10865]]
sitting Member in a way which would be unparliamentary if uttered
on the floor as the Member's own words; and the prohibition against
reading in debate of press accounts which are personally critical
of a sitting Member does not constitute ``censorship'' of the press
by the House, but rather is consistent with House rules which
preclude debate or insertions in the Record which engage in
``personality.''
On Feb. 25, 1985,(2) the following proceedings occurred
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 131 Cong. Rec. 3344-46, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (3) Un-der a previous order
of the House, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich) is
recognized for 60 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Sam B. Hall, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Newt] Gingrich [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, I am going to
insert in the Record today and read into the Record several
editorials, one from the Atlanta Journal and Constitution
yesterday, Sunday, February 24, and one this morning from the Wall
Street Journal, both of them talking about the tragic situation in
which the Democratic leadership has blocked Mr. McIntyre of Indiana
from being seated. . . .
Yet twice the House has voted to deny McIntyre the seat
while it investigates. . . .
The technicalities aside, the case is interesting for what
it says about the Congress. . . . In the second vote only five
Democrats dared abandon O'Neill and the leadership.
Georgia's Democrats went right along with the herd, in
defiance of basic decency. . . . A few Republicans near each
election try to remind voters that the Democrats' first vote
will be for O'Neill and that vote signals bondage. This year it
meant the abandonment of fairness. . . .
Ms. [Mary Rose] Oakar [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, parliamentary
inquiry. . . .
Mr. Gingrich: Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman has not asked me to
yield, and I was in fact making an inquiry myself to the Chair. I
was asking the Chair to rule in this sort of setting if one is
reporting to the House on the written opinion of a columnist in
which the columnist has said very strong things, is it appropriate
for the House to be informed of this and, if so, what is the
correct procedure?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The ruling of the Chair is that the
gentleman should not read into the Record things which would
clearly be outside the rules of this House. . . .
Mr. Gingrich: Let me continue to ask the Chair, because I am a
little confused, in other words, if a columnist writing in the
largest newspaper in the State of Georgia says very strong things
about his concern about the House's behavior, would the House in
effect censor a report of that concern?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: No; the House does not censor any
report of that kind. The gentleman does take the responsibility,
however, for words uttered on the floor, and he is certainly
capable of leaving out those items
[[Page 10866]]
which he knows would be outside the rules of this House. . . .
Mr. Gingrich: If I may continue a moment to ask the gentleman,
if we are in a situation where in the view of some people, such as
Mr. Williams of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, very strong
things are legitimately being said, and this is obviously his
viewpoint, what is the appropriate manner in which to report his
language to the House?
That is not me saying these things; he is saying these things.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman knows the rules of the
House, I am certain, and he can take out or delete any things that
he knows would violate the rules of this House if spoken from the
floor.
Mr. Gingrich: Under the Rules of the House . . . if one were to
only utter the words on the floor that were appropriate, but were
to then insert the item in the Record, is the Record then edited by
the House? That is, if it was put in as an extension of remarks or
put in under general leave?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: As the gentleman knows, there are
precedents where a question of privilege can be raised about
certain things inserted in the Record, and those could be raised if
the gentleman attempts to insert them into the Record, or not. . .
.
As the gentleman knows, words spoken on the floor of the House
can be objected to.
The following exchange took place on Feb. 27, 1985: (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 131 Cong. Rec. 3902, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Thomas S.] Foley [of Washington]: . . . I came to the
floor [to] suggest that it is important that we have a balanced
opportunity to discuss these issues. . . . I simply think it is
important that we observe the rules of the House in the course of
debate, and I think the two gentlemen, Mr. Walker and Mr. Gingrich,
know that it is not permissible under long-standing rules of the
House and interpretations of the Parliamentarians . . . to read
into the Record statements that would be inappropriate if made by a
Member directly. . . .
I just wanted to make the point that these gentlemen in the
well and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Walker) know the
rules very well. They are very skilled at them and they know that
it is inappropriate to use
a newspaper article, however widely published, to violate the rules
of the House.
--Remarks by Other Colleagues
Sec. 60.29 It is not in order in debate to refer to the official
conduct of other Members where such conduct is not the subject then
pending before the House by way of a report of the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct or as a question of the privilege of
the House; nor is it in order in debate to refer to a
``hypothetical'' Member of the House in a derogatory fashion where
it is evident that a particular Member is being described.
[[Page 10867]]
On Nov. 3, 1989,(5) it was demonstrated that where a
Member transgresses clause 1 of Rule XIV, by engaging in personalities
in debate, the Chair takes the initiative to call him to order pursuant
to clause 4 of Rule XIV. The proceedings in the House were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 135 Cong. Rec. 27077, 27080-82, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (6) Un-der a previous order
of the House, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dannemeyer] is
recognized for 60 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Jolene Unsoeld (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [William E.] Dannemeyer [of California]: . . . What is a
person to think after breaking the law because of an obsession with
homosexual sodomy and having his party leader state publicly that
he is a fine man and a credit to public service? . . .
One party, the Democrats, openly courts homosexual votes and
defends the behavior as if homosexual sodomy is a fundamental civil
right. The other party, the Republicans, while some of its members
are kowtowing to homosexuals, still refuses to legitimize
homosexual sodomy in the public arena.
The ramifications of this juxtaposition are stark. For
instance, take one Democrat and one Republican both discovered in
the course of homosexual misdeeds. The former, we will say, is
apologetic, but not contrite. The latter is both apologetic and
contrite. Isn't it fair to say that the member whose party
leadership condones homosexual behavior is more apt to come under
less condemnation than the member whose party leadership has
consistently renounced homosexual behavior?
In this hypothetical situation, the sword of Damocles hangs
precariously over the head of the Republican. His political career
is in deep jeopardy. Ironically, the Democrat, with similar
circumstances, is allowed by party leaders to use the same sword of
Damocles to carve out a lure for the Cretan Bull! . . .
Article I, section 5, clause 2 of the United States
Constitution provides that:
Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings,
punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the
concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.
We should all be clear that at issue when the House takes
disciplinary action of this latter sort is not whether a Member is
guilty of any criminal wrongdoing. At issue is whether or not a
Member is unfit for participation in House proceedings. Wrongdoing
can be the basis for considering a punishment, but punishment does
not depend on indictments or convictions. . . .
Let me make it easy for Members. Let's say, hypothetically,
that a Member has admitted to violating several laws, both felonies
and misdemeanors, involving moral turpitude. And that the
punishments accompanying these illegal violations combine to total
nearly 15 years in prison. . . .
I want to make clear to my colleagues that at the appropriate
time in the near future, I will offer a resolution, in one form or
another, to expel [two Members specified]. . . .
No Member can legitimately take issue that I have interfered in
the ju
[[Page 10868]]
risdiction of the Ethics Committee by my comments here today. My
indirect or direct comments made about [the two Members] have only
concerned activities the former has admitted to and the latter has
been convicted on. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will pause. The
gentleman is discussing a matter pending before the Ethics
Committee. I would remind the gentleman from California that clause
1 of rule XIV prevents Members in debate from engaging in
personalities. Clause 4 of that rule provides that if any member
transgresses the rules of the House, the Speaker shall, or any
Member may, call him to order.
Mr. Dannemeyer: . . . George Washington Law Professor John
Banzhaf has done extensive research on a case of Member ``X.'' He
concludes that Member ``X'' has publicly admitted to committing
crimes, and a refusal to take any action would undermine the
public's confidence in the mechanism set up to ensure that Members
of Congress abide by ethical and moral standards at least as high
as those to which we currently hold attorneys, cadets at the
Nation's military academies, high military officials, and even
school principals. . . .
The Boston Globe wrote, Were Member X's transgressions serious
enough to warrant his departure from Congress? Yes. For his own
good and for the good of his constituents, his causes and
Congress''----
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will cease. The Chair
would remind the gentleman, and will repeat again, and will read
the Speaker's full statement, clause 1 of rule XIV prevents Members
in debate from engaging in personalities. Clause 4 of that rule
provides that if any Member transgresses the rules of the House,
the Speaker shall, or any Member may, call him to order. Members
may recall that on December 18, 1987, the Chair enunciated the
standard that debate would not be proper if it attempted to focus
on the conduct of a Member about whom a report had been filed by
the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct or whose conduct was
not the subject of a privileged matter then pending before the
House. Similarly, the Chair would suggest that debate is not proper
which speculates on the motivations of a Member who may have filed
a complaint before the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
against another Member.
Mr. Dannemeyer: Madam Speaker, I have no longer made reference
to a specific Member. I have merely made reference to ``Member X.''
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is referring to
newspaper stories which specifically names Members.
The gentleman may proceed within the rules of the House.
CHAPTER 29
Consideration and Debate
G. REFERENCES TO HOUSE, COMMITTEES, OR MEMBERS
Sec. 61. -- Use of Colloquialisms
The use in debate of colloquial expressions, or familiar terms used
in conversation, is governed by their current meaning and by the
context in which they are uttered.(7) The Speaker has on
occa
[[Page 10869]]
sion referred to dictionaries to ascertain the current definitions of
common expressions used on the floor in reference to
Members.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Although the statesmanship of a Member may be questioned, a
contemptuous remark, such as ``pothouse politician,'' may not
be used in debate; see 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2527.
8. See Sec. 61.13, infra. -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
References to Physical Characteristics
Sec. 61.1 References to a Member having a ``hand like a ham'', grasping
a microphone until it ``groaned from mad torture'', and stamping up
and down on the House floor ``like a wild man'' were held out of
order.
On Mar. 16, 1939,(9) Mr. John Taber, of New York,
demanded that the following words used by Mr. Lee E. Geyer, of
California, in reference to another Member be taken down:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 84 Cong. Rec. 2871, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have seen him come out [on the House floor] with a hand that
only he possesses, a hand like a ham, and grasp this delicate
[microphone] until it groaned from mad torture. I have seen him
come on the floor and stamp up and down like a wild man.
Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, ruled as follows:
The words objected to and which have been taken down and read
from the Clerk's desk very patently violate the rule, because the
words alleged do involve matters of personal reference and
personality.
Mr. Geyer then asked and was granted unanimous consent to withdraw
the words in question.
Use of Particular Terms
--Cheap, Sneaky, Sly
Sec. 61.2 The Speaker held unparliamentary a reference in debate to
another Member's proceeding in a ``cheap, sneaky, sly way.''
On Aug. 21, 1974,(10) Mr. Robert E. Bauman, of Maryland,
demanded that the words below, as used in debate in reference to him by
Mr. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr., of Massachusetts, be taken down. After
being read by the Clerk, Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, ruled the
words out of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 120 Cong. Rec. 29652, 29653, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. O'Neill: Mr. Speaker, I take this time so I may direct my
remarks to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman).
Yesterday, by mutual consent of the leadership on both sides of
the aisle and by the Members of the Judiciary Committee, I offered
to this House a resolution. At the completion of the resolution,
Mr. Speaker, I asked that
[[Page 10870]]
all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to extend their
remarks and it was objected to, Mr. Speaker, by the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Bauman). He gave a reason at that particular time.
I told him that I thought he should have cleared it with the
leadership on his own side of the aisle; but nevertheless, Mr.
Speaker, when all the Members had left last night, the gentleman
came to the well and asked unanimous consent of the then Speaker of
the House who was sitting there, if he may insert his remarks in
the Record, with unanimous consent, following the remarks where he
had objected. So, Mr. Speaker, in today's Record on page 29362 you
will find the remarks of Mr. Bauman. You will not find the remarks
of Mr. McClory, one of the people who had asked me to do this. You
will not find the remarks of other Members of the Judiciary
Committee, who were prepared at that time to put their remarks in
the record; but you will find the remarks of Mr. Bauman and Mr.
Bauman alone.
I just want to say that I think in my opinion it was a cheap,
sneaky, sly way to operate.
The House agreed to a motion to strike the objectionable words from
the Record.
--Slippery, Snide, and Sharp Practices
Sec. 61.3 A statement in debate ``where I come from the people do not
like slippery, snide, and sharp practices,'' was held in order as
not reflecting on any Member.
On July 26, 1951,(11) Mr. John J. Rooney, of New York,
while discussing opposition amendments to a pending bill, stated as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 97 Cong. Rec. 8968, 8969, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where I come from great faith is put on a man's ability to
stand up and fight for what he believes and what he thinks is best
for the country. The people in my district do not like slippery,
snide, and sharp practices.
Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, demanded that the words be taken
down and Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled as follows:
. . . The Chair does not think that it should offend anybody
for the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rooney] to brag of his
constituents, as to their character or as to their ability. It
appears to the Chair that these words were spoken with reference to
an amendment and not with respect to a Member of the House of
Representatives; and therefore, there is no reflection on any
Member of the House.
--Alleging ``Coverup''
Sec. 61.4 An allegation in debate in the Senate that a colleague ``did
all he could to cover up wrongdoing'' was held to be a breach of
order as impugning the integrity or conduct of another Senator.
On Mar. 20, 1968,(12) Senator Joseph S. Clark, of
Pennsylvania,
[[Page 10871]]
and Senator Carl T. Curtis, of Nebraska, were engaged in a colloquy in
relation to the investigation of an employee of the Senate. Senator
Curtis stated to Senator Clark ``you did all you could to cover up
wrongdoing.'' Senator Clark requested the Chair to admonish Senator
Curtis for that language and to require him to take his seat under the
Standing Rules of the Senate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 114 Cong. Rec. 7153, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Presiding Officer Birch E. Bayh, of Indiana, ruled that the
language used was objectionable un-der Rule 14, prohibiting a Senator
from impugning the integrity or conduct of a colleague in debate.
Senator Curtis was then permitted to proceed in order.
--Horning In
Sec. 61.5 In contrast to the usual procedure of taking words down, a
Member sought to rise to a question of personal privilege to
challenge another Member's reference to him in debate as ``another
guy'' who was ``horning in on the act.''
On Aug. 4, 1970,(13) Mr. Page H. Belcher, of Oklahoma,
referred to Mr. Silvio O. Conte, of Massachusetts, in debate as
``another guy'' who was ``horning in on the act'' in relation to a
certain measure before the House. Rather than demand that the words be
taken down, Mr. Conte sought recognition for a point of personal
privilege and requested a definition from Mr. Belcher of ``another
guy'' and ``horning in''. After some discussion, Mr. Thomas G.
Abernethy, of Mississippi, stated the point of order that the proper
procedure was to take the words down and have a ruling by the Chair on
whether they were in order. Speaker Pro Tempore Edward P. Boland, of
Massachusetts, ruled that the point of order came too late and
entertained a unanimous-consent request that the words ``another guy''
used by Mr. Belcher be stricken from the Record and be substituted by
``the gentleman from Massachusetts.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 116 Cong. Rec. 27130, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Loose Talk
Sec. 61.6 A statement in debate accusing colleagues who opposed a
measure of ``loose talk'' was held merely an expression of opinion
mentioning no Member by name and not a breach of order.
On May 6, 1941,(14) the following words used in debate
in
[[Page 10872]]
the Committee of the Whole were demanded to be taken down:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 87 Cong. Rec. 3670, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If everybody would talk as loosely and recklessly with the
truth as some of these opponents of the administration measures
that they are carrying on, it is no wonder there is confusion.
The Committee rose, and Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled that
the language objected to simply expressed an opinion that certain
things bring about confusion in the House and mentioned no Member of
the House by name. Therefore the words were not violative of the rules
of the House.
--Mouthpiece for Another
Sec. 61.7 Where a statement that a Member spoke as a ``mouthpiece'' for
a professional medical association was objected to in debate, the
statement was by unanimous consent changed to ``self-appointed
spokesman'' before a ruling on the point of order was made.
On June 5, 1962,(15) Mr. John D. Dingell, Jr., of
Michigan, referred to another Member as a ``mouthpiece for the AMA
[American Medical Association].'' Mr. Thomas B. Curtis, of Missouri,
demanded that the words be taken down, but before a ruling was made,
Mr. Dingell asked unanimous consent to change the word ``mouthpiece''
to ``self-appointed spokesman.'' There was no objection to the request
and the point of order was withdrawn.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 108 Cong. Rec. 9739, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Crybaby
Sec. 61.8 In response to a parliamentary inquiry during debate on a
question of personal privilege (involving derogatory statements to
the press by one Member against others), the Speaker Pro Tempore
advised that the term ``crybaby'' would not be an appropriate
phrase to be used in the debate as a reference to a particular
Member.
On May 31, 1984,(16) the following proceedings occurred
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 130 Cong. Rec. 14624, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Barney] Frank [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry. . . .
Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: I yield for a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (17) The gentleman will
state his parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. John P. Murtha (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 10873]]
Mr. Frank: The parliamentary inquiry is dealing with the
question of propriety. Is the term ``crybaby'' an appropriate
phrase to be used in a debate in the House?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would hope that the phrase
would not be used.
--Pinko
Sec. 61.9 It is not in order in
debate to refer to another Member of the House as ``pinko.''
On Oct. 31, 1963,(18) Mr. Edgar Franklin Foreman, of
Texas, was recognized under previous order to address the House for 60
minutes. Mr. Foreman discussed a newspaper story which quoted him as
calling 20 of his colleagues in the House ``pinkos.'' When Mr. Foreman
commenced to describe the one occasion on which he called a Member a
pinko, Mr. John J. Rooney, of New York, demanded that his words be
taken down and then stated as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 109 Cong. Rec. 20742, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that it is my understanding of
the rules that no Member of the House may be labeled a ``pinko'' by
anyone who would put himself above everybody else in the House,
regardless which side of the aisle he is on, this becomes so
interesting that I withdraw my demand to have the words taken down
at this point so that I may hear what further the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Foreman] has to say that is of interest.
Mr. Foreman continued:
The fact of the matter is, as I was saying, to set the record
straight, I have only referred to one Member of this body as a
``pinko.'' On Friday, October 18, 1963, during a speech in San
Jose, Calif., I referred to the gentleman from California, Mr. Don
Edwards, as Don ``Pinko'' Edwards.
Mr. Rooney then demanded that those words be taken down and Speaker
John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, ruled that to characterize any
Member of the House as a ``pinko'' is in violation of the rules.
The House then rejected a unanimous-consent request for Mr. Foreman
to continue with the balance of his statement.
--You Are Going To ``Skin Us''
Sec. 61.10 A statement in debate ``you are going to skin us'' was held
merely a colloquialism which did not reflect upon any Member and
was in order.
On Feb. 18, 1941,(19) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan,
used the following language in relation to his opposition on a certain
measure: ``You are going to skin us, are
[[Page 10874]]
you not?'' Mr. Robert F. Rich, of Pennsylvania, demanded that the words
be taken down, the committee rose, and Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas,
ruled that the expression contained in those words was merely a
colloquialism which did not reflect in an unparliamentary manner upon
any Member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 87 Cong. Rec. 1126, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Snoop
Sec. 61.11 It is a breach of order in debate to refer to another Member
as a ``snooper.''
On July 16, 1935,(20) Mr. Hamilton Fish, Jr., of New
York, referred to Mr. Wright Patman, of Texas, in debate as a
``snooper.'' The words were taken down. After consulting Webster's
Dictionary and reading the definition of the term as ``to look or pry
about or into others' affairs in a sneaking way,'' or as ``one who
snoops, a prying sneak,'' Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, held
that the use of the term violated the rules of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 79 Cong. Rec. 11256, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Stool Pigeon
Sec. 61.12 It is a breach of order in debate to refer to another Member
as a ``stool pigeon.''
On July 16, 1935,(1) Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of
Tennessee, ruled that the use of the term ``stool pigeon'' by a Member
in debate referring to another Member was clearly a breach of order.
The Speaker stated that it was not necessary for the Chair or for any
Member to consult the dictionary in order to ascertain the meaning of
the language objected to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Yapping
Sec. 61.13 The word ``yapping'' used in debate to refer to another
Member's remarks is not unparliamentary.
On June 16, 1934,(2) Speaker Henry T. Rainey, of
Illinois, ruled that the word ``yapping,'' used by Mr. George E.
Foulkes, of Michigan, in debate to refer to addresses on the floor by
Mr. John Taber, of New York, was not unparliamentary. The Speaker had
consulted the dictionary and stated that the term meant ``to talk
loudly; chatter; scold'' and was not objectionable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 78 Cong. Rec. 12114, 73d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Lacking Guts
Sec. 61.14 The Chair on one occasion intervened to admonish Members not
to characterize the motivations of other Members, without a
challenge from the floor and
[[Page 10875]]
without any specific Member being mentioned.
The following proceedings occurred in the House on July 9,
1992,(3) during consideration of House Resolution 513 (the
rule providing for consideration of H.R. 5518, Department of
Transportation appropriations for fiscal year 1993):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 137 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 102d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: . . . The problem is
that the Democratic leadership and the Committee on Rules that they
control are so weak and pathetic that they cannot stand up for
honor and they cannot stand up for law. . . .
Why can you not at least have the guts to stand up for real
deficit reduction and for the budget process? . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (4) Members are reminded to
refrain from characterizing the actions or motivations of other
Members of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Michael R. McNulty (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAPTER 29
Consideration and Debate
G. REFERENCES TO HOUSE, COMMITTEES, OR MEMBERS
Sec. 62. --Questionable Motives
Members may not in debate impugn the motives of other named Members
in the performance of their legislative duties.(5) A
reasonable difference of opinion on the intent of another Member in
offering a bill or debating a proposition may be stated,(6)
as may an opinion on the general motives of the House or a political
party in adopting or rejecting a proposition.(7) But an
assertion that a Member's use of the legislative process is motivated
by personal gain or is deceitful is not in order.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. A Member must avoid personality in debate. Rule XIV clause 1, House
Rules and Manual Sec. 749 (1995).
In the early practice of the House the Speaker customarily
intervened in debate to prevent even the mildest imputation on
the motives of Members; see 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 5161,
5162.
6. Compare Sec. Sec. 62.2-62.5, infra.
Purposely misquoting a Member's remarks is a breach of
order. See 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5150.
7. See Sec. 62.7, infra (motive of political party).
If words used to describe the motive of the House are
objectionable in themselves, they are a breach of order; see
Sec. 65.6, infra (characterization of amendment as
``demogogic'' and ``racist'').
8. See Sec. 62.8, infra; 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 5147, 5149; 8
Cannon's Precedents
Sec. 2546. -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Generally
Sec. 62.1 It is a breach of order in debate to impugn the motives of
other named Members.
On Feb. 7, 1935, certain language was used in the Committee
[[Page 10876]]
of the Whole charging that Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, and
former Speaker Henry T. Rainey, of Illinois, in the past had committed
dishonest acts and repudiated and ignored the rules of the House in the
course of presiding.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 79 Cong. Rec. 1680, 1681, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, objected to the words uttered by
Mr. George H. Tinkham, of Massachusetts, and demanded that they be
taken down. When the committee rose and Speaker Byrns resumed the
Chair, he appointed Speaker Pro Tempore John J. O'Connor, of New York,
to preside.
In defense of the words, Mr. Frederick R. Lehlbach, of New Jersey,
stated as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the right of free debate in a parliamentary
assemblage is the one privilege which the minority in such a body
has, and which no deliberative assembly, certainly no English-
speaking assembly, has ever sought to abridge or suppress.
Unparliamentary language is the use of abusive epithets or
abuse or improper and excessive use of words, but it does not
extend to criticism of anybody connected with the Government or
characterization of the acts so criticized, and that is all that is
involved here. It is a criticism of what the gentleman charges was
done, and it is entirely aside from the question of whether that
charge is true or not as to whether the language is
unparliamentary. The gentleman has a perfect right to charge that
in the conduct of any kind of detail of the function of government
certain acts were performed by certain officials. He has the right
to condemn those acts, and he has the right to characterize them in
any way he sees fit as long as he confines the language in which he
makes his criticism to language ordinarily used by a gentleman.
The Speaker Pro Tempore ruled that the language used was a breach
of order, since ``It is well established under the precedents of the
House that it is out of order in debate to arraign the motives of
Members. Of course, the Speaker is a Member of the House.''
(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. The Speaker referred to a precedent set on Apr. 19, 1934, 78 Cong.
Rec. 6947, 6948, 73d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inconsistency in Motivation
Sec. 62.2 A statement in debate that ``consistency is a virtue of small
minds'' was held not to reflect on the motives of any Member of the
House and not to be unparliamentary.
On Apr. 11, 1962,(11) Mr. Wayne L. Hays, of Ohio,
delivered the following words in debate in relation to Mr. H. R. Gross,
of Iowa: ``I say
[[Page 10877]]
you have your definition of consistency. My definition is that
consistency is a virtue of small minds.'' Speaker John W. McCormack, of
Massachusetts, ruled as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 108 Cong. Rec. 6374, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the opinion of the Chair, both Members were talking about a
definition and each definition might apply to others outside the
House. The Chair sees nothing about the words taken down that
impugns the motives of any Member.
Attributing Legislative Position to Improper Motives
Sec. 62.3 A statement in debate accusing another Member of attacking
the intent to enfranchise men in the Armed Forces was held in order
as not impugning the motives of the Member.
On Dec. 15, 1943,(12) Mr. John E. Rankin, of
Mississippi, demanded that the following words used in reference to him
by Mr. Vito Marcantonio, of New York, in debate be taken down:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 89 Cong. Rec. 10737, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The gentleman from Mississippi saw fit to make an attack on the
President's Committee for Fair Employment Practices and also to
state his viewpoint with regard to the soldiers' vote bill.
Throughout the gentleman's speech the gentleman rests his attack on
the Committee for Fair Employment Practices as well as his attack
on the attempt to enfranchise the men in American uniform on what
he deemed to be the philosophy of Thomas Jefferson.
Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled as follows:
The Chair read the statement and then listened to its reading
and the Chair can hardly think that the language of the gentleman
from New York was more than expressing his opinion of the attitude
of the gentleman from Mississippi. The Chair very seriously doubts
that it is a violation of the rules of the House or a direct charge
impugning the gentleman's motives or impugning his character.
Sec. 62.4 A statement in debate accusing a Member of attempting to
deprive men in the Armed Forces of the right to vote was held to
transgress the rules and to be a breach of order in debate.
On Dec. 20, 1943,(13) the following words used by Mr.
Adolph J. Sabath, of Illinois, in debate in relation to Mr. John E.
Rankin, of Mississippi, were demanded to be taken down:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 89 Cong. Rec. 10922, 10923, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I said that I did not care whether it was my bill, his bill, or
any bill; but that it should be a bill that will give them the
right to vote [men in the
[[Page 10878]]
armed forces] and not a bill that will deprive them of that great
privilege as the gentleman from Mississippi is trying to do.
Speaker Pro Tempore John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, ruled as
follows:
The Chair feels that the question is very close to the line,
but does transgress the rules when the gentleman from Illinois used
the words ``deprive them'' in that those words tend to impugn the
motives of the gentleman from Mississippi.
A Member may take the floor and make as vigorous an attack as
he desires on any bill and its merits, but when it comes to the
question of impugning the motives of another Member, one has to be
exceedingly careful. Many times these questions are very close, and
the Chair is frankly of the opinion that this is a very close
question. But in order to preserve that understanding among Members
which is so essential in a legislative body, the Chair is of the
opinion that the words used, while very close to the line, tend to
transgress the rules of the House.
Sec. 62.5 A statement in debate accusing another Member of past
opposition to ``every bill necessary for the defense of our
country'' was held to be an expression of opinion and not
unparliamentary.
On Mar. 16, 1949,(14) Mr. John W. McCormack, of
Massachusetts, delivered the following words in debate in reference to
another Member: ``Before Pearl Harbor the gentleman was opposed to
every bill necessary for the defense of our country.'' Mr. John E.
Rankin, of Mississippi, to whom the words referred, demanded that the
words be taken down.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 95 Cong. Rec. 2651, 2652, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, stated that he had always been in
favor of a wide range of discussion and expression of opinion in
debate; he ruled that the words objected to expressed an opinion, not
fact, and were therefore not in violation of the rules of the House.
Sec. 62.6 While remarks in debate may not impute questionable personal
motivations to a Member for his legislative positions, it is
permissible to address political motivations for legislative
positions in a manner not constituting a personal attack on a
Member.
On Jan. 24, 1995,(15) Mr. Dan Burton, of Indiana, was
given permission to address the House for one minute and to revise and
extend his remarks:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 141 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Burton of Indiana: Mr. Speaker, the people of this country
spoke last
[[Page 10879]]
November. But it is apparent to anyone who is paying attention to
what is going on in this House that the Democratic Party is doing
everything they can to derail the Contract With America. They are
proposing hundreds of amendments to slow down the process. All I
want to say is that it is the height of hypocrisy, the height of
hypocrisy for the Democrats to come down here and complain about
what the Republicans are doing after the way they have run this
House for the last 40 years.
Mr. [Jerrold L.] Nadler [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I demand
that the gentleman's words be taken down. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (16) The Chair is prepared
to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Christopher Shays (Conn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It would be out of order for the gentleman to make reference to
a particular Member, but precedent suggests that reference to
procedures, or amendments, or to parties is not out of order. . . .
Mr. Nadler: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry. . . .
The second half of the statement of the distinguished gentleman
made reference to the hypocrisy of the Democrats. The context
clearly indicated that it was the Democratic Members of the House
that he was referring to. My parliamentary inquiry, therefore:
Since the rules prohibit the impugning of motives of Members of
the House, and the gentleman impugned the motives of a group of
Members of the House, just under half the Members of the House; so
is it not permitted under the rules then to impugn the motives of
an individual Member of the House, but to impugn the motives of a
group of Members of the House is permitted?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair believes that collective
political motivation can be discussed and it was not discernible
that it was relating to any particular Member.
The scope of permissible discussion of motivation was further
clarified by the Chair on Mar. 8, 1995,(17) in his response
to a parliamentary inquiry. The Committee of the Whole had under
consideration H.R. 956, to establish legal standards and procedures for
product liability litigation:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 141 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Thomas L.] Bliley [Jr., of Virginia]: . . . I will point
out to the gentleman on the other side that between 1973 and 1988
product liability suits in Federal courts increased 1,000 percent.
In State courts, the increase was between 300 and 500 percent. One
estimate of the total cost of these suits is $132 billion a year. .
. .
To the gentleman from Massachusetts I would say, when we were
accused today in a bill that we passed overwhelmingly with
bipartisan support for securities litigation reform, that we were
bringing this because we were rewarding our fat cats, maybe some of
us might beg to say that the gentleman on the other [side] might be
trying to defend them.
Mr. Chairman, that may be one of the reasons that they so
vociferously
[[Page 10880]]
defend the current system is that one of the heaviest contributors
to their campaign coffers are the trial lawyers of the United
States. . . .
Mr. [John] Bryant of Texas: Mr. Chairman, I have a
parliamentary inquiry. . . .
Do the rules prohibit implying a motive or the improper motive
on the part of your adversary in debate for presenting legislation?
The Chairman: (18) The rules of the House prevent
Members from engaging in personal attacks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. David Dreier (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Bryant of Texas: I thank the Chair. But my further inquiry
was, do the rules prohibit you from implying a prohibited motive,
unsavory motive for offering amendments for advocating legislation?
The Chairman: The rules do not prohibit Members from engaging
in discussions of political motivation.
Mr. Bryant of Texas: What about motivations that relate to your
personal occupation or your personal sources of income?
The Chairman: The rules prohibit Members from engaging in
personal attacks.
Opportunism as Motive
Sec. 62.7 A statement in debate that a Member was leading the
Republican party in a policy of opportunism was held not to
transgress the rules of the House or reflect upon the integrity of
Members and therefore to be in order.
On Feb. 8, 1941,(19) the following words used by Mr.
John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, in debate were demanded to be
taken down by Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 87 Cong. Rec. 796, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The gentleman from New York who was leading the Republican
Party in the policy of opportunism that is being engaged in in
connection with a bill serious to the fate of our country relating
to our national defense.
The Committee of the Whole rose and the words were reported to the
House. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled that the words did not
reflect upon the integrity of any Members and were therefore not
violative of the rules of the House.
Personal Gain as Motive
Sec. 62.8 Where a Member charged another with opposing a rent bill
because he was a landlord, the Speaker ruled the reference a breach
of order.
On Apr. 17, 1936, (20) during consideration of a
District of Columbia rent bill in the Committee of the Whole, Mr.
Marion A. Zioncheck, of Washington, stated as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 80 Cong. Rec. 5647, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Chairman, there has been a bad rumor running around the
town that
[[Page 10881]]
the reason the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Blanton] objects to this
bill is that he is a landlord.
Mr. Thomas L. Blanton made a point of order against those remarks,
and Chairman William B. Umstead, of North Carolina, ruled as follows:
. . . The gentleman from Washington will confine his remarks to
the amendment which he offered and avoid personalities, and please
proceed in order.
Following another personal remark by Mr. Zioncheck, the Chairman
again reminded him that he could not indulge in personalities.
Sec. 62.9 While it may be appropriate in debate to characterize the
effect of an amendment as deceptive or hypocritical, the Speaker
has ruled out of order words taken down in Committee of the Whole
characterizing the motivation of a Member in offering an amendment
as deceptive and hypocritical.
During consideration of the Department of Education Organization
Act of 1979 (H.R. 2444) in the Committee of the Whole, certain words
used in debate were reported to the House and ruled out of order by the
Speaker. The proceedings of June 12, 1979,(1) were as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 125 Cong. Rec. 14461, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Henry B.] Gonzalez [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I expected
resistance to this amendment and not necessarily my getting
involved. I am not a member of this committee. But this amendment
is probably the most detrimental to the main purposes of equal
opportunity of education to the most needed segments of our society
that has been presented thus far and probably could ever be
presented. The insidiousness of the amendment is compounded by the
sponsor's deceptive--I should say hypocritical--presentation of
this amendment, disguising it as a quota prohibition.
Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I
demand that the words be taken down.
The Chairman:(2) The Clerk will report the words
objected to. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Lucien N. Nedzi (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee will rise. . . .
The Speaker: (3) The Clerk will report the words
objected to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows: . . .
The insidiousness of the amendment is compounded by the
sponsor's deceptive--I should say hypocritical--presentation of
this amendment, disguising it as a quota prohibition.
The Speaker: The Chair is ready to rule.
The Chair, having read the references concerning deception and
hypocrisy, will state that there have been previous opinions by the
Chair that there is nothing wrong with using the word,
``deceptive,'' or the word, ``hypocritical,'' in characterizing an
amendment's effect but when a Member so
[[Page 10882]]
characterizes the motivation of a Member in offering an amendment
that is not in order.
Consequently, the words in the last sentence read by the Clerk
are unparliamentary and without objection, the offensive words are
stricken from the Record.
--Party Motivation in Offering Question of Privilege
Sec. 62.10 Reference in debate to the minority party as ``having some
motivation other than fully objective concern for the House in the
timing of a resolution'' and the assertion that the House could
proceed with ``greater dignity and honor'' at another time,
together with the disclaimer that the Minority Leader did not
necessarily share that motivation, was held not to impugn the
motives of any Member and to be parliamentary.
During consideration of House Resolution 578 (directing the
Committee on Rules to make certain inquiries) on Feb. 13,
1980,(4) the following proceedings occurred in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 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, 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;'' . . .
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. . . .
Mr. Bolling: . . . The gentleman from Missouri has not felt
more strongly about a matter in a very long time than he does about
this. . . . The gentleman from Missouri obviously has no difficulty
with the content of the resolution and feels that he could in honor
offer it. The gentleman from Missouri has a very, very strong
feeling about the timing of the offering of this proposal by the
minority, and the gentleman from Missouri has carefully
differentiated between what he has said earlier about the minority
leader and what he is now saying about the minority.
I fear me, and I do not suspect the gentleman from Arizona of
having this view, I fear me that there is some motivation other
than fully objective concern for the House in the timing of the
resolution, not in the content. And that is the reason that the
gentleman from Missouri took the unusual course of offering the
minority's proposition. He
[[Page 10883]]
feels that it is appropriate for the House, through the Rules
Committee initially, to look into this matter. But he thinks it
might be done with greater dignity, and one might say with greater
honor, if it were not done at this particular time of confusion. .
. .
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I demand
that the words of the gentleman from Missouri be taken down. . . .
If the record is read back by the Clerk, I believe the Chair
will find that the gentleman from Missouri referred to the
motivation behind the offering of this resolution at this time and
referred to the minority leader and the members of the minority
party. Subsequent to that the gentleman from Missouri referred to
that motivation being dishonorable. I think this falls within the
rules of the House that clearly say that a Member of the House
cannot question the motivation of other Members of the House in
their actions. The gentleman from Missouri did refer to the
minority leader, and all of the Members of the minority and their
motivation.
The Speaker: (5) The Clerk will report the words. .
. .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The gentleman from Missouri has
referred in his remarks that he feels
that it is appropriate for the House, through the Rules Committee,
initially to look into this matter, and he thinks it might be done
with greater dignity and, one might say, with greater honor if done
by the committee or considered at another time.
The Chair, in its opinion, feels that he has not transgressed
on the honor or the dignity of the minority party or the minority
leader, and the point of order is not well taken.
The gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, would the Chair address himself to the
issue of motivation the gentleman from Missouri raised, as to
whether that is a correct use of parliamentary language.
The Speaker: In the opinion of the Chair the gentleman did not
talk about or refer to the dishonor of any Member of the House, nor
did he characterize the motives of any specific Member in an
unparliamentary way.
The Chair repeats, the point of order is not well taken.
Indirect Derogatory Reference
Sec. 62.11 Under Jefferson's Manual,(6) it is not in order
during debate to refer to a particular Member of the House in a
derogatory fashion, and the Chair will intervene to prevent
improper references where it is evident that
a particular Member is being described although not named.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 361 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following proceedings occurred in the House on Oct. 28, 1981:
(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 127 Cong. Rec. 25723, 25725, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (8) Under a previous order
of the House,
[[Page 10884]]
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) is recognized for 60
minutes. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Nick J. Rahall, 2d (W. Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Thomas J.] Bliley [Jr., of Virginia]: . . . Mr. Speaker,
my constituent is disgusted and I am disgusted. Disgusted to think
that any Member of this House would sanction the use of his
signature on this kind of scurrilous fabrication. Yes, outright
fabrication. . . .
Mr. [Daniel E.] Lungren [of California]: . . . [People] who
asked for our trust and the trust of the American people in solving
the problem, are telling us now that what the President is trying
to do is destroy the system, and one party, one party will save it
and make it a partisan issue.
Unfortunately, the signer of this terrible appeal for cash is a
most distinguished member of the Committee on Aging.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would advise the gentleman
to confine his remarks to parliamentary and legislative issues and
not refer to Members of the body individually.
Parliamentarian's Note: Mr. Lungren's reference had been to the
chairman of the Select Committee on Aging, Mr. Claude Pepper, of
Florida, and in the context of the full special order containing
remarks relating to unidentified members of the majority party who had
solicited campaign funds under the guise of a ``Social Security
Notice'', the reference to Mr. Pepper was unparliamentary. Mr. Lungren
revised his remarks to delete any reference to the chairman, over whose
signature the controversial letter in question had been mailed out.
Challenging Motive of Minority Party
Sec. 62.12 A demand that words be taken down (in this instance,
language arguably impugning the motives of other Members) is
untimely if further debate has intervened.
The following proceedings occurred in the House on Mar. 4,
1985,(9) during consideration of House Resolution 97 (to
seat Richard D. McIntyre as a Member from Indiana):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 131 Cong. Rec. 4277, 4283-85, 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
[[Page 10885]]
Resolved, That the Speaker is hereby authorized and
directed to administer the oath of office to the gentleman from
Indiana, Mr. Richard D. McIntyre. . . .
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: (10) The gentleman is
entitled to 1 hour under that motion, during which time the
gentleman from Arkansas controls the time. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [William D.] Ford of Michigan: . . . Mr. Speaker, this
issue is being handled now in a manner being allowed in this House
that does not meet the dignity of this body which is very much
needed at the moment. At the time that the people of this country
are wondering whether or not the Congress is going to do the things
that are necessary, some of them painful, to protect our country,
we have Members playing petty politics over there in a way that is
calculated to do nothing except destroy public confidence in this
body.
I can see how people would lose confidence in the House, which
is put into this kind of mess by this bushwhacking method of
causing a vote. . . . [W]e count on assertions from our leaders on
both sides that on particular days you can take care of other
important matters because there will not be rollcalls. They know
that many of the Members are being deprived, who have been seated,
of representing their districts because of the way in which this
vote is called up. And if they want to show good faith at this
point, Mr. Speaker, then the gentleman should withdraw his motion
and move to take it up at a time when due notice has been given so
that my constituents and all of the districts in Michigan will have
their representative here to vote on them. . . .
Mr. [Carroll] Campbell [Jr., of South Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, I
have a parliamentary inquiry. . . .
Mr. Speaker, am I correct in saying that we do not seek to
impugn the motives of a Member when they bring a matter to the
floor? Is that correct under the way this House operates? And that
when a Member's motives have been impugned that that Member or
others on their behalf would have a right to ask that words be
stricken? Is that a correct assumption?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct that no
Member's motive is to be impugned by another Member in the course
of orderly debate on the House floor.
Mr. Campbell: Well, Mr. Speaker, my concern lies with the fact
that with the previous speaker that the motivation of those of us
who are concerned with this matter may have been impugned when the
accusation was made that this was being done under petty politics
and that it was bushwhacking and instead of the motivation of
trying to protect legitimately the rights of a Member of the
minority party who had been denied, though being certified, his
seat.
To make that charge I raise the point of order does impugn the
motivation of those of us who seek to seat Mr. McIntyre. I ask that
the gentleman's words be stricken.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman's point of order in this
par
[[Page 10886]]
ticular instance comes too late. Intervening debate has proceeded.
Mr. Campbell: The gentleman who previously spoke, Mr. Speaker,
I was on my feet asking to be recognized on a point of order, who
had made those accusations.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state the Chair expects
all Members to maintain the dignity of the Chamber, and that
includes the proper use of language in reference to their
colleagues of either political party.
The Chair will state that the point of order made by the
gentleman at this time is not timely made. But the Chair will
instruct all Members with the expectation that parliamentary
language will be observed.
CHAPTER 29
Consideration and Debate
G. REFERENCES TO HOUSE, COMMITTEES, OR MEMBERS
Sec. 63.--Falsehood
A Member may assert in debate that the statement of another Member
is untrue,(11) provided that no accusation of intentional
misrepresentation is made.(12) Any term or language implying
a
deliberate misstatement of the truth, for whatever motive, is
unparliamentary,(13) including allegations of
insincerity,(14) and hypocrisy.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See Sec. 63.3, infra. See also 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5159.
12. See the statement of Speaker Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.) at Sec. 63.3,
infra. For past rulings, see 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 5158
(``That is not true, and he knows it'' held in order), 5160
(``Bold and direct attack upon truth'' held out of order by
vote of Senate); 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2545 (``The
devotion of the gentleman . . . to the truth is so notorious
that I shall not reply'' held out of order).
Charges of deliberate falsehood against persons who are not
Members are in order; see 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2532.
13. See Sec. Sec. 63.4 (``false and slanderous''), 63.5 (``lies and
half-truths''), infra; Sec. 61.2, supra (``cover up
wrongdoing''). See also 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2530
(``liar'').
14. See Sec. 63.7, infra; 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5148.
15. See Sec. 63.6, infra (``hypocrisy'' linked to ``falsehood'');
compare 8 Cannon's Precedents
Sec. 2542. -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allegations of Express or Implied Falsehood
Sec. 63.1 The Speaker ruled that the word ``canard'' meant falsehood
and was out of order in debate when referring to another Member.
On May 11, 1949,(16) Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York,
stated in debate in reference to Mr. John
E. Rankin, of Mississippi, ``Mr. Speaker, I cannot let the occasion go
by without commenting on the canard that the gentleman from Mississippi
was guilty of when he
[[Page 10887]]
called the Antidefamation League subversive.'' Mr. Rankin demanded that
the words be taken down and Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 95 Cong. Rec. 6042, 6043, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair desires to make a statement. There are too many
``left-handed'' compliments being passed around this House all the
time on both sides.
The word ``canard'' to me conveys the idea that a man has told
a falsehood. Therefore, if anybody desires to move to strike it
from the Record--without objection, the word ``canard'' will be
stricken from the Record.
There was no objection.
Sec. 63.2 A statement in debate referring to another Member ``when he
comes here to defend some slime-monger who goes on the radio and
lies about me, then I am ready to meet him anywhere'' was held in
order.
On Feb. 12, 1946,(17) Mr. John E. Rankin, of
Mississippi, stated in debate in reference to Mr. Adolph J. Sabath, of
Illinois, ``when he comes here to defend some slime-monger who goes on
the radio and lies about me, then I am ready to meet him anywhere.''
Mr. Sabath demanded that the words be taken down. However, Speaker Sam
Rayburn, of Texas, ruled that the language objected to was not a breach
of order since it was directed not towards Mr. Sabath but towards a
news commentator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 92 Cong. Rec. 1240, 1241, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.3 Where a Member stated in debate he did ``not believe a word
that another Member has said,'' the language was held in order as
no intentional misrepresentation was implied.
On July 2, 1935,(18) Mr. Maury Maverick, of Texas,
stated in debate ``I do not believe a word
the gentleman from Maine [Mr.
Ralph O. Brewster] said'' while
the House was considering House Resolution 285, to appoint a committee
to investigate charges of intimidation of Mr. Brewster by an official
of the executive branch.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 79 Cong. Rec. 10670, 10671, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Brewster demanded that the words be taken down as a challenge
to his words on the floor of the House. Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of
Tennessee, ruled as follows:
The gentleman from Texas made the statement, but that does not
necessarily imply that the gentleman from Maine intentionally made
a misstatement on his own part. He simply said he did not believe
it, but this did not necessarily imply that the gentleman from
Maine intentionally made a misstatement. What the gentleman from
[[Page 10888]]
Texas said may be construed as meaning that the gentleman from
Maine was merely mistaken in his conclusions, and that the
gentleman did not deliberately make a false statement.
Sec. 63.4 A statement in debate that the remarks of a Member were
``false and slanderous'' was held out of order.
On Dec. 20, 1943,(19) Mr. Adolph J. Sabath, of Illinois,
had the floor and was speaking of a bill related to the right of
servicemen to vote. During the course of his remarks, he referred to a
certain bill as depriving them of the vote. Mr. John E. Rankin, of
Mississippi, rose to demand that that language be taken down; he stated
``I make the point of order that his statement is false and
slanderous.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 89 Cong. Rec. 10922, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Sabath demanded that Mr. Rankin's accusation be taken down and
Speaker Pro Tempore John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, ruled on both
points of order. He ruled that Mr. Rankin's statement clearly
transgressed the rules of the House and declined to sustain Mr.
Rankin's argument that ``When any Member rises on the floor and makes a
false statement, any other Member has the right to say that that
statement
is false; and when that statement
is slanderous, any gentleman is within the rules of the House when he
says so.''
Sec. 63.5 Language in a telegram read in debate in the House which
repudiated ``lies and half-truths'' of a House committee report was
held out of order as reflecting on the integrity of committee
members.
On June 16, 1947,(20) Mr. Chet Holifield, of California,
read in the House a telegram from the Southern Conference for Human
Welfare. Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, made a point of order
against certain words in the telegram and demanded that they be taken
down: ``We completely repudiate the lies and half-truths of the report
that was issued and consider it un-American.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 93 Cong. Rec. 7065, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, ruled that the
words objected to, referring to
the Committee on Un-American
Activities, were unparliamentary, since they ``reflect upon the
character and integrity of the membership of a committee. . . .'' The
words were stricken on motion from the Congressional Record.
Hypocrisy
Sec. 63.6 A statement in referring to another Member that ``I
[[Page 10889]]
was reminded that pretexts are never wanting when hypocrisy wishes
to add malice to falsehood or cowardice to stab a foe who cannot
defend himself'' was held unparliamentary.
On Oct. 25, 1945,(1) Mr. Edward E. Cox, of Georgia,
stated in debate in reference to Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York: ``I
was reminded that pretexts are never wanting when hypocrisy wishes to
add malice to falsehood or cowardice to stab a foe who cannot
defend himself.'' Mr. Celler demanded that the words be taken down, and
Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled the language unparliamentary as
specifically directed to Mr. Celler.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 91 Cong. Rec. 10044, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allegations of Insincerity
Sec. 63.7 A statement by a Member ``I cannot believe that the gentleman
from Mississippi is sincere in what he has just said'' was held out
of order as a personal attack on a Member's sincerity.
On Nov. 2, 1942,(2) Mr. Harold Knutson, of Minnesota,
stated in debate: ``Mr. Speaker, I cannot
believe that the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. John E. Rankin] is
sincere in what he has just said.'' Mr. Rankin demanded that the words
be taken down and Speaker Pro Tempore Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, ruled
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 88 Cong. Rec. 8702, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair is of the opinion that the words complained of, in
effect, accuse the gentleman from Mississippi of insincerity and
constitute a personal attack on the sincerity of the gentleman from
Mississippi and are in violation of the rules of the House.
CHAPTER 29
Consideration and Debate
G. REFERENCES TO HOUSE, COMMITTEES, OR MEMBERS
Sec. 64. -- Lack of Intelligence
Wide latitude is permitted in debate to criticize the understanding
of other Members or groups of Members in relation to pending
legislation. But such remarks may not extend to personal attacks on the
intelligence of another Member.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. See Sec. 64.4, infra. -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Implication in Debate
Sec. 64.1 An implication in debate that another Member did not
understand English was held in order.
During debate on Mar. 9, 1936,(4) Mr. Thomas L. Blanton,
of
[[Page 10890]]
Texas, stated in reference to Mr. Henry Ellenbogen, of Pennsylvania,
``Here is the answer, if the gentleman can understand English.'' The
words were taken down, but Speaker Pro Tempore John J. O'Connor, of New
York, ruled that there was nothing objectionable in the language noted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 80 Cong. Rec. 3465, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 64.2 A question in debate whether it was a parliamentary inquiry
to ask that a bill be printed in such a way that the Republicans
could understand it was held in order.
On Mar. 31, 1938,(5) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan,
demanded that the following words used in debate by Mr. Thomas F. Ford,
of California, be taken down: ``Mr. Chairman, is it a parliamentary
inquiry then to ask that the bill be reprinted in words of one syllable
so that the Republicans can understand it?''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 83 Cong. Rec. 4484, 4485, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, ruled that the language
was clearly not objectionable under House rules.
Sec. 64.3 Where a Member characterized another Member's comment on a
pending amendment as a ``dumb interpretation in my opinion,'' the
words were taken down but withdrawn by unanimous consent before a
ruling was made.
On June 10, 1964,(6) the Committee of the Whole was
considering an amendment to a pending bill offered by Mr. Olin E.
Teague of Texas. Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, described his view of the
amendment's effect, and Mr. Teague replied ``It is a dumb
interpretation in my opinion.'' Mr. Gross demanded that the words be
taken down but Mr. Teague asked unanimous consent that the words be
withdrawn before any ruling was made.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 110 Cong. Rec. 13254, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 64.4 A reference in debate
to a Member as one who
was incapable of ascertaining whether a document has been forged
was held to transgress rules of debate.
On Mar. 1, 1940,(7) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan,
referred in debate to Mr. Frank E. Hook, of Michigan, as a person ``who
never can tell whether a document has been forged or whether it has
not.'' Mr. Hook demanded that the words be taken down, and Speaker
William B. Bankhead, of Ala
[[Page 10891]]
bama, ruled that the language violated the rules of debate since
directed to the personality of another Member. The words were stricken
from the Record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 86 Cong. Rec. 2229, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAPTER 29
Consideration and Debate
G. REFERENCES TO HOUSE, COMMITTEES, OR MEMBERS
Sec. 65. --Race and Prejudice
It is not in order in debate to accuse a Member of bigotry or
racism.(8) However, a Member may express the opinion in
debate that another Member is by his actions and words doing a
disservice to a minority race if terms not objectionable in themselves
are not used.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Compare Sec. Sec. 65.5-65.7, infra.
9. See Sec. 65.4, infra. -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remarks Relating to Race Generally
Sec. 65.1 A statement in debate expressing the opinion of the Member
that if he were a Negro he would avoid association with non-Negroes
was held not to reflect on any Member of the House and therefore to
be in order.
On Apr. 5, 1946, Mr. Adam C. Powell, Jr., of New York, offered to
H.R. 5990, the District of Columbia appropriation bill of 1947, an
amendment to deny funds to any agency, office, or department which
segregated citizens on the basis of race, color, creed, or national
origin.(10) In commenting on the amendment, Mr. Powell
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 92 Cong. Rec. 3227, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you do not believe that segregation is practiced here by the
District government may I say look at me, one of your fellow
Congressmen. I cannot get a card to play tennis, for instance, in
any of the parks of the District of Columbia. . . .
Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, then commented as follows on
the amendment:
Mr. Chairman, this amendment to deny funds to separate schools
here in Washington is another one of those communistic movements to
stir up
race hatred in the District of Columbia. . . .
If I were a Negro I would want to be as black as the ace of
spades, and I would not be running around here trying to play
tennis on a white man's court. I would go with the other Negroes
and have the best time in my life. . . .
Mr. Powell demanded that the last paragraph of Mr. Rankin's remarks
be taken down. The Committee of the Whole rose and Speaker Sam Rayburn,
of Texas, ruled as follows:
The Chair would think and would be compelled to hold that there
is nothing
[[Page 10892]]
in this language that refers to any specific person by name or
otherwise as a Member of the House of Representatives, does not
reflect upon his character, his integrity, or attribute to him any
moral turpitude.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Id. at pp. 3229, 3230.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 65.2 The Speaker held that reference to a class or group of
persons as ``Negroes'' was in order, although it was objected that
a corruption of that term had been used, thereby insulting some
Members of the House.
On Sept. 21, 1949,(12) Mr. John E. Rankin, of
Mississippi, was delivering remarks in debate against Paul Robeson,
whom he termed
a ``Negro Communist''. Mr. Vito Marcantonio, of New York, made the
following point of order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 95 Cong. Rec. 13124, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The gentleman from Mississippi used the word ``nigger.'' I ask
that that word be taken down and stricken from the Record inasmuch
as there are two Members in this House of the Negro race, and that
word reflects on them.
Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, stated that he had understood Mr.
Rankin to say ``Negro,'' and Mr. Rankin added that he had used that
term ever since he had learned to talk. Mr. Marcantonio insisted that
Mr. Rankin had said ``nigger,'' and Speaker Rayburn ruled as follows:
The Chair holds that the remarks of the gentleman from
Mississippi are not subject to a point of order. He referred to the
Negro race, and they should not be ashamed of that designation.
Similarly, on Feb. 18, 1947,(13) Mr. Rankin delivered
the following remarks in debate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 93 Cong. Rec. 1131, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, let us turn back to this Negro witness. His name is
Nowell. He lived in Detroit. He said he was born in Georgia. Now, I
have lived all my life and practiced law for years in a State where
we had many, many lawsuits between Negroes and whites and between
Negroes themselves. I am used to cross-examining them. I know
something of the way they testify, and have a fairly good way
weighting testimony, and if I am any judge this Negro, Nowell, was
sincere in every word he said.
The following point of order and ruling by Speaker Joseph W.
Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, then took place:
Mr. [Adam C.] Powell [of New York]: Is it within the rules of
this Congress to refer to any group of our Nation in disparaging
terms?
Mr. Rankin: It is not disparaging to call them Negroes, as all
respectable Negroes know.
Mr. Powell: I am addressing the Speaker.
The Speaker: The Chair is not aware of the disparaging term
used.
Mr. Powell: He used the term ``nigger'' in referring to a
group.
[[Page 10893]]
The Speaker: The Chair understood the gentleman to say
``Negro.''
Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, I said what I always say and what I am
always going to say when referring to these people.
The Speaker: The gentleman will proceed in order.
Mr. Powell: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
The Speaker: The Chair overrules the point of order.
Sec. 65.3 It is not in order to impugn the motives of other Members as
being racially prejudiced.
On Aug. 14, 1967,(14) Speaker John W. McCormack, of
Massachusetts, ruled that the use of the word ``bigoted'' in reference
to another Member was not consistent with the rules of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 113 Cong. Rec. 22443, 22444, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, on Dec. 13, 1973,(15) Speaker Carl Albert, of
Oklahoma, ruled that the use of the words ``demagogic and racist'' in
relation to the motivation for an amendment was a breach of the rules
of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 119 Cong. Rec. 41271, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 65.4 In referring to another Member in debate the proper reference
is ``the gentleman from `the state from which he comes' '' and not
``the Jewish gentleman from New York.''
On Oct. 24, 1945,(16) Mr. John E. Rankin, of
Mississippi, in debate referred to Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, as
the ``Jewish gentleman from New York.'' The words were demanded to be
taken down by Mr. Celler, and Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled them
out of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 91 Cong. Rec. 10032, 10033, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Rankin then continued with his remarks and criticized Mr.
Celler for protesting reference to him as a ``gentleman of his race''.
Mr. Celler demanded that those words be taken down on the grounds
that Mr. Rankin was again referring to him by innuendo as the Jewish
gentleman from New York. Speaker Rayburn ruled that there was no breach
of order in referring to another Member merely as a member of a
minority race. Mr. Rankin then asked the Speaker:
. . . I wish to proceed in order. Does the Member from New York
[Mr. Celler] object to being called a Jew or does he object to
being called a gentleman? What is he kicking about?
Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a point of
order.
The Speaker: The Chair desires to make a little statement.
The Chair trusts that points of order may be properly points of
order here
[[Page 10894]]
after, and that a Member before he makes a point of order secures
the recognition of the Chair.
The gentleman from Mississippi will proceed in order, and the
Chair trusts that the gentleman from Mississippi understands what
the Chair means.
On May 22, 1947,(17) Mr. Rankin delivered the following
words in debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 93 Cong. Rec. 5663, 5664, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Speaker, I might say in the beginning that I know of no man
who in my opinion has done the Jews of this country more harm than
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Celler].
The words were demanded to be taken down by Mr. Celler and Speaker
Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, ruled that the words used were
merely an expression of an individual opinion and that they did not
reflect in an unparliamentary manner upon Mr. Celler.
Sec. 65.5 It is not in order in debate to refer to a Member
as having reached ``bigoted'' conclusions.
On Aug. 14, 1967,(18) the following words used in debate
by Mr. F. Edward Hebert, of Louisiana, in relation to another Member
were demanded to be taken down: ``His conclusions have already been
reached. They are prejudicial and bigoted.'' Speaker John W. McCormack,
of Massachusetts, ruled that the use of the word ``bigoted'' was not
consistent with the rules of the House. The words were stricken from
the Record and Mr. Hebert was recognized for the remainder of his time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 113 Cong. Rec. 22443, 22444, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 65.6 The Speaker ruled out
of order in debate remarks characterizing the motivation for an
amendment as ``demagogic'' and ``racist.''
On Dec. 13, 1973,(19) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 11450, the Energy Emergency Act. Mr. John D. Dingell,
of Michigan, offered an amendment to prohibit the use of petroleum for
the busing of schoolchildren beyond the nearest public school. In
debate on the amendment, Ms. Bella S. Abzug, of New York, stated as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 119 Cong. Rec. 41271, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An amendment like this can only be demagogic or racist because
it is only demagoguery or racism which impels such an amendment
like this.
Mr. Robert E. Bauman, of Maryland, demanded that the words be taken
down and Ms. Abzug responded that her language had not in any way im
[[Page 10895]]
pugned the motives of Mr. Dingell.
The Committee rose and Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, ruled as
follows:
On May 4, 1943 . . . Speaker [Sam] Rayburn [of Texas] held:
Statement by Newsome of Minnesota that, ``I do not yield to any
more demagogues,'' held not in order.
It is the opinion of the Chair that the statements reported to
the House are within the framework of this ruling, and without
objection the words are therefore stricken from the Record.
Exciting To Prejudice
Sec. 65.7 A statement in debate accusing a Member of remarks on the
floor calculated to stir up race prejudice was ruled in order as a
statement of opinion and not reflecting upon the character or
integrity of the Member mentioned.
On Feb. 25, 1948,(20) Mr. Frank B. Keefe, of Wisconsin,
used the following words in debate in relation to Mr. John E. Rankin,
of Mississippi:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 94 Cong. Rec. 1707, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[T]hat statement of the gentleman from Mississippi is just as
wrong as many of the other inflammatory statements which he makes
on the floor of this House in an attempt to stir up race prejudice
that ought to be subdued rather than stirred up.
Mr. Rankin demanded that the words be taken down and Speaker Joseph
W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, ruled that Mr. Keefe had merely
stated his opinion and did not reflect upon the character or integrity
of Mr. Rankin. The Speaker ruled that the statement was not
unparliamentary since it only expressed a difference of opinion.
CHAPTER 29
Consideration and Debate
G. REFERENCES TO HOUSE, COMMITTEES, OR MEMBERS
Sec. 66. -- Disloyalty
Remarks in debate impugning the loyalty of a Member are not in
order.(1) However, if such language is directed at the House
or at its membership in general, the remarks may not be
improper.(2) Allegations of disloyalty or lack of patriotism
may assume various forms, including such labels as
[[Page 10896]]
``communist'' (3) and ``subversive,'' (4) as well
as the assertion that a Member has given aid or comfort to the
enemy.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Accusations of active disloyalty are in order when the subject is
relevant to disciplinary proceedings brought by the House
against a Member, or to the consideration of resolutions of
censure, expulsion, or exclusion. See Ch. 7, supra (disloyalty
as disqualification for membership) and Ch. 12, supra (conduct;
punishment, censure, or expulsion).
2. See, for example, Sec. 53.1, supra. Compare 5 Hinds' Precedents
Sec. 5139 (``rebel elements'' in House held unparliamentary).
3. See Sec. Sec. 66.1-66.5, infra.
4. See Sec. 66.8, infra.
5. See Sec. Sec. 66.3, 66.4,
infra. -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Particular Accusations--Communism
Sec. 66.1 A statement in debate referring to another Member's language
as ``communistic'' was held unparliamentary.
On Feb. 12, 1946,(6) Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi,
stated in response to comments accusing him of using disgraceful
language, ``I am not going to sit here and listen to these communistic
attacks made on me.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 92 Cong. Rec. 1241, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Tex-as, ruled that Mr. Rankin's language
was unparliamentary.
Sec. 66.2 A statement in debate accusing all opponents of the Committee
on Un-American Activities as communist enemies was held in order on
the assurance of the Member having the floor that he was not
referring to any Member of the House.
On Feb. 27, 1946,(7) Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi,
stated of the words ``The House Un-American Committee'' that had
appeared in a Congressional Record insert by another Member:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 92 Cong. Rec. 1724, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is the Communist line, Mr. Speaker, that is being followed
by these enemies of our country, in their attacks on the Committee
on Un-American Activities.
Mr. Adolph J. Sabath, of Illinois, asked that those words be taken
down, and Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, questioned Mr. Rankin as to
whether he intended to refer to Mr. Sabath in stating those remarks.
Mr. Rankin stated that he was not referring to
any individual in the House but
only to communists and enemies throughout the Nation. No further action
was taken in the matter.
Giving Aid and Comfort to Enemies
Sec. 66.3 A statement in debate referring to Members who give aid and
comfort to enemies and traitors was ruled not a breach of order
since it did not reflect on individual Members.
On Nov. 24, 1947,(8) Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi,
delivered the following words in debate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 93 Cong. Rec. 10791, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 10897]]
. . . It has been amazing to hear these Members rise on the
floor of the House and give aid and comfort to those enemies, those
traitors within our gates, for every Communist in America is a
traitor to the Government of the United States and is dedicated to
its overthrow.
The words were demanded to be taken down by Mr. Vito Marcantonio,
of New York, and Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, ruled
that although a close question was presented, the remarks used did not
reflect upon individual Members personally and were therefore not out
of order.
Sec. 66.4 A reference in debate to Members whose utterances would give
``great aid and comfort to the Soviet Politburo'' was held to
violate the rules and was stricken from the Record.
On Aug. 17, 1951,(9) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas,
ruled that certain words used in reference to Members violated the
rules of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 97 Cong. Rec. 10250, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: The words objected to and stricken from the
Record referred to certain Members as ``apostles of doom'' whose
utterances would give ``great aid and comfort'' to the Politburo of the
Soviet Union.
Sec. 66.5 A statement in debate referring to Members of the House who
would rip down the American flag and replace it with the Soviet
flag was held in order as not
reflecting on any particular
individual Member of the House.
On Mar. 25, 1948,(10) Mr. Edward E. Cox, of Georgia,
stated in debate as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 94 Cong. Rec. 3533, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Chairman, how long, I wonder, must Members of this body sit
here and hear assaulted from day to day the Government we love, and
by people who would rip from the wall that symbol of liberty that
hangs above the Speaker's rostrum, and who would run down the flag
of the stars and stripes that proudly floats above this Capitol and
run up in its stead the flag of the hammer and sickle?
Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, ruled that nothing
in the words used reflected upon any particular individual Member of
the House and that in the debate at that time much latitude would be
allowed.
References to Fascist Elements
Sec. 66.6 A statement in debate that insertions in the Record by
another Member were taken from ``Nazi elements'' was held to be out
of order.
[[Page 10898]]
On June 14, 1940,(11) Mr. Adolph J. Sabath, of Illinois,
demanded that the following words used in reference to him in debate be
taken down:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 86 Cong. Rec. 8269, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I feel these inserts are unjustifiable and unwarranted. They
are not founded on facts. You cannot substantiate any of them--I
think you should desist--taken from Nazi elements who are feeding
you with that stuff.
Speaker Pro Tempore Emmet O'Neal, of Kentucky, ruled that the words
referring to Nazi elements were out of order.
Sec. 66.7 A statement by a Member that internal fascist organizations
exercised extensive influence on a special House committee was held
to impugn the motives and actions of the committee and its members
and was ruled a breach of order.
On Feb. 11, 1941, during consideration of House Resolution 90 to
continue investigation by a special committee [the Dies Committee] on
unAmerican activities, Mr. Samuel Dickstein, of New York, had the floor
in debate.(12) Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi,
interrupted Mr. Dickstein's remarks and demanded that the following
words be taken down as a violation of the rules of the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 87 Cong. Rec. 894, 895, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I also charge, Mr. Speaker, that 110 Fascist organizations in
this country had the back key, and have now the back key to the
back door of the Dies committee.
Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Tex-as, ruled that the language noted
``certainly impugns the motives and actions of a committee and the
individual members thereof.'' The House then expunged Mr. Dickstein's
entire speech from the Congressional Record.
Characterizing Debate as Subversive
Sec. 66.8 When a Member in debate accuses another of making remarks
that are subversive, it is a violation of the rules of the House.
On Apr. 2, 1946,(13) Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi,
demanded that words used by Mr. Vito Marcantonio, of New York, in
debate accusing him of subversive remarks be taken down. Speaker Sam
Rayburn, of Texas, ruled that ``when a Member accuses another of making
remarks that are subversive, it is a violation of the rules of the
House.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 92 Cong. Rec. 2957, 2958, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: The objectionable words, which were
[[Page 10899]]
stricken from the Record, were as follows: ``There is nothing more
subversive than the kind of red baiting tactics that are being carried
on in this House by the gentleman from Mississippi.''
Sec. 66.9 A statement in debate referring to another Member as
attempting to undermine the government was held out of order and
stricken from the Record.
On May 14, 1946,(14) Mr. Charles E. McKenzie, of
Louisiana, delivered remarks in debate accusing another Member who had
spoken before him of ``trying to undermine'' the government. The words
were taken down and Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled that they were
not parliamentary since they reflected upon a Member of the House. The
words were then stricken from the Record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 92 Cong. Rec. 5028, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 66.10 A statement in debate referring to the association of a
Member with a newspaper allegedly dedicated to the destruction of
the government was held in order.
On Mar. 28, 1946,(15) the following remarks in debate by
Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, in relation to Mr. Andrew J.
Biemiller, of Wisconsin, were taken down:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 92 Cong. Rec. 2751, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have just seen in the Communist Daily Worker of this morning
that Mr. Andrew J. Biemiller had written these words, ``There is no
place in our democracy for a committee functioning like the present
one,'' referring to the Committee on Un-American Activities. He
does not know any more about what goes on in the Committee on Un-
American Activities than he does about what goes on in the moon. He
has never come before that committee, he has never asked it a
question, he has never appeared before it, yet he goes into the
Communist Daily Worker, that everybody knows is dedicated to the
destruction of this Government----
Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Tex-as, ruled that Mr. Rankin was
expressing his opinion of the newspaper and not reflecting upon the
character or integrity of Mr. Biemiller.
Characterization of House Committees
Sec. 66.11 A statement in debate characterizing the Committee of the
Whole as an agency of the Soviet Union was held in order as it did
not reflect upon any Member's integrity but indicated criticism of
the House.
On June 4, 1948,(16) Mr. Clarence Cannon, of Missouri,
stated
[[Page 10900]]
in debate: ``You will think, when you review the Soviet press, that the
committee of this House [the Committee of the Whole] was an agency of
the U.S.S.R.'' Mr. Frank B. Keefe, of Wisconsin, demanded that the
words be taken down, and Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of
Massachusetts, ruled that the words used indicated criticism of the
House but did not reflect upon the integrity of any individual Member
and were therefore in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 94 Cong. Rec. 7171, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 66.12 A reference in debate to the Committee on Un-American
Activities as ``the Un-American Committee'' was held out of order.
On June 12, 1947,(17) Mr. John E. Rankin, of
Mississippi, demanded the taking down of the reference by Mr. Chet
Holifield, of California, in debate to the Committee on Un-American
Activities as the ``Un-American Committee.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 93 Cong. Rec. 6895, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, ruled that the
reference impugned the motives of the committee in question and were
used in debate in violation of the rules of the House.
CHAPTER 29
Consideration and Debate
H. DURATION OF DEBATE IN THE HOUSE
Sec. 67. In General
The duration of debate on a proposition in the House is governed by
the type of procedure invoked for its consideration. Most proposals are
considered pursuant to one of the four procedures below:
(1) consideration under the hour rule where a standing rule of the
House or a special rule from the Committee on Rules does not otherwise
provide; (18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See Sec. 68, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) consideration for a fixed period of time provided for by a
standing rule governing a particular House procedure, such as
suspensions or Calendar Wednesday; (19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See Sec. 69, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) consideration under the five-minute rule in the House as in the
Committee of the Whole, by unanimous consent, special order,
[[Page 10901]]
or for Private Calendar bills; (20) and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See Sec. 70, infra. On rare occasions, a special rule has provided
that bills be considered in the House as in the Committee of
the Whole (see Sec. 4.1, supra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4) consideration pursuant to special rules or unanimous-consent
agreements fixing or extending the time for debate in the
House.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. See Sec. 71, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One-minute speeches and special-order speeches are two further
methods whereby time may be obtained for debate, but only when no
measure is under consideration.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. See Sec. 73, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker has the function of ascertaining the time for debate
and determining its expiration,(3) and under certain limited
circumstances the length of debate is within the Chair's
discretion.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. See Sec. Sec. 67.1, 67.2, infra.
4. See Sec. Sec. 67.3-67.6, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The only motion in the House with the primary purpose of closing
debate and bringing the House to a vote is the motion for the previous
question. Certain other motions, such as the motion to lay on the
table, may have the effect of closing debate if decided in the
affirmative.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. For the closing of House debate, see Sec. 72, infra.
The closing of debate in the Committee of the Whole is
discussed in Sec. Sec. 76, 78, 79, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where a Member is entitled to a certain amount of time in debate,
either under the general rules of the House or by unanimous consent or
special rule, he is not required to consume or yield all of his time.
If he is recognized to make a debatable motion under the hour rule, he
may move the previous question at any time.(6) And where a
unanimous-consent agreement provides a certain amount of debate, the
Member in charge may move the previous question without using or
yielding all the time agreed upon.(7) Similarly, the
managers of a bill in the Committee of the Whole may, acting together,
agree to use less than the time for general debate allotted under a
special rule.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. See Sec. 72.1, infra.
7. See Sec. 72.3, infra.
8. See Sec. 76.1, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although a Member making a debatable motion need not consume all
the time to which he is entitled, if he loses or surrenders the floor
without closing debate, another Member is entitled to
recognition.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. See Sec. Sec. 67.10-67.13, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The duration and closing of debate in the Senate is governed by
different considerations than those in the House.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See Sec. 72, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 10902]]
Cross References
Charging time to Member with the floor, see Sec. Sec. 29 (yielding
time) and 32 (interruption of Member with the floor), supra.
Debate in committees, see Ch. 17, supra.
Distribution of time for debate, see Sec. 25, supra.
Duration of debate on appropriation bills, see Ch. 26, supra.
Duration of debate before adoption of the rules, see Ch. 1, supra.
Duration of debate in the Committee of the Whole, see Sec. Sec. 74 et
seq., infra.
Duration of debate on impeachment propositions and articles of
impeachment, see Ch. 14, supra.
Duration of debate on motions, see Chs. 18 (motion to discharge), 21
(motion to suspend the rules), 23 (motions generally), supra, and
Ch. 32 (Senate amendments), infra.
Motions and questions on which no debate is in order, see Sec. 6,
supra.
Yielding and allocating time, see Sec. Sec. 29-31, supra.
Collateral References
Duration of debate in the House of Commons of Great Britain, see
Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice 472-87, Butterworth & Co. Ltd.
(17th ed.) (London 1964).
Duration of debate in the Senate, see Riddick/Frumin, Senate Procedure,
S. Doc. No. 101-28, 101st Cong. 2d Sess.
(1992). -------------------
Timekeeping
Sec. 67.1 The Chair counts the time of a Member with the floor and
announces the expiration of allotted time.
On June 11, 1963,(11) Mr. Paul C. Jones, of Missouri,
had the floor for a one-minute speech prior to the legislative business
of the day and yielded to Mr. James G. Fulton, of Pennsylvania. Speaker
John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, interrupted Mr. Fulton to state
that Mr. Jones' one minute had expired, and Mr. Fulton asked unanimous
consent that Mr. Jones be given one additional minute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 109 Cong. Rec. 10633, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker ruled that such a request was not in order and refused
to recognize Mr. Fulton for the request (it not being the practice to
permit any Member to be recognized for more than one one-minute speech
or to speak for more than one minute prior to legislative business).
Sec. 67.2 Evaluation of the time consumed in one-minute speeches is a
matter for the Chair and is not subject to challenge or question by
a parliamentary inquiry.
On May 9, 1972,(12) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, re
[[Page 10903]]
sponded as follows to a parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 118 Cong. Rec. 16288, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Donald W.] Riegle [Jr., of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state the parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. Riegle: Mr. Speaker, I have observed different speakers
being given very different lengths of time to speak under the 1-
minute rule.
I just noticed, for example, the gentleman from California who
was given approximately half the time that the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Devine) and several other speakers were given today. I object
to that and I think if we are going to use the 1-minute rule, let
us use it fairly.
The Speaker: The Chair will state that the Chair is trying to
enforce the 1-minute rule. That is not a parliamentary inquiry and
the gentleman was out of order in making it.
Chair's Discretion as to Debate Time
Sec. 67.3 The duration of debate time on a point of order is within the
discretion of the Chair.
On Apr. 13, 1951,(13) Mr. Carl Vinson, of Georgia, made
a point of order that an amendment offered by Mr. Antoni N. Sadlak, of
Connecticut, to a pending bill was not in order since not germane to
the bill. Chairman Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, inquired of Mr. Sadlak
whether he desired to be heard on the point of order. Mr. Sadlak
inquired ``how much time will be allotted to me for that purpose?'' The
Chair responded that the time to be allotted was ``in the discretion of
the Chair.'' (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 97 Cong. Rec. 3909, 3910, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
214. Points of order on which the Chair has announced his readiness to
rule are not debatable, such debate being at all times within
the discretion of the Chair. See Sec. 6.12, supra; 5 Hinds'
Precedents Sec. Sec. 6919, 6920.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: Rule XVII clause 3 [House Rules and Manual
Sec. 811 (1995)] provides that ``incidental questions of order arising
after a motion is made for the previous question, and pending such
motion, shall be decided, whether on appeal or otherwise, without
debate.'' The rule does not, however, deprive the Chair of his
discretion, under the precedents, over debate on a point of order or a
parliamentary inquiry.
Sec. 67.4 A concurrent resolution providing for adjournment of Congress
to a day certain is not debatable, but the Speaker has in his
discretion permitted some time for discussion where no point of
order is raised.
On Aug. 28, 1967,(15) Mr. Carl Albert, of Oklahoma,
called up
[[Page 10904]]
House Concurrent Resolution 497, providing for an adjournment to a day
certain of the two Houses of Congress. Speaker John W. McCormack, of
Massachusetts, ruled that the resolution was not debatable, but
permitted Mr. Albert to yield to another Member for a brief statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 113 Cong. Rec. 24201, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, I move to strike the
last word.
The Speaker: The Chair will state that this is not a debatable
resolution.
Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Albert: I yield to the gentleman from Iowa for the purpose
of making a brief statement.
Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the distinguished
majority leader why the adjournment resolution was not made
effective as of the first of this week, and why the recess was not
planned to take in this week as well as next week?
Mr. Albert: We have discussed this matter with the leadership
on both sides, and it was determined it would be impractical to do
so. . . .
The concurrent resolution was agreed to.
Sec. 67.5 Although a concurrent resolution providing for an adjournment
sine die is not debatable, brief debate time has been permitted by
the Chair where no point of order was raised and where the
legislative situation warranted some discussion of the resolution.
On Oct. 14, 1968,(16) Mr. Carl Albert, of Oklahoma,
called up Senate Concurrent Resolution 83, providing for an adjournment
sine die of the Congress on Oct. 11, 1968. Mr. Albert moved to amend
the resolution by striking out the date and inserting ``October 14,
1968'' and then yielded five minutes' debate, without objection, to Mr.
James G. O'Hara, of Michigan. Mr. O'Hara, who had previously expressed
his intention to prevent the adjournment of Congress until the Senate
took action on a legislative proposal permitting network TV debates
among the major Presidential candidates, announced he would no longer
persist in his efforts due to the likelihood of a failure of a quorum
in the Senate. Mr. Albert resumed the floor to express support for Mr.
O'Hara's statement and then moved the previous question on the
amendment to the adjournment resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 114 Cong. Rec. 31312, 31313, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 67.6 Recognition for a reservation of objection to a unanimous-
consent request is within the discretion of the Speaker and
sometimes he refuses to permit any de
[[Page 10905]]
bate time under such a reservation.
On Dec. 3, 1969,(17) Mrs. Edith S. Green, of Oregon,
made a unanimous-consent request that she be allowed to address the
House for one hour at the close of business. Mr. Roman C. Pucinski, of
Illinois, attempted to reserve the right to object in order to discuss
the matter. Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, refused to
entertain the reservation of objection and stated ``Either the
gentlewoman receives permission, or she does not.'' There was no
objection to the request.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 115 Cong. Rec. 36748, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
18. Any Member may demand the regular order and preclude further debate
on a reservation of the right to object (see 75 Cong. Rec.
11759, 72d Cong. 1st Sess., June 1, 1932).
No reservation of objection may be entertained during the
call of the Private Calendar (see Rule XXIV clause 6, House
Rules and Manual Sec. 893 (1995). Before that prohibition was
added to the rules, the Speaker would on occasion invoke the
five-minute rule in order to prevent prolonged discussion under
a reservation of a right to object (see, for example, 78 Cong.
Rec. 2364, 73d Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 10, 1934).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effect of Interruptions During Debate Time
Sec. 67.7 The Speaker stated that time for interruptions was taken out
of the time of the Member with the floor, except for points of
order.
On Apr. 8, 1937,(19) Mr. Arthur H. Greenwood, of
Indiana, had the floor, having called up by direction of the Committee
on Rules a privileged resolution. Mr. Carl E. Mapes, of Michigan, asked
Mr. Greenwood to yield for the propounding of a parliamentary inquiry.
Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, advised as follows on the
consumption of time for interruptions:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 81 Cong. Rec. 3283, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Mapes: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield so that I may
submit a parliamentary inquiry, not to be taken out of the
gentleman's time?
Mr. Greenwood: I yield for that purpose.
The Speaker: If the gentleman yields, it comes out of his time.
Mr. Greenwood: Then I prefer to make my statement. I will not
yield for that purpose at this time.
The Speaker: The Chair will state to the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Mapes] that the only exception where interruptions
are not taken out of the time of the speaker is on points of order.
Parliamentarian's Note: When a Member with the floor yields, the
time consumed by the interruption is charged to his
time.(20)
[[Page 10906]]
Where, however, he is taken off his feet by a point of order, quorum
call, or reservation of objection, the time consumed thereby is not
charged to his time.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. For yielding time, see Sec. 29, supra.
1. For interruptions of the Member with the floor, see Sec. 32, supra.
When a Member with the floor suspends temporarily for the
reception of a message or conference report or other pressing
legislative business, the time consumed by the interruption is
not charged to his time. See, for example, Sec. 73.19, infra,
where a Member occupying the floor for a ``special-order
speech'' suspended for a motion to suspend the rules and
consumed the remainder of his time following adoption of the
motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 67.8 Where debate has been limited to a specified number of
minutes, time is counted only during debate, not during quorum
calls.
On Aug. 4, 1966,(2) Majority Leader Carl Albert, of
Oklahoma, sought unanimous consent that debate on a pending motion to
strike a title of a bill in Committee of the Whole be limited to 30
minutes. Chairman Richard Bolling, of Missouri, then answered a
parliamentary inquiry on the effect of a quorum call on that time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 112 Cong. Rec. 18207, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, is my
understanding correct that the unanimous consent request propounded
by the distinguished majority leader would preclude a quorum call
prior to the first order of business and the 30 minutes before the
vote?
The Chairman: The Chair will reply to the gentleman that if
there is no quorum present any Member at any time can make a point
of order. In other words, it will not preclude a quorum call.
Mr. Hall: A further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman. Would
that time come out of the 30 minutes allotted for debate?
The Chairman: It would not.
Parliamentarian's Note: Time consumed by votes and quorum calls is
not counted where the time limit for debate is a specified number of
minutes or hours, as distinguished from a time certain by the clock.
Thus, when debate has been limited ``to 30 minutes,'' time is counted
only during debate, not during quorum calls. Likewise, in such cases,
if an amendment is read during debate, the time consumed by the reading
of amendments is not taken from that remaining for debate. But where
time for debate has been fixed to time certain, i.e., 4:15 p.m., the
time for parliamentary inquiries, rereading of amendments, points of
order, etc., is taken from time remaining, thus reducing the time for
debate available to Members thereafter.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. For the effect of different types of limitations on five-minute
debate in the Committee of the Whole, see Sec. 79, infra.
Although limitations are often set by the clock in the
Committee of the Whole, time in the House for debate is
customarily fixed at a certain number of minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 10907]]
Debate Time Fixed at ``One Day''
Sec. 67.9 Where debate on a bill
is fixed by special order at
one day, the term ``one day'' means one legislative day as
terminated by adjournment.
On Aug. 17, 1949, the House adopted House Resolution 327, providing
for general debate not to exceed one day in the Committee of the Whole
on H.R. 5895, furnishing military assistance to foreign nations. When
the House had resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole for
consideration of the bill, Chairman Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas,
answered
a parliamentary inquiry on the meaning of the term ``one day'':
The Chairman: Under the rule general debate will be equally
divided and will not exceed one day.
Mr. [Joseph P.] O'Hara of Minnesota: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. O'Hara of Minnesota: What is meant by the term ``one day''?
The Chairman: The term means one legislative day as terminated
by adjournment, from now until the time the House
adjourns.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 95 Cong. Rec. 11666, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
Where debate time in the Committee of the Whole is fixed at
two legislative days, the Chair does not determine when each
day is complete; the Committee so determines by rising. See
Sec. 74.9, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member's Time Lapses When He Loses the Floor
Sec. 67.10 A Member in control of time under the hour rule may yield
portions of his time to others; but if he surrenders the floor
before fulfilling his commitments to yield, all time remaining
available to him under the hour--his own as well as that promised
or yielded to others--lapses.
On Nov. 29, 1967,(5) Mr. William R. Anderson, of
Tennessee, called up by direction of the Committee on Rules House
Resolution 960, a privileged resolution authorizing travel by Members
of the Committee on Education and Labor for investigatory purposes, and
yielded 30 minutes to the minority Member handling the resolution, Mr.
Smith of California. Mr. Anderson yielded to Mr. Durward G. Hall, of
Missouri, to offer an amendment, thereby surrendering control of the
resolution to Mr. Hall. When Speaker Pro Tempore Carl Albert, of
Oklahoma,
[[Page 10908]]
stated that the question was on the resolution, a parliamentary inquiry
was stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 113 Cong. Rec. 34136-38, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [H. Allen] Smith of California: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state the
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. Smith of California: I was yielded 30 minutes a while ago
by the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Anderson]. Do I not have that
time?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: When the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr.
Anderson] yielded to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Hall] for the
purpose of offering an amendment, he surrendered all his time, and
the Chair so informed the gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. Smith of California: If the gentleman has agreed to yield
30 minutes to me, I lose it?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: When the gentleman yielded for the
purpose of amendment.
Sec. 67.11 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 is given
control for an hour.
On Mar. 27, 1945,(6) Mr. Edward E. Cox, of Georgia, the
manager of a resolution (H. Res. 195), 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, and the previous question was reconsidered and
rejected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 91 Cong. Rec. 2861, 2862, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Cox then yielded to Mr. Anderson to offer an amendment to the
resolution. At that point, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, answered a
parliamentary inquiry:
Mr. [Earl C.] 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.
The Speaker: The gentleman is correct.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 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. 67.12 If a Member recognized to control one hour on a
motion to refer a vetoed
bill yields the remainder of
his time without moving the
previous question, another
[[Page 10909]]
Member is recognized for one hour.
On Oct. 10, 1940,(8) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, laid
before the House a veto message from the President. Mr. Samuel
Dickstein, of New York, moved that the message and the bill be referred
to a House committee. He was recognized for one hour by the Speaker,
delivered some remarks, and then stated ``I yield back the balance of
my time.'' Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, asked for recognition in
opposition to the motion, and the Speaker inquired of Mr. Dickstein
whether he yielded. When Mr. Dickstein stated that he had yielded the
floor, Mr. Rankin was recognized for one hour. Mr. Dickstein then
objected that he had not meant
to surrender the floor, and the Speaker stated that he had
affirmatively done so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 86 Cong. Rec. 13522-24, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 67.13 A Member having yielded the floor without moving the
previous question after making a motion in the House, another
Member seeking recognition was recognized for one hour.
On July 5, 1945,(9) Mr. Malcolm C. Tarver, of Georgia,
offered a motion to correct the permanent Record, in order to
accurately reflect a colloquy between himself and Mr. John E. Rankin,
of Mississippi. Mr. Tarver discussed his motion and then yielded the
floor without moving the previous question. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of
Texas, recognized Mr. Rankin for one hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 91 Cong. Rec. 7220-25, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfinished Business and Resuming Debate
Sec. 67.14 When the consideration of unfinished business resumes in the
House, debate does not begin anew but recommences from the point
where it was interrupted.
The following proceedings occurred in the House on June 10, 1980:
(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 126 Cong. Rec. 13801, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: (11) The unfinished business is the
further consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 660) in the matter
of Representative Charles H. Wilson.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk will report the resolution.
The Clerk read the resolution as follows:
Resolved,
(1) That Representative Charles H. Wilson be censured;
(2) That Representative Charles H. Wilson be denied the
chair on any committee or subcommittee of the House of
Representatives. . . .
[[Page 10910]]
The Speaker: 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.
Debate Under Statutory Provisions
Sec. 67.15 Under section 604(h) of Public Law 93-198, debate on a
concurrent resolution disapproving an action by the District of
Columbia City Council can be limited by motion, but otherwise
extends not to exceed 10 hours.
During consideration of House Concurrent Resolution 228
(disapproving the Location of Chanceries Amendment Act) in the House on
Dec. 20, 1979,(12) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 125 Cong. Rec. 37299, 37303, 37304, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Fortney H.] Stark [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the Senate
concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 63) to disapprove the Location
of Chanceries Amendment Act of 1979 passed by the City Council of
the District of Columbia, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate concurrent resolution. .
. .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (13) Does the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Ashbrook) reserve the right to object?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. George E. Danielson (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: I reserve the right to
object, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Stark: Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, I have requested this procedure because the
alternate procedure is a privileged motion which is at the desk
which allows up to 10 hours of debate, which is the identical
motion, and it would take the House some more time.
I would be glad to yield to any Member under the other debate
procedure and allow every Member time for debate. I would hope to
save the House time, and I would urge the gentleman to allow us to
call up the Senate resolution.
Mr. Ashbrook: Mr. Speaker, I will still object.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Objection is heard.
Mr. Stark: Mr. Speaker, under the home rule statute (Public Law
93-198, sec. 604(g)), I move to proceed to the immediate
consideration of House Concurrent Resolution 228 as a privileged
resolution and ask unanimous consent that general debate thereon be
limited to one-half hour, to be equally divided between the
gentleman from Virginia and myself.
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on consideration of
the concurrent resolution.
The motion to consider the House concurrent resolution was
agreed to.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) to limit
debate to one-half hour?
[[Page 10911]]
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, reserving
the right to object, we have already had the debate. I do not know
why the gentleman needs a half hour, frankly.
Mr. Stark: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Bauman: I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. Stark: Mr. Speaker, it is to accommodate anybody who has
not had an opportunity to speak on the issue.
Mr. Bauman: I think 10 hours is worth it on this.
I object.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Objection is heard.
Mr. Stark: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that general
debate be limited to 20 minutes, to be divided between myself and
the gentleman from Virginia.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from California?
Mr. [Romano L.] Mazzoli [of Kentucky]: Mr. Speaker, I object.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Objection is heard.
Mr. Stark: Mr. Speaker, I move that debate on the concurrent
resolution be limited to 20 minutes.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the motion offered
by the gentleman from California. . . .
[T]he motion was agreed to.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Under the motion, there are 20 minutes
for debate. The gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) will be
recognized for 10 minutes, and the gentleman from Virginia (Robert
W. Daniel, Jr.) will be recognized for 10 minutes.
Sec. 67.16 Pursuant to section 305(a)(3) of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344, amended by Public Law 95-523), the
four hours' debate on economic goals and policies in Committee of
the Whole on the first concurrent resolution on the budget must be
consumed in its entirety or yielded back before the remaining time
for general debate on the resolution may be resumed.
During consideration of House Concurrent Resolution 115 (pertaining
to the congressional budget) in the Committee of the Whole on May 1,
1981,(14) the Chair made a statement as to procedures for
debate, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 127 Cong. Rec. 8165, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman Pro Tempore: (15) The gentleman from
California (Mr. Hawkins) has 8 minutes remaining. The rules are
that the gentleman must complete his time on economic policies
before the general debate continues, controlled by Mr. Latta and
Mr. Jones of Oklahoma on the budget resolution generally.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Charles E. Bennett (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Augustus F.] Hawkins [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I
yield back the balance of my time.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: All the time has expired on economic
goals and policies.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Jones).
[[Page 10912]]
Mr. [James R.] Jones of Oklahoma: Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 hour
to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt).
Extending Debate by Unanimous Consent
Sec. 67.17 By unanimous consent, further debate may be permitted on a
motion to instruct conferees on which the previous question has
been ordered.
During consideration of a motion to instruct House conferees on the
conference with the Senate on H.R. 3919 (crude oil windfall profits
tax) on Feb. 20, 1980,(16) the following proceedings
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 126 Cong. Rec. 3322, 3337, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Norman E.] D'Amours [of New Hampshire]: Mr. Speaker, I
offer a motion.
The Speaker: The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. D'Amours moves that, pursuant to the provisions of
clause 1(b) of Rule XXVIII, the managers on the part of the
House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 3919 be
instructed to agree to the provisions contained in parts 1, 2
and 4 of title II of the Senate amendment to the text of the
bill.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (17) The gentleman from New
Hampshire (Mr. D'Amours) is recognized for 1 hour. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Benjamin S. Rosenthal (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the
motion to instruct.
There was no objection.
Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry. . . . [T]here may have been some confusion
on the last vote, given what appeared on the screens in Members'
offices. . . .
This question . . . we will vote on now is a vote on the motion
to instruct the conferees?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question that will occur now is on
the motion to instruct the conferees.
(By unanimous consent Mr. Gibbons was allowed to speak out of
order.)
Mr. [Sam M.] Gibbons [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, I cannot
believe the last vote. It is absolutely astounding.
What my colleagues voted for was to instruct the conferees to
throw away $26 billion on some tax credits of doubtful value. . . .
But, please, do not instruct us. We are about to complete this
conference. We are about to get things wound up and get it out here
where we can either accept it or reject it.
CHAPTER 29
Consideration and Debate
H. DURATION OF DEBATE IN THE HOUSE
Sec. 68. The Hour Rule
Rule XIV clause 2 provides for a one-hour limitation on debate in
the House and in Committee of the Whole:
. . . and no Member shall occupy more than one hour in debate
on any
[[Page 10913]]
question in the House or in committee, except as further provided
in this rule.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. House Rules and Manual Sec. 758 (1995). The clause dates from 1841
(see 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4978) and is unique to the House,
the hour rule having no application to the proceedings of the
Senate (see Sec. 72, infra).
In the House of Commons of Great Britain, there is no limit
on holding the floor for debate except by closure of debate,
selection of amendments, or adoption of orders limiting debate.
See Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice 472, Butterworth & Co.
Ltd. (17th ed.) (London 1964).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any Member who is recognized in the House is recognized for one
hour, unless the matter under consideration--such as a suspension
motion--has a special debate process stated in the rule permitting the
matter to be called up, or debate is being conducted under the five-
minute rule in the House as in the Committee of the Whole, or a special
rule has provided otherwise.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. The rules provide for 10-minute, 20-minute, and 40-minute debate on
certain motions and questions (see Sec. 69, infra). For special
orders and unanimous-consent agreements altering the duration
of debate in the House, see Sec. 71, infra.
On Calendar Wednesday, debate on bills considered in the
Committee of the Whole is limited to two hours, one hour
controlled by the Member in charge of the bill and one hour by
the ranking minority member of the committee who is opposed to
the bill. See 81 Cong. Rec. 3456, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr.
14, 1937, where the House resolved itself into the Committee of
the Whole for the consideration of a bill called up under the
Calendar Wednesday procedure (call of committees under Rule
XXIV clause 7, House Rules and Manual Sec. 897 [1995]). See
also, for the two-hour limitation, 84 Cong. Rec. 5654, 76th
Cong. 1st Sess., May 17, 1939; and 72 Cong. Rec. 8938, 8939,
71st Cong. 2d Sess., May 14, 1930 (the two hours may not be
extended by unanimous consent).
For five-minute debate in the House as in the Committee of
the Whole, conducted generally by unanimous consent but by rule
for Private Calendar bills, see Sec. 70, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An hour rule also applies to general debate in the Committee of the
Whole where a Member
in control of the time may not
consume more than one hour except by unanimous consent of the House.
Debate proceeds under the hour rule unless otherwise provided by the
House.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. For general debate in the Committee of the Whole, see Sec. 75,
infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unless the House provides by special rule or by unanimous-consent
agreement for the control and distribution of time in the House, the
proponent of a proposition in the House is recognized for one hour and
typically moves the previous question at or before
[[Page 10914]]
the expiration thereof.(1) Where a Member has spoken for an
hour, his time cannot be extended, even by unanimous
consent.(2) If he loses or surrenders the floor, such as by
yielding for an amendment, or offering the previous question which is
then rejected, or failing to move the previous question, another Member
may be recognized under the hour rule, with the right to offer
amendments, to move the previous question, or to offer appropriate
motions.(3) In certain situations, where an essential motion
(such as the previous question) is defeated, a Member of the opposition
is entitled to recognition for an hour.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. See Sec. 71.21, infra. If the previous question is moved before any
debate on a debatable question, the rules provide for 40
minutes of debate, equally divided (see Sec. 69, infra), but
any debate, however brief, precludes the operation of that
rule. (See, generally, Ch. 23, supra, for the previous question
and its application.)
The Member offering a proposition in the House under the
hour rule customarily yields time for a full discussion of the
question. See, for example, Sec. 29.15, supra (yielding of time
on Committee on Rules resolutions).
2. See Sec. Sec. 68.3, 68.73, infra.
3. See Sec. 68.8, infra. For the losing and surrendering of control,
see Sec. Sec. 33, 34, supra.
4. See Sec. 68.42, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross References
Closing debate under the hour rule (manager may move previous question
at any time), see Sec. 72, infra.
Extension of the hour rule by special rule or unanimous-consent
agreement, see Sec. 73, infra.
Hour rule in the Committee of the Whole, if time for general debate not
fixed, see Sec. 75, infra.
Hour rule on resolutions and special rules, see Sec. 18, supra.
Hour rule on Senate amendments, conference reports, and amendments in
disagreement, see Sec. 17, supra.
Manager calls up proposition under the hour rule, see Sec. 24, supra.
Opening and closing debate under the hour rule, see Sec. 7, supra.
Order of recognition under the hour rule, see Sec. Sec. 12 et seq.,
supra.
Practice of Committee on Rules in distribution of the hour for debate
on special rules, see Sec. 26, supra.
Recognition of opposition under the hour rule after rejection of an
essential motion, see Sec. 15, supra.
Recognition under the hour rule where Member with the floor loses or
surrenders control, see Sec. Sec. 33, 34, supra.
Special-order speeches and the hour rule, see Sec. 71,
infra. -------------------
Before Adoption of Rules
Sec. 68.1 Prior to the adoption of the rules, a Member offering a
resolution on the seating of a Member-elect is entitled to one hour
of debate.
On Jan. 10, 1967, prior to the adoption of rules, Mr. Morris K.
Udall, of Arizona, offered as privileged House Resolution 1,
authorizing the Speaker to administer
[[Page 10915]]
the oath of office to challenged Member-elect Adam C. Powell, of New
York, and referring the question of his final right to a seat to a
select committee. Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, ruled
that Mr. Udall was entitled to recognition for one hour.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 113 Cong. Rec. 14, 15, 90th Cong. 1st Sess. For the privilege and
disposition of resolutions before the adoption of rules, see
Ch. 1, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 68.2 Before the adoption of rules, if the previous question is
voted down on a resolution and an amendment is offered, the
proponent of the amendment is recognized under the hour rule.
On Jan. 3, 1969, before the adoption of rules, the House was
considering a privileged resolution related to the right of a Member-
elect to his seat.(6) After the previous question was voted
down on the resolution, Mr. Clark MacGregor, of Minnesota, offered an
amendment in the nature of a substitute to the original resolution.
Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, recognized Mr. MacGregor
for one hour of debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 115 Cong. Rec. 27-29, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bills and Resolutions Generally
Sec. 68.3 While a Member may be given control of several hours of
debate, he may not yield himself more than an hour or have his time
extended, even by unanimous consent.
On Mar. 9, 1976,(7) Speaker Pro Tempore Morgan F.
Murphy, of Illinois, made a ruling relative to extension of debate time
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 122 Cong. Rec. 5900, 5906, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Pike) is recognized for 60 minutes.
Mr. [Otis G.] Pike [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, last Sunday
while I was picking up oysters and eating up some chowder, I
decided that perhaps the time had come for me to make a statement
about the late House Select Committee on Intelligence. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The time of the gentleman from New
York has expired.
Mr. [Dale] Milford [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that the time of the gentleman be extended 5 minutes.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman's request is out of
order.
Sec. 68.4 Where the House agrees to consider in the House a
[[Page 10916]]
bill called up by unanimous consent from the Speaker's table, the
Member calling up the bill is recognized for one hour.
On Oct. 5, 1962,(8) Mr. Francis E. Walter, of
Pennsylvania, called up S. 3361, relating to the entry of alien
specialists, from the Speaker's table and asked unanimous consent for
its immediate consideration in the House. When the request was granted,
Mr. Walter was recognized for one hour. Speaker John W. McCormack, of
Massachusetts, indicated that no amendments could be offered to the
bill unless Mr. Walter yielded for that purpose.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 108 Cong. Rec. 22606-09, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
9. For disposal of Senate bills on the Speaker's table, and the
requirements such bills must meet before such disposition, see
Rule XXIV clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 882 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: The procedure is otherwise if the request
is simply for the ``immediate consideration'' of a Union Calendar bill
or of an unreported bill which would, if reported, be referred to the
Union Calendar. In that event the measure is considered under the five-
minute rule in the House as in the Committee of the Whole.
Sec. 68.5 When a District of Columbia bill on the House Calendar is
called up on District Day, under Rule XXV clause 8, the bill is
considered in the House under the hour rule.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 107 Cong. Rec. 10068, 10069, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., June 12, 1961.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Use of Previous Question To Terminate Debate
Sec. 68.6 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,(11) 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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 123 Cong. Rec. 6816, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: (12) The gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Bolling) is recognized for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 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
[[Page 10917]]
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. . . .
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 Yielded Time Cannot Reserve Time
Sec. 68.7 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,(13) during consideration of House Resolution 164
(creating
a Select Committee on Privacy, Human Values, and Democratic
Institutions):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 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 In-stitutions. . . .
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?
The Speaker: (14) The gentleman may do that. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the
right to object . . . is it in order to have a
[[Page 10918]]
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.
--Yielding Floor for Amendments
Sec. 68.8 Where the Member in charge of a measure under the hour rule
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 is given control for an hour.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 91 Cong. Rec. 2861, 2862, 79th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 27, 1945.
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.
Where the Member with the floor under the hour rule
surrenders the floor without moving the previous question, any
Member of the House securing recognition in opposition to the
pending proposal is recognized for one hour (see Sec. 34,
supra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consideration of Measures in House
--Private Bill By Unanimous Consent
Sec. 68.9 When a private bill on the calendar of the Committee of the
Whole is called up by unanimous consent for consideration in the
House, the Member making the request is recognized for one hour.
On Mar. 12, 1963,(16) Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York,
asked unanimous consent for the immediate consideration in the House of
private bill H.R. 4374, to proclaim Sir Winston Churchill an honorary
citizen of the United States. Speaker John W. McCormack, of
Massachusetts, answered parliamentary inquiries on the control and time
for debate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 109 Cong. Rec. 3993, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, under what
circumstances will this resolution be considered? Will there be any
time for discussion of the resolution, if unanimous consent is
given?
[[Page 10919]]
The Speaker: In response to the parliamentary inquiry of the
gentleman from Iowa, if consent is granted for the present
consideration of the bill, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Celler]
will be recognized for 1 hour and the gentleman from New York may
yield to such Members as he desires to yield to before moving the
previous question.
Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object,
is sometime to be allocated to this side of the aisle?
Mr. Celler: I intend to allocate half of the time to the other
side.
Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
--Consideration of Senate Bill in House Pursuant to Special Rule
Sec. 68.10 Following the adoption of a resolution making in order the
consideration of a Senate bill in the House the Member calling up
the Senate bill is recognized for one hour.
The proceedings relative to consideration of S. 2667 (Emergency
Petroleum Allocation Act Extensions) in the House on Nov. 14,
1975,(17) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 121 Cong. Rec. 36638, 36641, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Richard] Bolling [of Missouri] from the Committee on
Rules, reported the following privileged resolution (H. Res. 866,
Rept. No. 94-666), which was referred to the House Calendar and
ordered to be printed.
H. Res. 866
Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this
resolution it shall be in order to take from the Speaker's
table the bill S. 2667, to extend the Emergency Petroleum
Allocation Act of 1973, and to consider said bill in the House.
Mr. Bolling: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 866 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Speaker: (18) The Clerk will report the
resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read the resolution.
The Speaker: The question is, Will the House now consider House
Resolution 866?
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. [John H.] Rousselot [of California]: 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: . . . Two hundred and forty-one Members are
present, a quorum.
Mr. Rousselot: Mr. Speaker, I demand a division.
On a division (demanded by Mr. Rousselot) there were--yeas 171,
noes 14.
So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof), the House agreed
to consider House Resolution 866.
The Speaker: The question is on the resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
[[Page 10920]]
The Speaker: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West
Virginia (Mr. Staggers).
Mr. [Harley O.] Staggers [of West Virginia]: Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to House Resolution 866, I call up the Senate bill (S.
2667) and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
--House Bill
Sec. 68.11 A Member calling up a bill or joint resolution in the House
pursuant to a special order controls one hour of debate thereon and
may of-fer an amendment thereto and move the previous question on
the amendment and on the bill or joint resolution.
On Nov. 3, 1977,(19) the proceedings relating to
consideration of House Joint Resolution 643 (continuing appropriations)
in the House were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 123 Cong. Rec. 36970, 36971, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the
rule just adopted, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 643)
making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1978,
and for other purposes. . . .
The Clerk read the joint resolution, as follows:
H.J. Res. 643
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
following sums are appropriated out of any money in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, and out of applicable
corporate or other revenues, receipts, and funds, for the
several departments, agencies, corporations, and other
organizational units of the Government for the fiscal year
1978, namely:
Sec. 101. Such amounts as may be necessary for continuing
projects or activities which were conducted in the fiscal year
1977, and for which appropriations, funds, or other authority
would be available in the District of Columbia Appropriations
Act, 1978 (H.R. 9005) as passed the House of Representatives or
the Senate. . . .
The Speaker: (20) The gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Mahon) is recognized for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Mahon: Mr. Speaker, Members need to understand what our
problem is at the moment. In view of the fact that final action has
not been taken on the District of Columbia appropriation bill and
on the Labor-Health, Education, and Welfare bill, we have to have a
continuing resolution. . . .
Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Mahon: On page 2, line 6, strike
the period and insert the following: ``: Provided further, That
the rate of operations for the Disaster Loan Fund of the Small
Business Administration contained in said Act shall be the rate
as passed the Senate. . . .
Mr. Mahon: It is absolutely urgent that we find a way to get
this continuing resolution acted upon by the Congress tomorrow,
since we cannot do it tonight. It is imperative that we get
[[Page 10921]]
through the Congress a continuing resolution on tomorrow and send
it to the President. Otherwise, there will be some very serious
problems.
Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the amendment and
the joint resolution to final passage.
The previous question was ordered.
The amendment was agreed to.
The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a
third time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to
reconsider was laid on the table.
Senate Amendments
Sec. 68.12 Senate amendments which do not require consideration in
Committee of the Whole are debatable under the hour rule when
considered in the House.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 106 Cong. Rec. 18357, 18358, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 30, 1960;
and 81 Cong. Rec. 644, 645, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 1, 1937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Senate Amendments in Disagreement
Sec. 68.13 Prior to the amendment to Rule XXVIII, clause 2(b) in the
92d and 99th Congresses (providing that the hour debate on an
amendment in disagreement be divided), debate on an amendment
reported from conference in disagreement was under the hour rule
and the Member calling up the conference report was in control of
the debate thereon.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. See 108 Cong. Rec. 23423-43, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 12, 1962;
108 Cong. Rec. 15294, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 1, 1962; and 88
Cong. Rec. 2508, 2512, 2513, 77th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 16,
1942.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: House Resolution 1153, which was adopted on
Oct. 13, 1972, 92d Cong. 2d Sess., to become effective at the end of
the 92d Congress, amended Rule XXVIII by requiring that
debate on amendments reported from conference in disagreement be
equally divided and controlled by the majority and minority parties.
Thus the hour of debate on a motion offered to dispose of an amendment
in disagreement is equally controlled by the Member offering the
initial motion and a Member of the minority, typically the senior
conferee of that party.
The debate may be divided three ways if both the manager and the
ranking minority Member agree. See Rule XXVIII clause 2(b)(1), House
Rules and Manual Sec. 912b (1995), as amended in the 99th Congress by
H. Res. 7, Jan. 3, 1985.
Sec. 68.14 Debate on a Senate amendment reported in disagreement by
managers on the part of the House is
[[Page 10922]]
under the hour rule, and the Member calling up the conference
report is in control of the time (subject to the division of time
required by clause 2(b) of Rule XXVIII).
On Aug. 1, 1962,(3) Mr. John E. Fogarty, of Rhode
Island, had called up a conference report on H.R. 10904, the labor,
health, education, and welfare appropriations for fiscal 1963. Certain
Senate amendments had been reported
in disagreement. When Senate amendment No. 3 was read, Mr. Fogarty
offered a motion that the House recede from disagreement and concur
with an amendment. Speaker Pro Tempore Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, then
answered a parliamentary inquiry on control of the time:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 108 Cong. Rec. 15294, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary
inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Gross: Is the gentleman from Rhode Island going to explain
any of these amendments?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: That is within the discretion of the
gentleman.
Mr. Gross: A further parliamentary inquiry. Does not the
gentleman have an hour on each of these amendments?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman has if he desires to use
it.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. See also 108 Cong. Rec. 23423-43, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 12,
1962. For consideration of amendments
in disagreement, see Rule XXVIII, clause 2(b)(1) House Rules
and Manual Sec. Sec. 912b et seq. (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 68.15 A motion in the House to concur in a Senate amendment, the
stage of disagreement having been reached,
is debatable under the hour rule.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. See 113 Cong. Rec. 19003, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., July 17, 1967; and
81 Cong. Rec. 7197, 7198, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., July 15, 1937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 68.16 Debate on a motion to concur in a Senate amendment with an
amendment, the stage of disagreement having been reached, is un-der
the hour rule.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. See 108 Cong. Rec. 23423-43, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 12, 1962;
108 Cong. Rec. 15294, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 1, 1962; and 89
Cong. Rec. 5899, 5900, 78th Cong. 1st Sess., June 15, 1943.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 68.17 Debate on a motion that the House recede from its
disagreement to a Senate amendment and concur therewith is under
the hour rule, and if the question is divided, the hour rule
applies to each motion separately.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 86 Cong. Rec. 5889, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., May 9, 1940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 68.18 Debate on a motion to dispose of a Senate amend
[[Page 10923]]
ment to a House amendment to a Senate amendment to
a House bill, the stage of
disagreement having been reached, is under the hour
rule.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 116 Cong. Rec. 750, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 22, 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Following Rejection of First Motion
Sec. 68.19 Under clause 2(b) of Rule XXVIII, the time allotted for
debate on an original motion to dispose of
disagreement on a Senate amendment is divided equally between
majority and minority parties (except that if both floor managers
support the motion then one-third of the time may be claimed by an
opponent); and where the original motion to dispose of the Senate
amendment in disagreement is rejected, the time for debate on a
successor motion is also governed by clause 2(b) of Rule XXVIII and
may be equally divided.
On Aug. 6, 1993,(9) the House had under consideration
Senate amendments in disagreement to H.R. 2493 (Agriculture
appropriations for 1994):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 139 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 103d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (10) The Clerk will
designate the next amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Romano L. Mazzoli (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Senate amendment No. 164: Page 81, after line 12, insert:
Sec. 730. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise
made available by this Act shall be used by the Secretary of
Agriculture to provide a total amount of payments to a person
to support the price of honey under section 207 of the
Agricultural Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 1446h) and section 405A of
such Act (7 U.S.C. 1425a) in excess of $50,000 in the 1994 crop
year.
motion offered by mr. skeen
Mr. [Joe] Skeen [of New Mexico]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Motion offered by Mr. Skeen:
Mr. Skeen moves that the House recede and concur in the
amendment of the Senate numbered 164 with an amendment as
follows: In the matter proposed to be inserted by the
amendment, add the following: ``The GAO shall conduct a study
and report to Congress on the effectiveness of the program.''
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from New Mexico [Mr.
Skeen] is recognized for 30 minutes.
Mr. [Harris W.] Fawell [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his
parliamentary inquiry.
[[Page 10924]]
Mr. Fawell: First of all, the motion that the gentleman from
New Mexico offered was read so fast I did not understand just what
it was. But I rise in opposition.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: If the gentleman is opposed to the
motion offered by the gentleman from New Mexico, the gentleman [Mr.
Fawell] is entitled to 20 minutes to debate the issue. . . .
Mr. Fawell: . . . Assuming that this particular motion fails,
can the Chair advise me where we will be then?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Another Member will be recognized for
another motion on this amendment in disagreement. . . .
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
New Mexico [Mr. Skeen]. . . .
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were yeas
140, nays 274, not voting 19, as follows: . . .
So the House refused to recede
and concur in the amendment of the
Senate numbered 164 with an amendment. . . .
Mr. Fawell: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Fawell moves that the House recede and concur in the
amendment of the Senate numbered 164 with
an amendment as follows: In the matter proposed to be inserted
by the amendment, strike ``$50,000'' and insert ``$0''.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
Fawell] will be recognized for 30 minutes in support of his motion,
and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] will be recognized for
30 minutes in opposition.
Under a former practice, if the initial motion to dispose of the
amendment in disagreement was rejected, the time for debate on a
subsequent motion was under the hour rule and entirely within the
control of the Member of the opposition recognized to make the motion.
Thus, on July 19, 1977,(11) during consideration of the
conference report on H.R. 7554 (Housing and Urban Development and
independent agencies appropriation bill for fiscal 1978) in the House,
it was demonstrated that, where a motion to dispose of an amendment
reported from conference in disagreement, offered by the manager of the
conference report, is rejected, the Speaker recognizes a Member leading
the opposition to offer another motion to dispose of the amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 123 Cong. Rec. 23668, 23669, 23678, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (12) The Clerk will report
the next amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Norman Y. Mineta (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Senate amendment No. 24: Page 17, line 11, strike out
``$2,943,600,-000'' and insert ``$3,013,000,000''.
Mr. [Edward P.] Boland [of Massachusetts] [manager of the
conference report]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
[[Page 10925]]
Mr. Boland moves that the House recede from its
disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 24 and
concur therein with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the
sum proposed by said amendment insert ``$2,995,300,000''.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Boland) is recognized for 30 minutes and the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Coughlin) is recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Boland).
Mr. Boland: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume. . . .
Mr. [Don] Fuqua [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition
to amendment No. 24. . . .
[After debate, the motion was rejected.]
Mr. Fuqua: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Fuqua moves that the House recede from its disagreement
to the amendment of the Senate numbered 24 and concur therein.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Fuqua)
is recognized for 60 minutes. . . .
Mr. Fuqua: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the
motion.
The previous question was ordered.
The motion was agreed to.
--Intervention of Preferential Motion
Sec. 68.20 The time for debate on an amendment reported from conference
in disagreement is equally divided between the majority and
minority parties under Rule XXVIII clause 2(b), and a Member
offering a preferential motion does not thereby gain control of
time for debate; nor can the Member who has offered the
preferential motion move the previous question during time yielded
to him for debate, since that would deprive the Members in charge
of control of the time for debate.
On Dec. 4, 1975,(13) an example of the proposition
described above occurred in the House during consideration of the
conference report on H.R. 8069 (the Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare and related agencies appropriation bill):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 121 Cong. Rec. 38714, 38716, 38717, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Daniel J.] Flood [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Flood moves that the House recede from its disagreement
to the amendment of the Senate numbered 72 and concur therein
with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the matter inserted
by said amendment, insert the following:
``Sec. 209. None of the funds contained in this Act shall
be used to
require, directly or indirectly, the transportation of any
student to a school other than the school which is nearest or
next nearest the student's home. . . .
[[Page 10926]]
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Bauman moves that the House recede from its
disagreement to Senate amendment No. 72 and concur therein.
The Speaker: (14) The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Flood).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, may I inquire, who has the right to
the time under the motion?
The Speaker: The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Flood) has 30
minutes, and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Michel) has 30
minutes. The time is controlled by the committee leadership on each
side, and they are not taken from the floor by a preferential
motion. . . .
Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I yield such
time as he may consume to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman).
Mr. Bauman: The gentleman from Maryland has made his case and
if the gentleman would like to concur in the stand taken by the
majority party in favor of busing he can do that. I do not concur.
Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the motion.
Mr. Flood: Mr. Speaker, I demand the question be divided.
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.
The Speaker: The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Flood) has
the floor and the Chair is trying to let the gentleman be heard.
Mr. Flood: Mr. Speaker, I demand a division.
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I have not yielded. My time has not
expired.
The Speaker: The gentleman has time for debate only.
Mr. Bauman: No; Mr. Speaker, it was not yielded for debate
only.
The Speaker: The gentleman from Maryland has 15 seconds.
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.
The Speaker: The gentleman was yielded to for debate only. The
gentleman from Illinois had no authority under clause 2, rule
XXVIII to yield for any other purpose but debate.
Parliamentarian's Note: Debate on a motion that the House recede
from its disagreement to a Senate amendment and concur is under the
hour rule. In the above instance, the motion to recede and concur was
divided.(15) If the motion is so divided, the hour rule
applies to each motion separately.(16) Thus, technically,
the Bauman motion to concur could have been debated under the hour
rule, since the request for division of the question was made prior to
the ordering of the previous question. Control of the time, however,
would have remained with the majority and minority under the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 121 Cong. Rec. 38717, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
16. See 86 Cong. Rec. 5889, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., May 9, 1940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether or not the division demand was made before or after
[[Page 10927]]
the ordering of the previous question on the motion to recede and
concur, the preferential motion offered by Mr. Flood to concur with an
amendment could have been debated under the hour rule equally divided,
since it was a separate motion not affected by ordering the previous
question on the motion to recede and concur.
Had the Bauman motion to concur been rejected, the motion to concur
with another amendment would have been in order, and preferential to a
motion to insist on disagreement.
Sec. 68.21 Time for debate on motions to dispose of amendments in
disagreement is equally divided, under Rule XXVIII clause 2(b),
between the majority and minority party; and if a minority Member
has been designated by his party to control time, another minority
Member who offers a preferential motion does not thereby gain
control of the time given to the minority.
On May 14, 1975,(17) during consideration of the
conference report on H.R. 4881(18) in the House, the
following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 121 Cong. Rec. 14385, 14386, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
18. The Emergency Employment Appropriations for fiscal year 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker:(19) The Clerk will report the next
amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Senate amendment No. 61: Page 41, line 9, insert:
``Federal Railroad Administration
``rail transportation improvement and employment
``For payment of financial assistance to assist railroads
by providing funds for repairing, rehabilitating, and improving
railroad roadbeds and facilities, $700,000,000. . . .
Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Mahon moves that the House insist on its disagreement
to the amendment of the Senate numbered 61.
preferential motion offered by mr. conte
Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I offer
a preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Conte moves that the House recede from its disagreement
to Senate amendment Number 61 and concur therein with an
amendment, as follows: In lieu of the matter proposed to be
inserted by the Senate, insert the following:
``CHAPTER VIII
``Department of Transportation
``federal railroad administration
``For payment of financial assistance to assist railroads
by providing
[[Page 10928]]
funds for repairing, rehabilitating, and improving railroad
roadbeds and facilities, $200,000,000. . . .
Mr. [E. G.] Shuster [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Shuster: Mr. Speaker, how is the time divided?
The Speaker: The time is divided equally between the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Mahon), who has 30 minutes, and the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Michel) who has 30 minutes or such small fraction
thereof as he may decide to use.
Conference Reports
Sec. 68.22 One hour of debate, equally divided between the majority and
minority parties, is permitted on a conference report; and the
Speaker recognizes the Member calling up the report to control 30
minutes and a Member from the other party (preferably the senior
conferee from that party) to control 30 minutes.
On Jan. 19, 1972,(20) Wayne L. Hays, of Ohio, Chairman
of the Committee on House Administration, called up the conference
report on S. 382, the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1972. Speaker
Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, recognized Mr. Hays to control 30 minutes of
debate on the report and Mr. William L. Springer, of Illinois (ranking
minority member of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce and
a conferee), to handle the other 30 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 118 Cong. Rec. 319, 320, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conferees had been appointed from both the Committees on House
Administration and Interstate and Foreign Commerce, since the bill was
the work product of both committees.
Parliamentarian's Note: Rule XXVIII, clause 2(a), was amended in
the 92d Congress, 1st session (H. Res. 5) to require a division of the
hour for debate on a conference report. Prior to that time, debate on a
conference report was under the hour rule, with the Member recognized
to call up the report in control of the time. Clause 2(a) was again
amended in 1985 to permit a three-way division of the hour if both the
majority and minority floor managers support the report.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. See, for example, 115 Cong. Rec. 40451, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Dec.
20, 1969; 108 Cong. Rec. 4247-51, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 15,
1962. See also 99th Cong. 1st Sess., H. Res. 7, Jan. 3, 1985,
p. 393.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Motion To Reject Nongermane Provision in
Sec. 68.23 Pursuant to a special rule and to clause 1 of Rule
[[Page 10929]]
XX (now clause 4(a), Rule XXVIII), the House agreed to a section of
a conference
report (containing non-germane Senate matter) on a separate vote
after 40 minutes' debate thereon, equally divided between the
Member moving to reject the section and a Member opposed to that
motion. The House then considered the entire conference report, the
Member calling it up and a Member
of the minority party each being recognized for 30 minutes under
clause 2(a) of Rule XXVIII.
On Nov. 10, 1971,(2) Mr. F. Edward Hebert, of Louisiana,
called up the conference report on H.R. 8687, military procurement
authorization. Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, stated the special
order governing the consideration of the report (H. Res. 696), provided
that a separate vote could be demanded on certain sections of the
conference report (containing non-germane portions of the Senate
amendment). Mr. Donald Fraser, of Minnesota, demanded a separate vote
on section 503 of the report, pursuant to the special order and
pursuant to Rule XX, clause 1. The Speaker recognized Mr. Hebert and
Mr. Fraser for 20 minutes each and the House then agreed to retain
section 503 within the conference report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 117 Cong. Rec. 40489, 40490, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The House then proceeded to the consideration of the entire
conference report. The Speaker stated that one hour of debate would be
had thereon, Mr. Hebert to be recognized for 30 minutes and a member of
the minority party, Mr. Leslie C. Arends, of Illinois, to be recognized
for 30 minutes.
After Rejection of Nongermane Portion of Conference Report--Debate on
Motion To Recede and Concur in Senate Amendment With Amendment
Consisting of Remainder of Conference Report
Sec. 68.24 Where the House agrees to a motion to reject
a nongermane portion of a conference report pursuant to Rule XXVIII
clause 4, the pending question, in the form of a motion offered by
the manager of the conference report, is to recede from
disagreement to the Senate amendment and concur with an amendment
consisting of the remaining portions of the conference report not
rejected on the sepa
[[Page 10930]]
rate vote, and one hour of debate, equally divided between the
majority and minority parties, is permitted on that pending
question.
The proceedings of Dec. 12, 1979,(3) during
consideration of H.R. 595(4) in the House, were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 125 Cong. Rec. 35522, 35527, 35528, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
4. A bill authorizing the General Services Administration to dispose
of tin from the national stockpile.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert H.] Mollohan [of West Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I
call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 595) to authorize
the Administrator of General Services to dispose of 35,000 long
tons of tin in the national and supplemental stockpiles, to provide
for the deposit of moneys received from the sale of such tin, and
for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
Mr. [Larry] McDonald [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, I have a point
of order.
The Speaker:(5) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the
matter contained in clause 3 of section 3 of the substitute for the
text of the bill recommended in the conference report would not be
germane to H.R. 595 under clause 7 of rule XVI if offered in the
House and is therefore subject to a point of order under clause
4(a) of rule XXVIII. . . .
Mr. Mollohan: . . . I concede the point of order.
The Speaker: The point of order is sustained.
Mr. McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. McDonald moves, pursuant to the provisions of clause
4(b) of rule XXVIII, that the House reject clause 3 of section
3 of the substitute for the text of the bill recommended in the
conference report.
The Speaker: The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. McDonald) will be
recognized for 20 minutes, and the gentleman from West Virginia
(Mr. Mollohan) will be recognized for 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. McDonald).
. . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore:(6) The question is on the
motion offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. McDonald).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Al Swift (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced
that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: 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
272, nays 122, not voting 39, as follows: . . .
So the motion was agreed to. . . .
Mr. Mollohan: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
[[Page 10931]]
Mr. Mollohan moves pursuant to clause 4 of Rule XXVIII and
the actions of the House, that the House recede from its
disagreement to the amendment of the Senate to the text of the
bill and concur therein with an amendment as follows:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the
amendment of the Senate to the text of the bill insert the
following:
That this Act may be cited as the ``Strategic and Critical
Materials Transaction Authorization Act of 1979''.
Sec. 2. There is authorized to be appropriated the sum of
$237,000,-000 for the acquisition of strategic and critical
material under section 6(a) of the Strategic and Critical
Materials Stock Piling Act (50 U.S.C. 98e). . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from West Virginia (Mr.
Mollohan) will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from
Maine (Mr. Emery) will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr.
Mollohan).
--Where Motion To Reject Is Defeated
Sec. 68.25 Upon defeat of a motion to reject a nongermane portion of a
motion to recede and concur in a Senate amendment with a further
amendment, the Member who had moved to recede and concur with an
amendment and a minority Member are each recognized for 30 minutes
of debate on that motion.
On July 31, 1974,(7) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma,
recognized Wilbur Mills, of Arkansas, to call up the conference report
on H.R. 8217 (exemption from tariff duty of equipment on United States
vessels) in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 120 Cong. Rec. 26082, 26083, 26088, 26089, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Mills: Mr. Speaker, I call up the conference report on the
bill (H.R. 8217) to exempt from duty certain equipment and repairs
for vessels operated by or for any agency of the United States, and
ask unanimous consent that the statement of the managers be read in
lieu of the report. . . .
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the statement. . . .
Mr. Mills: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Mills moves that the House recede from its disagreement
to the Senate amendment to the text of the bill, H.R. 8217, and
concur therein with an amendment, as follows:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate
amendment to the text of the bill (page 2, after line 6),
insert the following:
Sec. 3. The last sentence of section 203(e)(2) of the
Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970
(as added by section 20 of Public Law 93-233 and amended by
section 2 of Public Law 93-256 and by section 2 of Public Law
93-329) is amended by striking out ``August 1, 1974'' and
inserting in lieu thereof ``April 30, 1975''. . . .
[[Page 10932]]
Mr. [J. J.] Pickle [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of
order on section 3 of this bill because it does not conform to the
House germaneness rule, rule 28, clause 5(b)(1). . . .
Section 3 deals with the unemployment compensation program as
it relates to extended benefits. This has nothing to do with the
``repair of vessels.'' . . .
Mr. Mills: Mr. Speaker, I must admit that the point of order is
well taken. I cannot resist the point of order.
The Speaker: The point of order is sustained.
Mr. Pickle: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Pickle moves that the House reject section 3 of the
proposed amendment to the Senate amendment to the text of the
bill H.R. 8217.
The Speaker: The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Pickle) will be
recognized for 20 minutes, and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr.
Mills) will be recognized for 20 minutes. . . .
The Speaker: The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Pickle).
The question was taken, and the Speaker announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote
on the ground that a quorum is not present. . . .
The Speaker: . . . [T]he Chair does recognize the gentleman
from Iowa who objects to the vote on the ground that a quorum is
not present and makes the point of order that a quorum is not
present, and evidently a quorum is not present. . . .
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas
63, nays 336, not voting 35, as follows: . . .
So the motion was rejected. . . .
The Speaker: The Chair desires to state that under the rule the
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Mills) will be recognized for 30
minutes and
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Schneebeli) will be recognized
for 30 minutes.
--Motion Sending Bill to Conference
Sec. 68.26 A Member making a motion to send a bill to conference
pursuant to authorization by his committee un-der Rule XX clause 1,
is recognized for one hour.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. See 116 Cong. Rec. 5722, 5723, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 3, 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Motion To Close Conference Meeting
Sec. 68.27 The motion to close conference committee meetings is
debatable under the hour rule.
During consideration of H.R. 5970 (Department of Defense
authorization for fiscal year 1978) in the House on May 23,
1977,(9) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 123 Cong. Rec. 15880, 15881, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Charles E.] Bennett [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous
[[Page 10933]]
consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 5970) to
authorize appropriations during the fiscal year 1978, for
procurement of aircraft . . . and for other purposes, with Senate
amendments thereto, disagree to the Senate amendments, and agree to
the conference asked by the Senate.
The Speaker: (10) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Florida? The Chair hears none, and appoints
the following conferees: . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Bennett moves, pursuant to rule XXVIII 6(a) of the
House rules that the conference committee meetings between the
House and the Senate on H.R. 5970 the fiscal year 1978 military
authorization bill be closed to the public at such times as
classified national security information is under
consideration.
The Speaker: The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bennett) is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Bob Wilson), the ranking minority member on
the committee, pending which I yield myself such time as I may
consume; at the conclusion of which I will be happy to yield to any
Member who wishes to be heard.
Parliamentarian's Note: This was the first occasion on which the
House considered a motion, pursuant to Rule XXVIII, clause 6(a), that a
conference committee meeting be closed to the public. Pending the
motion to close the conference committee meeting to the public, with
the exception of any sitting Member of Congress, the Speaker stated in
response to a parliamentary inquiry that the motion was not binding on
the Senate conferees, and that each House would have one vote in
conference on whether to close the meeting to the
public.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 123 Cong. Rec. 15884, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Motion To Instruct House Managers
Sec. 68.28 The Member moving to instruct House managers appointed to a
conference committee has 30 minutes of debate at his disposal
(whether the motion is made before the conferees have been
appointed or at least 20 days after they have been appointed,
pursuant to clause 1(b) of Rule XXVIII) and 30 minutes is
controlled by the minority party.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See Rule XXVIII, clause 1(a) House Rules and Manual Sec. 909
(1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 68.29 A Member offering a motion to instruct conferees is entitled
to one hour of debate unless a motion to lay that motion on the
table is adopted prior to debate.
[[Page 10934]]
On Aug. 26, 1976,(13) the House had under consideration
a motion to agree to a conference on H.R. 8603 (the Postal
Reorganization Act Amendments of 1976), when the following exchange
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 122 Cong. Rec. 27828, 27831, 27832, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [David N.] Henderson [of North Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, I
ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's desk the bill
(H.R. 8603) to amend title 39, United States Code, with respect to
the organizational and financial matters of the U.S. Postal Service
and the Postal Rate Commission, and for other purposes, with Senate
amendments thereto, disagree to the Senate amendments, and agree to
the conference asked by the Senate. . . .
Mr. [William V.] Alexander [of Arkansas]: Mr. Speaker, if an
objection is heard, is it not so that the procedure that would be
followed is for the chairman of the committee to go to the
committee, convene the committee, and get a motion to come back to
the floor asking for a conference, and that that then would be
subject to 1 hour of general debate? Is that not so? . . .
Mr. Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Alexander moves that the Managers on the part of the
House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses on the bill, H.R. 8603, be instructed to insist upon (1)
section 2(a) and section 2(c) of such bill as passed the House;
(2) section 2401(b)(1) of title 39, U.S. Code, as added by
section 2(b) of such bill as passed the House; and (3) section
16 of such bill as passed the House.
Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I move that the motion offered by
the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Alexander) be laid on the table. .
. .
Mr. Alexander: Mr. Speaker, is it not so that the parliamentary
situation is that my motion is entitled to 1 hour of general debate
on that motion, the time to be controlled by me as the person who
is offering the motion; but in view of the fact that the gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. Henderson) has offered a motion to table,
a vote for that motion would preclude any debate and preclude any
consideration of the motion to instruct? Is that correct, Mr.
Speaker?
The Speaker:(14) The Chair will state that if the
motion to table is voted upon and rejected, 1 hour will be allotted
to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Alexander).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: Upon an objection to a unanimous-consent
request to take a House bill with Senate amendments from the Speaker's
table and agree to a conference, a motion to that effect is privileged
if made by direction of the committee having jurisdiction over the bill
under clause 1 of Rule XX, and that motion is debatable for one hour.
--Motion To Instruct House Managers, Amendment to
Sec. 68.30 The division of time, under Rule XXVIII, clause
[[Page 10935]]
1(b), for debate on a motion to instruct conferees does not extend
to separate debate on an amendment to such a motion, which is
governed by Rule XIV, clause 2, the general hour rule in the House.
On Oct. 3, 1989,(15) during consideration of H.R. 3026
(the District of Columbia appropriation bill for fiscal year 1990), it
was demonstrated that, where the previous question is rejected on a
motion to instruct conferees, a separate hour of debate on any
amendment to the motion is fully controlled by the proponent of the
amendment, as the manager of the original motion loses the floor. The
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 135 Cong. Rec. 22859, 22862, 22863, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Julian C.] Dixon [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R.
3026) making appropriations for the government of the District of
Columbia and other activities chargeable in whole or in part
against the revenues of said District for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 1990, and for other purposes, with Senate amendments
thereto, disagree to the Senate amendments, and agree to the
conference asked by the Senate.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (16) Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from California?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. William J. Hughes (N.J.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
Mr. [Bill] Green [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion
to instruct.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Green moves that the managers on the part of the House,
at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on
the bill H.R. 3026, be instructed to agree to the amendment of
the Senate numbered 3.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from New York [Mr.
Green] is recognized for 30 minutes in support his motion. . . .
Mr. Green: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the
motion to instruct. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on ordering the
previous question.
[The previous question was rejected.]
Mr. Dixon: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry. . . .
I understand now that the gentleman from California [Mr.
Dannemeyer] intends to offer an amendment to the motion offered by
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Green].
My question is: Under the offering will I receive part of the
time?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would state to the gentleman
from California [Mr. Dixon] that 1 hour would be allotted to the
gentleman from California [Mr. Dannemeyer]. He would have to yield
time to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon]. . . .
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Dannemeyer to the motion to
instruct: At the end of the pending motion, strike
[[Page 10936]]
the period, insert a semicolon, and add the following language:
``; Provided further, That the conferees be instructed to agree
to the provisions contained in Senate amendment numbered 22.''
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from California [Mr.
Dannemeyer] is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. [William E.] Dannemeyer [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I
yield one-half of the time to the gentleman from California [Mr.
Dixon], for purposes of debate only.
Parliamentarian's Note: The control of debate in the above instance
is to be distinguished from debate on motions in the House to dispose
of amendments in disagreement. In the latter case,
although the manager of the
original motion might lose the
floor upon defeat of his motion,
debate on a subsequent motion is
nevertheless divided under Rule XXVIII, clause 2(b). It is only debate
on amendments to such motions, when pending, that is not divided. Rule
XXVIII is discussed in Sec. 26, supra.
Privileged Resolutions
Sec. 68.31 Debate on privileged resolutions is under the hour
rule.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 111 Cong. Rec. 13799, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., June 16, 1965; and 109
Cong. Rec. 3051, 3052, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 27, 1963.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Committee Funding Resolution
Sec. 68.32 Debate on a privileged resolution from the Committee on
House Administration is under the hour rule, and the Member
recognized to call it up has control of the time.
On Feb. 27, 1963,(18) Mr. Samuel N. Friedel, of
Maryland, called up by direction of the Committee on House
Administration House Resolution 164, a privileged resolution providing
funds for the Committee on Armed Services. Speaker John W. McCormack,
of Massachusetts, answered a parliamentary inquiry as to control of the
time for debate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 109 Cong. Rec. 3051, 3052, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 10937]]
the resolution has control of the time and he, in turn, yields
time.
Majority Leader Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, then made the following
statement on distribution of time to the minority:
Following the statement of the distinguished Speaker of the
House, the gentleman from Ohio made the statement that he is in
favor of the principle involved here. Of course, the principle is
well established under the rules of the House and has been observed
by both parties from time immemorial, that the Member recognized to
call up the resolution has control of the time under the 1-hour
rule.
On Feb. 25, 1954,(19) Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of
Massachusetts, answered parliamentary inquiries on the control of
debate on a privileged resolution called up by the chairman of the
Committee on House Administration:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 100 Cong. Rec. 2282, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Karl M.] LeCompte [of Iowa]: Under the rules the Chairman
has control of the time.
The Speaker: The gentleman has 1 hour to yield to whomsoever he
desires.
Mr. LeCompte: And he has control of the matter of offering
amendments.
The Speaker: A committee amendment is now pending. No other
amendment can be offered unless the gentleman yields the floor for
that purpose.
Mr. LeCompte: A motion to recommit, of course, belongs to some
member of the minority opposed to the resolution. Would any motion
except a motion to recommit be in order except by the gentleman in
charge of the bill?
The Speaker: Not unless the gentleman yields for that purpose.
The gentleman from Iowa is recognized for 1
hour.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. For an occasion where the Member in charge of a privileged
resolution from the Committee on House Administration yielded
to the Majority Leader to offer an amendment and thereby lost
control of the hour, see 111 Cong. Rec. 24290, 24291, 89th
Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 17, 1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Resolution of Inquiry
Sec. 68.33 Resolutions of inquiry are debatable under the hour
rule.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. See 111 Cong. Rec. 24030, 24033, 24034, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept.
16, 1965; and 98 Cong. Rec. 1205-07, 1215, 1216, 82d Cong. 2d
Sess., Feb. 20, 1952.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 68.34 If a motion to discharge a committee from the further
consideration of a privileged resolution is agreed to, the
resolution is debatable under the hour rule, and the proponent of
the resolution is entitled to prior recognition.
The principle described above was illustrated on Sept. 29,
1975,(2) during proceedings in the
[[Page 10938]]
House relating to House Resolution 718 (a resolution of inquiry,
directing the Secretary of the Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare to furnish documents relating to public school systems to the
House):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 121 Cong. Rec. 30748, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [James M.] Collins of Texas: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
privileged motion to discharge the Committee on Education and Labor
from consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 718).
The Speaker: (3) The Clerk will report the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read the motion as follows:
Mr. Collins of Texas moves to discharge the Committee on
Education and Labor from consideration of House Resolution 718.
The Speaker: The Clerk will report the resolution.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 718
Resolved, That the Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare, to the extent not incompatible with the public
interest, is directed to furnish to the House of
Representatives, not later than sixty days following the
adoption of this resolution, any documents containing a list of
the public school systems in the United States which, during
the period beginning on August 1, 1975, and ending on June 30,
1976, will be receiving Federal funds and will be engaging
in the busing of schoolchildren to achieve racial balance, and
any documents respecting the rules and regulations of the
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare with respect to
the use of any Federal funds
administered by the Department
for the busing of schoolchildren to achieve racial balance.
The Speaker: The question is on the privileged motion to
discharge.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. Collins of Texas: Mr. Speaker, basically, what I am
concerned with here is full documentation from the Secretary of
HEW.
I filed this in the Congressional Record and have met the
necessary requirements for a resolution of inquiry. . . .
The other body at this time is discussing the appropriation
bill on HEW and has raised the subject over and over again
regarding transportation of students to achieve racial balance and
how that is affecting the budget. Therefore, it is absolutely
essential to us, in our deliberations here in this House, that we
have a concise, clear, complete, and factual statement from the
Secretary of HEW as defined in my House Resolution 718.
Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
Sec. 68.35 The Member calling up for consideration a privileged
resolution of inquiry reported adversely from committee is
recognized for one hour and may move to lay the resolution on the
table at any time; and where the Member calling up the resolution
uses part of his
[[Page 10939]]
hour of debate and then offers a motion to table the resolution
which is defeated, the Chair will normally recognize another Member
for an hour of debate but may recognize the Member who called up
the resolution to control the remainder of his hour of debate, if
no other Member seeks recognition.
On June 15, 1979,(4) during consideration of House
Resolution 291 (a resolution of inquiry directing the President to
provide Members of the House with certain information) the following
proceedings occurred in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 125 Cong. Rec. 15027, 15029, 15030, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, I call up the
resolution (H. Res. 291), a resolution of inquiry directing the
President to provide Members of the House with information on the
energy situation, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 291
Resolved, That the President, to the extent possible, is
directed to furnish to the House of Representatives, not later
than fifteen days following the adoption of this resolution,
full and complete information on the following:
(1) the existence and percentage
of shortages of crude oil and refined
petroleum products within the
United States and administrative regions; . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore:(5) The gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Dingell) is recognized for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. John Brademas (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsequently in the proceedings, Mr. Dingell made a motion to table
the resolution:
Mr. Dingell: Mr. Speaker, at this time I move to table the
resolution of inquiry now before the House.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the motion to table
offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell). . . .
Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, on that
I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas
4, nays 338, not voting 92, as follows: . . .
So the motion to table was rejected. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).
Mr. Dingell: Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time
remains?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state to the gentleman
that he has 48 minutes remaining.
Mr. Dingell: Mr. Speaker, I will, then, at this time yield 24
minutes to my distinguished friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Devine), for purposes of debate only.
--Rules Committee Reports
Sec. 68.36 A Member calling up a privileged report from the
[[Page 10940]]
Committee on Rules has
one hour at his command
and other Members may be
recognized only if yielded time.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. See 118 Cong. Rec. 21694, 92d Cong. 2d Sess., June 21, 1972; and
114 Cong. Rec. 30217, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 9, 1968.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 68.37 Debate in the House on a resolution reported from the
Committee on Rules is under the hour rule, and that time may be
extended only by unanimous consent.
On June 21, 1972,(7) Mr. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr., of
Massachusetts, had offered House Resolution 996, from the Committee on
Rules, providing for the consideration of H.R. 14370, the State and
Local Assistance Act of 1972. He asked unanimous consent for extension
of the one hour of debate permitted on the resolution, and the request
was objected to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 118 Cong. Rec. 21694, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. O'Neill: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that I have so
many requests for time, I ask unanimous consent that discussion on
the rule be extended 30 minutes, with 15 minutes given to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Smith) and 15 minutes to myself.
The Speaker:(8) The gentleman from Massachusetts
asked unanimous consent that time for debate on the rule be
extended an additional 30 minutes, the time to be equally divided
between the gentleman from Massachusetts and the gentleman from
California.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Massachusetts?
Mr. [William M.] Colmer [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker,
reserving the right to object, my attention was elsewhere when the
request was made. Do I correctly understand that the request is to
extend the time on the rule?
The Speaker: The gentleman is correct.
Mr. Colmer: For how long?
The Speaker: For an additional 30 minutes for debate on the
rule.
Mr. Colmer: Equally divided, Mr. Speaker, between whom?
Mr. O'Neill: The reason why I am asking this is that the
gentleman would like to have 10 minutes.
Mr. Colmer: I understand the reason why the gentleman is doing
it.
Mr. Speaker, under my reservation, if I am in order, between
whom is the gentleman going to divide the time?
Mr. O'Neill: I ask unanimous consent for 30 minutes, with 15
minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Smith) and 15 minutes
to myself.
The reason I asked for this is that the gentleman, as chairman
of the committee, asked for 10 minutes. I allotted five members
opposed to the bill 3 minutes apiece. The gentleman was not
satisfied with 3 minutes and is insisting upon 10. In order to
satisfy him, as chairman of the Rules Committee, I have made this
request.
Mr. Colmer: Mr. Speaker, on the basis of the statement of the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. O'Neill)
[[Page 10941]]
I am unwilling to set a precedent here in order that I may be heard
for additional time. Therefore, I object.
The Speaker: Objection is heard.
Mr. O'Neill: Mr. Speaker, under the circumstances, since there
is an objection, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Colmer).
Sec. 68.38 On resolutions taken away from the Committee on Rules by
operation of the former 21-day rule, there was one hour of
debate.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. See 111 Cong. Rec. 18076, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., July 26, 1965; and
95 Cong. Rec. 14161, 14169, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 10,
1949.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 68.39 Debate on resolutions reported by the Committee on Rules
providing for investigations is under the hour rule.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See 81 Cong. Rec. 3283-90, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 8, 1937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Debate When Withdrawn Resolution Is Called Up Anew
Sec. 68.40 A Member calling up a privileged resolution from the
Committee on Rules is recognized for a full hour notwithstanding
the fact that he had previously called up the resolution and
withdrawn it after debate.
On Apr. 8, 1964,(11) Mr. Richard Bolling, of Missouri,
called up at the direction of the Committee on Rules House Resolution
665, making in order the consideration of a bill. While the resolution
was pending, Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, declared a
recess to await the receipt of the engrossed copy of a bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 110 Cong. Rec. 7303-08, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following the recess, Mr. Bolling withdrew House Resolution 665 in
order that the engrossed copy of the bill could be taken up as
unfinished business. In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the
Speaker stated that when the Committee on Rules resolution was again
brought up by the Member calling it up, he would be recognized for a
full hour despite the fact he had already brought it up, debated it,
and withdrawn it:
Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, in view of
the withdrawal of the resolution by the gentleman from Missouri
[Mr. Bolling] do I understand that we start all over again on the
consideration of the rule for the wheat-cotton bill?
The Speaker: When the gentleman calls it up, the understanding
of the gentleman is correct.
Mr. Halleck: We will start all over again with 30 minutes on a
side?
The Speaker: That is correct.
--Where Previous Question Is Defeated
Sec. 68.41 If the previous question on a privileged resolution re
[[Page 10942]]
ported by the Committee on Rules is voted down, the resolution is
open to further consideration, a motion to table is in order and is
preferential; if that motion is rejected, the Chair, under the hour
rule, recognizes the Member who appears to be leading the
opposition.
On Oct. 19, 1966,(12) Mr. Claude D. Pepper, of Florida,
called up by direction of the Committee on Rules House Resolution 1013,
establishing a Select Committee on Standards and Conduct. Mr. Pepper
was recognized for one hour and offered a committee amendment to the
resolution, which amendment was agreed to. Speaker John W. McCormack,
of Massachusetts, then answered a series of parliamentary inquiries on
the order of recognition should Mr. Pepper move the previous question
and should the motion be defeated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 112 Cong. Rec. 27725, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, if the previous
question is refused, is it true that then amendments may be offered
and further debate may be had on the resolution?
The Speaker: If the previous question is defeated, then the
resolution is open to further consideration and action and debate.
Mr. [Joe D.] Waggonner [Jr., of Louisiana]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. Waggonner: Mr. Speaker, under the rules of the House, is it
not equally so that a motion to table would then be in order?
The Speaker: At that particular point, that would be a
preferential motion. . . .
Mr. [James G.] Fulton of Pennsylvania: Mr. Speaker, if the
previous question is refused and the resolution is then open for
amendment, under what parliamentary procedure will the debate
continue? Or what would be the time limit?
The Speaker: The Chair would recognize whoever appeared to be
the leading Member in opposition to the resolution.
Mr. Fulton of Pennsylvania: What would be the time for debate?
The Speaker: Under those circumstances the Member recognized in
opposition would have 1 hour at his disposal, or such portion of it
as he might desire to exercise.
Mr. [Cornelius E.] Gallagher [of New Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Gallagher: If the previous question is voted down we will
have the option to reopen debate, the resolution will be open for
amendment, or it can be tabled. Is that the situation as the Chair
understands it?
The Speaker: If the previous question is voted down on the
resolution, the time will be in control of some Member in
opposition to it, and it would be open to amendment or to a motion
to table.
[[Page 10943]]
Sec. 68.42 Where the motion for the previous question on a resolution
(reported from the Rules Committee) is rejected, the Chair
recognizes the Member who led the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer an amendment and is recognized for one
hour.
During consideration of House Resolution 312, waiving points of
order and providing special procedures during consideration of H.R.
4390 (the legislative branch appropriations for fiscal year 1980) on
June 13, 1979,(13) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 125 Cong. Rec. 14650, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker:(14) The question is on ordering the
previous question. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, on that I
demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The question was taken; and there were--yeas 126, nays 292, not
voting 16, as follows: . . .
[Mr. Delbert L. Latta, of Ohio, who had led the opposition to
the previous question was recognized.]
Mr. Latta: Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr.
Latta: Strike all after the resolving clause and insert in lieu
thereof the following: . . .
The Speaker: The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta) is recognized
for 1 hour.
Mr. Latta: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
--Changing Rules
Sec. 68.43 A resolution amending the rules of the House to create a
permanent select committee is privileged when reported from the
Committee on Rules and is debatable for one hour under the control
of the Member calling it up.
On July 14, 1977,(15) the following proceedings occurred
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 123 Cong. Rec. 22932, 22942, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Richard] Bolling [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, by direction
of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 658 and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 658
Resolved, That it is the purpose of this resolution to
establish a new permanent select committee of the House, to be
known as the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. . . .
Mr. Bolling: Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes for debate to the
gen
[[Page 10944]]
tleman from Mississippi (Mr. Lott), pending which I yield myself
such time as I may consume. . . .
In this instance, the House agreed to a unanimous-consent request
to extend for 30 minutes the debate on a privileged resolution reported
from the Rules Committee in the House, to be controlled by the Member
who had called it up, with the assurance that one-half the additional
time would be yielded to the minority:
Mr. [Ted] Weiss [of New York]: . . . Mr. Speaker, at this time
I ask unanimous consent that the time for debate on this matter be
extended for an additional 1 hour, the time to be controlled by the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Bolling).
The Speaker Pro Tempore:(16) Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from New York?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. B. F. Sisk (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the
right to object, I would assume the usual delegation of one-half
the time to the minority?
Mr. Weiss: Of course. That is intended. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from New York?
Mr. [Ronald M.] Mottl [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I object.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Objection is heard.
Mr. Weiss: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that time for
debate be extended for an additional half hour, the time to be
divided 15 minutes on each side.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Resolution Creating Select Committee
Sec. 68.44 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,(17) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 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. . . .
[[Page 10945]]
The Speaker:(18) The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Wright).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 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 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.
Time on Reported Committee Amendments
Sec. 68.45 There is one hour of
debate in the House on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, and time consumed
on a reported committee amendment runs concurrently with debate on
the resolution.
On Jan. 29, 1976,(19) during consideration in the House
of House Resolution 982 (authorizing the Select Committee on
Intelligence to file its final report by Jan. 31, 1976), the following
proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 122 Cong. Rec. 1632, 1641, 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. . .
.
Mr. [Richard] Bolling [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: (20) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Bolling: Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary inquiry is to
determine the procedure in the process of considering the
resolution just read.
The resolution is a resolution with an amendment. On the
resolution with the amendment, if the previous question were
ordered on the resolution and the amendment, would the next step
after the previous question were agreed to be a vote on the
amendment?
[[Page 10946]]
The Speaker: The Chair will state that the gentleman is
correct.
Mr. Bolling: I thank the Speaker.
The Speaker: The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Young) is recognized
for 1 hour.
Mr. [John] Young of Texas: Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to
the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Quillen)--and might
I say, Mr. Speaker, at this point, that all time I yield will be
for the purposes of debate only--pending which I yield myself such
time as I may consume. . . .
[After one hour of debate:]
Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the amendment and
on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered on the amendment and on the
resolution.
The Speaker: The question is on the committee amendment.
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. Young of Texas: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device; and there were--yeas
246, nays 124, not voting 62.
Privilege of House or Constitutional Privilege
Sec. 68.46 A Member in rising to a question of privilege of the House
must offer a resolution, and on such resolution there is one hour
of debate equally divided between the proponent and the Majority
Leader, the Minority Leader, or a designee.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Under Rule IX, clause 2, the debate time on a question of privilege
of the House is--since the 103d Congress--divided as indicated.
Before 1993, the proponent of such a resolution controlled the
hour. See 115 Cong. Rec. 17948, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., July 1,
1969; 113 Cong. Rec. 6035-42, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 9,
1967; and 96 Cong. Rec. 1514, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 6,
1950.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 68.47 A Member recognized on a question of privilege
to present impeachment charges against an officer of the government
is entitled to an hour for debate.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. See 80 Cong. Rec. 404, 406, 74th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 14, 1936.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 68.48 Before the 103d Congress, a Member offering a resolution
presenting a question of the privilege of the House was recognized
to control one hour of debate on the resolution.
On Feb. 19, 1976,(3) Mr. Samuel S. Stratton, of New
York, offered a privileged resolution as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 122 Cong. Rec. 3914, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Stratton: I rise to a question involving the privileges of
the House, and I offer a privileged resolution.
The Clerk read the resolution as follows:
[[Page 10947]]
H. Res. 1042
Resolution requiring that the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct inquire into the circumstances leading to the
public publication of a report containing classified material
prepared by the House Select Committee on Intelligence
Whereas the February 16, 1976, issue of the Village Voice,
a New York City newspaper, contains the partial text of a
report or a preliminary report prepared by the Select Committee
on Intelligence of the House, pursuant to H. Res. 591, which
relates to the foreign activities of the intelligence agencies
of the United States and which contains sensitive classified
information . . . Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct be and it is hereby authorized and directed to inquire
into the circumstances surrounding the publication of the text
and of any part of the report of the Select Committee on
Intelligence, and to report back to the House in a timely
fashion its findings and recommendations thereon.
The Speaker: (4) The gentleman from New York (Mr.
Stratton) is recognized for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 68.49 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,(5) during consideration of House
Resolution 578 (directing the Committee on Rules to make certain
inquiries), the following proceedings occurred in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 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, 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: (6) 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Bolling) will be recognized
for 1 hour.
[[Page 10948]]
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).
--Motion To Refer
Sec. 68.50 A motion to refer (where the previous question has not been
ordered on the pending proposition) is debatable for one hour,
controlled by the Member offering the motion.
During consideration of House Resolution 142 (to expel Charles C.
Diggs, Jr.) in the House on Mar. 1, 1979,(7) the following
exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 125 Cong. Rec. 3746, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Newt] Gingrich [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a
question of the privileges of the House, and I offer a privileged
resolution (H. Res. 142) and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution as follows:
H. Res. 142
Resolved, That Charles C. Diggs, Jr., a Representative from
the Thirteenth District of Michigan, is hereby expelled from
the House of Representatives.
Mr. [James C.] Wright [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Wright moves to refer House Resolution 142 to the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
The Speaker: (8) The gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Wright) is recognized for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 68.51 When a resolution is offered as a question of privilege and
is debatable under the hour rule, a motion to refer is in order
before debate begins and is debatable for one hour under the
control of the offeror of the motion.
On Mar. 4, 1985,(9) during consideration of House
Resolution 97 (to seat Richard D. McIntyre as a Member from Indiana) in
the House, the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 131 Cong. Rec. 4277, 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 . . .
[[Page 10949]]
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: (10) The gentleman states a
valid question of privilege.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr.
Alexander).
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 recognized.
Mr. Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Alexander: Mr. Speaker, for what period of time am I
recognized?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is entitled to 1 hour
under that motion, during which time the gentleman from Arkansas
controls the time.
Mr. Alexander: Mr. Speaker, does the minority wish time on the
motion?
Mr. Michel: Yes.
Mr. Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I would yield 30 minutes for
purposes of debate only, to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Michel).
--Disciplinary Resolutions
Sec. 68.52 A Member calling up a privileged resolution reported from
the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to censure and
punish a Member was recognized for one hour, and he yielded a
portion of that time to the Member who was the subject of the
resolution, who declined to speak but who, in turn, yielded all his
time to another Member.
During consideration of House Resolution 378 (censuring and
punishing a Member) in the House on July 31, 1979,(11) the
following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 125 Cong. Rec. 21584-86, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Charles E.] Bennett [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, I call up a
privileged resolution (H. Res. 378) in the matter of Representative
Charles C. Diggs, Jr., and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 378
Resolved,
(1) that Representative Charles C. Diggs, Junior, be
censured. . . .
The Speaker: (12) . . . While a wide range of
discussion relating to conduct of the Member in question will be
permitted, it is the duty of the Chair to
[[Page 10950]]
maintain proper decorum in debate. It is the intention of the Chair
to enforce the rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bennett) is recognized for 1
hour. . . .
Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only I
yield 20 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence);
and for the purposes of debate only I yield 20 minutes to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Diggs), pending which I yield myself
such time as I may consume.
After some debate, Mr. Diggs yielded his time:
Mr. [Charles C.] Diggs [Jr., of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, I yield
my time to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stokes).
The Speaker: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Stokes).
Mr. [Louis] Stokes [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.
Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I have found no further requests for
time.
Sec. 68.53 A motion to postpone, pursuant to clause 4 of Rule XIV, may
be offered to a privileged resolution (of expulsion) before debate
thereon, and the motion to postpone is debatable for one hour,
controlled by the proponent thereof.
On Oct. 2, 1980,(13) during consideration of House
Resolution 794 (in the matter of Representative Michael J. Myers) in
the House, the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 126 Cong. Rec. 28953, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Charles E.] Bennett [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, I call up
the privileged resolution, House Resolution 794, in the Matter of
Representative Michael J. Myers, and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Speaker: (14) The Clerk will report the
resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 794
Resolved, That, pursuant to article I, section 5, clause 2
of the United States Constitution, Representative Michael J.
Myers be, and he hereby is, expelled from the House of
Representatives.
Mr. [Louis] Stokes [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Stokes moves to postpone further consideration of House
Resolution 794 until November 13, 1980.
The Speaker: The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stokes) will be
recognized for 1 hour. . . .
Mr. Stokes: Mr. Speaker, I yield to my distinguished chairman
of the Ethics Committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bennett).
Sec. 68.54 The chairman of the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct, recognized for one hour of debate on a resolution to expel
a Member, Mr. Michael J. Myers, of
[[Page 10951]]
Pennsylvania, yielded one half the time to Mr. Myers to speak in
his own defense; during debate on the resolution, the Member in
question and another Member were permitted by unanimous consent to
proceed for additional time beyond that yielded by the manager
under the hour rule.
During consideration of House Resolution 794 (in the matter of
Representative Michael J. Myers) in the House on Oct. 2,
1980,(15) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 126 Cong. Rec. 28953-78, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Charles E.] Bennett [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, I call up
the privileged resolution, House Resolution 794, in the Matter of
Representative Michael J. Myers, and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Speaker: (16) The Clerk will report the
resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 794
Resolved, That, pursuant to article I, section 5, clause 2
of the United States Constitution, Representative Michael J.
Myers be, and he hereby is, expelled from the House of
Representatives. . . .
The Speaker: Pursuant to the unanimous-consent request made by
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bennett) which was agreed to, the
Chair will remind Members that any revisions of remarks actually
made on the floor during the consideration of House Resolution 794
should be confined to grammatical corrections, and extensions of
remarks will be placed in the extensions portion of the Record.
The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bennett) is recognized for 1
hour.
Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, although technically speaking I could
control all of the time, in all fairness I think I should yield
half of the time to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Myers). I
plan to do that at the conclusion of my remarks and the remarks of
those people on the Democratic side who wish to be heard. . . .
Mr. Myers of Pennsylvania: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take
the well for a minute.
The Speaker: Does the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bennett)
yield time to the gentleman from Pennsylvania? . . .
Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I will give the gentleman half my
time now, which is 30 minutes. I will give all of that time to the
gentleman now.
Mr. Myers of Pennsylvania: Mr. Speaker, I certainly thank the
committee chairman.
The Speaker: The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Myers) is
recognized for 30 minutes.
Mr. Myers of Pennsylvania: Mr. Speaker, the last vote was this:
I only received 75 votes, and I certainly want to thank the Members
who had courage enough to stand up and vote. . . .
The Speaker: The time of the gentleman has expired.
[[Page 10952]]
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Myers of Pennsylvania was allowed to
proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. Myers of Pennsylvania: I yield to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy). . . .
The Speaker: The time of the gentleman has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Fowler was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
--Vetoed Bills
Sec. 68.55 Debate on the question of passage of a bill over
Presidential veto is under the hour rule.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 116 Cong. Rec. 21532-53, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., June 25, 1970; 116
Cong. Rec. 750, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 22, 1970; 97 Cong.
Rec. 5435, 5444, 5445, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., May 17, 1951; and
89 Cong. Rec. 7051-55, 78th Cong. 1st Sess., July 2, 1943.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Where Motion To Reject Is Defeated
Sec. 68.56 Debate on a motion to postpone or refer a vetoed bill is
under the hour rule.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 86 Cong. Rec. 13522-24, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., Oct. 10, 1940 (refer);
116 Cong. Rec. 1365, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 27, 1970
(postpone). A motion to lay on the table a vetoed bill is not
debatable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Particular Motions, Debate on
--Motion To Recommit After Previous Question
Sec. 68.57 Under clause 4 of Rule XVI, a motion to recommit with
instructions after the previous question is ordered on passage of a
bill or joint resolution is debatable for 1 hour (rather than the
normal 10 minutes) if the floor manager for the majority so
demands.
During consideration of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act
(H.R. 4848) in the House on July 13, 1988,(19) the following
proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 134 Cong. Rec. 18054, 100th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker Pro Tempore:(20) Un-der the rule, the
previous question is ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Kenneth J. Gray (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the
bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and
was read the third time.
Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
motion to recommit.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. Michel: I am, in its present form, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
[[Page 10953]]
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Michel moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 4848, to the
Committee on Ways and Means with instructions to report the
bill back to the House forthwith with the following amendment:
``Strike out section 1910 (entitled Ethyl Alcohol and
Mixtures for Fuel Use);
``And redesignate succeeding sections accordingly.''
Mr. [Sam] Gibbons [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause
4 of rule XVI, I demand an hour of debate, equally divided, on the
motion to recommit.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Michel) will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Gibbons) will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the minority leader, the distinguished
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Michel).
--Motion To Postpone
Sec. 68.58 A motion to postpone further consideration of a privileged
resolution (to censure a Member) may be offered before the manager
of the resolution has been recognized for debate, and is debatable
for one hour controlled by the Member offering the motion.
On May 29, 1980,(1) the following proceedings occurred
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 126 Cong. Rec. 12649, 12650, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Charles E.] Bennett [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, by
direction of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, I call
up a privileged resolution (H. Res. 660) in the matter of
Representative Charles H. Wilson, and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 660
Resolved,
(1) That Representative Charles H. Wilson be censured; . .
.
(4) That the House of Representatives adopt the report of
the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct dated May 8,
1980, in the matter of Representative Charles H. Wilson.
Mr. [John H.] Rousselot [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Rousselot moves to postpone further consideration of
House Resolution 660 until June 10, 1980.
The Speaker:(2) The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from California (Mr. Rousselot) for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Motion To Reconsider
Sec. 68.59 When the motion to reconsider is debatable, the Member
making the motion has control of the one hour allowed for debate.
On Sept. 13, 1965,(3) the House adopted, without debate,
House
[[Page 10954]]
Resolution 506, brought up by a motion to discharge, providing for the
consideration of a bill (H.R. 10065), the Equal Opportunity Act of
1965. Mr. William M. McCulloch, of Ohio, who had voted in the
affirmative on the resolution, moved that the vote on adoption of the
resolution be reconsidered. Mr. Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, moved to lay
that motion on the table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 111 Cong. Rec. 23608, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to parliamentary inquiries by Mr. Melvin R. Laird, of
Wisconsin, and Mr. McCulloch, Speaker John W. McCormack, of
Massachusetts, advised: (1) that the motion to reconsider would be
debatable if the pending motion to table was defeated (the resolution
itself being debatable and the previous question not having been
ordered thereon); and (2) that in such event the Member moving
reconsideration, Mr. McCulloch, would be recognized to control the one
hour of debate.
Parliamentarian's Note: A motion to reconsider is debatable only if
the measure proposed to be reconsidered is debatable.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 819 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Motion To Correct Record or To Expunge
Sec. 68.60 Debate on a motion
or resolution to correct the Record is under the hour
rule.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 91 Cong. Rec. 7220-25, 79th Cong. 1st Sess., July 5, 1945 (motion);
92 Cong. Rec. 1274, 1275, 79th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 13, 1946
(resolution).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 68.61 Debate on a motion to expunge from the Record certain
remarks used in debate and ruled out of order is under the hour
rule.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. See 93 Cong. Rec. 6895, 6896, 80th Cong. 1st Sess., June 12, 1947;
and 87 Cong. Rec. 894, 895, 899, 77th Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 11,
1941.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Accepting Resignation From Committee
Sec. 68.62 When a letter of resignation is laid before the House, the
pending question is whether the resignation shall be accepted, and
the Speaker recognizes for one hour the Member in effect moving the
acceptance of the resignation.
Proceedings relating to acceptance of the resignation of the
chairman of a House committee on Mar. 8, 1977,(7) were as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 123 Cong. Rec. 6580, 6581, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker laid before the House the following resignation as
chairman and member of the Select Committee on Assassinations: . .
.
[[Page 10955]]
Dear Mr. Speaker: I feel keenly the responsibilities placed
on me as Chairman of the House Select Committee on
Assassinations. . . .
Under the circumstances that now exist, I have no
alternative but to resign from the Select Committee on
Assassinations herewith.
With warmest personal regards.
-Sincerely yours,
Henry B. Gonzalez
Member of Congress, Chairman
The Speaker:(8) Is there objection to the acceptance
of the resignation?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I object.
The Speaker: Objection is heard.
The question is, Shall the resignation be accepted?
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Wright).
Mr. [James C.] Wright [Jr., of Texas]: . . . I should like to
make it clear that if ever it came to a choice between the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez) and any member of that staff, I
would come down on the side of the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Gonzalez) because he is my friend and because I admire him and
respect him.
However, for those very reasons I am asking the House to accept
the resignation of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez). . . .
He asked me on last Saturday evening personally to prevail upon the
Speaker and upon his friends to accept his resignation. . . .
For that reason I ask the Members of the House to vote to
accept the resignation of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez)
and to understand that in so doing they are not expressing any
disagreement with him. . . .
Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.
The previous question was ordered.
The Speaker: The question is, Shall the resignation be
accepted?
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes
appeared to have it. . . .
So the resignation was accepted.
--Electing Members to Committee
Sec. 68.63 A privileged resolution offered by direction of the
Democratic Caucus or Republican Conference, electing a Member to a
committee, is debatable for one hour (if debate time is desired by
the proponent thereof).
On May 15, 1980,(9) during consideration of a privileged
resolution electing a Member to the Committee on Education and Labor,
the following exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 126 Cong. Rec. 11441, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Thomas S.] Foley [of Washington]: Mr. Speaker, as chairman
of the Democratic Caucus, and by the authority and direction of the
Democratic Caucus, I send to the desk a privileged resolution (H.
Res. 669) and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
House Resolution 669
Resolved, That the following-named Member be, and he is
hereby,
[[Page 10956]]
elected to the following standing committee of the House of
Representatives:
Committee on Education and Labor: Raphael Musto of
Pennsylvania.
Mr. [John J.] Rhodes [of Arizona]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry. Is the gentleman from Washington entitled to
any time on this resolution?
The Speaker Pro Tempore:(10) The Chair would respond
to the distinguished minority leader that this would be a debatable
resolution if debate were desired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, might I ask the gentleman from
Washington to take his time for the purpose of answering a question
which has absolutely nothing to do with the main part of the
resolution?
Mr. Foley: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes and I yield to
the distinguished minority leader.
--Motion To Discharge; Discharged Measures
Sec. 68.64 Debate on a motion to discharge a committee from further
consideration of a resolution disapproving a reorganization plan
(under the Reorganization Act of 1949) was limited to one hour and
was equally divided between the Member making the motion and a
Member opposed thereto.
On Aug. 3, 1961,(11) Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, moved to
discharge the Committee on Government Operations from the further
consideration of House Resolution 335, introduced by Mr. John S.
Monagan, of Connecticut, disapproving Reorganization Plan No. 6,
transmitted to Congress by the President on June 12, 1961. Speaker Sam
Rayburn, of Texas, recognized, under the hour provided for in the
Reorganization Act of 1949, Mr. Gross for 30 minutes in favor of the
resolution and a Member opposed for 30 minutes in opposition to the
resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 107 Cong. Rec. 14548, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: The Reorganization Act of 1949, Public Law
No. 81-109, provided for a motion to discharge such a resolution
disapproving a reorganization plan from a committee which had not
reported such a resolution after 10 days following its introduction. On
such a motion, the statute provided ``not to exceed one hour'' of
debate, to be equally divided and controlled between those favoring and
those opposing the resolution.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Pub. L. No. 81-109, 63 Stat. 207, Sec. 204, June 20, 1949.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On several occasions, the one-hour debate provided for on the
motion to discharge such a resolu
[[Page 10957]]
tion was extended by unanimous consent.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See, for example, 107 Cong. Rec. 13084, 13095, 87th Cong. 1st
Sess., July 20, 1961; and 107 Cong. Rec. 12774, 87th Cong. 1st
Sess., July 18, 1961.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On motions to discharge which are made privileged by statute, the
relevant law should be consulted for the time and control of debate.
Sec. 68.65 Where a joint resolution not requiring consideration in
Committee of the Whole is before the House pursuant to a motion to
discharge, the Member who made the motion for its immediate
consideration is recognized in the House under the hour
rule.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 116 Cong. Rec. 28004, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 10, 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 68.66 Where a joint resolution not requiring consideration in
Committee of the Whole is before the House pursuant to a motion to
discharge, the Member who made the motion for its immediate
consideration is recognized in the House under the hour rule.
On Aug. 10, 1970,(15) following agreement to the motion
to discharge the Judiciary Committee from further consideration of
House Joint Resolution 264 (amending the Constitution relative to equal
rights for men and women) in the House, the proponent of the motion for
immediate consideration of the resolution was recognized for one hour.
The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 116 Cong. Rec. 27999, 28004, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mrs. [Martha W.] Griffiths [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to clause 4, rule XXVII, I call up motion No. 5, to discharge the
Committee on the Judiciary from the further consideration of House
Joint Resolution
264, proposing an amendment to the
Constitution of the United States relative to equal rights for men
and women. . . .
The Speaker:(16) The question is on the motion
offered by the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Griffiths) to
discharge the Committee on the Judiciary from further consideration
of House Joint Resolution 264. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
So the motion to discharge was agreed to. . . .
Mrs. Griffiths: . . . I move that the House proceed to the
immediate consideration of House Joint Resolution 264. . . .
The motion was agreed to.
The Speaker: The Clerk will report the joint resolution. . . .
The gentlewoman from Michigan is recognized for 1 hour.
Budget Act
Sec. 68.67 While under section 305(a)(4) of the Congres
[[Page 10958]]
sional Budget Act there can be up to five hours of debate on a
conference report on a concurrent resolution on the budget equally
divided between the majority and minority parties, where the
conferees have reported in total disagreement, debate on the motion
to dispose of the amendment in disagreement is not covered by the
statute and is therefore un-der the general ``hour'' rule in the
House.
During consideration of the first concurrent resolution on the
budget for fiscal year 1978 (S. Con. Res. 19) in the House on May 17,
1977,(17) the following exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 123 Cong. Rec. 15126, 15127, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert N.] Giaimo [of Connecticut]: Mr. Speaker, I call up
the conference report on the Senate concurrent resolution (S. Con.
Res. 19) setting forth the congressional budget for the U.S.
Government for the fiscal year 1978 (and revising the congressional
budget for fiscal year 1977), and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Speaker Pro Tempore:(18) The Clerk will read the
conference report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read the conference report. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the Senate
amendment to the House amendment.
The Clerk read the Senate amendment to the House amendment as
follows:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the House
engrossed amendment, insert: . . .
Mr. Giaimo: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Giaimo moves to concur in the Senate amendment to the
House amendment.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Connecticut (Mr. Giaimo) for 1 hour.
Parliamentarian's Note: Since the Senate amendment to the House
amendment had not been reported from conference in disagreement, but
had been subsequently added by the Senate after consideration of the
conference report in that body, the requirement for equal division of
time on a motion to dispose of a Senate amendment reported from
conference in disagreement was not applicable.
Sec. 68.68 When a conference report in disagreement is called up for
consideration, the Chair recognizes the manager for a motion to
dispose of the amendment(s) reported in disagreement, which is
debatable for one hour, equally divided between the manager and a
Member of the minority.
[[Page 10959]]
On May 23, 1979,(19) during consideration in the House
of the conference report on the first concurrent resolution on the
budget for fiscal year 1980 (H. Con. Res. 107), reported in
disagreement,(20) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 125 Cong. Rec. 12469, 12471, 12472, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
20. 125 Cong. Rec. 11987-95, 96th Cong. 1st Sess., May 21, 1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert N.] Giaimo [of Connecticut]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to the order of the House of May 22, 1979, I call up the conference
report on the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 107) setting
forth the Congressional Budget for the U.S. Government for the
fiscal year 1980 and revising the Congressional Budget for the U.S.
Government for the fiscal year 1979. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore:(21) The Clerk will read the
Senate amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. John Brademas (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read the Senate amendment, as follows:
Strike out all after the resolving clause and insert:
That the Congress hereby determines and declares [that]
(a) In order to achieve a balanced budget in fiscal year
1981, the following budgetary levels are appropriate for the
fiscal years beginning on October 1, 1979, October 1, 1980, and
October 1, 1981-- . . .
Mr. Giaimo: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Giaimo moves that the House recede from its
disagreement to the Senate amendment and to concur therein with
an amendment, as follows: . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr.
Giaimo) will be recognized for 30 minutes [and] the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Latta) will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr.
Giaimo).
--Statutory Allocation of Time
Sec. 68.69 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
[[Page 10960]]
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:(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 127 Cong. Rec. 8016, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman:(2) The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 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.
Sec. 68.70 While normally the ``hour'' rule (clause 2 of Rule XIV)
prohibits a Member controlling the floor in general debate from
consuming more than one hour himself, a
statutory provision constituting a House rule which
specifically allocates larger amounts of time may permit the Member
in charge to consume more than one hour, but not to yield himself
more than one hour at a time.
The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on
Apr. 30, 1981,(3) during consideration of House Concurrent
Resolution 134 (revising the congressional budget for fiscal year 1981,
and setting forth the congressional budget for fiscal years 1982, 1983,
and 1984):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 127 Cong. Rec. 8012, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman:(4) The time of the gentleman from
Oklahoma has expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Martin Frost (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [James R.] Jones of Oklahoma: Mr. Chairman, I yield myself
1 additional minute.
The Chairman: The Chair will state that the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Jones) has used 1 hour in his opening statement. How
much time does the gentleman yield at this moment?
Mr. Jones of Oklahoma: Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
[[Page 10961]]
The Chairman: The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Jones) is
recognized for 1 minute.
Debate on Appeal
Sec. 68.71 In the House, an appeal from the Chair's ruling is debatable
under the hour rule unless a motion to lay the appeal on the table
is made prior to debate on the appeal.
On Mar. 16, 1988,(5) the following proceedings occurred
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 134 Cong. Rec. 4085, 4086, 100th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert K.] Dornan of California: . . . Panama is in chaos
and Communists in Nicaragua, thanks to the liberal and radical left
leadership in this House are winning a major victory, right now.
The Speaker Pro Tempore:(6) The time of the
gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan] has expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Gary L. Ackerman (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Dornan of California: Wait a minute. On Honduran soil and
on Nicaraguan soil.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Dornan of California: And it was set up in this House as
you set up the betrayal of the Bay of Pigs.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Dornan of California: I ask--wait a minute--I ask unanimous
consent for 30 seconds. People are dying.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Dornan of California: People are dying.
Mr. [Harold L.] Volkmer [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, regular
order, regular order.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The time of the gentleman has expired.
Will the Sergeant at Arms please turn off the microphone?
Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
question of privilege before the House under rule IX.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the resolution.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
Whereas, the Speaker pro tempore ordered the microphone cut
off as a duly-elected Member of the House was speaking: Be it
therefore
Resolved, That the Speaker, Speaker pro tempore, or any
Member of the House as the Presiding Officer of the House of
Representatives may not order the microphone to be cut off
while any Member is speaking on the floor of the House of
Representatives. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The resolution does not allege an
abuse of the House rules, and is not a question of privilege.
The House will proceed to the unfinished business. . . .
Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I am appealing the ruling of the
Chair.
It is my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that I am given a chance
to debate that issue.
Mr. [Brian J.] Donnelly [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, the
vote is automatic.
[[Page 10962]]
Mr. Walker: I have 1 hour, I believe.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The appeal is debatable unless there
is a motion to table.
Special-order Speeches
Sec. 68.72 Special orders to address the House at the conclusion of the
business of the day are limited to one hour per Member; and when a
Member has used one hour, the Chair declines to recognize him for
extensions of time or for an additional special order.
On Feb. 9, 1966,(7) Mr. Joseph Y. Resnick, of New York,
who already had scheduled a special order for the day, asked unanimous
consent that he have an additional special order to address the House
for 15 minutes at
the close of legislative business. Speaker Pro Tempore Carl Albert, of
Oklahoma, declined to recognize him for that purpose, stating as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 112 Cong. Rec. 2794, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair would advise the gentleman that pursuant to the
practice of the House, Members are limited to a 1-hour special
order per day. The Chair would be glad to entertain a request for a
special order for a later day.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. See also 115 Cong. Rec. 15440, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., June 11, 1969;
and 115 Cong. Rec. 2835, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 5, 1969.
For an occasion where a Member had used an hour for a
special order and was then yielded time by the next Member with
a special order, see 114 Cong. Rec. 14265-71, 90th Cong. 2d
Sess., May 21, 1968.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 68.73 A Member may not control more than one hour of debate in the
House (on a special order), even by unanimous consent.
On Oct. 16, 1979,(9) the following proceedings occurred
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 125 Cong. Rec. 28508, 28515, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker:(10) Under a previous order of the
House, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Rhodes) is recognized for 60
minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John J.] Rhodes [of Arizona]: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of
this special order is to outline what Congress should be doing to
help our Nation turn back inflation. It has been said that
inflation is the neutron bomb of our economy. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore:(11) The time of the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Rhodes) has expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. John G. Fary (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Delbert L.] Latta [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that the gentleman proceed for 5 additional minutes.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: That request is not in order.
[[Page 10963]]
CHAPTER 29
Consideration and Debate
H. DURATION OF DEBATE IN THE HOUSE
Sec. 69. Ten-minute, Twenty-minute, and Forty-minute Debate
The House has provided in
its rules for fixed periods of debate, equally divided between the
proponents and opponents or between parties, on certain motions
and questions considered in the House.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. The other sections of this chapter, dealing with principles of
recognition generally and on specific motions and questions,
should be consulted, as should the other chapters of this work
dealing with particular motions and questions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ten minutes of debate, five minutes on each side, is provided
by Rule XVI for certain motions
to recommit with instructions,(13) and by Rule XXIV for the
motions to dispense with Calendar Wednesday business and to dispense
with the call of the Private Calendar.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Rule XVI clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 782 (1995). Prior to
the change in that clause by H. Res. 5 in the 92d Congress, no
debate was in order on a motion to recommit after the ordering
of the previous question (see Sec. 6, supra). See
Sec. Sec. 69.6, 69.7, infra, for application of the rule. For
the motion to recommit generally, see Ch. 23, supra.
14. Rule XXIV clause 6, House Rules and Manual Sec. 893 (1995) (to
dispense with Private Calendar) and clause 7, House Rules and
Manual Sec. 897 (1995) (to dispense with Calendar Wednesday).
On each motion, a two-thirds vote is required. See Sec. 69.4,
infra, for debate on the motions and Chs. 21 (Calendar
Wednesday) and 22 (Private Calendar), supra, generally.
For consideration of Private Calendar bills in the House as
in the Committee of the Whole, under a strict construction of
the five-minute rule, see Sec. Sec. 70.7, 70.10, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule XXVII clause 3 provides for 20 minutes of debate on motions to
discharge. The time is divided for and against the motion, and the
previous question may not be moved to prevent the 20 minutes of debate.
Speaker Garner, in 1932, refused to entertain a unanimous-consent
request to extend the time.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See Sec. Sec. 69.1, 69.2, infra, for the application of the rule,
and House Rules and Manual Sec. 908 (1995). For the discharge
procedure generally, see Ch. 18, supra.
Statutes sometimes provide for the discharge of certain
kinds of resolutions and that debate thereon is not to exceed
one hour. See, for example, Sec. 68.64, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule XXVII also provides, in clause 2, for 40 minutes of debate on
the motion to suspend the rules, such time to be equally divided
between the proponents and opponents of the motion.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. For the rule, see House Rules and Manual Sec. 907 (1995). For the
application thereof, see Sec. Sec. 69.13-69.15, infra.
Suspension of the rules is discussed generally in Ch. 21,
supra.
The time on the motion may be extended by unanimous consent
(see Sec. 71.14, infra) or by special order (see
Sec. Sec. 71.15, 71.16, infra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 10964]]
Rule XXVII clause 3 provides that 40 minutes of debate, equally
divided between proponents and opponents, shall also be in order
following the ordering of the previous question on a debatable
proposition on which there has been no debate.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. House Rules and Manual Sec. 907 (1995). For the application of the
rule, see Sec. Sec. 69.19-69.21, infra. For the previous
question and its effect generally, see Ch. 23, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule XXVIII provides for 40 minutes of debate, equally divided, on
motions to reject certain portions of conference reports or motions to
concur in Senate amendments or portions thereof
in modified form containing nongermane matter (after the stage of
disagreement has been reached).(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See Rule XXVIII clause 4(b), House Rules and Manual Sec. 913b
(1995), and H. Res. 998 (93d Cong.). See Ch. 32, infra, for
Senate amendments, and Ch. 33, infra, for conferences and
conference reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The House may by unanimous consent extend the time for debate after
the ordering of the previous question or rescind the ordering of the
previous question.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See Sec. Sec. 71.22-71.25, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross References
Forty minutes' debate after ordering of previous question where no
debate has been had, see Ch. 23, supra.
Forty minutes after ordering of previous question not applicable prior
to adoption of rules, see Ch. 1, supra.
Forty minutes of debate on Senate amendments and portions of conference
reports ruled nongermane, see Ch. 28 (germaneness rule), supra, Ch.
32 (Senate amendments), infra, and Ch. 33 (conference reports),
infra.
Motion to discharge and 20 minutes thereon, see Ch. 18, supra.
Motion to suspend rules and 40 minutes thereon, see Ch. 21, supra.
Special orders extending time on motions to suspend the rules, see
Sec. 71, infra.
Ten minutes of debate on certain motions to recommit, see Ch. 23,
supra.
Unanimous-consent extension of time on motion to suspend the rules, see
Sec. 71, infra. -------------------
Motion To Discharge
Sec. 69.1 On a motion to discharge a committee, debate is limited to 20
minutes, 10 minutes under the control of the Member calling up the
motion and 10 minutes under the control of a Member opposed
(typically the chairman of the committee if he is opposed), and the
Speaker does not recognize a Member to ask unanimous consent to
extend the time.
[[Page 10965]]
On Mar. 14, 1932,(20) Mr. J. Charles Linthicum, of
Maryland, moved under Rule XXVII clause 4, that the Committee on the
Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of House Joint
Resolution 208, proposing an amendment to the 18th amendment to the
U.S. Constitution. Speaker John N. Garner, of Texas, answered a
parliamentary inquiry on the time for debate on the motion:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 75 Cong. Rec. 6000-03, 72d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Bertrand H.] Snell [of New York]: In regard to the
division of time, I should expect the chairman of the Judiciary
Committee to have the 10 minutes in opposition to the motion. I
would like to ask him if he will yield five minutes to this side of
the aisle?
The Speaker: The rule is specific. The gentleman making the
motion is entitled to 10 minutes, and if the chairman of the
Committee on the Judiciary is opposed to the motion, he would be
entitled to 10 minutes. If he is of the same opinion as the
gentleman from Maryland on this particular motion, the Chair would
recognize someone on the committee who desired to oppose it.
Whether the gentleman from Texas will yield is a question for the
gentleman from Texas.
The Speaker then refused to entertain a unanimous-consent request
that the time for debate on the motion be extended:
Mr. [Fiorello H.] LaGuardia [of New York]: The Speaker
announced that he would recognize no Member for any purpose. Does
that preclude a Member from asking unanimous consent to extend the
time for debate under the rule?
The Speaker: The rule limits the time and provides that there
shall be 10 minutes on each side.
Mr. LaGuardia: I ask unanimous consent that the time be
extended 10 minutes on each side.
Mr. [Charles R.] Crisp [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, I object.
The Speaker: It seems to the Chair that it is his duty to
protect the rule. Being a Member of the House, he will say himself
that he would object to any additional debate, taking as much
responsibility as he can in the premises.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. See also, for the strict 20-minute debate on the motion, 82 Cong.
Rec. 1385, 1386, 75th Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 13, 1937; and 80
Cong. Rec. 336, 337, 74th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 13, 1936.
For another occasion where the Speaker refused to entertain
a request that the time for debate on the motion to discharge
be increased, see Sec. 71.17, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 69.2 The previous question may not be moved on a motion to
discharge a committee in order to prevent the 20 minutes of debate
permitted by Rule XXVII.
On Jan. 13, 1936,(2) Mr. Wright Patman, of Texas, moved
to dis
[[Page 10966]]
charge the Committee on Ways and Means from further consideration of
H.R. 1, for the immediate cash payment of adjusted service
certificates. In response to a parliamentary inquiry, Speaker Joseph W.
Byrns, of Tennessee, stated that the motion was debatable for 20
minutes under the rules with 10 minutes for each side of the question
and that it was not in order to move the previous question on the
motion to prevent such debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 80 Cong. Rec. 336, 337, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 69.3 Twenty minutes of debate are allowed on a motion to discharge
a committee from consideration of a joint resolution; and the
chairman of that committee may be recognized for ten minutes if
opposed to the motion.
On Aug. 10, 1970,(3) the House had under consideration a
motion to discharge House Joint Resolution 264 (amending the
Constitution relative to equal rights for men and women) from the
Committee on the Judiciary. During the proceedings a parliamentary
inquiry was propounded as to division of the 20 minutes of debate time.
The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 116 Cong. Rec. 27999, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mrs. [Martha W.] Griffiths [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to clause 4, rule XXVII, I call up motion No. 5, to discharge the
Committee on the Judiciary from the further consideration of House
Joint Resolution
264, proposing an amendment to the
Constitution of the United States relative to equal rights for men
and women. . . .
Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry. . . .
I understand the rule provides for 20 minutes of debate, 10
minutes on either side. Is it correct that the chairman of the
Judiciary Committee, being opposed to the discharge petition, will
be allocated 10 minutes?
The Speaker:(4) The gentleman's statement is correct
that the rule provides for 20 minutes of debate, 10 minutes on each
side. If the gentleman from New York (Mr. Celler) is opposed to the
[motion], the Chair will recognize him for 10 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is the gentleman opposed to the [motion]?
Mr. Celler: I am opposed to the [motion], Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: Under the rule, the gentlewoman from Michigan
(Mrs. Griffiths) will be recognized for 10 minutes, and the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Celler) will be recognized for 10
minutes.
Motion To Dispense With Calendar Wednesday Business
Sec. 69.4 On a motion to dispense with business under the Calendar
Wednesday rule, there is five minutes debate for
[[Page 10967]]
and five minutes against the motion, and such motion may not be
laid on the table.
On Feb. 22, 1950,(5) Mr. Dwight L. Rogers, of Florida,
moved to dispense for the day with the operation of Rule XXIV clause 7,
providing for the call of committees on Calendar Wednesday. In response
to parliamentary inquiries, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, stated that
the motion was debatable for five minutes for and five minutes against
the motion, and that the motion was not subject to a motion to
table.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 96 Cong. Rec. 2157, 2158, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
6. Rule XXIV clause 7, House Rules and Manual Sec. 897 (1995) provides
that on the motion there may be debate ``not to exceed five
minutes for and against.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 69.5 Pursuant to clause 7 of Rule XXIV, the motion to dispense
with the call of committees on Calendar Wednesday is debatable for
10 minutes, five minutes on each side, and requires a two-thirds
vote for adoption.
On Jan. 24, 1984,(7) Speaker Pro Tempore Gillis W. Long,
of Louisiana, responded to a parliamentary inquiry regarding debate, as
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 130 Cong. Rec. 294-96, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [James C.] Wright [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I move that
business in order on January 25, 1984, under clause 7, rule XXIV,
the Calendar Wednesday rule, may be dispensed with on that day.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Wright)
is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. [Daniel E.] Lungren [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. Lungren: Mr. Speaker, is there also 5 minutes given to
someone in opposition?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will advise that the
opposition is also entitled to 5 minutes and will be recognized
following the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Wright). . . .
The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Wright).
So (two-thirds not having voted in favor thereof) the motion
was rejected.
Motion To Recommit With Instructions
Sec. 69.6 Under Rule XVI clause 4, a Member offering a motion to
recommit with instructions (after the previous question has been
ordered) and a Member opposing the motion to recommit are each
recognized for five minutes of debate.
On June 2, 1971,(8) a bill was reported back to the
House with
[[Page 10968]]
an amendment agreed to in the Committee of the Whole. Speaker Carl
Albert, of Oklahoma, stated that under the rule the previous question
was ordered, and the bill was read the third time. Mr. Marvin L. Esch,
of Michigan, offered a motion to recommit the bill with instructions.
The Speaker recognized him for five minutes' debate in favor of his
motion and Mr. Carl D. Perkins, of Kentucky, for five minutes' debate
in opposition to the motion.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 117 Cong. Rec. 17491-95, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
9. For prior practice, precluding debate on such a motion, see Sec. 6,
supra; 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 5561, 5582-5584; and 8
Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2471.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 19, 1973,(10) Mr. Charles M. Teague, of
California, who was opposed to the pending bill, offered a motion to
recommit with instructions after the previous question had been ordered
on the bill. Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, recognized him under the
rule for five minutes and then recognized Mr. William R. Poage, of
Texas, for five minutes in opposition to the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 119 Cong. Rec. 24966, 24967, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the conclusion of Mr. Poage's time, the Speaker held that Mr.
Teague still retained control of the motion and could yield to another
Member to offer an amendment to the motion to recommit.
Sec. 69.7 The 10 minutes of debate on certain motions to recommit with
instructions permitted by Rule XVI clause 4, are not in order on a
motion to recommit a simple resolution (or a conference report)
with instructions.
On Nov. 15, 1973,(11) Mr. Wayne L. Hays, of Ohio,
offered House Resolution 702, providing additional funds for
investigations by the Committee on the Judiciary. Mr. Hays moved the
previous question on the report and the previous question was ordered.
Mr. William L. Dickinson, of Alabama, then moved to recommit the
resolution with instructions. Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma,
informed him, in response to his parliamentary inquiry, that no debate
was in order on the motion, the pending proposition not being a bill or
joint resolution but a simple resolution:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 119 Cong. Rec. 37141, 37142, 37150, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Dickinson: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. Dickinson: Mr. Speaker, am I not entitled to 5 minutes as
the Member offering this motion to recommit?
The Speaker: The Chair will advise the gentleman that that
procedure is not applicable on a motion to recommit a simple
resolution.
[[Page 10969]]
Mr. Dickinson: Mr. Speaker, is that also true when there are
instructions in the motion to recommit?
The Speaker: The Chair will advise the gentleman that the
procedure permitting 10 minutes of debate on a motion to recommit
with instructions only applies to bills and joint resolutions.
The question is on the motion to recommit offered by the
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Dickinson).(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Rule XVI clause 4, limits its application as to motions to recommit
to bills and joint resolutions. See House Rules and Manual
Sec. 782 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 69.8 Under Rule XVI clause 4, after the previous question is
ordered on passage of a bill or joint resolution, 10 minutes are
provided for debate on a motion to recommit with instructions; but
such provision for debate applies only to bills and joint
resolutions, and is not in order on a motion to recommit a
concurrent resolution with instructions.
The proceedings described above occurred on May 7,
1975,(13) during consideration of Senate Concurrent
Resolution 23 (authorizing printing of additional copies of ``The
Congressional Program of Economic Recovery and Energy Sufficiency'') in
the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 121 Cong. Rec. 13366, 13367, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
motion to recommit with instructions.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Bauman moves to recommit Senate Concurrent Resolution
23 to the Committee on House Administration with instructions
to report the resolution back forthwith with the following
amendment: Page 1, line 3 and 4 strike the word
``Congressional'' and insert in lieu thereof the word
``Democrat''.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (14) Is the gentleman
opposed to the Senate concurrent resolution?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. John J. McFall (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Bauman: I am, Mr. Speaker, in its present form or in any
other form.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Without objection, the previous
question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Bauman: Am I not permitted time to discuss the motion?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: I would inform the gentleman from
Maryland that it is not a debatable motion on a concurrent
resolution.
Sec. 69.9 Under Rule XVI clause 4, after the previous question is
ordered on passage of a bill or joint resolution 10 minutes are
provided for debate on a motion to recommit with instructions; the
10 minutes of debate on a motion to recommit with instructions
applies only to bills and joint resolutions and is not in
[[Page 10970]]
order on a motion to recommit a concurrent resolution with
instructions.
On May 7, 1975,(15) during consideration of Senate
Concurrent Resolution 23 (16) in the Committee of the Whole,
the Chair responded to a parliamentary inquiry regarding debate on a
motion. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 121 Cong. Rec. 1366, 1367, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
16. Authorizing printing of additional copies of ``The Congressional
Program of Economic Recovery and Energy Sufficiency.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
motion to recommit with instructions.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Bauman moves to recommit Senate Concurrent Resolution
23 to the Committee on House Administration with instructions
to report the resolution back forthwith with the following
amendment: Page 1, line 3 and 4 strike the word
``Congressional'' and insert in lieu thereof the word
``Democrat''.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (17) Is the gentleman
opposed to the Senate concurrent resolution?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. John J. McFall (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Bauman: I am, Mr. Speaker, in its present form or in any
other form.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Without objection, the previous
question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Bauman: Am I not permitted time to discuss the motion?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: I would inform the gentleman from
Maryland that it is not a debatable motion on a concurrent
resolution.
Sec. 69.10 After the previous question has been ordered,
a motion to recommit a bill
or joint resolution with any proper instructions is debatable for
10 minutes under Rule XVI clause 4.
The following proceedings occurred in the House on Oct. 30,
1975,(18) during consideration of the Postal Reorganization
Amendments of 1975 (H.R. 8603):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 121 Cong. Rec. 34448, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Edward J.] Derwinski [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
motion to recommit.
The Speaker: (19) Is the gentleman opposed to the
bill?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Derwinski: I am, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Derwinski moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 8603, to the
Committee on Post Office and Civil Service with instructions
that said committee shall promptly hold appropriate hearings
thereon.
The Speaker: Does the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Derwinski)
desire to be heard on his motion?
[[Page 10971]]
Mr. Derwinski: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
The motion to recommit is normal except that it does require
that the committee hold appropriate hearings.
The Speaker: Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hanley)
desire to be heard on the motion to recommit?
Mr. [James M.] Hanley [of New York]: I do, Mr. Speaker. I wish
to be heard in opposition to the recommittal motion.
Parliamentarian's Note: Debate is permitted on any motion to
recommit with instructions, and not merely a motion with instructions
to report the bill back forthwith with an amendment.
Sec. 69.11 The 10 minutes of debate permitted on a motion to recommit
with instructions by clause 4 of Rule XVI applies only to a bill or
joint resolution and not to a simple resolution.
During consideration of House Resolution 1097 (relating to
investigative funds for the Committee on the Judiciary) in the House on
Mar. 29, 1976,(20) a motion to recommit was offered, as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 122 Cong. Rec. 8444, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion
to recommit.
The Speaker: (1) Is the gentleman opposed to the
resolution?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Ashbrook: I am, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Ashbrook moves that House Resolution 1097 be
recommitted to the Committee on House Administration with
instructions that said committee forthwith report back to the
House said resolution with the following amendment, to wit: on
page 2, line 11 of the resolution add the following new
sentence: ``Not to exceed $300,000 of the total amount provided
by this resolution shall be used to carry out activities within
the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary under the
provisions of rule X, clause (M) (19) of the Rules of the House
of Representatives.
Mr. Ashbrook: Mr. Speaker, may I be recognized for 5 minutes?
The Speaker: The rule regarding debate does not apply to a
motion to recommit a resolution.
The question is on the motion to recommit.
Motions Relating to Nongermane Senate Amendments
Sec. 69.12 Where a Member opposed to a section of a conference report
demanded a separate vote on the section pursuant to a special order
permitting such procedure, that Member and the Member calling up
the conference report were each recognized for 20 minutes of debate
as required by Rule XX clause 1.
[[Page 10972]]
On Nov. 10, 1971,(2) Mr. F. Edward Hebert, of Louisiana,
called up a conference report. Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, stated
that the special order under which the report was being considered,
House Resolution 696, provided that a separate vote could be demanded
on certain sections of the conference report. Mr. Donald M. Fraser, of
Minnesota, demanded a separate vote on section 503 of the report
pursuant to the special order and pursuant to Rule XX clause 1 of the
House rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 117 Cong. Rec. 40483, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker then stated the order of recognition pending the
separate vote:
Under clause 1 of rule XX, 40 minutes of debate are permitted
before a separate vote is taken on a nongermane Senate amendment,
one-half of such time in favor of, and one-half in opposition to
the amendment.
Pursuant to that rule, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.
Hebert) will be recognized for 20 minutes, and the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Fraser) will be recognized for 20 minutes.
Parliamentarian's Note: The provisions of clause 1, Rule XX with
respect to debate on a motion to reject a nongermane portion of a
conference report were transferred to clause 4, Rule XXVIII in the 92d
Congress on Oct. 13, 1972.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. H. Res. 1153, 118 Cong. Rec. 36023, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motions To Suspend Rules
Sec. 69.13 Debate on a motion to suspend the rules is limited to 40
minutes, 20 minutes controlled by the mover and 20 minutes
controlled by the Member demanding a second.
On June 30, 1959,(4) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas,
answered a parliamentary inquiry on the time and distribution of time
for debate on a motion to suspend the rules:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 105 Cong. Rec. 12306, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. [Clarence] Cannon [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Cannon: Mr. Speaker, I am advised that the gentleman from
New York [Mr. Taber] will demand a second on the motion to suspend
the rules on the Temporary Appropriations Act of 1960. How will the
time for debate be distributed under the circumstances?
The Speaker: Twenty minutes on a side.
Parliamentarian's Note: The demand for a second on a motion to
suspend the rules is no longer used.
Sec. 69.14 On a motion to suspend the rules and pass a bill with
[[Page 10973]]
amendments there is 40 minutes of debate, 20 minutes on each side;
the five-minute rule does not apply to such amendments, and
amendments other than those included in the motion are not in
order.
On June 19, 1948,(5) Mr. Harold Knutson, of Minnesota,
moved
to suspend the rules and pass a
bill with committee amendments. Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of
Massachusetts, answered a parliamentary inquiry on the time for debate
on the motion:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 94 Cong. Rec. 9185, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Herman P.] Eberharter [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Eberharter: I notice the motion stated ``permission to
offer amendments.'' Am I correct?
The Speaker: The gentleman misheard the request. The request
was to suspend the rules and pass the bill with committee
amendments.
Mr. Eberharter: Does that allow those who oppose the amendments
5 minutes on each amendment?
The Speaker: The rule provides for 20 minutes on each side.
That is, the Republican side will have 20 minutes and the gentleman
from North Carolina [Mr. Doughton], who will demand a second, will
have 20 minutes.
Mr. Eberharter: Mr. Speaker, the only amendments that may be
considered then are those that the committee acted upon?
The Speaker: The gentleman is correct. The Clerk will report
the bill.
Sec. 69.15 Where a Member moving to suspend the rules uses a portion of
the 20 minutes available to him for debate, and then yields the
``balance of his time'' to another who does not, in fact, consume
all the remaining time, the
unused time reverts to the mover who may continue debate.
On Sept. 19, 1966,(6) Mr. Adam C. Powell, of New York,
moved to suspend the rules and pass a bill. He used part of the 20
minutes available to him under the rules and then yielded the
``balance'' of his time to Mr. James G. O'Hara, of Michigan. Mr. O'Hara
delivered a short address, and Mr. Powell then yielded time to Mr. John
H. Dent, of Pennsylvania. Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, made a point of
order that Mr. Powell had lost control of the floor, and Speaker John
W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, overruled the point of order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 112 Cong. Rec. 22933, 22934, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Powell] yielded his remaining time to
the gentleman from
[[Page 10974]]
Michigan [Mr. O'Hara] and that he therefore cannot yield time.
The Speaker: The gentleman from Michigan consumed 3 minutes.
Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New York yielded the
remainder of his time to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. O'Hara].
Mr. Powell: Mr. Speaker, may I be heard?
The Speaker: The Chair will state, when that is done on either
side, when a Member does not consume the remainder of the time,
control of the remaining time reverts to the Member who has charge
of the time.
Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. Gross: When the Member in charge of time yields the
remainder of his time to another Member, Mr. Speaker, I would not
know how he would then be able to yield time to any other Member.
The Speaker: The Chair will rule that when the gentleman in
control of time yields the remainder of his time to another Member,
and the other Member does not use up all the time, then the
remainder of the time comes back under the control of the Member
who originally had control of the time.
Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry.
How may a Member yield the remainder of his time and still
control that time?
The Speaker: Well, that is not a parliamentary inquiry, but the
Chair will assume, just making an observation, that every Member in
the House is aware that happens, and has happened frequently.
Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry. Would
that be in violation of the rules of the House?
The Speaker: The Chair sees no violation of the rules under
those circumstances, but a protection of the right for full debate.
Sec. 69.16 Debate on a motion to suspend the rules is limited to 20
minutes on a side so that if a portion of the time is used and the
House then adjourns, the time begins to run on the next day the
motion is in order at that point where it was terminated.
On Feb. 28, 1931,(7) Mr. Thomas A. Jenkins, of Ohio,
moved to suspend the rules and pass House Joint Resolution 500, further
restricting immigration into the United States. Mr. Samuel Dickstein,
of New York, demanded a second, the vote on the second was taken by
tellers, and Mr. Fiorello H. LaGuardia, of New York, made a point of
order that
a quorum was not present. Speaker Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, counted
and stated that a quorum was present. The Speaker then answered
parliamentary inquiries on the resumption of the consideration of the
motion to suspend the rules should the House adjourn:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 74 Cong. Rec. 6575-77, 71st Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: The gentleman from New York [Mr. Snell] asked if,
when a
[[Page 10975]]
second is ordered or a quorum is present, this matter would be
unfinished business at the next meeting of the House. The Chair
replies, ``Yes.'' The Chair holds it would be unfinished business
at the next meeting of the House, inasmuch as a second has been
ordered, a quorum being present.
Mr. [Henry W.] Temple [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, if the
House adjourns now, will the 20 minutes debate on each side begin
where we left off to-night?
The Speaker: It would. It would be in exactly the same position
we are now.
Parliamentarian's Note: Ordinarily, a motion to suspend the rules
pending at adjournment could not be resumed until the next regular day
on which the motion was in order under Rule XXVII clause 1. However,
the motion is in order at any time during the last six days of a
session.
Sec. 69.17 Under a former practice, a member of the minority who was
opposed to a bill considered under suspension of the rules had the
right to recognition, over a majority Member opposed to the bill,
to demand a second thereon and to control the 20 minutes of debate
in opposition thereto.
On Nov. 17, 1980,(8) the House had under consideration
S. 885 (Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act
of 1980) when the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 126 Cong. Rec. 29788-801, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Abraham] Kazen [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I move to
suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 885) to assist the
electrical consumers of the Pacific Northwest through use of the
Federal Columbia River Power System to achieve cost-effective
energy conservation, to encourage the development of renewable
energy resources, to establish a representative regional power
planning process, to assure the region of an efficient and adequate
power supply, and for other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
Strike out all after the enacting clause of S. 885 and
insert the text of H.R. 8157 as amended.
short title and table of contents
Section 1. This Act, together with the following table of
contents, may be cited as the ``Pacific Northwest Electric
Power Planning and Conservation Act''. . . .
The Speaker: (9) Is a second demanded?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [F. James] Sensenbrenner [Jr., of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker,
I demand a second.
Mr. [James] Weaver [of Oregon]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a second.
The Speaker: The gentleman from Wisconsin from the minority is
entitled to the second.
Mr. Weaver: Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
I am opposed to the bill.
[[Page 10976]]
The Speaker: Is the gentleman from Wisconsin opposed to the
bill?
Mr. Sensenbrenner: I am opposed to the bill.
The Speaker: Without objection, a second will be considered as
ordered.
There was no objection.
The Speaker: The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Kazen) will be
recognized for 20 minutes, and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner) will be recognized for 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Kazen).
Parliamentarian's Note: The demand for a second on a motion to
suspend the rules is no longer used.
Sec. 69.18 By unanimous consent, debate was extended to one hour, to be
equally divided by those controlling the time, on a motion to
suspend the rules and agree to a conference report.
During consideration of the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 (H.R.
4242) in the House on Aug. 4, 1981,(10) the following
proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 127 Cong. Rec. 19520, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Dan] Rostenkowski [of Illinois]: Madam Speaker, I move to
suspend the rules and agree to the conference report on the bill
(H.R. 4242) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to encourage
economic growth through reductions in individual income tax rates,
the expensing of depreciable property, incentives for small
businesses, and incentives for savings, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the conference report. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Rostenkowski) will be recognized for 20 minutes, and the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Shannon) will be recognized for 20 minutes.
Mr. Rostenkowski: Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
time for this debate be extended from 40 minutes to 1 hour, to be
equally divided by those controlling the time.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from Illinois?
There was no objection.
Previous Question Ordered on Proposition Not Debated
Sec. 69.19 Forty minutes of debate is allowed wherever the previous
question is ordered on a debatable proposition on which there has
been no debate.
On June 8, 1943,(11) the House was considering Senate
amendments reported from conference
in disagreement on H.R. 2714,
urgent deficiency appropriations. Mr. Clarence Cannon, of Missouri,
offered a motion to concur in
a Senate amendment with an
[[Page 10977]]
amendment and moved the previous question on his motion. Mr. John
Taber, of New York, attempted to demand a second on the motion for the
previous question and Mr. Cannon stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 89 Cong. Rec. 5506, 5507, 5509, 5510, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Speaker, we have 20 minutes on a side. I have moved the
previous question. Therefore, when the gentleman demands a second,
we have 20 minutes on a side.
Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, responded:
The previous question must be ordered before any time at all is
fixed.
The question is on the motion for the previous question.
The House then rejected the previous question on Mr. Cannon's
motion to concur with an amendment, and Mr. Taber offered an amendment
to Mr. Cannon's motion. The previous question was immediately ordered
on Mr. Taber's amendment and the Speaker recognized Mr. Taber for 20
minutes and Mr. Cannon for 20 minutes on the amendment
to the motion, pursuant to Rule XXVII clause 3.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Rule XXVII clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 907 (1995)
provides that ``whenever the previous question has been ordered
on any proposition on which there has been no debate,'' it
shall be in order ``to debate the proposition to be voted upon
for forty minutes, one-half of such time to be given to debate
in favor of and one-half to debate in opposition to, such
proposition.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 69.20 Where the previous question is ordered on a debatable motion
without debate, a Member may demand the right to debate; and the 40
minutes permitted under the rule is divided between the person
demanding the time and some Member who represents the opposing view
of the question.
On Sept. 13, 1965,(13) the previous question was
ordered, without debate, on the motion to approve the Journal, as read.
Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, stated, in response to
a parliamentary inquiry by Mr. Durward G. Hall, of Missouri, that
pursuant to Rule XXVII clause 3, any Member could demand the right to
debate the motion since it was debatable and since the previous
question had been ordered without debate. The Speaker recognized Mr.
Hall for 20 minutes and then recognized a Member in opposition, Carl
Albert, of Oklahoma, for 20 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 111 Cong. Rec. 23602, 23604-06, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 69.21 The right to recognition for 20 minutes of debate under Rule
XXVII clause 3, does not apply unless the
[[Page 10978]]
previous question has been ordered on a proposition on which there
has been no debate.
On May 14, 1963,(14) the House was considering Senate
amendments reported from conference in disagreement. Mr. Albert Thomas,
of Texas, moved that the House concur with an amendment to a certain
Senate amendment and moved the previous question on that motion. Before
the previous question was ordered, Speaker John W. McCormack, of
Massachusetts, indicated that the right to debate the motion for 40
minutes, 20 for and 20 against, only applied after the previous
question was ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 109 Cong. Rec. 8508-11, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Before Adoption of Rules
Sec. 69.22 Prior to adoption of
the rules, when the motion
for the previous question is moved without debate, the 40 minutes'
debate prescribed by House rules during the previous Congress does
not apply.
On Jan. 7, 1959,(15) at the convening of the 86th
Congress and before the adoption of rules, Mr. John W. McCormack, of
Massachusetts, offered House Resolution 1, a privileged resolution
authorizing the Speaker to administer the oath of office to a
challenged Member-elect and providing that the question of final right
of the Member-elect to his seat be referred to the Committee on House
Administration. Mr. McCormack moved the previous question on the
resolution without any debate, and Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas,
answered a parliamentary inquiry on the effect of the previous question
before the adoption of rules:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 105 Cong. Rec. 14, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Thomas P.] O'Neill [Jr., of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker,
may I make an inquiry on a point of parliamentary procedure.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. O'Neill: Mr. Speaker, when the previous order has been
moved and there is no debate, under the rules of the House are we
not entitled to 40 minutes debate?
The Speaker: Under the precedents, the 40-minute rule does not
apply before the adoption of the rules.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See also 107 Cong. Rec. 23-25, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 3, 1961.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nongermane Provision in Conference Report
Sec. 69.23 A motion to reject a portion of a conference report is in
order immediately
[[Page 10979]]
after the Speaker sustains a point of order that it would not have
been germane if offered to the House bill, and is debatable for 40
minutes, 20 minutes for and 20 minutes against the motion.
On Sept. 11, 1973,(17) Mr. Wayne L. Hays, of Ohio,
called up the conference report on H.R. 7645, to authorize
appropriations for the Department of State, and for other purposes.
Before the statement of the managers was read, Mr. Gerald R. Ford, of
Michigan, made a point of order against section 13 of the report on the
ground that the section would not have been germane if offered in the
House to the bill and was therefore subject to a point of order under
Rule XXVIII clause 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 119 Cong. Rec. 29235-37, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Ford and Mr. Hays delivered arguments on the point of order,
and Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, then ruled that the language
objected to would not have been germane if offered to the House bill
and sustained the point of order.
Mr. William S. Mailliard, of California, then offered, pursuant to
Rule XXVIII clause 4, a motion to reject section 13 of the conference
report. The Speaker recognized, under the rule, Mr. Mailliard for 20
minutes in favor of the motion and Mr. Hays for 20 minutes in
opposition to the motion.
Sec. 69.24 Pursuant to Rule XXVIII clause 4, where the Speaker sustains
a point of order that a portion of a conference report containing a
Senate amendment is not germane to the House bill, a motion to
reject that portion of the conference report is in order and is
subject to 40 minutes of debate.
For example, see the proceedings of Jan. 29, 1976, discussed in
Sec. 69.25, infra.
Sec. 69.25 Pursuant to Rule XXVIII clause 4, 40 minutes for debate on a
motion to reject a nongermane portion of a conference report is
equally divided between the proponent and an opponent of the motion
to reject, and recognition is not based upon party affiliation; and
the House conferee who has been recognized for 20 minutes in
opposition to a motion to reject a nongermane portion of a
conference report is entitled to close debate on the motion to
reject.
H.R. 5247, a bill reported from the Committee on Public Works
[[Page 10980]]
and Transportation, consisted of one title relating to grants to state
and local governments for local public works construction projects. A
new title added by the Senate and contained in a conference report
provided grants to state and local governments to assist them in
providing public services. On Jan. 29, 1976,(18) a point of
order was made in the House, pursuant to Rule XXVIII clause 4, against
the title added by the Senate. The title was held to be not germane,
because it proposed a revenue-sharing program within the jurisdiction
of the Committee on Government Operations, and because the approach
taken in the Senate version was not closely related to the methods used
to combat unemployment as delineated in the House bill.(19)
After the Speaker had ruled on the point of order, a motion was made:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 122 Cong. Rec. 1582, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
19. For further discussion of the ruling on the issue of germaneness,
see Ch. 28, Sec. 4.99, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Jack] Brooks [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Brooks moves that the House reject title II of H.R.
5247, as reported by the committee of conference.
The Speaker:(20) The gentleman from Alabama (Mr.
Jones) will be recognized for 20 minutes, and the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Brooks) will be recognized for 20 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Brooks: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. [Frank] Horton [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary
inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. Horton: Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary inquiry is this: Do
we have 20 minutes on the minority side?
The Speaker: The Chair will state that the division of time is
between those in favor and those opposed to the motion to reject
title II. The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Jones) has 20 minutes and
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brooks) has 20 minutes.
Mr. [James C.] Wright [Jr., of Texas, on behalf of Mr. Jones]:
Mr. Speaker, I have one other speaker, the majority leader. I do
not know what the courtesy is, or the appropriate protocol, in a
matter of this kind.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will rule that the gentleman
from Texas [Mr. Wright] may close debate.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. For another instance in which the Speaker acknowledged that the
House conferee who has been recognized for 20 minutes in
opposition to a motion to reject a nongermane portion of a
conference report is entitled to close debate on the motion to
reject, see Ch. 28, Sec. 26.23, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: Where the House agrees to a motion to
reject a nongermane portion of
a conference report pursuant to Rule XXVIII clause 4, the pending
[[Page 10981]]
question, in the form of a motion offered by the manager of the
conference report, is to recede
from disagreement to the Senate amendment and concur with an amendment
consisting of the remaining portions of the conference report not
rejected on the separate vote, and one hour of debate, equally divided
between the majority and minority parties, is permitted on that pending
question.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. See Sec. 68.24, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 69.26 Where the Chair sustains a point of order pursuant to clause
4 of Rule XXVIII, that a conference report contains a Senate
provision which would not have been germane if offered in the
House, it is in order to offer a motion to reject the matter
covered by the point of order, which motion is
debatable for 40 minutes, equally divided and controlled by those
in favor of, and those opposed to, the motion.
On Sept. 25, 1980,(3) during
consideration of the conference report on H.R. 4310 (Recreational
Boating Safety and Facilities Improvement Act of 1980) in the
House, the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 126 Cong. Rec. 27410, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Mario] Biaggi [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I call up the
conference report on the bill (H.R. 4310) to amend the Federal Boat
Safety Act of 1971 to improve recreational boating safety and
facilities through the development, administration, and financing
of a national recreational boating safety and facilities
improvement program, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Speaker Pro Tempore:(4) Un-der the rule, the
conference report is considered as read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Thomas S. Foley (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Bill] Frenzel [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point
of order under clause 4 of rule XXVIII that
title III of the conference report accompanying H.R. 4310 is a
nongermane amendment.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4310, as it passed the House, related to
boating safety. It did not amend the Internal Revenue Code. Title
III now in the conference report relates to a trust fund for
reforestation and contains a significant amendment to the Internal
Revenue Code. It would have been nongermane to H.R. 4310 when that
bill was originally considered by the House. . . . I contend, Mr.
Speaker, that title III should be ruled nongermane and considered
in violation of clause 7 of rule XVI.
Mr. Speaker, I understand the point of order will not be
contested.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Biaggi).
Mr. Biaggi: Mr. Speaker, we concede the point of order.
[[Page 10982]]
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The point of order is sustained.
Mr. Frenzel: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Frenzel moves that the House reject title III of the
conference report accompanying H.R. 4310.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Frenzel) will be recognized for 20 minutes, and the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Biaggi) will be recognized for 20 minutes.
CHAPTER 29
Consideration and Debate
H. DURATION OF DEBATE IN THE HOUSE
Sec. 70. Five-minute Debate in the House as in Committee of the Whole
In the House as in the Committee of the Whole, or the ``quasi-
committee'' as it is sometimes termed, debate proceeds under the five-
minute rule for amendment of the measure under consideration, without
general debate.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. See Sec. 70.1, infra.
The procedure is discussed in Jefferson's Manual, House
Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 424-427 (1995) and is provided for
in only one House rule--that providing for the consideration of
omnibus private bills (see Rule XXIV clause 6, House Rules and
Manual Sec. 893 [1995]).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When a proposition is considered in the House as in the Committee
of the Whole by unanimous consent,(6) Members may gain five
minutes of debate not only by
offering substantive amendments but also by offering pro forma
amendments and motions to strike the enacting clause.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. See Sec. Sec. 70.3-70.6, infra.
7. See Sec. Sec. 70.2, 70.10, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where a private bill is considered in the House as in the Committee
of the Whole, Rule XXIV clause 6 requires that debate be strictly
limited to the five-minute rule, without pro forma amendments,
extensions of time, or reservations of objection.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. See Sec. Sec. 70.7-70.9, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Debate in the House as in the Committee of the Whole may be closed
by ordering the previous question,(9) and it has been held
in order in the House as in the Committee of the Whole to move to close
debate on a pending section or amendment.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. See Sec. 72.7, infra.
10. See Sec. 72.8, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross References
Five-minute debate in the Committee of the Whole, see Sec. 77, infra.
Member may yield for debate but not
for amendment under the five-minute rule, see Sec. Sec. 29-31,
supra.
Previous question applicable in House as in the Committee of the Whole,
see Sec. 72, infra.
Private Calendar considered in House as in Committee of the Whole, see
Ch. 22, supra.
[[Page 10983]]
-------------------Procedure in the House as
in Committee of the Whole
Sec. 70.1 Where a bill is considered in the House as in the Committee
of the Whole, there is no general debate but the bill is debatable
under the five-minute rule.
On Sept. 27, 1967,(11) Mr. George H. Mahon, of Texas,
called up House Joint Resolution 849, making continuing appropriations
for fiscal 1968, and the House agreed to his unanimous-consent request
that the bill be considered in the House as in the Committee of the
Whole. Mr. Frank T. Bow, of Ohio, then propounded a parliamentary
inquiry whether and when it would be in order to offer amendments.
Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, responded that amendments
would be in order under the five-minute rule and further stated that
the five-minute rule was in effect.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 113 Cong. Rec. 26956-60, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
12. See also 116 Cong. Rec. 28050, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 10, 1970;
and 113 Cong. Rec. 17183-86, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., June 26,
1967 (bill is considered as read and open for amendment at any
point, contrary to former practice to read bill for amendment
by sections).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 70.2 Debate on a bill being considered in the House as in the
Committee of the Whole is under the five-minute rule, and a Member
who has spoken for five minutes on the bill may be recognized on
another pro forma amendment to the bill by unanimous consent.
On Sept. 11, 1972,(13) Mr. William S. Stuckey, Jr., of
Georgia, called up H.R. 15550, to convey
to Alexandria, Virginia, certain lands of the United States, and the
House agreed to his request that the bill be considered in the House as
in the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Stuckey moved to strike out the last
word and discussed the bill for five minutes. After intervening debate,
Mr. Stuckey again arose to strike out the last word. Speaker Pro
Tempore Richard Bolling, of Missouri, stated that without objection,
Mr. Stuckey was recognized for five minutes. There was no objection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 118 Cong. Rec. 29951-56, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Union Calendar Bills
Sec. 70.3 Where unanimous consent is granted for the consideration of a
Union Calendar bill, such bill is considered in the House as in the
Committee of the Whole and debate may be had only under the five-
minute rule.
[[Page 10984]]
On June 28, 1966,(14) Mr. Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas,
asked unanimous consent for the consideration of H.R. 14224, the Social
Security Act amendments of 1966, pending on the Union Calendar. Mr.
John W. Byrnes, of Wisconsin, inquired of Speaker John W. McCormack, of
Massachusetts, whether Members would have an opportunity to be heard on
the bill and to offer pro forma amendments. The Speaker responded that
the unanimous-consent request carried with it the stipulation that if
consent were granted, the bill would be considered in the House as in
the Committee of the Whole, under the five-minute rule, with the
opportunity to offer pro forma amendments.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 112 Cong. Rec. 7749, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
15. See also 114 Cong. Rec. 28374, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 26, 1968;
112 Cong. Rec. 24080, 89th Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 28, 1966; 112
Cong. Rec. 7749, 89th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 6, 1966; 95 Cong.
Rec. 14462, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 13, 1949; and 79 Cong.
Rec. 14331, 74th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 23, 1935. For further
examples of unanimous-consent agreements for the consideration
of Union Calendar bills under the five-minute rule in the House
as in the Committee of the Whole, see Sec. Sec. 4.2 et seq.,
supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: A Union Calendar bill may be considered
under the hour rule if unanimous consent is requested for its immediate
consideration ``in the House.''
Sec. 70.4 Under the former practice, debate on an amendment to a Union
Calendar bill being considered on the Consent Calendar is under the
five-minute rule, in the House as in the Committee of the Whole.
On July 30, 1955,(16) the Clerk called a bill on the
Consent Calendar which was pending on the Union Calendar. Mr. Clare E.
Hoffman, of Michigan, offered an amendment and discussed it for five
minutes. When Mr. Hoffman sought additional time, Speaker Sam Rayburn,
of Texas, advised him that amendments were being considered under the
five-minute rule.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 101 Cong. Rec. 12408, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
17. See Rule XIII clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 745a and
746 (1995) and comments thereto for consideration of Consent
Calendar bills under the five-minute rule prior to the 104th
Congress. H. Res. 168, adopted on June 20, 1995, abolished the
Consent Calendar and established in its place a Corrections
Calendar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 70.5 A motion that a Union Calendar bill be considered
[[Page 10985]]
under the five-minute rule in the House as in the Committee of the
Whole is not in order (unanimous consent being required).
On July 12, 1939,(18) Mr. Andrew J. May, of Kentucky,
called up H.R. 985, on the Union Calendar, and asked unanimous consent
that it be considered in the House as in the Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Sam Hobbs, of Alabama, objected to the consideration of the bill
and Mr. May then attempted to make a motion for consideration in the
House as in the Committee of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 84 Cong. Rec. 8945, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then I move, Mr. Speaker, that the bill be considered in the
House as in the Committee of the Whole.
Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, ruled:
The Chair is of the opinion that could not be permitted under
the rules of the House. The gentleman may submit a unanimous-
consent request, but not a motion.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Procedure in the House as in the Committee of the Whole is by
unanimous consent only, as the order of business gives no place
for a motion that business be considered in that manner. 4
Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4923 (cited in Jefferson's Manual, House
Rules and Manual Sec. 424 [1995]).
Provision is made in the rules for the consideration of
Private Calendar bills under the five-minute rule in the House
as in the Committee of the Whole. See Rule XXIV clause 6, House
Rules and Manual Sec. 893 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 70.6 When a bill on the Union Calendar is considered in the House
as in the Committee of the Whole, debate is under the five-minute
rule, and extensions of time for debate are permitted only by
unanimous consent.
On July 28, 1969,(20) Mr. John Dowdy, of Texas, called
up H.R. 9553, amending the District of Columbia Minimum Wage Act, and
asked unanimous consent for its consideration in the House as in the
Committee of the Whole. Mr. Brock Adams, of Washington, reserved the
right to object and made inquiries as to the time for debate under the
proposed procedure. Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, stated
that debate would be conducted under the five-minute rule but that any
Member seeking additional time to the five minutes allowed could ask
unanimous consent for an extension of time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 115 Cong. Rec. 20850, 20851, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Private Calendar Measures
Sec. 70.7 Private Calendar debate, under the five-minute rule, is
[[Page 10986]]
strictly limited to five minutes in favor of and five in opposition
to an amendment; and extensions of time under the five-minute rule
are not permitted.
On Dec. 14, 1967,(1) the House as in the Committee of
the Whole was considering for amendment, under the five-minute rule,
House Resolution 981, a private resolution opposing the granting of
permanent residence to certain aliens. Since private bills or
resolutions are considered strictly under the five-minute rule,
pursuant to Rule XXIV clause 6, Speaker John W. McCormack, of
Massachusetts, ruled that extensions of time or pro forma amendments
were not in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 113 Cong. Rec. 36535-37, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: For what purpose does the gentleman from Iowa
rise?
Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition
to the amendment.
The Speaker: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa for 5
minutes.
(Mr. Gross asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
The Speaker: The time of the gentleman from Iowa has expired.
Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, under the parliamentary situation, is
it permissible to ask for 2 additional minutes?
The Speaker: Under the parliamentary situation, in relation to
the pending resolution, it is not in order.
Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I move to
strike out the requisite number of words.
The Speaker: The Chair advises the gentleman that that motion
is not in order.
Mr. Hall: Mr. Speaker, may I be heard in opposition to the
amendment?
Mr. [Michael A.] Feighan [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker----
The Speaker: A member of the committee is entitled to
recognition. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Feighan] is recognized.
Parliamentarian's Note: Rule XIV clause 6, relating to the
consideration of private bills, was amended on Mar. 27, 1935, to
preclude reservations of objection and therefore to require
consideration under a strict application of the five-minute
rule.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. For obsolete precedents permitting reservations of objection on
private bills, see 78 Cong. Rec. 2364, 73d Cong. 2d Sess., Feb.
10, 1934; 75 Cong. Rec. 10827, 72d Cong. 1st Sess., May 20,
1932; and 75 Cong. Rec. 10822, 72d Cong. 1st Sess., May 20,
1932.
For other occasions where extensions of time for debate on
private bills have been ruled out of order, see 81 Cong. Rec.
7293-95, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., July 20, 1937; 80 Cong. Rec.
5900, 74th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 22, 1936; and 80 Cong. Rec.
3800, 74th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 17, 1936.
For other occasions where pro forma amendments have been
ruled out of order during consideration of private bills, see
81 Cong. Rec. 7299, 7300, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., July 20, 1937;
81 Cong. Rec. 7293-95, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., July 20, 1937; and
80 Cong. Rec. 3894, 3895, 74th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 17, 1936.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 10987]]
Sec. 70.8 During the consideration of the Private Calendar no
reservation of objection is in order and the Chair does not
recognize Members for requests to make statements.
On May 5, 1936,(3) the Clerk called a bill on the
Private Calendar. Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, inquired
whether there was objection to consideration thereof, two Members
objected, and the bill was recommitted to the Committee on Military
Affairs. Mr. Theodore Christianson, of Minnesota, requested the Members
objecting to withhold their objection and asked unanimous consent to
make a statement regarding the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 80 Cong. Rec. 6691, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker ruled that he could not recognize the gentleman for
that purpose under the ``express provisions of the rule.''
(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. See also 80 Cong. Rec. 3158, 74th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 3, 1936, for
the prohibition against reservations of objection; and 79 Cong.
Rec. 7100, 74th Cong. 1st Sess., May 7, 1935, for the
prohibition against unanimous-consent requests to make
statements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 70.9 On one occasion, a Member was allowed by unanimous consent to
speak out of order during the call of the Private Calendar.
On Aug. 30, 1960,(5) during the call of the Private
Calendar, S. 3429, to award a gold medal to Robert Frost, was called up
and Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, moved to strike out the last
word. Speaker Pro Tempore Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas, ruled that he
could not be recognized
for that purpose. Mr. Hoffman
then asked unanimous consent to speak out of order. There was no
objection, and Mr. Hoffman was recognized to deliver some remarks on
the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 106 Cong. Rec. 18389, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 70.10 Omnibus private bills are considered under the five-minute
rule in the House as in the Committee of the Whole, and the Chair
does not recognize for extensions of time.
On Mar. 17, 1936,(6) the House as in the Committee of
the Whole was considering for amendment
[[Page 10988]]
omnibus private bills under the five-minute rule. Speaker Joseph W.
Byrns, of Tennessee, refused to recognize a Member for an extension of
time:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 80 Cong. Rec. 3890, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The time of the gentleman from Minnesota has expired.
Mr. [Theodore] Christianson [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to proceed for 5 additional minutes.
The Speaker: On the previous section of this bill the Chair put
a unanimous-consent request for an extension of time. The attention
of the Chair has since been called to a ruling by the author of the
present Private Calendar rule, who was presiding at the last
session on this calendar. This rule was proposed for the purpose of
expediting business. Upon reflection, the Chair does not think he
should recognize Members for the purpose of requesting an extension
of time.
--Motion To Strike Enacting Clause
Sec. 70.11 A motion to strike out the enacting clause is in order
during the consideration of omnibus private bills and is debatable
under the five-minute rule, for two five-minute speeches.
On Mar. 17, 1936,(7) during the consideration of an
omnibus private bill in the House as in the Committee of the Whole, Mr.
Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, moved to strike out the enacting clause.
Mr. Fred Biermann, of Iowa, made a point of order against the offering
of the motion, on the ground that only certain amendments and no pro
forma amendments could be offered to omnibus private bills (under Rule
XXIV clause 6). Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, ruled as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 80 Cong. Rec. 3894, 3895, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The motion to strike out the enacting clause is not an
amendment in the sense contemplated by the rule. The Chair is of
the opinion that the motion is in order and the gentleman from
Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
The Chair also read Rule XXIII clause 7, describing the motion to
strike the enacting clause, as support for his ruling.
Nonamendable Proposition Be-ing Considered in the House as in Committee
of the Whole by Unanimous Consent
Sec. 70.12 While a joint resolution called up under the Alaska Natural
Gas Transportation Act is not subject to substantive amendment
under section 8(d)(5)(B) of that Act, pro forma amendments for the
purpose of debate under the five-minute rule are permitted where
the resolution
[[Page 10989]]
is being considered in the House as in Committee of the Whole by
unanimous consent.
During proceedings on Nov. 2, 1977,(8) the Speaker Pro
Tempore(9) responded to inquiries concerning conditions
under which Members would be recognized during consideration of House
Joint Resolution 621, approving
a presidential decision with regard to an Alaska natural gas
transportation system. The Chair noted, in the course of responding to
inquiries, that, while debate in the House as in the Committee of the
Whole proceeds under the five-minute rule, a Member who has already
been recognized for five minutes may be recognized again by unanimous
consent only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 123 Cong. Rec. 36613, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
9. Otis G. Pike (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The unfinished business of the House
is the further consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res.
621) approving the Presidential decision on an Alaska natural gas
transportation system, and for other purposes, in the House as in
the Committee of the Whole.
Without objection, the Clerk will again report the joint
resolution.
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the joint resolution, as follows:
H.J. Res. 621
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That the House
of Representatives and Senate approve the Presidential decision
on an Alaska natural gas transportation system submitted to the
Congress on September 22, 1977, and find that any environmental
impact statements prepared relative to such system and
submitted with the President's decision are in compliance with
the Natural Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Udall: Mr. Speaker, am I correct in assuming that the joint
resolution before us has been laid before the House, but is not
amendable?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct.
Mr. Udall: Am I further correct, Mr. Speaker, in assuming that
under the procedure by which we are operating, the only way for a
Member to gain time is to make a pro forma motion to strike the
necessary number of words?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct.
It is the Chair's understanding that those who have already
offered pro forma amendments on the joint resolution may do so
again only by unanimous consent.
Sec. 70.13 Rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
measure being considered in the House which is not subject to
amendment (under the rules of the House or under statutory
provisions enacted under the rule
[[Page 10990]]
making power of the House) does not open the measure to amendment
but only extends the time for debate thereon.
On Nov. 2, 1977,(10) the House as in the Committee of
the Whole had under consideration a joint resolution, called up under
the Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Act, which was not subject to
substantive amendment under section 8(d)(5)(B) of that Act. The
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 123 Cong. Rec. 36613, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (11) The unfinished
business of the House is the further consideration of the joint
resolution (H.J. Res. 621) approving the Presidential decision on
an Alaska natural gas transportation system, and for other
purposes, in the House as in the Committee of the Whole. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Otis G. Pike (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: Mr. Speaker, am I correct
in assuming that the joint resolution before us has been laid
before the House, but is not amendable?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct. . . .
Mr. [John P.] Murtha [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Murtha: Would an amendment be in order if the previous
question were not ordered?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will have to state that an
amendment would not be in order. Under the statute, the joint
resolution is not amendable. The only effect would be to extend
debate.
CHAPTER 29
Consideration and Debate
H. DURATION OF DEBATE IN THE HOUSE
Sec. 71. Effect of Special Rules and Unanimous-consent Agreements
The House may vary the period for debate in an infinite variety
of ways. By unanimous consent
or special rule, the House can lengthen debate, abbreviate it, divide
its control between ``proponents and opponents,'' Members representing
committees, or named individuals.
Speakers have declined to recognize requests to extend time on
special-order speeches (beyond one hour) or one-minute speeches. There
is also a reluctance to recognize for extensions of time under rules--
such as the discharge rule--which have carefully structured debate
steps.
Special rules and unanimous-consent agreements may also provide
that a certain period of debate in the House be controlled by the
proponents and opponents of a measure. When time in the House is thus
distributed and controlled, the Members in charge may yield time to
other Members, who are not entitled to be recognized for a full
hour.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See, for example, the unanimous-consent agreements under which some
impeachment resolutions and articles have been considered,
cited at Sec. 71.13, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 10991]]
Cross References
Discharge motion and extensions of time, see Ch. 18, supra.
Effect of special rules on control and distribution of time, see
Sec. 28, supra.
Effect of special rules and unanimous-consent agreements on duration of
debate in the Committee of the Whole, see Sec. 74, infra.
Recognition for unanimous-consent requests, see Sec. 10, supra.
Special rules generally, see Ch. 21, supra.
Special rules and their effect on consideration, see Sec. 2, supra.
Strict five-minute rule for Private Calendar, see Ch. 22, supra.
Unanimous-consent agreements for control and distribution of time, see
Sec. Sec. 24-26, supra.
Unanimous-consent consideration in the House as in the Committee of the
Whole, see Sec. 4,
supra. -------------------
Privileged Resolutions
Sec. 71.1 A special rule may provide that a privileged resolution be
considered in the House, with more than one hour of debate.
On May 2, 1933,(13) the House adopted House Resolution
125, making in order the consideration in the House of House Resolution
124, also reported by the Committee on Rules, and providing for the
consideration of certain Senate amendments. House Resolution 125 read
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 77 Cong. Rec. 2693, 73d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution
the House shall proceed to the consideration of House Resolution
124, and all points of order against said resolution shall be
waived. That after general debate, which shall be confined to the
resolution and shall continue not to exceed 5 hours, to be equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member
of the Committee on Rules, the previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the resolution to its adoption or
rejection.
Sec. 71.2 A resolution amending the rules of the House, eligible for
consideration in the House as privileged business and subject to
one hour of debate was, pursuant to a special rule, considered in
the Committee of the Whole and debated for two hours.
On Apr. 3, 1968,(14) Mr. Richard Bolling, of Missouri,
called up by direction of the Committee on Rules House Resolution 1119
providing for the consideration, in the Committee of the Whole, of
another resolution reported from the Committee on Rules:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 114 Cong. Rec. 8776, 8777, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to
[[Page 10992]]
move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the
resolution (H. Res. 1099) amending H. Res. 418, Ninetieth Congress,
to continue the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct as a
permanent standing committee of the House of Representatives, and
for other purposes. After general debate, which shall be confined
to the resolution and continue not to exceed two hours, to be
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, the
resolution shall be read for amendment under the five-minute rule.
Mr. H. Allen Smith, of California, explained the rationale for, and
effect of, the resolution:
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. . . .
The parliamentary situation today is this: As I mentioned, the
Rules Committee reported House Resolution 418 creating the
committee. The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct reported
to the Rules Committee, which retained original jurisdiction. The
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct reported the resolution
which is before us, H. Res. 1099, which will continue the committee
and establish a code of ethics for the House. The resolution could
have come to the floor of the House without a rule, which would
have limited debate to 1 hour, 30 minutes on each side, and a vote
would then be taken up or down on the resolution.
But the Rules Committee felt the members of the committee
should have an opportunity to be heard, with the result that we
have reported a separate resolution providing for 2 hours of
general debate, 1 hour on each side, and the resolution will be
open for amendment. Had we just reported the resolution, it would
be tantamount to a closed rule under which amendments could not be
offered. The Rules Committee does not like to report closed rules
as a general practice.
Parliamentarian's Note: Without the special rule, the resolution
would have been privileged for consideration in the House, under Rule
XI clause 22, and would have been considered under the general rules of
the House, the Member in charge controlling an hour of debate, with the
right to move the previous question.(15) Although the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct had recommended that H. Res.
1099 be adopted, the Rules Committee reported the resolution to the
House, not the Standards Committee as indicated by Mr. Smith.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See also 119 Cong. Rec. 39419, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 4, 1973
(H. Res. 738, for the consideration in the Committee of the
Whole, for six hours of general debate, of H. Res. 735,
confirming the nomination of Gerald R. Ford as Vice President
of the United States).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 71.3 Debate under the hour rule in the House on a resolution
reported from the
[[Page 10993]]
Committee on Rules may be extended by unanimous consent.
On June 21, 1972,(16) Mr. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr., of
Massachusetts, had offered House Resolution 996, from the Committee on
Rules, providing for the consideration of H.R. 14370, the State and
Local Assistance Act of 1972. He asked unanimous consent for extension
of the one hour of debate permitted on the resolution, and the request
was objected to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 118 Cong. Rec. 21694, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. O'Neill: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that I have so
many requests for time, I ask unanimous consent that discussion on
the rule be extended 30 minutes, with 15 minutes given to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Smith) and 15 minutes to myself.
The Speaker: (17) The gentleman from Massachusetts
asked unanimous consent that time for debate on the rule be
extended an additional 30 minutes, the time to be equally divided
between the gentleman from Massachusetts and the gentleman from
California.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Massachusetts?
Mr. [William M.] Colmer [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker,
reserving the right to object, my attention was elsewhere when the
request was made. Do I correctly understand that the request is to
extend the time on the rule?
The Speaker: The gentleman is correct.
Mr. Colmer: For how long?
The Speaker: For an additional 30 minutes for debate on the
rule.
Mr. Colmer: Equally divided, Mr. Speaker, between whom?
Mr. O'Neill: The reason why I am asking this is that the
gentleman would like to have 10 minutes.
Mr. Colmer: I understand the reason why the gentleman is doing
it.
Mr. Speaker, under my reservation, if I am in order, between
whom is the gentleman going to divide the time?
Mr. O'Neill: I asked unanimous consent for 30 minutes, with 15
minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Smith) and 15 minutes
to myself.
The reason I asked for this is that the gentleman, as chairman
of the committee, asked for 10 minutes. I allotted five members
opposed to the bill 3 minutes apiece. The gentleman was not
satisfied with 3 minutes and is insisting upon 10. In order to
satisfy him, as chairman of the Rules Committee, I have made this
request.
Mr. Colmer: Mr. Speaker, on the basis of the statement of the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. O'Neill) I am unwilling to set a
precedent here in order that I may be heard for additional time.
Therefore, I object.
The Speaker: Objection is heard.
Mr. O'Neill: Mr. Speaker, under the circumstances, since there
is an objection, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Colmer).
Sec. 71.4 Debate on a privileged resolution in the House is under the
hour rule and within the control of the
[[Page 10994]]
Member recognized to call it up, but such debate may be extended
beyond one hour by unanimous consent; on one occasion, the House
agreed to a unanimous-consent request to extend for 30 minutes the
debate on a privileged resolution reported from the Rules Committee
in the House, to be controlled by the Member who had called it up,
with the assurance that one half the additional time would be
yielded to the minority.
On July 14, 1977,(18) the following proceedings occurred
when a resolution (19) amending the rules was called up in
the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 123 Cong. Rec. 22932, 22934, 22942, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
19. H. Res. 658.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Richard] Bolling [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, by direction
of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 658 and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 658
Resolved, That it is the purpose of this resolution to
establish a new permanent select committee of the House, to be
known as the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. . . .
Mr. Bolling: Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes for debate to the
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Lott), pending which I yield myself
such time as I may consume. . . .
Mr. [Ted] Weiss [of New York]: . . . Mr. Speaker, at this time
I ask unanimous consent that the time for debate on this matter be
extended for an additional 1 hour, the time to be controlled by the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Bolling).
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (20) Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from New York?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. B. F. Sisk (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the
right to object, I would assume the usual delegation of one-half
the time to the minority?
Mr. Weiss: Of course. That is intended. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from New York?
Mr. [Ronald M.] Mottl [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I object.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Objection is heard.
Mr. Weiss: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that time for
debate be extended for an additional half hour, the time to be
divided 15 minutes on each side.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Sec. 71.5 By unanimous consent the House extended for an additional 30
minutes the time for debate on a special order from the Committee
on
[[Page 10995]]
Rules (with the understanding that such time would be equally
divided and controlled).
The proceedings of July 29, 1977,(1) relating to House
consideration of House Resolution 727 (providing for consideration of
H.R. 8444, the National Energy Act of 1977) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 123 Cong. Rec. 25653-55, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Richard] Bolling [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, by direction
of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 727 and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 727
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to move . . . that the House resolve itself
into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union
for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 8444) to establish a
comprehensive national energy policy. . . .
The Speaker: (2) The gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Bolling) is recognized for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Bolling: Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Anderson), and pending that, I yield myself such
time as I may consume. . . .
Mr. [John B.] Anderson of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent at this time that in addition to the 1 hour of
debate provided for in this resolution, House Resolution 727, the
time for debate be extended for an additional 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, there is some precedent for this. Before the Chair
puts the request, I would like to state very briefly that there is
some precedent on very important resolutions for an extension of
the normal amount of time that is used for debate. Just a couple of
weeks ago the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiss) made a similar
request at the time we were considering a resolution for the Select
Committee on Intelligence.
Very frankly, I have had more requests for time on this rule
from my side of the aisle than I can accommodate within the 30
minutes that has been allotted to the minority. . . .
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the time for debate
on this resolution be extended for 30 minutes.
The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Illinois? . . .
There was no objection.
The Speaker: The Chair will state that an additional 15 minutes
will be allotted to each side.
Sec. 71.6 By unanimous consent, debate on a resolution of censure
reported from the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct was
extended to two hours (and the chairman of the committee then
yielded one-half hour to the ranking minority member of the
committee, and one hour to the Member proposed to be censured).
[[Page 10996]]
During consideration of a privileged resolution reported from the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (to censure Charles H.
Wilson) on May 29, 1980,(3) the following proceedings
occurred in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 126 Cong. Rec. 12649, 12656, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Charles E.] Bennett [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, by
direction of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, I call
up a privileged resolution (H. Res. 660) in the matter of
Representative Charles H. Wilson, and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 660
Resolved,
(1) That Representative Charles H. Wilson be censured . . .
.
The Speaker: (4) . . . The gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Bennett) is recognized for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, in view of the complexities of these
proceedings and the need for ample time for all parties, I ask
unanimous consent that the ordinary hour that is allotted in these
matters be extended for another hour. . . .
The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Florida?
There was no objection.
The Speaker: The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 2
hours. . . .
Mr. Bennett: . . . Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I
yield one-half hour to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
Spence), ranking minority member of the committee. For purposes of
debate only I yield 1 hour to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Charles H. Wilson), pending which I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Resolutions of Disapproval
--Curtailing Debate
Sec. 71.7 By unanimous consent, debate on resolutions disapproving
reorganization plans has been limited to less than the 10 hours
which was allowed under the Reorganization Act of 1949, providing
for consideration of such plans.
On July 1, 1959,(5) the Committee of the Whole
considered for two hours of general debate, as provided by a unanimous-
consent agreement, Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1959.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 105 Cong. Rec. 12519, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 19, 1961, the House agreed to a unanimous-consent request
that general debate in the Committee of the Whole on House Resolution
328, disapproving Reorganization Plan No. 5 of 1961, be limited to five
hours.(6) After some debate had been had on the
[[Page 10997]]
resolution, the House limited by unanimous consent further debate on
the resolution to 30 minutes, to be equally divided by the Member
moving the consideration of the resolution and the ranking minority
member of the Committee on Government Operations.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 107 Cong. Rec. 12905, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
7. Id. at p. 12932. See also 112 Cong. Rec. 8498, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.,
Apr. 20, 1966; 108 Cong. Rec. 8210, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., May
10, 1962; 107 Cong. Rec. 10839, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., June 20,
1961; and 107 Cong. Rec. 10448, 10471, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.,
June 15, 1961.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: The Reorganization Act of 1949, Public Law
No. 81-109, provided that on a resolution disapproving a reorganization
plan, there be debate ``not to exceed ten hours,'' equally divided
between those favoring and those opposing the resolution. The statute
was enacted as an exercise of the rulemaking power of both Houses, with
full recognition of either House to change such rules at any
time.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Pub. L. No. 81-109, 63 Stat. 207, Sec. Sec. 201-206, June 20, 1946.
The statute also provided for not to exceed one hour on a
motion to discharge a committee from further consideration of
such a resolution, which time could be extended by unanimous
consent (see Sec. 68.64, supra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 71.8 The House agreed by unanimous consent that debate on certain
resolutions of disapproval be fixed at a lesser number of hours
than the 10 hours permitted under the procedure outlined for
considering such resolutions under a public law.
On Mar. 21, 1955,(9) Mr. Carl Vinson, of Georgia,
announced he would call up House Resolution 170, disapproving the
disposal
of certain rubber facilities. The House agreed to his unanimous-consent
request on the duration of time for debate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 101 Cong. Rec. 3233, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Vinson: Mr. Speaker, I desire to announce to the House that
tomorrow I will call up a privileged resolution (H. Res. 170)
relating to the disposition of the synthetic rubber facilities.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that general debate on
House Resolution 170 be fixed at 6 hours, 3 hours to be controlled
by the author of the resolution, the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Patman], and 3 hours by myself as chairman of the Committee on
Armed Services.
On the following day, Mar. 22, the House agreed to a unanimous-
consent request for the duration of debate on House Resolution 171, a
similar resolution:
Mr. Vinson: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that general
debate on House Resolution 171 be fixed at 2 hours tomorrow, 1 hour
to be con
[[Page 10998]]
trolled by the author of the resolution, the gentleman from
California [Mr. Doyle], and 1 hour by myself, chairman of the
Committee on the Armed Services.
The Speaker: (10) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Georgia?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 101 Cong. Rec. 3437, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: Congress had provided, in Public Law No.
83-205, a procedure for considering resolutions disposing of synthetic
rubber facilities. The law provided that on such a resolution being
considered on the floor there be not to exceed 10 hours of debate,
equally divided between those favoring and those opposing the
resolution.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Pub. L. 83-205, 67 Stat. 416.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bills Considered ``Under the General Rules of the House''
Sec. 71.9 Where consideration of a bill ``under the general rules of
the House'' has been agreed to, the bill may be called up pursuant
to the agreement and then by unanimous consent considered in the
House as in the Committee of the Whole.
On Apr. 1, 1969,(13) Mr. L. Mendel Rivers, of South
Carolina, made a unanimous-consent request for the consideration of a
bill on the Union Calendar:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 115 Cong. Rec. 8136, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the unanimous-consent agreement of
March 27, 1969, I call up for immediate consideration the bill
(H.R. 9329) [special pay for naval officers qualified for nuclear
submarine duty] . . . and ask unanimous consent that the bill be
considered in the House as in the Committee of the Whole.
On Mar. 27, Mr. Rivers had asked unanimous consent that it be in
order to consider ``under the general rules of the House'' on Tuesday
or Wednesday of the following week the bill H.R. 9328.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Id. at p. 7895. Time under the five-minute rule in the House as in
the Committee of the Whole may be extended by unanimous consent
(see Sec. 70.6, supra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: The effect of considering a Union Calendar
bill ``under the general rules of the House'' would have been to
require general debate in Committee of the Whole with each Member
seeking recognition entitled to one hour, followed by reading for
amendment under the five-minute rule.
Union Calendar Bills
Sec. 71.10 A special rule may provide that a Union Calendar bill be
considered in the
[[Page 10999]]
House, with more than one hour of general debate.
On Mar. 21, 1933,(15) the House adopted House Resolution
61, providing for the consideration of H.R. 3835, a bill on the Union
Calendar providing agricultural relief, in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 77 Cong. Rec. 665, 73d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution
the House shall proceed to the consideration of H.R. 3835, and any
points of order against said bill or any provisions contained
therein are hereby waived. That after general debate, which shall
be confined to the bill and shall continue not to exceed 4 hours,
to be equally divided and controlled by the Chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Agriculture, the previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill to final
passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit.
Similarly, the House adopted on Apr. 22, 1933, House Resolution
111, for the consideration in the House of H.R. 5081, a bill on the
Union Calendar:
Resolved, That immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
House shall proceed to the consideration of H.R. 5081, and all
points of order against said bill shall be considered as waived.
That after general debate, which shall be confined to the bill and
shall continue not to exceed 6 hours, to be equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Military Affairs, it shall be in order for the
chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs by direction of that
committee to offer amendments to any part of the bill. If there be
no such amendments offered by the chairman of the Committee on
Military Affairs, then the previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the bill to final passage without intervening motion
except one motion to recommit.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Id. at p. 2076.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 71.11 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 order if the Member controlling the time
yields for that purpose.
On Apr. 11, 1974,(17) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma,
responded to an inquiry regarding the consideration of amendments in
the House as in Committee of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 120 Cong. Rec. 10769, 10770, 10771, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John A.] Blatnik [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous
[[Page 11000]]
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.
Omnibus Private Bills
Sec. 71.12 During the consideration of an omnibus private bill the
Chair refused to recognize Members for unanimous-consent requests
to extend the time for debate.
On July 20, 1937,(18) the House was considering bills on
the Omnibus Private Calendar. Mr. Alfred F. Beiter, of New York, was
speaking for five minutes in opposition to an amendment which had been
offered and asked unanimous consent to address the House for an
additional minute when his time expired. Speaker William B. Bankhead,
of Alabama, ruled that such a request could not be made, the rule
limiting each side to five minutes' debate.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 81 Cong. Rec. 7293-95, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
19. For the rule on consideration of omnibus private bills, see Rule
XXIV clause 6 and comments thereto, House Rules and Manual
Sec. Sec. 893-895 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impeachment Proposals
Sec. 71.13 The House may consider impeachment resolutions and articles
of impeachment under unanimous-consent agreements fixing time for
debate at a certain number of hours, to be equally divided and
controlled.
On Feb. 24, 1933, Mr. Thomas D. McKeown, of Oklahoma, reported from
the Committee on the Judiciary a report recommending against the
impeachment of Judge Louderback (the minority of the committee were
prepared to offer a substitute for the resolution in order to impeach
and adopt articles). The House agreed to consider the resolution
pursuant to the following unanimous-consent request:
Debate to be limited to two hours, to be controlled by the
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. McKeown], that at the end of that time
the previous question shall be considered as ordered, with
[[Page 11001]]
the privilege, however, of a substitute resolution being offered .
. . .(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 76 Cong. Rec. 4913-25, 72d Cong. 2d Sess. The House adopted the
substitute, offered by Mr. Fiorello H.
LaGuardia (N.Y.), and impeached Judge Louderback.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Mar. 2, 1936, Mr. Hatton W. Sumners, of Texas, called up at the
direction of the Committee on the Judiciary a resolution and articles
of impeachment against Judge Ritter. The House agreed to the following
unanimous-consent request for debate thereon:
The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Sumners] asks unanimous consent
that debate on this resolution be continued for 4\1/2\ hours, 2\1/
2\ hours to be controlled by himself and 2 hours by the gentleman
from New York [Mr. Hancock]; and at the expiration of the time the
previous question shall be considered as ordered. . .
.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 80 Cong. Rec. 3069, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motions To Suspend Rules
Sec. 71.14 Although the 20 minutes of debate allowed on each side of a
motion to suspend the rules may be extended by unanimous consent,
the Chair does not normally entertain such a request.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 75 Cong. Rec. 3949, 72d Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 15, 1932; and 72
Cong. Rec. 765, 71st Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 16, 1929.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Mar. 3, 1960,(3) the House agreed to a unanimous-
consent request to extend debate on a motion to suspend the rules to
one hour and 20 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 106 Cong. Rec. 4388, 4389, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 23, 1956,(4) the House was conducting debate on
a motion to suspend the rules and pass a bill. When time had expired,
Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, stated that he would object to a
unanimous-consent request that time on the motion be extended:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 102 Cong. Rec. 14075, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [William M.] McCulloch [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I should
like to renew the request of the gentleman from New York previously
made to extend time of debate on this important matter for 20
minutes, 10 minutes on each side. I think it is very important that
we have that additional time for debate.
I ask unanimous consent that time be extended to 20 minutes for
debate on this bill.
Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I join in that
request.
The Speaker: The Chair does not join in that request, because
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Rayburn] is going to object, if
nobody else does.
Mr. [Usher L.] Burdick [of North Dakota]: I object, Mr.
Speaker.
The Speaker: According to the rules of the House, 20 minutes of
debate are permitted on each side.
[[Page 11002]]
Sec. 71.15 The House, under a motion to suspend the rules, passed a
resolution extending the time for debate to four hours on a motion
to suspend the rules and fixing control of debate on such motion.
On Sept. 20, 1943,(5) Mr. John W. McCormack, of
Massachusetts, moved to suspend the rules and pass House Resolution
302, which was agreed to by the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 89 Cong. Rec. 7646, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolved, That the time for debate on a motion to suspend the
rules and pass House Concurrent Resolution 25 shall be extended to
4 hours, such time to be equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign
Affairs; and said motion to suspend the rules shall be the
continuing order of business of the House until finally disposed
of.
Parliamentarian's Note: House Concurrent Resolution 25, reported by
the Committee on Foreign Affairs, related to participation in world
peace.
Sec. 71.16 A demand for a second on a motion to suspend the rules
(under the rule in effect before 1991) was inapplicable where the
House had previously adopted a resolution fixing control of debate
on such motion and requiring uninterrupted consideration of such
motion.
On Sept. 20, 1943,(6) the House passed a motion to
suspend the rules and pass House Resolution 302, which provided four
hours of debate, to be equally divided and controlled by two Members,
on a motion to suspend the rules and pass a concurrent resolution and
which provided that said motion to suspend the rules ``shall be the
continuing order of business of the House until finally disposed of.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 89 Cong. Rec. 5655, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following the adoption of the motion, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of
Texas, recognized Mr. Sol Bloom, of New York, to move to suspend the
rules and pass the concurrent resolution. Mr. Charles A. Eaton, of New
Jersey, demanded a second on the motion and the Speaker indicated that
the procedure under which the motion to suspend was being considered
did not contemplate the demanding of a second:
Mr. Eaton: Mr. Speaker, I demand a second.
Mr. Bloom: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that a second
may be considered as ordered.
Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
[[Page 11003]]
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Hoffman: May a second be demanded by one who is not opposed
to the resolution?
The Speaker: That was practically cured by the resolution just
passed, which provides that the time shall be in control of the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Bloom] and the gentleman from New
Jersey [Mr. Eaton]. The formality was gone through.
Parliamentarian's Note: Normally the Member demanding a second on a
motion to suspend the rules was entitled to recognition for the 20
minutes of debate in opposition to the motion. Here, the time for
debate on the motion had been extended and placed in the control of two
specified Members. Furthermore, H. Res. 302 made the question of
consideration (by way of a second) inapplicable, by making the motion
to suspend the rules a ``continuing order of business until finally
disposed of.''
Motions To Discharge Committee
Sec. 71.17 On a motion to discharge a committee, debate is limited to
20 minutes, and the Speaker does not recognize unanimous-consent
requests to extend the time.
On Aug. 14, 1950,(7) Mr. George P. Miller, of
California, called up a petition to discharge the Committee on Rules
from further consideration of House Resolution 667, providing for the
consideration of H.R. 8195, a bill to rescind an order of the
Postmaster General. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, stated that he would
recognize Mr. Miller for 10 minutes on the motion and Edward E. Cox, of
Georgia, the Chairman of the Committee on Rules, for 10 minutes in
opposition to the motion. Mr. Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts,
inquired how the minority could gain some time for debate on the
motion, and the Speaker stated that allocation of the 20 minutes was in
the discretion of Mr. Miller and Mr. Cox.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 96 Cong. Rec. 12441, 12442, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Martin then asked unanimous consent that the minority be given
one hour on the motion. The Speaker stated that under the rules he
could not entertain the request.
Conference Reports
Sec. 71.18 A special rule may provide that there be more than one hour
of debate, in the House, on a conference report.
On Feb. 8, 1938,(8) the House adopted House Resolution
416,
[[Page 11004]]
providing for four hours of debate on a conference report (normally
considered under the hour rule):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 83 Cong. Rec. 1645, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution
the House shall proceed to the consideration of the conference
report on the bill H.R. 8505, an act to provide for the
conservation of national soil resources and to provide an adequate
and balanced flow of agricultural commodities in interstate and
foreign commerce, and for other purposes; that all points of order
against said conference report are hereby waived; and that after
debate on said conference report, which may continue not to exceed
4 hours, to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Agriculture, the
previous question shall be considered as ordered on agreeing to the
conference report.
Sec. 71.19 Debate on a conference report was, by unanimous consent,
extended to two hours.
On Dec. 19, 1969,(9) Mr. Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas,
asked unanimous consent that when the conference report on H.R. 13270,
the Tax Reform Act of 1969, was called up, there be an additional
hour--a total of two hours--to consider the conference report. There
was no objection to the request.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 115 Cong. Rec. 40217, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
10. See also 102 Cong. Rec. 5970, 84th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 9, 1956.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Special-order Speeches
Sec. 71.20 Where a Member has used an hour for a special-order speech,
he is not permitted, even by unanimous consent, to secure
additional time.
On June 11, 1969,(11) Mrs. Edith S. Green, of Oregon,
had consumed an hour for a special-order speech. She requested
additional time and Speaker Pro Tempore Ken Hechler, of West Virginia,
declined to recognize her for that purpose:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 115 Cong. Rec. 15440, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The time of the gentlewoman has
expired.
Mrs. Green of Oregon: Mr. Speaker is it in order for me to ask
unanimous consent that I may continue for an additional 10 minutes?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will advise the gentlewoman
that under clause 2, rule 14, such a request cannot be entertained.
However, the Chair can recognize other Members who wish to request
a special order.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. The Speaker also declines to recognize for unanimous-consent
requests for additional time on one-minute speeches (see
Sec. 73.10, infra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Termination of Debate Prior to Fixed Time
Sec. 71.21 Where the House by unanimous consent fixed the
[[Page 11005]]
time and control of debate and ordered the previous question at the
conclusion
of said debate, the Speaker ruled that it was not necessary for the
Members in charge to use or yield the full time agreed upon.
On Mar. 11, 1941,(13) the House was considering House
Resolution 131 under the terms of a unanimous-consent request providing
two hours of debate and dividing control of debate between Mr. Sol
Bloom, of New York, and Mr. Hamilton Fish, Jr., of New York, and
providing that at the conclusion of said debate the previous question
be considered as ordered. Mr. Bloom asked for a vote on the resolution
when he and Mr. Fish had used or yielded all the time they desired, and
Mr. Martin J. Kennedy, of New York, objected on the ground that the
unanimous-consent agreement was not being complied with since all the
time provided had not been consumed. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas,
ruled as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 87 Cong. Rec. 2177, 2178, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: The unanimous-consent request agreed to yesterday
left control of the time in the hands of the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Bloom] and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Fish]. At any
time those gentlemen do not desire to yield further time,
compliance with the request has been had.
Effect of Ordering of Previous Question
Sec. 71.22 The House by unanimous consent vacated the ordering of the
previous question in order to permit further debate.
On Aug. 26, 1960,(14) the House was considering Senate
amendments reported from conference in disagreement on H.R. 12619,
making appropriations for the mutual security program. Mr. Silvio O.
Conte, of Massachusetts, arose
to object to a motion to concur
with an amendment to a Senate amendment, but Mr. Otto E. Passman, of
Louisiana, moved the previous question on the motion (without debate),
which was ordered without objection. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas,
advised Mr. Conte that no further debate was in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 106 Cong. Rec. 17869, 17870, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A call of the House was ordered, and the House then agreed to a
unanimous-consent request by Mr. Passman that ``the action of the House
by which the previous question was ordered be vacated,'' in order to
permit debate on the motion.
[[Page 11006]]
Sec. 71.23 The previous question having been ordered on a motion to
send a bill to conference under Rule XX clause 1, further debate
may be had on the motion only by unanimous consent.
On July 9, 1970,(15) Mr. Thomas E. Morgan, of
Pennsylvania, moved to take H.R. 15628 from the Speaker's table with
the Senate amendments thereto, disagree to the Senate amendments, and
agree to a conference. Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts,
recognized Mr. Morgan for one hour and Mr. Morgan immediately moved the
previous question, which was ordered by the House on a recorded vote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 116 Cong. Rec. 23524, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Morgan then propounded a unanimous-consent request for debate
on the motion notwithstanding the fact that the previous question had
been ordered, but the request was objected to:
Mr. Morgan: Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the fact that the
previous question has been ordered on my motion to go to
conference, I ask unanimous consent that there now be 1 hour of
debate, one-half to be controlled by myself and one-half by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Riegle) who has announced that he will
propose a motion to instruct the conferees.
The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Pennsylvania?
Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I object.
The Speaker: The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Morgan).
The motion was agreed to.
Sec. 71.24 Further debate on a measure on which the previous question
has been ordered and the yeas and nays ordered on final passage may
be had only by unanimous consent.
During consideration of House Joint Resolution 341 (waiver of law
pursuant to Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Act) in the House on Dec.
8, 1981,(16) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 127 Cong. Rec. 30003, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker, having resumed
the Chair, Mr. Fuqua, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had
under consideration the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 341) providing
for a waiver of law pursuant to the Alaskan Natural Gas
Transportation Act, had directed him to report the joint resolution
back to the House, with the recommendation that the joint
resolution do pass.
The Speaker: (17) Without objection, the previous
question is ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
The Speaker: The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the joint resolution.
[[Page 11007]]
The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a
third time, and was read a third time.
The Speaker: The question is on the passage of the joint
resolution. . . .
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. [Tom] Corcoran [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand
the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The Speaker: Pursuant to clause 5 of rule I, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
The vote will be taken tomorrow, Wednesday, December 9, 1981.
Mr. [Richard L.] Ottinger [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that when this is considered tomorrow, there be
10 minutes allotted for debate immediately prior to the vote, 5
minutes to be allotted to the proponents and 5 minutes allotted to
the opponents.
My reason for doing this is that there was no opportunity for
Members who may be voting tomorrow, who are not here, to hear the
principal arguments, and I think, in fairness, at least 5 minutes
on each side ought to be allotted.
Mr. [Eugene] Johnston [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I
object.
The Speaker: Objection is heard.
Sec. 71.25 The House having voted to reconsider a motion on which the
previous question had been ordered when first voted upon, debate on
the motion is in order by unanimous consent only.
During consideration of House Resolution 660 (in the matter
of Representative Charles H. Wilson) in the House on May 29,
1980,(18) the following proceedings
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 126 Cong. Rec. 12663-65, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Allen E.] Ertel [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I was in
the House when the previous speaker . . . evidently brought in
material which was not in the record before the committee, which in
my judgment means there has been surprise to the defense in this
case in the fact that the gentleman brought up evidence, which is a
document from the State of California. . . .
I would ask the Chair, is there any procedure where I can make
a motion, so that we can handle this in a fair and expeditious
manner and give him the opportunity to respond to that
and to get the evidence from California? . . .
The Speaker: (19) The only motion available that the
Chair would know of, unless the gentleman from Florida would yield,
would be the motion for reconsideration, if the gentleman voted on
the prevailing side of the motion of the gentleman from California
(Mr. Rousselot). That was a motion to postpone to a day certain,
which was defeated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Ertel: . . . Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote to
postpone. . . .
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry. . . .
[[Page 11008]]
Mr. Speaker, does a motion to reconsider admit of debate?
The Speaker: There is no debate on this reconsideration motion,
since the previous question was ordered on the motion to postpone.
. . .
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Ertel moves that the House reconsider the vote on the
motion to postpone to a day certain. . . .
The Speaker: The question is on the motion offered by Mr. Ertel
to reconsider the vote on the motion offered by Mr. Rousselot to
postpone consideration. . . .
So the motion to reconsider the vote on the motion to postpone
was agreed to. . . .
The Speaker: The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Rousselot) to postpone to June 10.
Mr. [Wyche] Fowler [Jr., of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, I would like
to ask unanimous consent from this body for 10 minutes, to be
equally divided between the opposition and the majority party, to
debate the motion now before us by the gentleman from California
(Mr. Rousselot). . . .
The Speaker: Is there objection to the 10 minutes' debate?
The Chair hears none.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Rousselot) is recognized for
5 minutes, and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Fowler) is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Parliamentarian's Note: The above precedent represents the modern
practice. Earlier precedents (20) supported the view that
``when a vote taken under the operation of the previous question is
reconsidered, the main question stands divested of the previous
question, and may be debated and amended without reconsideration of the
motion for the previous question.'' In current practice, separate
reconsideration of the motion for the previous question would be
required for debate and amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 5491, 5492.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conference Reports
Sec. 71.26 Following the adoption of a conference report
without debate, the House agreed, by unanimous consent, to permit
40 minutes' debate to appear in the Record preceding the adoption
of the report.
On May 22, 1968,(1) Mr. Wright Patman, of Texas, called
up the conference report on S. 5, the Consumer Credit Protection Act,
and asked unanimous-consent that the statement of the managers be read
in lieu of the report and that reading of the statement be dispensed
with. There being no objection, and Mr. Patman not seeking recognition
for debate, Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, stated that
the question
[[Page 11009]]
was on the conference report, and the report was agreed to without
debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 114 Cong. Rec. 14405, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Patman thereafter asked unanimous consent to vacate the
proceedings by which the report was adopted, there having been no
debate; the request was objected to. The House then agreed to a
unanimous-consent request by Mr. Carl Albert, of Oklahoma:
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 40 minutes of debate
may be had on this matter, to be equally divided between the
gentleman from Texas and the gentleman from New Jersey, and that it
appear in the Record prior to the adoption of the conference
report.
The Speaker then stated, in response to parliamentary inquiries,
that the agreement to permit discussion, the conference report having
been agreed to, did not reopen the report to permit the making of
motions thereon, such as the motion to recommit, the adoption of which
would alter the prior action of the House in agreeing to the report.
Sec. 71.27 While debate on a conference report is limited to one hour
(2) to be equally divided between majority and minority
parties,(3) the House may, by unanimous consent, either
extend that time or permit debate by ``special order'' on the
conference
report prior to actual consideration thereof; thus, on
one occasion, by unanimous
consent, two Members, the chairman and ranking minority member of
the House conferees, were permitted ``special orders'' of one hour
each to debate a conference report following adoption of a
resolution making in order the consideration of the report but
prior to actual consideration of the report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. See Rule XIV clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 758 (1995).
3. See Rule XXVIII clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 912a (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Mar. 26, 1975,(4) the following proceedings occurred
in the House relative to consideration of the conference report on H.R.
2166, the Tax Reduction Act of 1975:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 121 Cong. Rec. 8899, 8900, 8916, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Spark M.] Matsunaga [of Hawaii]: Mr. Speaker, I yield 1
minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Ullman).
conference report on h.r. 2166, tax reduction act of 1975
Mr. [Al] Ullman [of Oregon] submitted the following conference
report and statement on the bill (H.R. 2166) to amend the Internal
Revenue Code of 1954 . . . to increase the investment credit and
the surtax exemption, and for other purposes:
[[Page 11010]]
Conference Report (H. Rept. 94-120)
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R.
2166) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 . . . having
met, after full and free conference, have agreed to recommend
and do recommend to their respective Houses as follows:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the
amendment of the Senate and agree to the same with an amendment
as follows: In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by
the Senate amendment insert the following:
Section 1. Short Title; Table of Contents.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Tax
Reduction Act of 1975''. . . .
Mr. Ullman: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that upon the
adoption of the rule I be granted a 60-minute special order.
The Speaker: (5) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Oregon?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Reserving the right to
object, Mr. Speaker, we have in the rules
of the House an adequate rule for
the consideration of conference reports . . . . I have no way of
knowing, nor does any Member in this Chamber know, who will control
the time during a special order, except the gentleman from Oregon,
whether questions, once raised, will be answered, or whether or not
debate will deteriorate into partisan debate.
The Speaker: The gentleman is very effectively but improperly
stating the rules. The minority has 30 minutes and the majority has
30 minutes on the conference report.
Mr. Bauman: I am talking about the lack of protection contained
in the request for the 1-hour special order that was just made by
the gentleman from Oregon.
The Speaker: Any Member of the House may make a request for a
special order.
Mr. Bauman: I withdraw my reservation of objection.
Mr. [Herman T.] Schneebeli [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker,
further reserving the right to object, I also ask for a 60-minute
special order following that of the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
Ullman).
The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
CHAPTER 29
Consideration and Debate
H. DURATION OF DEBATE IN THE HOUSE
Sec. 72. Closing Debate; Senate Cloture
In the House, secondary motions--to lay on the table or for the
previous question--can be used to cut off debate.(6) Debate
can, of course, be limited or closed by unanimous consent. When the
House is operating ``as in the Committee of the Whole,'' both the
motion for the previous question and the motion to limit debate can be
utilized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. See Sec. Sec. 72.1 et seq., infra, for the previous question and
its effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In contrast to the House, where the hour rule limits debate, Mem
[[Page 11011]]
bers of the Senate may retain the floor for indefinite periods of time,
unless the Senate limits debate either by unanimous consent or by
invoking cloture.(7) Thus, a Senator may retain the floor
for extremely long periods of time, engaging in a ``filibuster'' to
prevent Senate action on a measure.(8) On June 12 and 13,
1935, Senator Huey Long, of Louisiana, in a remarkable demonstration of
physical endurance, set a new record in the Senate when he spoke
continuously for 15\1/2\ hours in favor of the Gore amendment to the
proposed extension of the National Industrial Recovery Act. But the
amendment was finally tabled. Again, in 1953, a prolonged debate took
place on the so-called tidelands offshore oil bill. It began Apr. 1 and
ended May 5. The debate lasted for 35 days, one of the longest on
record. During this debate Senator Wayne Morse, of Oregon, established
a new record for the longest single speech. On Apr. 24 and 25 he spoke
for 22 hours and 26 minutes.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. See Riddick/Frumin, Senate Procedure, S. Doc. No. 101-28, 101st
Cong. 2d Sess. (1992).
8. See 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2866.
9. See 103 Cong. Rec. 173, 174, 85th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 4, 1957.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross References
Closing debate in the Committee of the Whole, see Sec. Sec. 76 (general
debate) and 78 (five-minute debate), infra.
Closing and opening debate generally, see Sec. 7, supra.
Motions which close debate, see Ch. 23, supra (previous question, lay
on the table).
Order of recognition determines who may close debate, see Sec. Sec. 12
et seq., supra.
Question of consideration to close debate, see Sec. 5, supra.
Role of manager and management by reporting committee in closing
debate, see Sec. Sec. 24, 26,
supra. -------------------
Previous Question; Used Before Adoption of Rules
Sec. 72.1 The Member controlling debate on a proposition in the House
may move the previous question and cut off further debate.
On Jan. 4, 1965,(10) at the convening of the 89th
Congress and before the adoption of the rules, Mr. Carl Albert, of
Oklahoma, offered a resolution and after some debate moved the previous
question:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 111 Cong. Rec. 20, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Albert: Mr. Speaker, I offer a resolution (H. Res. 2) and
ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read as follows:
H. Res. 2
Resolved, That the Speaker is hereby authorized and
directed to administer the oath of office to the
[[Page 11012]]
gentleman from New York, Mr. Richard L. Ottinger.
Mr. Albert: Mr. Speaker, again this is a resolution involving a
Member whose certificate of election in due form is on file in the
Office of the Clerk. I ask for the adoption of the resolution.
Mr. [James C.] Cleveland [of New Hampshire]: Mr. Speaker, will
the gentleman yield for a parliamentary inquiry?
Mr. Albert: I yield for a parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. Cleveland: If this resolution is adopted, will it be
impossible for me to offer my own resolution pertaining to the same
subject matter, either as an amendment or a substitute?
The Speaker: If the resolution is agreed to, it will not be in
order for the gentleman to offer a substitute resolution or an
amendment, particularly if the previous question is ordered.
Mr. Cleveland: Is it now in order, Mr. Speaker?
The Speaker: Not unless the gentleman from Oklahoma yields to
the gentleman for that purpose. . . .
Mr. Cleveland: Will the gentleman from Oklahoma yield for that
purpose?
Mr. Albert: Mr. Speaker, I yield for a question and a very
brief statement. I do not yield for a speech.
Mr. Cleveland: May I inquire if the gentleman will yield so
that I may ask for unanimous consent that certain remarks of mine
pertaining to this matter be incorporated in the Record?
Mr. Albert: No, Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.
Mr. [Thomas G.] Abernethy [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: Does the gentleman from Oklahoma yield to the
gentleman from Mississippi for the purpose of submitting a
parliamentary inquiry?
Mr. Albert: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the
resolution.
The Speaker: The question is on the motion.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 87 Cong. Rec. 2177, 2178, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moving the Previous Question
Sec. 72.2 The motion for the previous question is not debatable.
On Jan. 3, 1949,(12) at the convening of the 81st
Congress, the House was considering House Resolution 5, amending the
rules of the House. Mr. Adolph J. Sabath, of Illinois, who had offered
the resolution, moved the previous question. Mr. John E. Rankin, of
Mississippi, sought recognition to offer an amendment in the nature of
a substitute and objected that he had a ``right to be heard.'' Speaker
Sam Rayburn, of Texas, held that the previous question was not
debatable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 95 Cong. Rec. 10, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Sept. 13, 1965,(13) Mr. Carl Albert, of Oklahoma,
moved that
[[Page 11013]]
the Journal be approved as read and moved the previous question on the
motion. Mr. Durward G. Hall, of Missouri, stated a parliamentary
inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 111 Cong. Rec. 23601, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is not debate in order on this motion inasmuch as under [the
House rules] there has been no debate on ordering the previous
question?
The Speaker: (14) The Chair will state that the
motion on the previous question is not debatable. The question is
on ordering the previous question on the motion to approve the
Journal.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
15. See Rule XVI clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 782 (1995):
``When a question is under debate, no motion shall be received
but to adjourn, to lay on the table, for the previous question
(which motions shall be decided without debate).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: Mr. Hall's reference was to clause 3 (now
clause 2) of Rule XXVII, providing 40 minutes' debate after the
previous question has been ordered, if the proposition on which the
motion has been made is debatable but has not been
debated.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See Rule XXVII clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 907 (1995).
The debate comes after and not
before the previous question itself
is ordered, the motion itself not being debatable. See 111
Cong. Rec. 23602-06, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., where Speaker
McCormack held, after the previous question was ordered, that
Mr. Hall then had the right to demand 40 minutes' debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Use of Previous Question Where Debate Limited by Unanimous Consent
Sec. 72.3 Where the House by unanimous consent fixed the time and
control of debate, it was held that the Members in control were not
required to consume or to yield all the time provided for.
On Mar. 11, 1941,(17) the House was considering House
Resolution 131 under the terms of a unanimous-consent agreement
providing two hours of debate and dividing control of debate between
Mr. Sol Bloom, of New York, and Mr. Hamilton Fish, Jr., of New York,
and providing that the previous question be considered as ordered at
the conclusion of debate. Mr. Bloom asked for a vote prior to the
expiration of the two hours' time, and Mr. Martin J. Kennedy, of New
York, objected on the ground that the unanimous-consent agreement was
not being complied with in that the previous question had been demanded
prematurely. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled that the Members in
control were not required to consume or to yield all the time provided.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 87 Cong. Rec. 2177, 2178, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 11014]]
Vacating the Previous Question
Sec. 72.4 The House by unanimous consent vacated the ordering of the
previous question in order to permit further debate.
On Aug. 26, 1960,(18) the House was considering Senate
amendments reported from conference in disagreement on H.R. 12619,
making appropriations for the mutual security program. Mr. Silvio O.
Conte, of Massachusetts, arose
to object to a motion to concur
with an amendment in a Senate amendment, and Mr. Otto E. Passman, of
Louisiana, moved the previous question on the motion, which was ordered
without objection. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, advised Mr. Conte
that no further debate was in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 106 Cong. Rec. 17869, 17870, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A call of the House was ordered, and the House then agreed to a
unanimous-consent request by Mr. Passman that ``the action of the House
by which the previous question was ordered be vacated.'' Mr. Passman
then yielded two minutes of debate to Mr. Conte.
On Oct. 3, 1989,(19) the House had under consideration a
motion to dispose of an amendment in disagreement. Time for debate on
the motion was divided equally among the majority and minority managers
(both of whom supported the motion), and a Member
opposed.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 135 Cong. Rec. 22835, 22836, 22842, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
(Proceedings relating to H.R. 2788, Interior and Related
Agencies Appropriations for 1990.)
20. For discussion of so allocating debate time, see Sec. 26, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Madam Speaker, I offer a
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Yates moves that the House recede from its disagreement
to the amendment of the Senate numbered 153 and concur therein
with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the matter proposed
by said amendment, insert the following: ``: Provided, That--
A. None of the funds authorized to be appropriated for the
National Endowment for the Arts or the National Endowment for
the Humanities may be used to promote . . . materials which in
the judgment of the National Endowment for the Arts or the
National Endowment for the Humanities may be considered
obscene. . . .''
Mr. [Dana] Rohrabacher [of California]: Madam Speaker, I would
ask to be recognized in opposition to the motion for 20 minutes.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (1) The Chair will inquire
is the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] opposed to the motion?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Patricia Schroeder (Colo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Ralph] Regula [of Ohio]: No, I am not, Madam Speaker.
[[Page 11015]]
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Then the gentleman from California
[Mr. Rohrabacher], who is opposed to the motion, would be entitled
to 20 minutes.
The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula], then, would have 20
minutes,
the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] would have 20
minutes, and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] would have 20
minutes on the motion offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
Yates]. . . .
Mr. Yates: . . . Madam Speaker, I move the previous question.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Illinois moves the
previous question on this motion. Without objection, the previous
question is ordered.
All those in favor of the gentleman's motion will say ``aye,''
those opposed say ``no.'' The gentleman's amendment is hereby
agreed to.
The Clerk will designate the next amendment in disagreement. .
. .
Mr. Rohrabacher: Madam Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
. . .
Did I not have 1 minute of debate left?
Mr. Yates: Madam Speaker, the gentleman was on his feet and he
knew that the Chair proposed the question. He made no effort to ask
for any kind of a rollcall. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman's motion for the
previous question was not in order unless
the gentleman from California yielded back his time. . . .
Mr. Yates: I misunderstood the gentleman. I thought the
gentleman had used up his time. I am sorry if I cut the gentleman
off. I did not mean to do that. I have no reason to do that. . . .
Mr. Rohrabacher: . . . I would just like 1 minute's worth of
time.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from California is
recognized for 1 minute and the previous action of the House in
disposing of the motion is vacated.
Effect of Motion To Table
Sec. 72.5 The adoption of the non-debatable motion to lay a resolution
on the table results in the final adverse disposition of the
resolution and closes further debate.
On Dec. 14, 1970,(2) the previous question was moved on
House Resolution 1306, asserting the privileges of the House in
printing and publishing a report of the Committee on Internal Security.
Mr. Louis Stokes, of Ohio, then offered the preferential motion to lay
the resolution on the table. Speaker John W. McCormack, of
Massachusetts, responded as follows to a parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 116 Cong. Rec. 41372, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Albert W.] Watson [of South Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, if the
motion to table prevails, there can be no further consideration at
all of this matter. Is that not correct? Does it not apply the
clincher?
The Speaker: If the motion to table is agreed to, then the
resolution is tabled.
[[Page 11016]]
Mr. Watson: Then that ends it. All right.
Parliamentarian's Note: The motion to lay on the table takes
precedence over the previous question and may be used to close all
debate and adversely dispose of a proposition.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. See Rule XVI clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 782 (1995); and
Ch. 23, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effect of Special Rule
Sec. 72.6 When the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole reports a
bill to the House pursuant to a resolution providing that the
previous question shall be considered as ordered, further debate in
the House is thereby precluded.
On Aug. 31, 1960,(4) there being no amendments to S.
2917 being considered in the Committee of the Whole, the Committee rose
and the bill was reported back to the House. Pursuant to the resolution
under which the bill was being considered, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of
Texas, stated that the previous question was ordered. In response to a
parliamentary inquiry by Mr. H. Carl Andersen,
of Minnesota, the Speaker stated that the previous question having been
ordered by the resolution,
no further debate or amendments were in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 106 Cong. Rec. 18748, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: Resolutions reported from the Committee on
Rules, providing for the consideration of a bill in Committee of the
Whole, typically provide that the previous question is ordered to final
passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit, when
the Committee rises.
Closing Debate in House as in Committee of the Whole
Sec. 72.7 Debate in the House as in the Committee of the Whole may be
closed by ordering the previous question.
On July 28, 1969,(5) H.R. 9553, amending the District of
Columbia Minimum Wage Act, was being considered under the five-minute
rule in the House as in the Committee of the Whole. Mr. John Dowdy, of
Texas, moved the previous question on the bill to final passage and
Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, answered a parliamentary
inquiry on the effect of that motion:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 115 Cong. Rec. 20855, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Phillip] Burton of California: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state the parliamentary
inquiry.
[[Page 11017]]
Mr. Burton of California: Mr. Speaker, is the motion before us
to close debate or will there be a vote subsequent to the pending
motion so that those of us who want a rollcall on this matter can
obtain a rollcall vote.
The Speaker: The pending question is on ordering the previous
question.
Mr. Burton of California: This is to close debate and not on
the passage of the matter? Will this be our last opportunity to
receive a rollcall on this matter?
The Speaker: The Chair will state that the question on the
passage of the bill will come later, if the previous question is
ordered.
Sec. 72.8 In the House as in the Committee of the Whole, a motion to
close debate on an amendment is in order.
On June 26, 1973,(6) Mr. George H. Mahon, of Texas,
called up House Joint Resolution 636, making continuing appropriations
for fiscal 1974 and asked unanimous consent that the resolution be
considered in the House as in the Committee of the Whole, to which
request the House agreed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 119 Cong. Rec. 21305-07, 21314, 21315, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During debate on the resolution under the five-minute rule, Mr.
Mahon moved ``that all debate
on the pending amendment and amendments thereto close in 20 minutes.''
Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, put the question on the motion and it
was agreed to by a recorded vote.
Parliamentarian's Note: Although it was formerly the practice to
read bills considered in the House as in the Committee of the Whole by
sections for amendment, such bills are now considered as read and open
for amendment at any point. Debate may be closed by ordering the
previous question.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. See 116 Cong. Rec. 28050, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 10, 1970, for
the current practice; and 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 2433,
2434, for earlier practice as to reading bills for amendment in
the House as in the Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Jan. 22, 1930,(8) the House was considering under the
five-minute rule in the House as in the Committee of the Whole a
section of a bill for amendment. Mr. George S. Graham, of Pennsylvania,
moved that all debate on the pending section and amendments thereto
close in 10 minutes. Speaker Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, put the
question on the motion and it was agreed to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 72 Cong. Rec. 2144, 71st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAPTER 29
Consideration and Debate
H. DURATION OF DEBATE IN THE HOUSE
Sec. 73. One-minute, Special-order Speeches, and Morning Hour
The one-minute speech and the special-order speech are two
[[Page 11018]]
methods whereby a Member by unanimous consent may debate a subject on
the floor, after or before the legislative business of the day. Neither
procedure is specifically provided for in the standing rules other than
the prohibition in clause 6 of Rule XV against points of no quorum
during special-order speeches, but their use is permitted by long-
standing custom of the House.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. For an occasion where the Speaker discussed the use and practice of
the one-minute speech with Members, see Sec. 73.1, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The one-minute speech is entertained by unanimous consent after the
approval of the Journal but before legislative business.(10)
Such speeches are--both by tradition and the Speaker's recognition
policy--limited to one minute, although the Speaker may in his
discretion and by unanimous consent entertain a request for a longer
one; but a Member may deliver only one such speech.(11)
Recognition for such speeches is entirely in the discretion of the
Speaker, who may forego the procedure.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See Sec. 73.6, infra, for the Speaker's power to recognize for one-
minute speeches after the closing of legislative business.
A Member recognized for a one-minute speech may not yield
to another to make a motion (see Sec. 30.30, supra) or ask for
the unanimous-consent consideration of a bill (see Sec. 10.13,
supra).
11. See Sec. Sec. 73.9, 73.10, infra.
For an occasion where the Speaker entertained a request for
a five-minute speech, to avoid a question of personal
privilege, see Sec. 73.11, infra.
Where no legislative business is scheduled for the day,
Members may be recognized for longer than one minute, see
Sec. 73.3, infra.
12. See Sec. Sec. 73.3-73.6, infra. All unanimous-consent requests are
entertained in the discretion of the Chair (see Sec. 10,
supra.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Special orders are requested, either in advance or on the day in
question, to address the House on a certain day at the conclusion of
all legislative business.(13) Such speeches may not exceed
one hour, even by unanimous consent.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See Sec. Sec. 73.12 et seq., infra.
14. See Sec. 73.15, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the House customarily does not consider legislation after the
Speaker has begun to recognize Members for special-order speeches,
there is no House rule prohibiting consideration of legislative
business at any time the House is in session; thus, for example, the
Speaker has recognized a Member between special-order speeches to
request consideration of a House concurrent resolution by unanimous
consent.(15) The Speaker may announce that
[[Page 11019]]
he will recognize for special-order speeches but that the House ``may
return to legislative business.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See Sec. 18.25, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beginning in the second session of the 103d Congress, the House by
unanimous consent agreed (without prejudice to the Speaker's ultimate
power of recognition) to convene 90 minutes early on Mondays and
Tuesdays for morning-hour debate.(16) On May 12,
1995,(17) the House extended and modified this order,
changing morning-hour debates on Tuesdays after May 14 of each year
in the following manner: (1) the House convenes one hour early (rather
than 90 minutes); (2) time for debate is limited to 25 minutes for each
party; and (3) in no event is morning-hour debate to continue beyond 10
minutes before the House is to convene.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See Sec. 73.24, infra.
17. 141 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also in the 103d Congress,(18) the House agreed by
unanimous consent to conduct, at a time designated by the Speaker,
``Oxford-style'' debates: structured debate on a mutually agreeable
topic announced by the Speaker, with four participants from each party
in a format announced by the Speaker.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See Sec. 73.24, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross References
The Congressional Record in relation to speeches and extensions of
remarks, see Ch. 5, supra.
The order of business generally, see Ch. 21, supra.
Recognition by Speaker for unanimous-consent requests, see Sec. 10,
supra.
Speaker's power of recognition, see Sec. 9, supra.
Yielding time in relation to special-order speeches, see Sec. 31,
supra. -------------------
Generally
Sec. 73.1 The custom of permitting one-minute speeches in the House is
regarded as beneficial to the democratic processes of the House,
and timely requests therefor are seldom refused.
On July 22, 1968,(19) Speaker John W. McCormack, of
Massachusetts, speaking from the floor, discussed with minority Members
of the House the use and practice of ``one-minute'' speeches before the
legislative business of the day:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 114 Cong. Rec. 22633, 22634, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. McCormack: I call the 1-minute period ``dynamic
democracy.'' I hesitate to take away the privilege of a Member as
to speaking during that period and it has become a custom and a
practice of the House. I think it is a very good thing to adhere to
that custom and practice.
It is only on rare occasions that Members have not been
recognized for that purpose. . . .
Mr. [Leslie C.] Arends [of Illinois]: You said that this might
be ``dynamic
[[Page 11020]]
democracy.'' I would rather it would be started when we have the
time rather than be started at noon.
Mr. McCormack: It is an integral part of the procedure of the
House and I like to adhere to it. Very seldom have I said to
Members that I will accept only unanimous-consent requests for
extensions of remarks. I hesitate to do it. I think every Member
realizes that I am trying to protect their rights.
Chair's Discretion Over One-minute Speeches
Sec. 73.2 While the Chair's calculation of time under the ``one-minute
rule'' is not subject to challenge, the Chair endeavors to
recognize majority and then minority Members by allocating time in
a nonpartisan manner.
The following exchange occurred in the House on Aug. 4, 1982:
(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 128 Cong. Rec. 19319, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry. . . .
[C]an the Chair tell me how long 1 minute is?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (1) Does the gentleman
request additional time?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Cecil Heftel (Ha.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I am just inquiring. We have had
several long speeches here this morning. I thought that we were
limited in the 1-minute time frame to 1 minute each. . . .
I am making a parliamentary inquiry of the Chair as to whether
or not that is the rule of the House that is supposed to be obeyed.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: It is, by precedent, and since the
Chair wants to be fair, the Chair would like to extend to the
gentleman and his side
of the aisle any additional 1-minute speeches that they require
immediately. Would the gentleman like to use it now?
Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Chair. I think there are a
number of Members who are waiting yet to speak, and I would
certainly yield such time as I might consume to Members on the
Republican side who have yet to speak so that everyone has an
opportunity to speak this morning.
I thank the Chair.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will recognize them after
recognizing Members on the right side of the aisle, and the Chair
will in fairness extend to them as much time under the 1-minute
rule as they need.
Sec. 73.3 Recognition for one-minute speeches is within the discretion
of the Speaker; and his evaluation of the time consumed is a matter
for the Chair and is not subject to challenge or question by a
parliamentary inquiry.
On May 9, 1972,(2) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma,
responded as follows to a parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 118 Cong. Rec. 16288, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Donald W.] Riegle [Jr., of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
[[Page 11021]]
The Speaker: The gentleman will state the parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. Riegle: Mr. Speaker, I have observed different speakers
being given very different lengths of time to speak under the 1-
minute rule.
I just noticed, for example, the gentleman from California who
was given approximately half the time that the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Devine) and several other speakers were given today. I object
to that and I think if we are going to use the 1-minute rule, let
us use it fairly.
The Speaker: The Chair will state that the Chair is trying to
enforce the 1-minute rule. That is not a parliamentary inquiry and
the gentleman was out of order in making it.
Sec. 73.4 The Speaker refused to recognize Members to proceed for one
minute on the second Monday of the month where a motion to
discharge was in order under Rule XXVII clause 4 (now clause 3);
however, he announced that he would make a single exception to
permit a Member to proceed for one minute for the purpose of
announcing to the House the death of a sitting Member.
On Aug. 10, 1970,(3) a motion to discharge the Committee
on the Judiciary from further consideration of House Joint Resolution
264, amending the Constitution relative to equal rights for men and
women, was in order under Rule XXVII clause 4 (now clause 3). Speaker
John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, made the following announcement on
recognition for one-minute speeches:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 116 Cong. Rec. 27994, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair would like to announce that the Chair is not going to
recognize Members for the usual 1-minute speeches at this time, due
to the situation with respect to the rules that exist in relation
to the consideration of a constitutional amendment, with one
exception: and that is that the Chair will recognize the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Corbett) to announce the death of our late
and beloved colleague and friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Watkins).
Sec. 73.5 Recognition for one-minute speeches is within the discretion
of the Speaker and he sometimes foregoes that procedure in the hope
of expediting the business of the House.
On June 17, 1970,(4) Mr. William V. Alexander, Jr., of
Arkansas, asked unanimous consent to address the House for one minute
and to revise and extend his remarks, after legislative business had
been conducted. Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, reserved the right to object
and referred to the
[[Page 11022]]
Speaker's announcement, earlier in the day, that he would not recognize
for one-minute speeches, in order to expedite the pending business.
Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, responded from the chair.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 116 Cong. Rec. 20245, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Gross: . . . Mr. Speaker, when the session opened this
morning the Speaker--very providently, I thought--in the interest
of getting on with the legislative business, precluded 1-minute
speeches. However, I am not at all certain that it was done for the
purpose of expediting the legislation, but rather to prevent 1-
minute speeches on the resolution just passed.
Mr. Speaker, I am not going to object in this instance, but I
know of no reason why political speeches such as we have heard from
two of the preceding speakers should further delay the legislative
process at this time.
The Speaker: The Chair will state to the gentleman from Iowa
that earlier in the day the Chair did make the statement that the
Chair would not entertain unanimous-consent requests for 1 minute
speeches to be delivered until later on in the day.
I am sure that the gentleman from Iowa clearly understood that
statement on the part of the Speaker. At that particular time the
Chair stated that the Chair would recognize Members for unanimous-
consent requests to extend their remarks in the Record or
unanimous-consent requests to speak for 1 minute with the
understanding that they would not take their time but would yield
back their time.
I think the Chair clearly indicated that the Chair would
recognize Members for that purpose at a later time during the day.
As far as the Chair is concerned the custom of the 1-minute speech
procedure is adhered to as much as possible because the Chair
thinks it is a very healthy custom.
The Chair had the intent, after the disposition of the voting
rights bill,
to recognize Members for 1-minute speeches or further unanimous-
consent requests if they desired to do so.
Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of
objection.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. See also the remarks of the Speaker at 114 Cong. Rec. 22633, 22634,
90th Cong. 2d Sess., July 22, 1968.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 73.6 While one-minute speeches are normally entertained at the
beginning of the legislative day, immediately following the
approval of the Journal, the Speaker has on occasion recognized
Members to proceed for one minute after business has been
completed.
On Oct. 15, 1969,(6) after legislative business had been
conducted, Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, recognized Mr.
William E. Brock, 3d, of Tennessee, for one minute. Mr. Brock
criticized unnamed Members for following double standards as to the
right of free speech and dissent. Mr. Arnold Olsen, of Montana, then
attempted to rise
[[Page 11023]]
to a question of personal privilege, based on Mr. Brock's remarks, and
stated that Mr. Brock's address was entitled to a response of one
minute. Speaker McCormack stated that under the circumstances he would
grant that right and by unanimous consent recognized Mr. Olsen for one
minute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 115 Cong. Rec. 30080, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: Words uttered in debate do not raise a
question of personal privilege, but instead of ruling on that point the
Speaker recognized Mr. Olsen for a one-minute speech to reply to the
remark he considered derogatory.
Restrictions on One-minute Speeches
Sec. 73.7 The Speaker reminded Members of the policy of some years that
when there is a legislative program for the day, so-called one-
minute speeches that contain more than 300 words would be put in
the Record after the business of the day or in the appendix of the
Record.
On Jan. 17, 1949,(7) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, made
the following announcement, shortly after the convening of the 81st
Congress, on the use and reporting of ``one-minute'' speeches before
the legislative business of the day:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 95 Cong. Rec. 403, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair desires to make an announcement.
It has been the policy for some years now that when there is a
legislative program for the day the so-called 1-minute speeches
that contain more than 300 words will be put in the Record after
the business of the day or in the Appendix of the Record. The Chair
trusts that Members will regard this agreement that we have had for
quite a while.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. For the evolution of the rule announced by the Speaker, see the
following line of precedents: 91 Cong. Rec. 1788, 79th Cong.
1st Sess., Mar. 6, 1945; 91 Cong. Rec. 839, 79th Cong. 1st
Sess., Feb. 6, 1945. (Discussions of Speaker's rulings that
one-minute speeches exceeding 300 words go in appendix); 87
Cong. Rec. 7189, 77th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 15, 1941; 87 Cong.
Rec. 6006, 77th Cong. 1st Sess., July 14, 1941. (Speaker ruled
no extensions of
one-minute speeches exceeding 300 words); 84 Cong. Rec. 8779,
76th Cong. 1st Sess., July 10, 1939 (extension of remarks go in
appendix); 84 Cong. Rec. 7108, 76th Cong. 1st Sess., June 13,
1939 (extensions printed in appendix of Record unless
pertaining to present legislation); 84 Cong. Rec. 6949, 76th
Cong. 1st Sess., June 10, 1939 (Majority Leader would object to
extensions of remarks on one-minute speeches).
Where a Member has secured unanimous consent to address the
House and revise and extend his remarks, he may not without
further consent include in those remarks extraneous matter,
such as a speech made by another person. 92 Cong. Rec. 129,
79th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 18, 1946.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 11024]]
Parliamentarian's Note: The regulation on this subject promulgated
by the Joint Committee on Printing (governing House proceedings printed
in the Record) reads as follows:
1. Extensions of Remarks in the daily Congressional Record.--
When the House has granted leave to print (1) a newspaper or
magazine article, or (2) any other matter not germane to the
proceedings, it shall be published un-der Extensions of Remarks.
This rule shall not apply to quotations which form part of a speech
of a Member, or to an authorized extension of his own remarks:
Provided, That no address, speech, or article delivered or released
subsequently to the sine die adjournment of a session of Congress
may be printed in the Congressional Record. One-minute speeches
delivered during the morning business of Congress shall not exceed
300 words. Statements exceeding this will be printed following the
business of the day.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. This admonition reflected current policy of the joint committee as
recently as Feb. 25, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 73.8 The Speaker stated that when the House meets and Members are
recognized to extend remarks or to proceed for one minute and then
a point of order of no quorum is made signalling the start of
legislative business, it is not proper to recommence recognition to
extend remarks and for one-minute speeches.
On Mar. 7, 1941,(10) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, made
the following statement on recognition for nonlegislative matters at
the beginning of the day:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 87 Cong. Rec. 2008, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let the Chair make a statement. When the House meets and
Members are recognized to extend their remarks or to proceed for 1
minute and all who are on the floor and so desire have been
recognized, and then a point of no quorum is made in order to start
the business of legislation for the day, the Chair thinks it is
hardly proper to begin all over again in recognizing Members to
extend their own remarks or to proceed for 1 minute, but the Chair
will recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Gifford].
Sec. 73.9 Members may not address the House for one-minute speeches
more than once before the business of the day.
On Jan. 25, 1956,(11) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas,
recognized Mr. J. Arthur Younger, of California, before the commence
[[Page 11025]]
ment of legislative business for the day, to make a one-minute speech
on the subject of military figures criticizing ``principles of
government.'' Mr. Daniel J. Flood, of Pennsylvania, was later
recognized for a one-minute speech on the same subject, and mentioned
Mr. Younger's remarks. Mr. Younger sought recognition and the Speaker
ruled as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 102 Cong. Rec. 1274, 1275, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Mr. Flood asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Flood: Mr. Speaker, in further reference to the controversy
in connection with General Ridgeway I must take diametric
opposition to the gentleman from California [Mr. Younger]. . . .
Mr. Younger: Mr. Speaker, may I have the privilege of
addressing the House, my name having been mentioned?
The Speaker: No; not without unanimous consent of the House.
Mr. Younger: Then, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent----
The Speaker: The Chair cannot recognize Members to speak for 1
minute more than once before the business of the day has been
dispensed with. That has been the policy heretofore.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See also 109 Cong. Rec. 10634, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., June 11, 1963.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extension of One-minute Speeches
Sec. 73.10 The Speaker has refused to recognize Members for unanimous-
consent requests to proceed for longer than one minute before the
business of the day.
On June 11, 1963,(13) Mr. Paul C. Jones, of Missouri,
had the floor for a one-minute speech prior to the legislative business
of the day and yielded to Mr. James C. Fulton, of Pennsylvania. Speaker
John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, interrupted Mr. Fulton to state
that Mr. Jones' one minute had expired, and Mr. Fulton asked unanimous
consent that Mr. Jones be given one additional minute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 109 Cong. Rec. 10633, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker ruled that such a request was not in order and refused
to recognize Mr. Fulton for the request.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. For a discussion of the practice forbidding speeches extending
longer than one minute before the legislative business of the
day, see 91 Cong. Rec. 1788, 79th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 6,
1945.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 73.11 The Speaker, with the unanimous consent of the House,
permitted a Member to proceed for five minutes, during that part of
the session when he would normally have recognized only for one-
minute speeches, to refute a newspaper charge of im
[[Page 11026]]
proper conduct (in lieu of recognizing for one hour on a question
of personal privilege).
On June 29, 1962,(15) before the commencement of
legislative business, and during the period when one-minute speeches
were normally entertained, Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts,
recognized Mr. H. Carl Andersen, of Minnesota, for a unanimous-consent
request to proceed for five minutes and to revise and extend his
remarks. There was no objection. Mr. Andersen discussed newspaper
charges of improper conduct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 108 Cong. Rec. 12297, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: Mr. Andersen had requested, before the
opening of the session, that he be recognized on a point of personal
privilege. Since the House had a busy schedule, the Speaker suggested
that the business of the House could be expedited if Mr. Andersen would
simply ask to proceed for five minutes rather than to take an hour
under a point of personal privilege.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. For another occasion on which a Member took time (one minute)
during the time for one-minute speeches to discuss newspaper
charges against him, rather than to consume time on a point of
personal privilege, see 113 Cong. Rec. 33693, 90th Cong. 1st
Sess., Nov. 22, 1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Special-order Speeches; When Permitted
Sec. 73.12 Special orders of Members to address the House must follow
the conclusion of the legislative program of the day, and the
Speaker decides when the legislative program of the day has been
completed.
On June 3, 1937,(17) after Mr. John J. O'Connor, of New
York, called up on behalf of the Committee on Rules a privileged
resolution providing a special order, a point of order was made that
there were some special orders on the calendar for Members to address
the House, and the calendar did not indicate that privileged business
was to precede those special orders. Speaker William B. Bankhead, of
Alabama, overruled the point of order and stated that under the new
practice, special orders were to follow legislative business, including
any privileged matters brought up by the House leadership or by the
Committee on Rules.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 81 Cong. Rec. 5307, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
18. See also 81 Cong. Rec. 3645, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 20, 1937,
when Majority Leader Sam Rayburn (Tex.), stated that he would
thereafter object to all unanimous-consent requests to address
the House unless the special orders should come after the
conclusion of the legislative program of the day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 11027]]
On Jan. 5, 1939,(19) shortly after the convening of the
76th Congress, Majority Leader Rayburn made the following announcement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 84 Cong. Rec. 125, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, in order that there
may be no misunderstanding may I say that last year the policy was
adopted that when unanimous-consent requests were preferred that a
Member might speak on a day certain it was always understood that
he would speak after the disposition of matters on the Speaker's
table and following the legislative program of that day, if there
was any such program. Whether or not there will be a legislative
program on Monday I do not know, but I doubt it. However, I want it
understood that it will be the custom this year that when a Member
requests time to speak this condition is coupled with his request.
Sec. 73.13 The Speaker may in his discretion, recognize for special
orders when no legislative business is available
for consideration with the
understanding that further business, if ready for presentation, may
follow.
On Dec. 14, 1971,(20) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma,
made an announcement concerning recognition by the Chair for special-
order speeches before the conclusion of remaining legislative business:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 117 Cong. Rec. 46801, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair would like to advise the Members that in order to get
as much accomplished as we can, and in view of the fact that we
have no legislative business ready at this moment, we will call
special orders, and after they are completed declare a recess,
unless legislative business is in order.
The Chair in making this announcement will state that we are
not setting this as a precedent, but that we are calling special
orders today, and then going back to the legislative business, if
any, after recessing if necessary.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. See also 81 Cong. Rec. 5373, 5374, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., June 7,
1937.
Before the inception of the policy that special-order
speeches follow the legislative business of the day, it was
held that a motion to correct the reference of a bill took
precedence over a special order to address the House for a
specified time after the reading and approval of the Journal.
78 Cong. Rec. 2425, 2426, 73d Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 12, 1934.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 73.14 Requests to proceed ``for one additional minute,'' while not
entertained by the Chair at the beginning of the day, are
permissible when business has been concluded (the request
constituting, in substance, a request for a special order).
[[Page 11028]]
On June 13, 1963,(2) after legislative business had been
concluded for the day and there being no special orders scheduled, Mr.
Ezekiel C. Gathings, of Arkansas, obtained unanimous consent to address
the House for one minute and to revise and extend his remarks. At the
expiration of the one minute, Mr. Gathings requested unanimous consent
to proceed for an additional minute. Speaker John W. McCormack, of
Massachusetts, stated that if there was no objection, the business
being disposed of, the gentleman could proceed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 109 Cong. Rec. 10891, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the conclusion of Mr. Gathings' additional minute, Mr. Joe D.
Waggonner, Jr., of Louisiana, asked unanimous consent that Mr. Gathings
be allowed to proceed for one additional minute. The Speaker
entertained the request and made the following statement:
The Chair will state that the Chair is permitting this request
although the Chair does not consider this is to be the 1-minute
period such as we have before proceeding with the regular business
of the House.
Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Louisiana?
There was no objection.
Duration of Special-order Speeches
Sec. 73.15 Special orders to address the House at the conclusion of the
business of the day are limited to one hour per Member; and when a
Member has used one hour, the Chair declines to recognize him for
extensions of time or for an additional special order.
On Feb. 9, 1966,(3) Mr. Joseph Y. Resnick, of New York,
who already had scheduled a special order for the day, asked unanimous
consent that he have an additional special order to address the House
for 15 minutes at the close of legislative business. Speaker Pro
Tempore Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, declined to recognize him for that
purpose, stating as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 112 Cong. Rec. 2794, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair would advise the gentleman that pursuant to the
practice of the House, Members are limited to a 1-hour special
order per day. The Chair would be glad to entertain a request for a
special order for a later day.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. A Member may consume an hour for a special order and then be
yielded time by the next Member with a special order; see 114
Cong. Rec. 14265-71, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., May 21, 1968.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 11029]]
Sec. 73.16 By unanimous consent, a Member may be recognized for a one-
hour speech to precede other special-order speeches already
scheduled by the House.
On July 31, 1973,(5) Mr. David R. Obey, of Wisconsin,
asked unanimous consent that he be allowed to proceed for one hour
preceding the special orders scheduled for the day. There was no
objection to the request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 119 Cong. Rec. 27023, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: The Speaker normally will not entertain
such a request without advance consent from all Members whose special
orders would be affected.
Extension of Special-order Speeches
Sec. 73.17 A Member recognized under a special order in the House may
have his time for debate extended by unanimous consent, but a
motion to that effect is not in order.
On June 13, 1972,(6) Mr. Jack F. Kemp, of New York, was
recognized to speak for 10 minutes on a special order. At the
conclusion of the 10 minutes, Mr. Charles S. Gubser, of California,
asked unanimous consent that Mr. Kemp be given an additional 10
minutes. Mr. William D. Ford, of Michigan, objected to the request, and
Mr. John E. Hunt, of New Jersey, moved that Mr. Kemp be given 10
minutes additional time. Speaker Pro Tempore William J. Randall, of
Missouri, ruled that the motion was not in order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 118 Cong. Rec. 20681, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair will have to state that a motion to that effect is
not in order at this time. Other special orders have previously
been granted, and the Chair will state that the motion is not in
order.
Parliamentarian's Note: An extension of time for debate under
a special order, even though by unanimous consent, is technically not
possible where the extension would extend the time beyond one hour. The
Chair would not normally entertain a request which would permit debate
in violation of the hour rule.
Sec. 73.18 When additional time to speak under a special order was
requested, the Speaker advised the Member that other Members were
also waiting to be recognized on special orders.
On June 23, 1964,(7) Mr. Wright Patman, of Texas, was
addressing
[[Page 11030]]
the House, at the conclusion of business, on a special order and asked
unanimous consent to proceed for five additional minutes. Speaker John
W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, advised him that there were three other
special orders following Mr. Patman. Mr. Patman withdrew his request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 110 Cong. Rec. 14719, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interruption of Special-order Speech
Sec. 73.19 A motion to suspend the rules may be entertained while
another Member controls the floor for a ``special-order speech'' if
the Member with the floor voluntarily yields the floor for that
purpose.
On Oct. 2, 1973,(8) Mr. J. J. Pickle, of Texas, had the
floor for one hour for a special-order speech. He had consumed 31
minutes when he suspended temporarily to allow Mr. Wright Patman, of
Texas, to move to suspend the rules and pass the bill, Senate Joint
Resolution 160, to extend laws on the payment of interest on savings
deposits. After disposition of the motion to suspend the rules, Mr.
Pickle was again recognized by Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, to
consume his remaining 29 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 119 Cong. Rec. 32395, 32397, 32404, 32410, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Postponement of Special-order Speeches
Sec. 73.20 The Speaker announced that Members would not be recognized
for special orders, which were transferred to the following day by
unanimous consent, due to the death of a Senator.
On Jan. 20, 1958,(9) following the death of Senator
Matthew M. Nelly, of West Virginia, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, made
an announcement on the disposition of special orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 104 Cong. Rec. 670, 674, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair will state to those Members who have special orders
for today, the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Bailey], the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Patman], and the gentleman from Arkansas
[Mr. Gathings] that we will not have any special orders today. So
they may govern themselves accordingly.
Special orders were then transferred by unanimous consent:
Mr. [Carl] Albert [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that all special orders entered for today may be
transferred to tomorrow.
The Speaker: Without objection, it is so ordered.
There was no objection.
[[Page 11031]]
Sec. 73.21 Special orders to address the House, totaling more than 21
hours, were requested for a certain day but were later withdrawn at
the request of the Majority Leader, who suggested that they be
again requested when the Members desiring the time were on the
floor.
On Oct. 8, 1969,(10) Mr. Michael J. Harrington, of
Massachusetts, made a series of requests for certain Members to address
the House on Oct. 14, 1969, following legislative business; the special
orders requested for that day totaled 21 hours and 45 minutes. Mr.
Durward G. Hall, of Missouri, reserved the right to object and inquired
whether legislative business for Oct. 14 could not be expected to total
more than three hours. Majority Leader Carl Albert, of Oklahoma,
responded that it was entirely possible that legislative business could
consume more than three hours on Oct. 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 115 Cong. Rec. 29228, 29229, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hall then objected to any special orders over the first 12
hours requested for Oct. 14. All the special orders requested were then
withdrawn at the request of Mr. Albert:
Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that there has been objection
and that some of the special orders will be necessarily stricken
and Members who are not here now are involved, I would request the
gentleman from Massachusetts not to make the request tonight, in
order that it might be made tomorrow when those concerned are
present.
Parliamentarian's Note: Most of the Members for whom special orders
were requested were opponents of the Vietnam war. Their announced
intention was to use the special orders to keep the House in session
throughout the night to dramatize the war protest scheduled to begin in
major cities of the nation, including Washington, on Oct. 14, 1969.
Sec. 73.22 The Speaker announced the procedure whereby (and the time at
which) Members would be recognized to make speeches up to one
minute in length.
On Jan. 23, 1975,(11) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma,
made the following statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 121 Cong. Rec. 1163, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER
The Speaker: May the Chair state, particularly for the benefit
of new Members, that we generally open the proceedings, after the
prayer and disposition of the Journal and things which are
immediately on the Speaker's desk, by recognizing Members for
[[Page 11032]]
individual requests and for speeches up to 1 minute.
The Chair habitually and regularly starts at the extreme right
and goes all the way around; then comes back and starts over. If
Members want to be heard, the Chair wants to take them in that
order. So, Members will be recognized in the order from the first
seat to the Speaker's right to the last seat on the Speaker's left,
and then the process will be repeated, if other Members come in.
Sec. 73.23 While debate on a conference report is limited to one hour
(12) to be equally
divided between majority
and minority parties,(13) the House may, by unanimous
consent, either extend that time or permit debate by ``special
order'' on the conference report prior to actual consideration
thereof; thus, on one occasion, by unanimous consent, two Members,
the chairman and ranking minority member of the House conferees,
were permitted ``special orders'' of one hour each to debate a
conference report following adoption of a resolution making in
order the consideration of the report but prior to actual
consideration of the report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See Rule XIV clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 758 (1995).
13. See Rule XXVIII clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 912a (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Mar. 26, 1975,(14) the following proceedings occurred
in the House relative to consideration of the conference report on H.R.
2166, the Tax Reduction Act of 1975:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 121 Cong. Rec. 8899, 8900, 8916, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Spark M.] Matsunaga [of Hawaii]: Mr. Speaker, I yield 1
minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Ullman).
conference report on h.r. 2166, tax reduction act of 1975
Mr. [Al] Ullman [of Oregon] submitted the following conference
report and statement on the bill (H.R. 2166) to amend the Internal
Revenue Code of 1954 . . . to increase the investment credit and
the surtax exemption, and for other purposes:
Conference Report (H. Rept. 94-120)
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R.
2166) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 . . . having
met, after full and free conference, have agreed to recommend
and do recommend to their respective Houses as follows:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the
amendment of the Senate and agree to the same with an amendment
as follows: In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by
the Senate amendment insert the following:
[[Page 11033]]
Section 1. Short Title; Table of Contents.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Tax
Reduction Act of 1975''. . . .
Mr. Ullman: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that upon the
adoption of the rule I be granted a 60-minute special order.
The Speaker: (15) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Oregon?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Reserving the right to
object, Mr. Speaker, we have in the rules of the House an adequate
rule for the consideration of conference reports. . . . I have no
way of knowing, nor does any Member in this Chamber know, who will
control the time during a special order, except the gentleman from
Oregon, whether questions, once raised, will be answered, or
whether or not debate will deteriorate into partisan debate.
The Speaker: The gentleman is very effectively but improperly
stating the rules. The minority has 30 minutes and the majority has
30 minutes on the conference report.
Mr. Bauman: I am talking about the lack of protection contained
in the request for the 1-hour special order that was just made by
the gentleman from Oregon.
The Speaker: Any Member of the House may make a request for a
special order.
Mr. Bauman: I withdraw my reservation of objection.
Mr. [Herman T.] Schneebeli [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker,
further reserving the right to object, I also ask for a 60-minute
special order following that of the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
Ullman).
The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
Recognition and Limitation
of Time for Special-order Speeches; ``Oxford-style'' Debates
Sec. 73.24 Pursuant to several unanimous-consent requests, the House
agreed to a 90-day trial period from February 23 through May 23,
1994, [subsequently extended on several occasions] and agreed on a
format of recognition and limitation of time for each party for
special-order speeches, including periodic ``Oxford style''
structured debates and morning-hour debates; the Speaker then
announced the applicable guidelines for recognition during such
speeches and debate.
The following unanimous-consent request was agreed to on Feb. 11,
1994: (16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 140 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 103d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Richard A.] Gephardt [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, following
my
[[Page 11034]]
unanimous-consent request to put in place an agreed upon format for
recognitions to address the House during a 90-day trial period
beginning February 23, 1994, including a morning hour debate, an
Oxford style debate and a restriction on special order speeches,
the Speaker will announce his guidelines for recognition. In so
doing it is stipulated that the establishment of this format for
recognition by the Speaker is without prejudice to the Speaker's
ultimate power of recognition under clause 1, rule XIV should
circumstances so warrant.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the special orders
previously granted by the House to address the House on dates
through May 23, 1994 be vacated;
Further that during the period beginning February 23, 1994 and
for 90 days thereafter, on Mondays and Tuesdays of each week the
House convene 90 minutes earlier than the time otherwise
established by order of the House solely for the purpose of
conducting morning hour debates to be followed by a recess declared
by the Speaker pursuant to clause 12, rule I under the following
conditions:
(1) Prayer by the Chaplain, approval of the Journal and the
pledge of allegiance to the flag to be postponed until the
resumption of the House session following the completion of morning
hour debate;
(2) Debate to be limited not to exceed 30 minutes allocated to
each party, with initial and subsequent recognition alternating
daily between parties to be conferred by the Speaker only pursuant
to lists submitted by the majority leader and minority leaders
respectively (no Member on such lists to be permitted to address
the House for longer than 5 minutes except for the majority leader
and minority leader respectively);
Further, that on (every third) Wednesday, beginning on a day to
be designated by the Speaker and mutually agreed upon by the
majority leader and minority leader, it shall be in order, at a
time to be determined by the Speaker, for the Speaker to recognize
the majority leader and minority leader (or their designees),
jointly, for a period of not to exceed 2 hours, for the purpose of
holding a structured debate. The topic of the debate, when mutually
agreed upon by the majority leader and minority leader, shall be
announced by the Speaker. The format of the debate, which shall
allow for participation by four Members of the majority party and
four from the minority party in the House, chosen by their
respective party leaders, with specified times for presentations
and rebuttals by all participants, and periods of questioning of
each Member by others participating, shall be announced to the
House by the Speaker.
The Speaker: (17) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Missouri?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Thomas S. Foley (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsequently, the Speaker announced the following guidelines for
implementation of the unanimous-consent agreement:
The Speaker: With respect to special orders to address the
House for up to 1 hour at the conclusion of legislative business or
on days when no legis
[[Page 11035]]
lative business is scheduled, the Chair announced that:
First, Tuesdays, following legislative business, there will be
an unlimited period of special orders not extending beyond
midnight, with recognition for 5-minute and then for longer special
orders alternating between the parties and with initial
recognition, for longer special orders, rotating on a daily basis
between the parties, and with the first hour of recognition on each
side reserved to the House leadership--majority leader and whip and
minority leader or their designee;
Second, on Mondays, Wednesdays, except those Wednesdays when
Oxford style debates are in order, Thursdays and Fridays, the Chair
will recognize Members from each party for up to 2 hours of special
order debate at the conclusion of legislative business and 5-minute
special orders, or when no legislative business is scheduled, not
extending beyond midnight, again with initial recognition
alternating between the parties on a daily basis and with the
allocation of time within each 2-hour period, or short period if
pro rated to end by midnight, to be determined by a list submitted
to the Chair by the House leadership, majority leader and whip and
minority leader or designees, respectively, and with the first hour
of recognition on each side reserved to the House leadership,
majority leader and whip and minority leader or their designees.
Members will be limited to signing up for all such special orders
no earlier than 1 week prior to the special order, and additional
guidelines may be established for such sign-ups by the majority and
minority leaders, respectively. One-minute speeches on those days
both prior to and at the conclusion of legislative business shall
be at the discretion of the Speaker;
Third, pursuant to clause 9(b)(1) of rule I, during this trial
period the television cameras will not pan the Chamber, but a crawl
indicating morning hour or that the House has completed its
legislative business and is proceeding with special order speeches
will appear on the screen. Other television camera adaptations
during this period may be announced by the Chair;
Fourth, special orders to extend beyond the 4-hour period may
be permitted at the discretion of the Chair with advance
consultation between the leaderships and notification to the House.
Parliamentarian's Note: On subsequent occasions, the House extended
the above unanimous-consent agreement.(18) On May 12, 1995,
the House extended the agreement by unanimous consent, but changed the
Tuesday morning hour to 9 a.m.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See the proceedings of May 23, 1994; June 10, 1994; Jan. 4, 1995;
Feb. 16, 1995; and May 12, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Richard K.] Armey [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that the order of the House of January 4, 1995, relating to
morning hour debates be continued through the adjournment of the 2d
session of the 104th Congress sine die, except that on Tuesdays the
House shall convene for such debate 1 hour earlier then the time
otherwise established by order of the House rather than 90 minutes
earlier; and the time for such debates
[[Page 11036]]
shall be limited to 25 minutes allocated to each party rather than
30 minutes to each; but in no event shall such debates continue
beyond the time that falls 10 minutes before the appointed hour for
the resumption of legislative business, and with the understanding
that the format for recognition for special order speeches first
instituted on February 23, 1994, be continued for the same period.
. . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Meetings of the leadership following the February 11 proceedings
produced further guidelines for implementation of the special order and
morning-hour procedures. The guidelines provided, among other matters,
for alternation of recognition between the parties, and for procedures
whereby Members sign up in advance for special orders, the majority in
the Majority Leader's office and the minority in the cloakroom, the
lists to be approved on the floor. For the Oxford-style debates, each
leader would designate four participants for the debate every third
Wednesday, to be held on a mutually agreeable topic announced by the
Speaker. Guidelines for the morning hour on every Monday and Tuesday
also provided for allocation of time and for the procedure of signing
up with the party leaders.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See the procedures agreed to in meetings of the leadership for
special orders, Oxford debates, and morning hours (Feb. 17,
1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAPTER 29
Consideration and Debate
I. DURATION OF DEBATE IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Sec. 74. In General; Effect of Special Rules
The Committee of the Whole considers propositions on the Union
Calendar and other propositions made in order under that procedure by
unanimous consent or by special rule.(20) The procedure in
the Committee of the Whole is provided for in part by Rule
XXIII.(1) In addition, where
[[Page 11037]]
applicable, the rules and procedures of the House are observed in the
Committee of the Whole.(2) Rule XXIII clause 5 provides that
there first be general debate, then amendment under the five-minute
rule in the Committee of the Whole.(3) The duration of time
for general debate is usually governed by a special rule, reported by
the Committee on Rules and entertained in the House before resolving
into Committee, or by a unanimous-consent request, providing a certain
number of hours for general debate. The rule may also provide that
debate proceed for a day or more.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. For consideration in the Committee of the Whole, see Sec. 3, supra,
and Ch. 19, supra.
1. House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 861-877 (1995). Special procedures
for a Committee of the Whole date, in various forms, from the
beginning of Congress. Jefferson's Manual discusses the early
form of the Committee of the Whole. See Jefferson's Manual,
House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 326-340 (1995).
2. Rule XXIII clause 9, House Rules and Manual Sec. 877 (1995).
For example, the hour rule applies to prevent any one
Member for speaking for more than one hour (see Sec. 74.4,
infra).
3. House Rules and Manual Sec. 870 (1995).
4. See Sec. Sec. 74.7-74.9, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The time for general debate provided for by the House can be
``yielded back'' by the managers, but the Committee of the Whole cannot
extend the time fixed by the order of the House. The House, of course,
can curtail or even extend the debate in the Committee.(5)
If not fixed by special rule, general debate may be limited by
unanimous consent before it begins or by motion or unanimous consent in
the House after it commences.(6) The Members in control of
the time for general debate may decline to consume all the time
allotted by a special rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. See Sec. Sec. 74.10, 74.11, infra, for limiting such general debate
and Sec. 75.7, infra, for the proposition that such debate may
not be extended. See Sec. 76.1, infra, for authority of
managers to curtail general debate time; and Sec. 76.10, infra,
for an example of limiting time by unanimous consent.
6. See Sec. 76, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A special rule may restrict
the operation of the five-minute
rule by permitting only specified amendments or no amendments to be
offered to the bill.(7) The five-minute rule is also
abrogated by
a motion or unanimous-consent agreement that debate on amendments be
limited; in that situation the Chairman, in his discretion and with the
consent of the
Committee, distributes the time among Members.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. See Sec. 74.15, infra.
8. See Sec. 79, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forms
Form of resolution providing for general debate to end by a certain
hour on a following day.
Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution
it shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into the
Committee of the
[[Page 11038]]
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the
bill (H.R. 4473) to provide revenue, and for other purposes and all
points of order against the bill are hereby waived. That after
general debate, which shall be confined to the bill and continue
not to exceed 2 days, such general debate to end not later than 4
o'clock p.m., on the second day of debate, and which shall be
confined to the bill, to be equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and
Means, the bill shall be considered
as having been read for amendment. . . .(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 97 Cong. Rec. 6830, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., June 20, 1951.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Form of resolution providing a certain number of hours or days of
general debate.
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution, the
Speaker shall recognize the chairman of the Committee on the
Judiciary, to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration
of the bill (H.R. 8601) to enforce constitutional rights, and for
other purposes. All points of order against said bill are hereby
waived. After general debate, which shall be confined to the bill
and continue not to exceed two days to be equally divided and
controlled by the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary and
the ranking minority member thereof, the bill shall be considered
as having been read and open at any point for amendment under the
five-minute rule. . . .(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 106 Cong. Rec. 5192, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 10, 1960. The
resolution as reported provided two days of general debate, but
was amended by a committee amendment to provide 15 hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration
of the bill H.R. 10132, a bill to protect the integrity and
institutions of the United States through a system of selective
compulsory military training and service. That after general
debate, which shall be confined to the bill and continue not to
exceed 2 days, to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Military Affairs,
the bill shall be read for amendment under the 5-minute rule. . .
.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 86 Cong. Rec. 11358, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., Sept. 3, 1940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross References
Consideration in the Committee of the Whole, see Sec. 3, supra.
Consideration of appropriation bills in the Committee of the Whole, see
Ch. 25, supra.
Control and distribution of time for debate in Committee of the Whole
generally, see Sec. Sec. 24-28, supra.
Effect of special rules on consideration generally, see Sec. 2, supra.
Hour rule applicable to general debate in Committee of the Whole, see
Sec. 68, supra.
Nondebatable matters generally, see Sec. 6, supra.
Opening and closing debate generally, see Sec. 7, supra.
Procedure in Committee of the Whole generally, see Ch. 19, supra.
[[Page 11039]]
Recognition in the Committee of the Whole, see Sec. Sec. 16 (as to
bills), 19 (amendments), 21 (five-minute rule), and 22 (limitation
on five-minute debate), supra.
Special rules and their effect generally, see Ch. 21,
supra. -------------------
Counting of Time by Chair
Sec. 74.1 The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole counts the
allotted time for debate and announces the expiration thereof.
On Dec. 17, 1970,(12) Mr. John Conyers, Jr., of
Michigan, was yielded a certain number of minutes for general debate in
the Committee of the Whole by the Member in charge. At the expiration
of said time, Chairman James C. Corman, of California, announced that
Mr. Conyers' time had expired and declined to entertain a request by
Mr. Conyers for additional time, the time being under the control of
the Members in charge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 116 Cong. Rec. 42222, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 74.2 Where there was a discrepancy in the times shown on the
clocks in the House Chamber, the Chair stated he would rely on the
clock on the north wall in deciding when time had expired.
On Feb. 10, 1964,(13) the Committee of the Whole had
agreed to a unanimous-consent limitation on debate, but the clocks in
the House Chamber differed as to the time. In response to a
parliamentary inquiry, Chairman Eugene J. Keogh, of New York, stated
that he would rely on the clock on the north wall in deciding when time
had expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 110 Cong. Rec. 2724, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Duration of Debate Fixed by House
Sec. 74.3 In the consideration of the general appropriation bill of
1951, containing numerous appropriations for the various agencies
of the government, the House agreed by unanimous consent to provide
two hours' general debate in the Committee of the Whole on each
chapter as it was read.
On Apr. 3, 1950,(14) Clarence Cannon, of Missouri,
Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, moved to resolve into
Committee of the Whole for the consideration of H.R. 7786, the general
appropriation bill of 1951, and made the following unanimous-consent
[[Page 11040]]
request on the control of time for debate, which was agreed to by the
House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 96 Cong. Rec. 4614, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the
consideration of the bill (H.R. 7786) making appropriations for the
support of the Government for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1951,
and for other purposes; and pending that I ask unanimous consent
that time for general debate be equally divided, one-half to be
controlled by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Taber] and one-half
by myself; that debate be confined to the bill; and that following
the reading of the first chapter of the bill, not to exceed 2 hours
general debate be had before the reading of each subsequent
chapter, one-half to be controlled by the chairman and one-half by
the ranking minority member of the subcommittee in charge of the
chapter.
Parliamentarian's Note: In prior years there had been 11 separate
appropriation bills for the various government agencies. In 1951 they
were consolidated into one bill.
Effect of House Rules
Sec. 74.4 Although under a special rule a Member may have control of
more than one hour of general debate on a bill in the Committee of
the Whole, he may not, under the general rules of the House,
himself consume more than one hour, but may be yielded time by
another Member controlling time.
On June 21, 1971,(15) Mr. Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas,
was in control of four hours of general debate in the Committee of the
Whole on H.R. 1, the social security amendments of 1971, pursuant to
House Resolution 487, making in order the consideration of the bill and
dividing control of eight hours of general debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 117 Cong. Rec. 21096, 21097, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Mills asked unanimous consent for an extension of time for his
remarks:
I cannot yield myself more than an hour, so, Mr. Chairman, I
will ask unanimous consent to proceed for 5 additional minutes,
only for the purpose of answering questions.
The Chairman: (16) To whom shall the time be
charged?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. John D. Dingell (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John W.] Byrnes of Wisconsin: Mr. Chairman, I yield 5
minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Mills).
[Mr. Mills was recognized for five minutes.]
Sec. 74.5 The House agreed to
a unanimous-consent request that it be in order to consider a Union
Calendar bill under the general rules of the House, limiting debate
in the Committee of the Whole
[[Page 11041]]
to one hour (to be followed by reading for amendment under the
five-minute rule).
On Sept. 7, 1959,(17) the House agreed to the following
request by Mr. Armistead I. Selden, Jr., of Alabama, to consider a
Union Calendar bill in the Committee of the Whole under the rules of
the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 105 Cong. Rec. 18442, 18443, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it may be in order to
consider under the general rules of the House the bill (H.R. 9069)
to provide standards for the issuance of passports, and for other
purposes; that general debate continue for not to exceed 1 hour,
one-half to be controlled by myself and one-half controlled by the
ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Parliamentarian's Note: Without the adoption of the request as
stated, the unanimous-consent consideration of a bill on the Union
Calendar would either be under the five-minute rule in the House as in
the Committee of the Whole without general debate or would be ``in the
House'' under the hour rule if stated in that form.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See also 107 Cong. Rec. 14050, 14051, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., July
31, 1961.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 74.6 The House agreed to
a unanimous-consent request that the House resolve itself into the
Committee of the Whole for one hour's debate to be followed by
reading for amendment under the five-minute rule on a Senate
concurrent resolution on the House Calendar.
On June 22, 1965,(19) the House agreed to the following
unanimous-consent request for the consideration of a Senate concurrent
resolution on the House Calendar:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 111 Cong. Rec. 14400, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Dante B.] Fascell [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that the House resolve itself into the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration
of Senate Concurrent Resolution 36 expressing the sense of the
Congress with respect to the 20th anniversary of the United Nations
during International Cooperation Year, and for other purposes, and
that general debate thereon be limited to 1 hour, one-half hour to
be controlled by myself and one-half hour to be controlled by the
gentlewoman from Ohio [Mrs. Bolton].
The House agreed to the request.
Special Rule for Debate
Sec. 74.7 The Committee on Rules may report out a special rule fixing
time for debate on a bill at a certain number of days instead of
hours.
[[Page 11042]]
On Sept. 3, 1940,(20) Mr. Adolph J. Sabath, of Illinois,
called up,
at the direction of the Committee
on Rules, House Resolution 586, which provided for two days of debate
on H.R. 10132, a bill to protect the integrity and institutions of the
United States through a system of selective compulsory military
training and service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 86 Cong. Rec. 11358-60, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaker Pro Tempore Jere
Cooper, of Tennessee, overruled a point of order against the
resolution:
Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a point of
order.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Marcantonio: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that
the resolution is contrary to the unwritten law of the House. It
has been the universal practice, custom, and tradition of the House
to have debate fixed by hours. This resolution fixes general debate
by days. This is entirely meaningless, because a day may be
terminated by a motion that the Committee rise or by adjournment,
and for that reason I press my point of order.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is prepared to rule. The
gentleman from New York makes the point of order that the
resolution is contrary to the unwritten rules of the House in that
general debate is fixed by days instead of hours.
In the first place, the point of order comes too late.
In the second place, this is a resolution reported by the
Committee on Rules to change the rules of the House, which is
permissible on anything except that which is prohibited by the
Constitution.
The point of order is overruled.
Sec. 74.8 Where debate on a bill
is fixed by special rule at
one day, the term ``one day'' means one legislative day as
terminated by adjournment.
On Aug. 17, 1949, the House adopted House Resolution 327, providing
for debate not to exceed one day on H.R. 5895, furnishing military
assistance to foreign nations. When the House had resolved itself into
the Committee of the Whole for consideration of the bill, Chairman
Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas, answered a parliamentary inquiry on the
meaning of the term ``one day.'' (1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 95 Cong. Rec. 11666, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: Under the rule general debate will be equally
divided and will not exceed one day.
Mr. [Joseph P.] O'Hara of Minnesota: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. O'Hara of Minnesota: What is meant by the term ``one day''?
The Chairman: The term means one legislative day as terminated
by adjournment, from now until the time the House adjourns.
[[Page 11043]]
Sec. 74.9 Where a bill is considered in the Committee of the Whole
under a resolution providing for not to exceed two days of debate,
the Committee of the Whole determines the completion of one day of
general debate when, after there has been general debate on the
bill, the Committee rises and the House then adjourns.
On Feb. 17, 1955,(2) Chairman Richard W. Bolling, of
Missouri, answered a parliamentary inquiry on how the completion of a
day is determined, under a special order fixing debate at two days in
the Committee of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 101 Cong. Rec. 1688, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary
inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Gross: The resolution which we adopted this afternoon
provides that after the adoption of the resolution general debate
shall start and shall be confined to the bill and shall continue
for not to exceed 2 days. My question is, Starting debate at 4:15
in the afternoon, as we did today [after] the adoption of the
resolution, does that constitute a legislative day?
The Chairman: The Chair would answer the gentleman that this
would be a matter for the committee to decide. The present occupant
of the chair understands that the day is not divided by the House
or by the committee.
Mr. Gross: Then this would or would not be called a legislative
day so far as general debate upon this bill is concerned?
The Chairman: It is the understanding of the Chair that when
the Committee of the Whole rises after concluding debate on this
subject today that would constitute 1 day.
Limiting Debate Time Provided by Special Rule
Sec. 74.10 Where the Committee of the Whole rose, after consuming a
portion of the three hours' time prescribed by a special rule for
debate, the House agreed by unanimous consent that when the
Committee should resume consideration of the bill, the debate be
further limited to 30 minutes.
On June 27, 1968,(3) the Committee of the Whole had
arisen after consuming a portion of the three hours of general debate
on S. 1166 (Gas Pipeline Safety Act), which time was provided for
in House Resolution 1215. The House agreed to a unanimous-consent
request further limiting debate in the Committee of the Whole on the
bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 114 Cong. Rec. 19105, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Harley O.] Staggers [of West Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I ask
unani
[[Page 11044]]
mous consent that when the Committee of the Whole continues the
consideration of the bill (S. 1166) to authorize the Secretary of
Transportation to prescribe safety standards for the transportation
of natural and other gas by pipeline, and for other purposes, that
the time for general debate be limited to 30 minutes with 15
minutes for the minority and 15 minutes for the majority side.
The Speaker: (4) Without objection, it is so
ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
Sec. 74.11 Where the Committee of the Whole is proceeding in general
debate on a bill pursuant to a special rule adopted by the House, a
motion in the Committee that such debate be closed instantly is not
in order.
On Sept. 25, 1951,(5) the Committee of the Whole was
conducting general debate on H.R. 39, the Marketing Facilities Act.
Chairman Lindley Beckworth, of Texas, stated that under the special
rule adopted by the House for consideration of the bill, Mr. Harold D.
Cooley, of North Carolina, had 30 minutes of debate and Mr.
Clifford R. Hope, of Kansas, 30
minutes. Mr. Paul W. Shafer, of Michigan, made a point of order and
then withdrew it, but also moved that debate be closed ``now'' and that
``we vote on the bill.'' The Chairman ruled that the motion was not in
order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 97 Cong. Rec. 12084, 12089, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Closing General Debate and Limiting Five-minute Debate on Bill Being
Considered in Committee of the Whole
Sec. 74.12 The House may adopt a special order from the Committee on
Rules providing that a bill be considered as read for amendment in
the Committee of the Whole and providing that five-minute debate be
limited.
On Apr. 17, 1936,(6) Mr. John J. O'Connor, of New York,
of the Committee on Rules, offered a resolution providing a special
order of business and explained its effect on five-minute debate in the
Committee of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 80 Cong. Rec. 5634, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, I call up House Resolution 489.
The Clerk read as follows:
House Resolution 489
Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this
resolution the House shall resolve itself into the Committee of
the Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration
of H.R. 11563, a bill declaring an emergency in the housing
condition in the District of Columbia. . . . General debate on
said bill
[[Page 11045]]
shall be considered as closed, and the bill shall be considered
as having been read the second time. Amendments may be offered
to any section of the bill, but debate under the 5-minute rule
shall be closed within one hour and a half. . . .
Mr. O'Connor: . . . Mr. Speaker, this is a rule for the
consideration of the District of Columbia rent bill. The bill has
been debated for 3 whole days. There was an obvious filibuster
carried on against it, and it was thought best to bring in a rule
to bring the matter to an issue.
This rule is not strictly a gag rule. There has been more
debate on this bill than on any other ordinary bill. So debate has
not been gagged.
All this rule does is to provide for an hour and a half of
debate on amendments, and that the debate shall then close. That
same result could be accomplished by a motion in the Committee of
the Whole at any time, when debate could be shut off. The rule is
in that respect more liberal than the general rules. It is true
that the rule provides that the bill shall be considered as having
been read the second time. The bill has been read in full the first
time before the filibuster, and the waiver of reading the bill a
second time denies no one any rights.
Under the rule the House automatically resolves itself into
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, and
amendments are then in order to any part of the bill. Debate on
these amendments must close within an hour and a half, but that
does not cut off the offering of any amendment to the bill. There
is no gag in the rule. A gag rule prevents or limits amendments.
The rule is simply an attempt to expedite the business of the
House. It does not go into the merits of the measure, but simply
provides that, after due consideration, this House must function
and that no filibustering can be permitted to interfere with the
orderly, expeditious, and respectable conduct of the proceedings in
this House.
Sec. 74.13 The Committee of the Whole agreed to a unanimous-consent
request limiting five-minute debate to a certain number of minutes
of debate on each of the seven remaining titles of a bill.
On July 24, 1974,(7) the Committee of the Whole resumed
further consideration of H.R. 11500, the Surface Mining and Reclamation
Act of 1974. Chairman Neal Smith, of Iowa, explained the parliamentary
situation:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 120 Cong. Rec. 25009, 25010, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before the Committee rose on yesterday, it had agreed that the
remainder of the substitute committee amendment titles II through
VIII, inclusive, would be considered as read and open to amendment
at any point.
The Committee further agreed that the time for debate under the
5-minute rule would be limited to not to exceed 3 hours and
allocated time to titles II through VIII as follows: 50 minutes for
title II, 20 minutes for title III, 50 minutes for title IV, 5
minutes for title V, 5 minutes for title VI, 40 minutes for title
VII, and 10 minutes for title VIII.
[[Page 11046]]
In an attempt to be consistent with the unanimous-consent
agreement entered into on yesterday, the Chair will endeavor to
recognize all Members who wish to offer or debate amendments to
title II during the 50 minutes of time for debate on that title.
If Members who have printed their amendments to title II in the
Record would agree to offer those amendments during the 50-minute
period and to be recognized for the allotted time, the Chair will
recognize both Committee and non-Committee members for that
purpose.
Members who have caused amendments to title II to be printed in
the Record, however, are protected under clause 6, rule XXIII, and
will be permitted to debate for 5 minutes any such amendment which
they might offer to title II at the conclusion of the 50 minutes of
debate thereon.
The Chair will now compile a list of those Members seeking
recognition to offer or debate amendments to title II and will
allocate 50 minutes for debate accordingly.
The Chair will give preference where possible to those Members
who have amendments to offer to title II.
Members who were standing at the time of the determination of
the time allocation will be recognized for 1 minute and 20 seconds
each.
Mr. [William M.] Ketchum [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I have
a parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. Ketchum: Mr. Chairman, I note that the time is
approximately 6:30 p.m., and it is my understanding that the
Committee will rise at 7 o'clock p.m., tonight.
Does that mean now that the Members who have not been
recognized in these next 30 minutes will be continued to be
recognized tomorrow when we resume debate on this great issue?
The Chairman: The Chair will state that time will remain on
this title. The gentleman is correct.
Sec. 74.14 The House agreed by unanimous consent that there be 30
additional minutes of debate in the Committee of the Whole on a
specified amendment to a bill being considered under a rule
prohibiting pro forma amendments.
On Apr. 20, 1955,(8) the House adopted House Resolution
211, providing for consideration of H.R. 4644, to increase the salaries
of postal employees and for other purposes. The resolution provided
that only specified amendments could be offered and that no amendments
could be offered to said amendments. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas,
stated in response to a parliamentary inquiry that under the special
rule only two five-minute speeches would
be permitted on each specified amendment, five minutes in favor and
five minutes against.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 101 Cong. Rec. 4829-34, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Howard W. Smith, of Virginia, propounded a unanimous-
[[Page 11047]]
consent request to extend the time for debate on one such amendment:
Mr. Speaker, I desire to submit a unanimous-consent request.
The point has been raised that there will be only 10 minutes of
debate on this very controversial amendment on the pay question,
which is to be found at page 82 of the bill. I should like to state
frankly that I did not notice that. I believe that we should
provide time for pro forma amendments, to any amendment that is
offered. It was not my purpose to restrict the debate in this way.
This was not called to my attention until this morning.
After consultation with the minority, I ask unanimous consent
that debate under the 5-minute rule on the amendment which will be
offered at page 82 of the bill relating to the pay schedule, be
extended for 30 additional minutes, which will provide 40 minutes
of debate. . . .
The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Virginia that the time for debate on the amendment which the
gentleman identified be extended 30 minutes?
Mr. [Leo E.] Allen of Illinois: Reserving the right to object,
Mr. Speaker, who will have control of the time under that
procedure?
The Speaker: It will be up to the Chairman of the Committee of
the Whole to recognize Members under the 5-minute rule.
Mr. [Joseph W.] Martin [Jr., of Massachusetts]: Reserving the
right to object, Mr. Speaker, and I am not going to object, I think
we can have assurance that both sides will be equally recognized in
the 30 minutes.
Mr. Smith of Virginia: I assume everybody will be fair.
The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Virginia?
There was no objection.
Sec. 74.15 When a committee amendment is being considered under a
``closed''
rule prohibiting amendments thereto, only two five-minute speeches
are in order, pro forma amendments are not permitted and a third
Member may be recognized only by unanimous consent.
An illustration of the proposition described above occurred in the
Committee of the Whole on Mar. 8, 1977,(9) during
consideration of the Tax Reduction and Simplification Act of 1977 (H.R.
3477). The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 123 Cong. Rec. 6632, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [William M.] Ketchum [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike the requisite number of words, and I rise in support of
the committee amendment.
The Chairman: (10) The Chair will state that only
two 5-minute speeches are in order under the rule absent unanimous
consent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Tom Bevill (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Ketchum: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I may
be permitted to speak in favor of the amendment.
[[Page 11048]]
The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Parliamentarian's Note: If a special rule provides that only
designated amendments may be offered, but does not restrict the
amending of such amendments, Members can be recognized to offer pro
forma and substantive amendments to the designated amendments under the
five-minute rule.
Sec. 74.16 General debate in the Committee of the Whole having been set
by a special rule adopted by the House, may not be extended beyond
that time in Committee of the Whole even by unanimous consent.
On Feb. 22, 1980,(11) it was demonstrated that the
Committee of the Whole cannot by unanimous consent directly change a
rule adopted by the House. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 126 Cong. Rec. 3564, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: (12) The time of the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Fascell) has expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Thomas S. Foley (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Tom] Harkin [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the gentleman in the well be given an additional 3
minutes.
The Chairman: The Chair will state that all time has expired
under the rule. The Committee of the Whole cannot change the rule
adopted by the House.
Sec. 74.17 Where only certain amendments are made in order in Committee
of the Whole pursuant to a ``modified closed'' rule, and those
amendments are disposed of or are not offered, no further debate is
in order except by unanimous consent.
During consideration of House Joint Resolution 350 (proposing an
amendment to the Constitution altering federal budget procedures) in
the Committee of the Whole on Oct. 1, 1982,(13) the Chair
responded to several parliamentary inquiries, as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 128 Cong. Rec. 27254, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Peter W.] Rodino [Jr., of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I
have a parliamentary inquiry. . . .
[I]n view of the fact that the Alexander amendment has been
voted down, what is the status now of the joint resolution, House
Joint Resolution 350?
The Chairman: (14) The Chair will state that under
the rule the gentleman from New York (Mr. Conable) has the
opportunity to offer his amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Edward P. Boland (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Rodino: I have a further parliamentary inquiry, Mr.
Chairman. In
[[Page 11049]]
the event that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Conable) declines
to take his time, what will be the status of those who were in
opposition and who had intended to speak in opposition to House
Joint Resolution 350?
The Chairman: No further amendment is in order, and the
Committee will rise if the gentleman from New York (Mr. Conable)
does not offer his amendment.
Mr. Rodino: Mr. Chairman, would it then be in order to make a
unanimous consent request?
The Chairman: The answer is, yes, but it must be by unanimous
consent.
Mr. Rodino: Mr. Chairman, I then ask unanimous consent that in
the event the gentleman from New York (Mr. Conable), the author of
House Joint Resolution 350, declines to take his time, the majority
leader and the Speaker, who had requested time of the chairman of
the Committee on the Judiciary, be allowed 10 minutes, and that the
other side be allowed 10 minutes.
The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New Jersey?
Mr. [Carroll] Campbell [Jr., of South Carolina]: Mr. Chairman,
I object.
The Chairman: Objection is heard.
Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Conable) wish to offer an
amendment?
Mr. [Barber B.] Conable [Jr., of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I
elect not to offer my amendment.
The Chairman: Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Parliamentarian's Note: In the above circumstances, a preferential
motion, that the Committee of the Whole rise and report the resolution
to the House with the recommendation that the enacting clause be
stricken, made for the purpose of obtaining time for debate, would not
be in order after disposition of the Alexander amendment if Mr. Conable
did not seek recognition to offer the only other amendment made in
order since the preferential motion is not in order where the stage of
amendment is passed.
Sec. 74.18 Where the House has adopted a special rule limiting debate
on an amendment in Committee of the Whole and equally dividing the
time between the proponent and an opponent, the Committee of the
Whole may, by unanimous consent, allocate some of the opposition
time to the proponent where no Member has claimed time in
opposition.
The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on
Mar. 3, 1983,(15) during consideration of H.R. 1718
(emergency appropriations for fiscal 1983):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 129 Cong. Rec. 3939, 3943, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: (16) Pursuant to House Resolution 113,
the gentleman
[[Page 11050]]
from New Jersey (Mr. Howard) will be recognized for 15 minutes, and
a Member opposed to the amendment will be recognized for the other
15 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. David E. Bonior (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is there a Member opposed who wishes to control that time?
No Member has responded, and the Chair recognizes the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Howard) for 15 minutes.
Mr. [M. G. (Gene)] Snyder [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Snyder: The Chairman, since no one has risen in opposition,
would it be permissible to ask unanimous consent to transfer 5
minutes of the opposition time to the gentleman from New Jersey?
The Chairman: Under unanimous consent, yes.
Mr. Snyder: Mr. Chairman, I make that request.
The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Kentucky?
There was no objection.
Parliamentarian's Note: The Committee of the Whole may not by
unanimous consent extend time for debate set by the House, but may
reallocate time where there is no opposition.
Enacting Clause Where Pro Forma Amendments Prohibited
Sec. 74.19 A special rule governing consideration of a bill
in Committee of the Whole which prohibits the Chair from
entertaining pro forma amendments for the purpose of debate does
not preclude the offering of a preferential motion that the
Committee rise and report the bill to the House with the
recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken, since that
motion is not a pro forma amendment and must be voted on (or
withdrawn by unanimous consent).
On May 4, 1983,(17) the Committee of the Whole had under
consideration House Joint Resolution 13, calling for a freeze and
reduction in nuclear weapons. House Joint Resolution 13 was being
considered pursuant to a special rule agreed to on Mar.
16,(18) and a special rule providing for additional
procedures for consideration, including the prohibition of pro forma
amendments offered for purposes of obtaining debate time, agreed to on
May 4.(19) A preferential motion was offered:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 129 Cong. Rec. 11072, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
18. H. Res. 138, 129 Cong. Rec. 5666, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
19. H. Res. 179, 129 Cong. Rec. 11037, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Elliott H.] Levitas [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a
preferential motion.
[[Page 11051]]
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Levitas moves that the Committee rise and report the
resolution back to the House with the recommendation that the
resolving clause be stricken.
Mr. [Thomas J.] Downey of New York: Mr. Chairman, I have a
point of order.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: (20) The gentleman will
state his point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Leon E. Panetta (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Downey of New York: Mr. Chairman, my understanding of the
rule is that there is a provision in the rule that prohibits
motions of this sort for the purpose of debate time. Is that
correct?
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair will advise the gentleman
it only prohibits pro forma amendments, not preferential motions
such as the gentleman has offered.
CHAPTER 29
Consideration and Debate
I. DURATION OF DEBATE IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Sec. 75. General Debate
On most bills considered in the Committee of the Whole, a special
rule reported from the Committee on Rules and adopted by the House
provides for a certain number of hours of general debate, equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of
the reporting committee.(1) If no special rule provides for
the duration of general debate, the House may agree by unanimous
consent to limit such debate.(2) And where the House has
fixed the time for general debate, the Committee may not, even by
unanimous consent, extend such time.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. See Sec. 74, supra, for the effect of special rules on the duration
of debate in the Committee of the Whole.
2. See Sec. 75.10, infra.
3. See Sec. 75.7, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If neither a special rule nor a unanimous-consent agreement has
provided for the duration of general debate in the Committee, the
debate proceeds under the hour rule, each Member being recognized for
one hour, and is unlimited until the Committee or the House acts to
close the debate.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. See Sec. Sec. 75.1-75.4, infra. For the one-hour limitation per
Member, see Sec. Sec. 75.5, 75.6, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross References
Committee of the Whole and debate generally, see Ch. 19, supra.
Control and distribution in general debate, see Sec. Sec. 24-26, supra.
Effect of special orders on duration of general debate, see Sec. 74,
supra.
General debate on appropriation bills, see Ch. 25, supra.
Opening and closing debate generally, see Sec. 7, supra.
Recognition generally on bills considered in the Committee of the
Whole, see Sec. 16, supra.
Special orders generally, see Ch. 21, supra.
[[Page 11052]]
-------------------General Debate Under the
Hour Rule
Sec. 75.1 Absent an agreement in the House limiting the time for
general debate in the Committee of the Whole, debate in the
Committee is under the hour rule.
On July 28, 1969,(5) Mr. John Dowdy, of Texas, asked
unanimous consent for the consideration of H.R. 9553, amending the
District of Columbia Minimum Wage Act, in the House as in the Committee
of the Whole. Mr. Brock Adams, of Washington, reserved the right to
object and propounded a parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 115 Cong. Rec. 20850, 20851, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the gentleman from Washington should object to the request
and we should go into the Committee of the Whole for the
consideration of this bill, then what would be the time
requirements? Would there be 1 hour of debate to be divided between
the opposition and the proponents?
The Speaker: (6) The Chair will state that if the
unanimous-consent request is objected to, under the rules a motion
will be in order to go into the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and the gentleman from Texas would control 1
hour, unless the time is fixed by unanimous consent prior to going
into the Committee of the Whole.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
7. See also 93 Cong. Rec. 2464, 2465, 80th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 24,
1947; 81 Cong. Rec. 7680-97, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., July 27,
1937; and 81 Cong. Rec. 5754, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., June 15,
1937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 75.2 General debate in the Committee of the Whole when considering
District of Columbia business is under the hour rule and is
otherwise unlimited unless the House provides otherwise.
On May 12, 1941,(8) the House resolved itself into the
Committee of the Whole for the consideration of District of Columbia
legislation pending on the Union Calendar. Since no time for debate had
been fixed, Chairman William M. Whittington, of Mississippi, recognized
five Members successively for an hour's debate each.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 87 Cong. Rec. 3917-40, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 28, 1969,(9) Speaker John W. McCormack, of
Massachusetts, stated, in response to a parliamentary inquiry, that
should a bill called up by the Committee on the District of Columbia,
pending on the Union Calendar, be considered in the Committee of the
Whole, debate in the Committee would be under the hour rule and
unlimited absent an agreement in the House limiting general debate in
the Committee.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 115 Cong. Rec. 20850, 20851, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
10. See also 75 Cong. Rec. 7990, 72d Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 11, 1932.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 11053]]
Sec. 75.3 Where the time for general debate in Committee of the Whole
has not been fixed, the Chair may recognize a Member under the hour
rule and then decline to recognize any other Member until that hour
is exhausted.
On July 27, 1937,(11) the Committee of the Whole was
considering, under general debate, H.R. 7730, to authorize the
President to appoint administrative assistants. No time had been fixed
in the House for the length of general debate. Mr. John Taber, of New
York, had the floor under
the hour rule and Mr. Bertrand
H. Snell, of New York, sought
recognition, which was refused
by Chairman Wright Patman, of Texas, Mr. Taber declining to yield or
relinquish his time. The Chairman then answered a parliamentary
inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 81 Cong. Rec. 7680-97, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Earl C.] Michener [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Michener: Under the rules of the House, when we go into the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, as we have
in this instance, without fixing the time for debate, am I correct
in saying that anyone recognized by the Chair is recognized for an
hour, and has the Chair the discretion of recognizing certain
individuals and then permitting those individuals to yield their
time to other individuals, to the exclusion of other Members who
are seeking recognition?
The Chairman: That has been the practice.
Sec. 75.4 When the House resolves itself into the Committee of the
Whole for the consideration of an appropriation bill without fixing
the time for debate, the Member first recognized is entitled to an
hour and may yield such portions of that time as he desires, and
after that hour another Member is recognized for an hour.
On Mar. 24, 1947,(12) 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, an appropriation bill. He proposed a
unanimous-consent agreement for time for general debate on the bill,
and Mr. John J. Rooney, of New York, objected to the request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 93 Cong. Rec. 2464, 2465, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, then answered a
parliamentary inquiry on recognition and time for debate in the
Committee of the Whole, where the time and control of debate have not
been fixed:
[[Page 11054]]
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. Rooney: 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.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Since appropriations bills reported by the Committee on
Appropriations are privileged for consideration (see Rule XI
clause 4(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 726 [1995]), they are
normally considered without a special order from the Committee
on Rules. See, generally, Ch. 25, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One-hour Limitation on General Debate
Sec. 75.5 Although a Member may have control of time for general debate
in the Committee of the Whole, he may not consume more than one
hour, except by unanimous consent.
On July 22, 1958,(14) Mr. Clarence Cannon, of Missouri,
was in control of time for debate on
an appropriations bill. Chairman James J. Delaney, of New York, advised
him that he had consumed one hour. Mr. Cannon stated he wished to
consume the remainder of his time, and the Chairman asked whether there
was objection to Mr. Cannon proceeding for one additional minute. Mr.
Donald W. Nicholson, of Massachusetts, objected to the request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 104 Cong. Rec. 14647, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Mar. 6, 1962,(15) Mr. J. Vaughan Gary, of Virginia,
was in control of time for general debate on an appropriations bill.
When Chairman W. Homer Thornberry, of Texas, advised him that he had
consumed one hour of his time, he asked and was given permission to
proceed for five additional minutes.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 108 Cong. Rec. 3484-89, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
16. See also 115 Cong. Rec. 21174-78, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., July 29,
1969; and 111 Cong. Rec. 26258, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 7,
1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 75.6 Where debate in the Committee of the Whole was proceeding
under the hour rule and the Member with the floor had yielded the
balance of his time to another, the Chair declined to recognize for
a unanimous-consent request that the latter Mem
[[Page 11055]]
ber be permitted additional time.
On Mar. 24, 1947,(17) general debate was proceeding
under the hour rule in the Committee of the Whole on H.R. 2700, the
Department of Labor and Federal Security Agency appropriation bill. Mr.
John J. Rooney, of New York, who had the floor, yielded the balance of
his time to Mrs. Mary T. Norton, of New Jersey, who asked unanimous
consent for additional time. Chairman Clifford R. Hope, of Kansas,
ruled that the request was not in order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 93 Cong. Rec. 2476, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mrs. Norton: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed
for 10 additional minutes.
The Chairman: The Chair regrets that the request is not in
order at this time, as the time is under the control of the
gentleman from New York and is restricted under the rules of the
House.
Mrs. Norton: Is it not possible to get that additional time by
unanimous consent? I have known it to be done in many, many other
cases.
The Chairman: That would be true under the 5-minute rule, but
we are proceeding now in general debate, and under the rules of the
House that is not permitted.
Parliamentarian's Note: No limits on debate having been set by the
House, Mrs. Norton could have consumed the remainder of Mr. Rooney's
time and then sought recognition for one hour in her own right.
Where Time Fixed by House
Sec. 75.7 Time for general debate in the Committee of the Whole having
been fixed by the House, the Committee of the Whole may not, even
by unanimous consent, extend it.
On June 23, 1959,(18) Chairman Clark W. Thompson, of
Texas, declined to recognize for a unanimous-consent request to extend
time for debate in the Committee of the Whole, the House having fixed
the time:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 105 Cong. Rec. 11666, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Charles A.] Vanik [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield for a consent request?
Mr. [Howard W.] Smith of Virginia: I yield.
Mr. Vanik: I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from
Virginia may be permitted to proceed for 10 additional minutes.
The Chairman: The time has been fixed in the House. The
gentleman's request is not in order.
The gentleman from Virginia will proceed.
Effect of Special Rule
Sec. 75.8 Where the House pursuant to a special rule has di
[[Page 11056]]
vided the control of general debate in the Committee of the Whole
between the chairman and ranking minority member of the committee
which reported the bill, it is not in order for a Member to whom
time has been yielded to ask unanimous consent
for additional time, although
the Members in control may yield additional time.
On Dec. 17, 1970,(19) the Committee of the Whole was
conducting general debate on H.R. 19446, the Emergency School Aid Act
of 1970, pursuant to House Resolution 1307, dividing control of general
debate between the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Education and Labor. Mr. John Conyers, Jr., of Michigan,
who had been yielded time in debate, asked unanimous consent for
additional time when his yielded time had expired. Chairman James C.
Corman, of California, indicated that such a request was not in order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 116 Cong. Rec. 42222, 42223, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: The time of the gentleman from Michigan has
expired.
Mr. Conyers: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed
for 2 additional minutes.
The Chairman: The Chair will state to the gentleman from
Michigan that the time is under the control of the managers of the
bill, the gentleman from California (Mr. Bell) and the gentleman
from Kentucky (Mr. Perkins).
Mr. [Alphonzo] Bell of California: Mr. Chairman, I yield the
gentleman from Michigan 2 additional minutes.
Various Examples of Unanimous-consent Agreements
Sec. 75.9 The House agreed to
a unanimous-consent request providing that the House resolve itself
into the Committee of the Whole for the consideration of a
concurrent resolution on the House Calendar and providing that
there be one hour of general debate (one-half hour on each side).
On June 22, 1965,(20) the House agreed to a unanimous-
consent request for the consideration of a Senate concurrent resolution
on the House Calendar:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 111 Cong. Rec. 14400, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Dante B.] Fascell [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that the House resolve itself into the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the
reconsideration of Senate Concurrent Resolution 36 expressing the
sense of the Congress with respect to the 20th anniversary of the
United Nations during International Cooperation Year, and for other
purposes, and that general
[[Page 11057]]
debate thereon be limited to 1 hour, one-half hour to be controlled
by myself and one-half hour to be controlled by the gentlewoman
from Ohio [Mrs. Bolton].
The Speaker: (1) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Florida?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
Sec. 75.10 In the consideration of the general appropriation bill of
1951, containing all the appropriations for the various agencies of
the government, it was agreed in the House by unanimous consent
that: (1) general debate in the Committee of the Whole be equally
divided between the chairman and the ranking minority member of the
Committee on Appropriations; and (2) following the reading of the
first chapter of the bill for amendment, not to exceed two hours'
general debate be had before the reading of each subsequent
chapter, one-half to be controlled by the chairman and one-half by
the ranking minority member of the subcommittee in charge of the
chapter.
On Apr. 3, 1950,(2) Clarence Cannon, of Missouri,
Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, moved to resolve into
Committee of the Whole for consideration of the general appropriation
bill of 1951 and made the following unanimous-consent request on the
control of time for debate, which was agreed to by the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 96 Cong. Rec. 4614, 4615, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the
consideration of the bill (H.R. 7786) making appropriations for the
support of the Government for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1951,
and for other purposes; and pending that I ask unanimous consent
that time for general debate be equally divided, one-half to be
controlled by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Taber] and one-half
by myself; that debate be confined to the bill; and that following
the reading of the first chapter of the bill, not to exceed 2 hours
general debate be had before the reading of the subsequent chapter,
one-half to be controlled by the chairman and one-half by the
ranking minority member of the subcommittee in charge of the
chapter.
Parliamentarian's Note: In prior years there had been 11 separate
appropriation bills for the various government agencies. In 1951 they
were consolidated into one bill.
Time Used for Parliamentary Inquiry
Sec. 75.11 Where a Member to whom time has been yielded
[[Page 11058]]
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,(3) the Chairman of the Committee of
the Whole responded to a parliamentary inquiry, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 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: (4) The gentleman will state his
parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 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.
Relevancy of General Debate
Sec. 75.12 Where a special rule provided for the chairman
of the Committee on International Relations to designate Members to
equally divide and control two extra hours of general debate on
a bill in Committee of the Whole, the chairman of said committee
informed the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole of his
designation of himself, another member of the majority party and
two members of the minor-ity party to control one-half hour each;
and the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole advised that such
debate was not required by the rule to be confined to any
particular issue, but to the bill as a whole.
On July 31, 1978,(5) Mr. Clement J. Zablocki, of
Wisconsin, the chairman of the Committee on International Relations,
made a statement as to the division of control of time for debate
pursuant to a special rule providing for two extra hours of debate on
H.R. 12514, foreign aid authorizations for fiscal 1979. The intent
behind requesting the extra hours had been to afford debate directed at
the Turkish arms embargo issue, but the rule properly omitted any
reference to the scope of debate, other than the requirement that all
general debate be confined to the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 124 Cong. Rec. 23456, 23457, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Zablocki: Mr. Chairman, under the rule, it is my
understanding that
[[Page 11059]]
the 1 hour for general debate on the entire bill, that that hour is
equally divided between myself and the ranking minority member, the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Broomfield).
Then the 2 hours that the rule provides for the Greek-Turkey-
Cyprus issue, that there be 1 hour in support of lifting the
embargo and 1 hour in opposition, and that the hour in support
would be divided between myself and the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Broomfield), and those in opposition to lifting the embargo
would be managed by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Fascell) and
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Derwinski).
The Chairman: (6) The Chair will respond to the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Zablocki) that the Chair has been
informed that the gentleman from Wisconsin has designated the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Fascell) for 1 hour, and also the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Derwinski) for 1 hour. The rule, of
course, does not confine any such debate to the embargo issue
alone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Don Fuqua (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limiting Debate Under Statutory Schemes
Sec. 75.13 Pursuant to section 21(b) of the Federal Trade Commission
Improvements Act, a motion to limit debate on a concurrent
resolution disapproving an FTC regulation in Committee of the Whole
is privileged and is not debatable, and is in order pending the
motion that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the
Whole to consider the concurrent resolution.
The following proceedings occurred in the House on May 26,
1982,(7) during consideration of a motion that the House
resolve into the Committee of the Whole to consider Senate Concurrent
Resolution 60 (disapproving Federal Trade Commission regulations
regarding the sale of used motor vehicles):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 128 Cong. Rec. 12027, 12029, 9th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
the provisions of section 21(b) of Public Law 96-252, I move that
the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union for the consideration of the Senate
concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 60) disapproving the Federal
Trade Commission trade regulation rule relating to the sale
regulation rule relating to the sale of used motor vehicles; and
pending that motion, Mr. Speaker, I move that general debate on the
Senate concurrent resolution be limited not to exceed 2 hours, 1
hour to be controlled by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Florio)
and 1 hour to be controlled by the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Lee). . . .
The Speaker: (8) The gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Dingell) made the motion that the debate be limited to 2 hours. . .
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair will state that the motion to limit debate is not
debatable.
[[Page 11060]]
Mr. [Toby] Moffett [of Connecticut]: I cannot yield, Mr.
Speaker?
The Speaker: The motion is pending. . . .
The Chair will put the question.
The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Dingell) to limit the debate to 2 hours. . . .
[The motion was agreed to.]
The Speaker: The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) that the House resolve itself
into the Committee of the Whole House.
The motion was agreed to.
Parliamentarian's Note: A motion to resolve into Committee of the
Whole for consideration of a concurrent resolution disapproving an
agency action is highly privileged and may be offered before the third
day on which is report thereon is available since, Rule XI, the
requirement of class 2(l)(6) of that rule that committee reports be
available to Members for three days is not applicable to a measure
disapproving a decision by a government.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. See Sec. 244, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAPTER 29
Consideration and Debate
I. DURATION OF DEBATE IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Sec. 76. -- Closing General Debate
Rule XXIII provides that general debate in the Committee of the
Whole is ``closed by order of the House.'' (10) The motion
in the House to close general debate is not in order until the
Committee has risen after some debate has been had on the bill in the
Committee of the Whole,(11) but the House may by unanimous
consent close debate or fix debate in the Committee of the Whole before
such debate has begun.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Rule XXIII clause 5(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 870 (1995). For
general principles as to closing general debate, see House
Rules and Manual Sec. 871 (1995).
11. See Sec. Sec. 76.3-76.5, infra.
12. See Sec. Sec. 76.6, 76.8, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although it would not be in order by motion in the House to close
the debate prior to the expiration of the time previously fixed by the
House, a unanimous-consent agreement may so provide, either in the
House or in the Committee itself.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See Sec. Sec. 76.7, 76.10, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where the managers of a bill agree between themselves to close
general debate prior to the time fixed by the House, they may yield
back their remaining time without obtaining unanimous
consent.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See Sec. Sec. 76.1, 76.2, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The motion that the Committee rise, if adopted, terminates general
debate for that sitting of the Committee. The motion is non
[[Page 11061]]
debatable and of high privilege. The motion is generally within
the discretion of the Member in charge of general debate, and may not
be moved by a Member yielded time for debate only.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See Sec. Sec. 76.12, 76.13, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross References
Closing debate generally, see Sec. 7, supra.
Closing debate in the House as distinguished from Committee of the
Whole, see Sec. 72, supra.
Closing five-minute debate in Committee of the Whole, see Sec. 78,
infra.
Closing general debate on appropriation bills, see Ch. 25, supra.
Control of time for debate, see Sec. Sec. 24-26, supra.
Effect of special rules generally, see Ch. 21, supra.
Prior rights of committee members and Members in charge to close
debate, see Sec. Sec. 13, 14, supra.
Procedure in Committee of the Whole generally, see Ch. 19,
supra. -------------------
Agreement of Managers To Terminate General Debate
Sec. 76.1 Where a bill is being considered in the Committee of the
Whole under a rule specifying the time for general debate, the
managers of the bill need not use all of the prescribed time but
may agree among themselves to terminate further general debate and
begin consideration of the bill under the five-minute rule; such an
agreement is between the managers and is not an agreement of the
Committee of the Whole.
On Sept. 26, 1966,(16) the Committee of the Whole was
proceeding with general debate on H.R. 15111, Economic Opportunity Act
Amendments, pursuant to House Resolution 923, providing eight hours of
debate. The managers of the bill were Mr. Sam M. Gibbons, of Florida,
and Mr. Albert H. Quie, of Minnesota. Chairman Jack B. Brooks, of
Texas, indicated that the managers could agree between themselves not
to use all of the allotted time and that such an agreement was not for
the Committee of the Whole to decide but for the managers to decide:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 112 Cong. Rec. 23785, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Gibbons: Mr. Chairman, do I understand we have reached an
agreement now that on both sides we will yield back time to where
we only have 2 hours of general debate tomorrow? That has been
done, as I understand it. Is that correct?
The Chairman: In reply to the request of the gentleman from
Florida, I think it would be fair to state the agreement as to
yielding time is between you and the gentleman from Minnesota.
[[Page 11062]]
Mr. Gibbons: Then, of course, the only other question is to get
unanimous consent to come in at 11 o'clock tomorrow.
The Chairman: As to any agreement as to when the House comes
back tomorrow, that will be settled, of course, when the Committee
rises.
Mr. Gibbons: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now
rise.
Sec. 76.2 Where managers of a bill being considered in the Committee of
the Whole agree not to use all the time for general debate
permitted under the rule, the Chair takes cognizance of the
agreement and may announce it to the Committee.
On Sept. 27, 1966,(17) the House resolved itself into
the Committee of the Whole for the further consideration of H.R. 15111,
Economic Opportunity Act Amendments, whose consideration had been
discontinued on the prior day. Prior to the Committee's rising on the
prior day, the managers of the bill, Mr. Sam M. Gibbons, of Florida,
and Mr. Albert H. Quie, of Minnesota, had indicated they would not use
all of the eight hours of debate allotted to them under the special
order, but would yield back some of their time (see Sec. 76.1, supra).
Accordingly, Chairman Jack B. Brooks, of Texas, made the following
announcement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 112 Cong. Rec. 23946, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When the Committee rose on yesterday, the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Powell] had 3 hours and 12 minutes remaining, and the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Ayres] had 2 hours and 29 minutes
remaining.
Before the Committee rose, the gentleman from Florida [Mr.
Gibbons] and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Quie] had agreed to
limit further general debate to 4 hours, to be equally divided and
controlled by the majority and the minority.
Accordingly, the Chair will recognize the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Powell] for 2 hours, and the gentleman from Minnesota
[Mr. Quie] for 2 hours.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Closing General Debate by Motion in the House
Sec. 76.3 In the House, a motion to fix general debate on an
appropriation bill prior to resolving into the Committee of the
Whole is not in order, but after there has been debate in the
Committee of the Whole and the Committee rises, the motion is in
order.
On Feb. 18, 1947,(18) Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of
Massachusetts, answered a parliamen
[[Page 11063]]
tary inquiry on the motion in the House to fix debate in the Committee
of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 93 Cong. Rec. 1138, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I move that the
House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 1968)
making appropriations to supply urgent deficiencies in certain
appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1947, and for
other purposes; and pending that motion, Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that general debate be limited to 1 hour, to be
equally divided and controlled by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr.
Cannon] and myself.
The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from New York?
Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, reserving
the right to object, is this the bill that contains the cuts of
appropriations for OPA?
Mr. Taber: Yes.
Mr. Marcantonio: Then I object, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Taber: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Taber: The House may go into the Committee of the Whole and
later, after debate has occurred, rise, and then a motion would be
in order to close debate; but otherwise a motion would not be in
order at this time to close?
The Speaker: The gentleman from New York states the situation
accurately. The House must first go into Committee and have general
debate, and then rise and fix the time of debate by vote.
Sec. 76.4 The House can close debate on a bill by motion at any time
after debate has been had in the Committee of the Whole even though
the effect of adopting the motion to close debate would be to
deprive Members of the time allotted to them.
On May 17, 1934,(19) general debate had been had in the
Committee of the Whole on a bill and the Committee rose. Mr. Vincent L.
Palmisano, of Maryland, moved that the House resolve again into the
Committee and moved that debate on the bill close instanter. Speaker
Henry T. Rainey, of Illinois, overruled a point of order against the
motion:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 78 Cong. Rec. 9066, 73d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Palmisano: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve
itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the
Union for the further consideration of the bill (H.R. 4548) to
provide old-age securities for persons over 60 years of age
residing in the District of Columbia, and for other purposes, and
pending that motion I move that debate upon the bill do now close,
and on that I demand the previous question.
Mr. [Thomas L.] Blanton [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I make the
point of order that the motion is out of order
[[Page 11064]]
because time has already been allotted in the committee to certain
gentlemen whose full time has not expired.
The Speaker: The House can close debate at any time after
debate has been had in the Committee of the Whole.
Sec. 76.5 After two hours of general debate in the Committee of the
Whole, the Committee rose; pending a motion to resolve again into
the Committee of the Whole, the House adopted a motion that general
debate close instanter.
On July 27, 1937,(20) the Committee of the Whole was
conducting general debate, under the hour rule, on H.R. 7730, to
authorize the President to appoint six administrative assistants. No
time had been fixed for general debate. The Committee rose after two
hours of such debate. Mr. J. W. Robinson, of Utah, then moved that the
House resolve itself again into the Committee and also moved, pending
that motion, that all debate on the bill close, on which motion he
moved the previous question. The House adopted the motion:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 81 Cong. Rec. 7680-97, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Robinson of Utah: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now
resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state
of the Union for the further consideration of the bill (H.R. 7730)
to authorize the President to appoint not to exceed six
administrative assistants; and pending that motion, I move that all
debate on the bill do now close, and on that I move the previous
question.
The Speaker: (1) The gentleman from Utah moves that
the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill
H.R. 7730; and pending that motion, the gentleman from Utah moves
that all debate on the bill do now close. Upon that he moves the
previous question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question is, Shall the previous question be ordered?
The previous question was ordered.
The Speaker: The question is on the motion of the gentleman
from Utah that all debate on the bill H.R. 7730 do now close.
Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand
the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The question was taken; and there were--yeas 255, nays 79,
answered ``present'' 1, not voting 96. . . .
Closing General Debate by Unanimous Consent
Sec. 76.6 The House agreed by unanimous consent to dispense with
general debate on an appropriation bill in the Committee of the
Whole.
[[Page 11065]]
On July 5, 1945,(2) the House agreed to a unanimous-
consent request by Mr. Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, dispensing with
general debate on a bill in the Committee of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 91 Cong. Rec. 7226, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the
consideration of the bill (H.R. 3649), making appropriations for
war agencies for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1946, and for
other purposes; and pending that motion, Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to dispense with general debate in the Committee
of the Whole.
In response to parliamentary inquiries, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of
Texas, stated that under a procedure allowing no general debate, points
of order against paragraphs in the bill should be made when the
relevant paragraph was read for amendment in the Committee of the
Whole.
Parliamentarian's Note: A motion to dispense with general debate
would not have been in order, since a motion to limit debate may not be
made in the House until general debate has commenced in the Committee
of the Whole.
Sec. 76.7 Where the Committee of the Whole rose, after consuming a
portion of the time prescribed by the House for general debate, the
House agreed by unanimous consent that when the Committee should
resume consideration of the bill, the debate be further limited.
On June 27, 1968,(3) the Committee of the Whole had
risen after consuming a portion of the three hours of general debate on
S. 1166 (Gas Pipeline Safety Act), which time was provided for
in House Resolution 1215. The House agreed to a unanimous-consent
request further limiting debate in the Committee of the Whole on the
bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 114 Cong. Rec. 19105, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Harley O.] Staggers [of West Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that when the Committee of the Whole continues
the consideration of the bill (S. 1166) to authorize the Secretary
of Transportation to prescribe safety standards for the
transportation of natural and other gas by pipeline, and for other
purposes, that the time for general debate be limited to 30 minutes
with 15 minutes for the minority and 15 minutes for the majority
side.
The Speaker: (4) Without objection, it is so
ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
Sec. 76.8 Prior to resolving into the Committee of the Whole
[[Page 11066]]
on a privileged appropriation bill, the House, by unanimous
consent, agreed that general debate close at a time certain and
that at the conclusion of general debate the Committee rise.
On Apr. 9, 1963,(5) Mr. Albert Thomas, of Texas, moved
that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole and made
a unanimous-consent request on the time for general debate, which
request was agreed to by the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 109 Cong. Rec. 6044, 6045, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the
consideration of the bill H.R. 5517, making supplemental
appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1963, and for
other purposes; and, pending that motion, Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that general debate on the bill be concluded not
later than 5 p.m. today, one-half of the time to be controlled by
the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Bow], and one-half by myself, and that
at the conclusion of general debate today the Committee will rise.
. . .
The Speaker: (6) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Texas?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
The Speaker: The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Thomas].
The motion was agreed to.
Effect of Special Rule
Sec. 76.9 Where the Committee of the Whole is proceeding in general
debate on a bill pursuant to a special rule adopted by the House, a
motion in the Committee that such debate be closed instantly is not
in order.
On Sept. 25, 1951,(7) the Committee of the Whole was
conducting general debate on H.R. 39, the Marketing Facilities Act.
Chairman Lindley Beckworth, of Texas, stated that under the special
rule adopted by the House for consideration of the bill, Mr. Harold D.
Cooley, of North Carolina, had 30 minutes of debate and Mr. Clifford R.
Hope, of Kansas, 30 minutes. Mr. Paul W. Shafer, of Michigan, made a
point of order and then withdrew it, but also moved that debate be
closed ``now'' and that ``we vote on the bill.'' The Chairman ruled
that the motion was not in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 97 Cong. Rec. 12084, 12089, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unanimous Consent in Committee To Truncate Debate
Sec. 76.10 The House having fixed time for debate on a bill in the
Committee of the Whole,
[[Page 11067]]
it was held that the Committee of the Whole could by unanimous
consent further limit such debate as it desired.
On July 5, 1939,(8) the Committee of the Whole was
conducting general debate on a bill, the House having fixed time for
debate at two hours, to be divided by two Members. Chairman Lawrence
Lewis, of Colorado, stated that the Committee of the Whole could by
unanimous consent further limit the time for general debate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 84 Cong. Rec. 8625, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: The gentleman is entitled to an hour and the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Bloom] is entitled to an hour.
Mr. [Sol] Bloom: I understand that. The gentleman is entitled
to an hour and I am entitled to an hour, but I am asking the
gentleman if we cannot agree on less time so we can get through
with this bill. If the gentleman desires to use his full hour, then
he does not want to agree on time. That is up to him.
Mr. [Andrew C.] Schiffler [of West Virginia]: But we cannot
agree at this time.
Mr. [Cassius C.] Dowell [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, that agreement
should have been made in the House instead of in Committee of the
Whole. We are now under the rule. That is a rule of the House and
the time should have been fixed in the House before the House went
into Committee.
The Chairman: The Committee can limit time by unanimous consent
if it so desires.
Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New
York?
Mr. [Frank E.] Hook [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I object.
Motion That the Committee Rise
Sec. 76.11 When the House has limited general debate to a time certain
and provided for the Committee of the Whole to rise at the
expiration of that time, the Chairman of the Committee announces
the arrival of the time and the Committee rises without a motion
being made.
On Apr. 9, 1963,(9) the House agreed to a motion by Mr.
Albert Thomas, of Texas, that the House resolve itself into the
Committee of the Whole for the consideration of a bill and agreed to
his unanimous-consent request that debate conclude at a time certain,
at which time the Committee would rise. When the appointed time arrived
in the Committee, Chairman Richard Bolling, of Missouri, announced that
the Committee rise
[[Page 11068]]
under the previous order, and the Committee rose accordingly, without a
motion being made to that effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 109 Cong. Rec. 6073, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 76.12 The motion that the Committee of the Whole rise (thereby
cutting off debate) is not debatable and is always within the
discretion of the Member handling the bill before the Committee.
On June 16, 1948,(10) Mr. Walter G. Andrews, of New
York, was handling the consideration of H.R. 6401 in the Committee of
the Whole. He moved that the Committee rise, and Chairman Francis H.
Case, of South Dakota, ruled that the motion was within Mr. Andrews'
discretion:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 94 Cong. Rec. 8521, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Andrews of New York: Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that
two or three Members who have time are not here, I move that the
Committee do now rise.
The Chairman: The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Andrews].
Mr. [George A.] Smathers [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I would
like to be heard on that.
The Chairman: That is not a debatable motion. It is always
within the discretion of the gentleman handling the bill to move
that the Committee rise.
Sec. 76.13 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,(11) Mr. Howard W. Smith, of Virginia,
moved, in time yielded him in the Committee of the Whole by Mr. Adam C.
Powell, Jr., of New York, for general debate, that the Committee rise.
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. Mr. Hugo S.
Sims, Jr., of South Carolina, was then yielded time for debate by Mr.
Powell and yielded to Mr. Smith who again moved that the Committee
rise, stating he had ``some time of my own.'' The Chairman ruled that
the motion was not in order, since Mr. Sims was yielded time for
general debate and could not yield to Mr. Smith for the making of the
motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 96 Cong. Rec. 2178, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On appeal, the Chairman's ruling was sustained.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 11069]]
Parliamentarian's Note: When the House has vested control of
general debate in the Committee of the Whole in the chairman and
ranking minority member of the committee reporting a bill, their
control of general debate may not be abrogated by another Member moving
that the Committee rise--unless they yield for that purpose.
CHAPTER 29
Consideration and Debate
I. DURATION OF DEBATE IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Sec. 77. Five-minute Debate
Debate under the five-minute rule in the Committee of the Whole is
provided for by Rule XXIII clause 5:
When general debate is closed by order of the House, any Member
shall be allowed five minutes to explain any amendment he may
offer, after which the Member who shall first obtain the floor
shall be allowed to speak five minutes in opposition to it, and
there shall be no further debate thereon, but the same privilege of
debate shall be allowed in favor of and against any amendment that
may be offered to an amendment; and neither an amendment nor an
amendment to an amendment shall be withdrawn by the mover thereof
unless by the unanimous consent of the committee.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. House Rules and Manual Sec. 870 (1995). See also id. at
Sec. Sec. 872, 873 for the five-minute rule and pro forma
amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A special rule adopted by the House for the consideration of a bill
may alter the normal effect
of the five-minute rule. For example, a special rule permitting only
committee or designated amendments to be offered requires that there be
only two five-minute speeches on each such amendment without extension
of time or pro forma amendments.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See Sec. Sec. 77.19-77.22, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The pro forma amendment, such as moving to ``strike the last word''
or to strike ``the requisite number of words,'' although technically an
amendment, is used for purposes of debate or explanation under the
five-minute rule where it is not intended by the mover
to offer a substantive amendment.
A Member who has debated an amendment may offer or speak in opposition
to a pro forma amendment, and a Member who has offered an amendment may
speak in opposition to a pro forma amendment thereto, without violating
the prohibition against speaking twice on the same
amendment.(15) But a Member may not twice offer pro forma
amendments to gain extensions of time on the same
amendment.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See Sec. Sec. 19.27, 19.28, supra.
16. See Sec. Sec. 77.9, 77.10, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another method of gaining time for debate under the five-minute
[[Page 11070]]
rule is the motion to rise and report back to the House with the
recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken, which motion is
accorded preference under Rule XXIII clause 7:
A motion to strike out the enacting clause of a bill shall have
precedence of a motion to amend, and, if carried, shall be
considered equivalent to its rejection.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. See House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 875, 876 (1995).
For the relative precedence of the motion to strike the
enacting clause and the motion to limit or close debate under
the five-minute rule, see Sec. 78, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This motion is not in order until the first section of the bill has
been read.(18) It has precedence over a pending amendment
and may be offered again after substantive amendment of the bill; but
if challenged, the Member making the motion must qualify as being
opposed to the bill.(19) Only two five-minute speeches are
permitted by way of debate.(20) The motion is not in order
after debate on a bill has expired under a limitation.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5327; 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2619.
19. See 88 Cong. Rec. 2439, 77th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 13, 1942; 96
Cong. Rec. 6571, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., May 6, 1950.
20. See Sec. Sec. 77.14-77.17, infra.
1. See Sec. 79, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross References
Consideration of and debate on amendments generally, see Ch. 27, supra.
Consideration under five-minute rule of Senate amendments to
appropriation bills, see Ch. 25, supra.
Distribution and alternation of time under the five-minute rule, see
Sec. 25, supra.
Effect of special orders on debate under five-minute rule, see Ch. 21,
supra.
Five-minute debate in House as in Committee of the Whole, see
Sec. Sec. 70, 72, supra.
Five-minute rule on appropriation bills, see Ch. 25, supra.
Recognition generally under the five-minute rule, see Sec. Sec. 12, 14,
21, 22, supra.
Relevancy of debate under the five-minute rule, see Sec. Sec. 37, 38,
supra.
Yielding time under the five-minute rule, see Sec. Sec. 29-31,
supra. -------------------
In General
Sec. 77.1 When an amendment is offered in the Committee of the Whole,
there may be five minutes of debate in favor of such amendment and
five minutes in opposition thereto, but if no Member rises to
oppose the amendment, the Chair may recognize Members under the
five-minute rule to offer perfecting amendments to the pending
amendment.
[[Page 11071]]
On Mar. 9, 1935,(2) an amendment had been offered and
debated for five minutes by the offeror. When no Member rose to seek
recognition for five minutes in opposition to the amendment, Chairman
Emanuel Celler, of New York, recognized Mr. Jesse P. Wolcott, of
Michigan, to offer a perfecting amendment. Mr. T. Alan Goldsborough, of
Maryland, interrupted the reading of the amendment and stated that he
wanted to be recognized on the original amendment. Mr. Wolcott objected
to the interruption, and the Chair ruled that Mr. Wolcott was entitled
to be heard on his amendment without interruption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 79 Cong. Rec. 3312, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 77.2 A Member who has offered an amendment and spoken thereon is
not precluded from recognition to speak to a proposed amendment to
his amendment.
On Nov. 15, 1967,(3) Chairman John J. Rooney, of New
York, ruled as to whether a Member, Augustus F. Hawkins, of California,
who had offered an amendment and spoken thereon, was precluded from
speaking on an amendment to his amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 113 Cong. Rec. 32644, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Hugh L.] Carey [of New York]: A point of order, Mr.
Chairman.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Carey: Mr. Chairman, I have no wish to foreclose the right
of my colleague from California to be heard, but I believe he has
already spoken on the floor for 10 minutes in support of his
amendment.
The Chairman: Since the time the gentleman from California
addressed the Committee with regard to the Hawkins amendment,
another amendment has been offered, which is an amendment to the
Hawkins amendment, and the gentleman from California has not yet
spoken on that.
Mr. Carey: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.
Sec. 77.3 A Member recognized under the five-minute rule may extend his
debate time only by unanimous consent, and a motion to that effect
is not in order.
On Apr. 28, 1976,(4) the following proceedings occurred
in the Committee of the Whole during consideration of House Concurrent
Resolution 611, the first concurrent resolution on the budget for
fiscal year 1977:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 122 Cong. Rec. 11622, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman Pro Tempore: (5) The time of the
gentleman from California (Mr. Leggett) has expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Gillis W. Long (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert L.] Leggett [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that I may be permitted to proceed for 3
additional minutes.
[[Page 11072]]
The Chairman Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from California? . . .
Mr. [Clarence D.] Long of Maryland: Mr. Chairman, I object.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: Objection is heard.
Mr. Leggett: Mr. Chairman, I move that I be given 2 additional
minutes.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: That motion is not in order. The time
of
the gentleman from California (Mr. Leggett) has expired.
Pro Forma Amendments
Sec. 77.4 While a Member may not speak twice on the same amendment, he
may speak
in opposition to a pending amendment and subsequently offer a pro
forma amendment and debate the latter.
On June 30, 1955,(6) Mr. James P. Richards, of South
Carolina, was managing a bill under consideration in the Committee of
the Whole. He had spoken in opposition to a pending amendment and had
then gained the floor by offering a pro forma amendment. Mr. H. R.
Gross, of Iowa, objected that Mr. Richards could not speak twice on the
same amendment. Chairman Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, ruled that Mr.
Richards properly had the floor and could offer a pro forma amendment,
gaining time for debate, where he had already spoken in opposition to
the pending amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 101 Cong. Rec. 9614, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 77.5 While a Member may not be recognized to speak twice on the
same amendment, he may rise in opposition to a pro forma amendment
and accomplish that result.
On July 20, 1951,(7) Chairman Wilbur D. Mills, of
Arkansas, answered a parliamentary inquiry on recognition to debate
amendments in the Committee of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 97 Cong. Rec. 8566, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Jesse P.] Wolcott [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, is it in
order for a Member to talk twice on the same amendment?
The Chairman: A Member may rise in opposition to a pro forma
amendment and accomplish that result, if he desires to do so.
Sec. 77.6 While the rules forbid a Member speaking twice on an
amendment offered under the five-minute rule, he may speak on the
amendment and later in opposition to a pro forma amendment offered
during the pendency of the original amendment.
On Mar. 13, 1942,(8) Chairman Robert Ramspeck, of
Georgia, rec
[[Page 11073]]
ognized, during five-minute debate in the Committee of the Whole, Mr.
Everett M. Dirksen, of Illinois, to speak in opposition to a pro forma
amendment. Mr. Frank E. Hook, of Michigan, objected that a Member could
not speak twice on the same amendment and that Mr. Dirksen had already
spoken on the pending amendment. The Chairman ruled that Mr. Dirksen
could speak on the pro forma amendment although he had already spoken
to the pending substantive amendment.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 88 Cong. Rec. 2425, 77th Cong. 2d Sess. See also 103 Cong. Rec.
9033, 85th Cong. 1st Sess., June 13, 1957.
9. For the prohibition against one Member speaking twice to the same
question, see Rule XIV clause 6, House Rules and Manual
Sec. 762 (1995). For amendment under the five-minute rule,
permitting a Member to speak only once on an amendment, see
Rule XXIII clause 5(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 870 (1995).
Pro forma amendments are discussed id. at Sec. 873.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 77.7 Where there was pending in the Committee of the Whole an
amendment and a substitute therefor, the Chair stated, in response
to parliamentary inquiries: (1) that the Member offering the
substitute could debate it for five minutes and could subsequently
be recognized to speak for or against the original amendment; and
(2) that a Member recognized to speak on a pending amendment later
might offer a pro forma amendment and thereby be entitled to a
second five minutes of debate.
On July 28, 1970,(10) an amendment and a substitute
therefor were pending to a bill being considered under the five-minute
rule in the Committee of the Whole. Chairman William H. Natcher, of
Kentucky, responded to parliamentary inquiries on recognition of
Members for amendments and substitute amendments:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 116 Cong. Rec. 26027, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [William H.] Harsha [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. Harsha: How many times is a Member permitted to speak on
his own amendment?
The Chairman: The gentleman from Ohio inquires as to how many
times a Member may speak on his own amendment. The answer to that
is he may speak one time to his amendment.
Mr. Harsha: The author of the amendment is asking for
additional time, and some of the rest of us have not had any time.
Mr. [B. F.] Sisk [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my
request and yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. [Harold R.] Collier [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
[[Page 11074]]
The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. Collier: Is that rule not also applicable to any other
Member of the House, once he has spoken on an amendment?
The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
Mr. [James C.] Cleveland [of New Hampshire]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. Cleveland: Am I not correct
in stating that when the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Schwengel)
offered his amendment, he spoke on it; and am I not correct that
when the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Reuss) offered an amendment
the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Schwengel) offered a substitute. Would
not the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Schwengel) be allowed to speak for
5 minutes for or against the Reuss amendment, as well as in support
of his own substitute?
The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
Mr. Cleveland: I thank the Chairman.
Mr. [Joe D.] Waggonner [Jr., of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Waggonner: Under the rules of the House cannot a Member
move to strike the last word and be considered on the same
amendment?
The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
Mr. Waggonner: And under those conditions a man could speak
twice, could he not?
The Chairman: Possibly. If a Member were to speak one time in
opposition to an amendment subsequently he could move to strike the
last word and he would be entitled to be recognized.
Restrictions on Pro Forma Amendments
Sec. 77.8 During debate on an amendment under the five-minute rule, a
Member who has been recognized for five minutes on a pro forma
amendment cannot thereafter gain additional time by offering a
second pro forma amendment.
On Mar. 25, 1965,(11) an amendment was under discussion
under the five-minute rule in the Committee of the Whole. Chairman
Richard Bolling, of Missouri, sustained a point of order against a
Member's offering a second pro forma amendment on the same amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 111 Cong. Rec. 6002, 6003, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Charles E.] Goodell [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I rise in
support of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, in the process of hearings one of the things
which became apparent to many of us on the subcommittee considering
this legislation was that the allocation formula, although
superficially attractive, was extremely discriminatory as to
certain parts of the country. . . .
[[Page 11075]]
Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the requisite number of
words.
The Chairman: The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. [Adam C.] Powell [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a point of
order.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Powell: Did not the gentleman from New York get permission
just a few minutes ago to speak for 5 minutes?
The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
Mr. Powell: I make the point of order, then, that he is out of
order.
The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.
Sec. 77.9 A Member, having been recognized under the five-minute rule
to debate his amendment and then having secured an extra five
minutes by unanimous consent, may not further extend his time by
moving to strike out the last word.
On Aug. 17, 1966,(12) the House was considering under
the five-minute rule H.R. 13228, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle
Safety Act. Mr. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr., of Massachusetts, offered an
amendment and debated it for five minutes. At the expiration of his
five minutes, Chairman Emilio Q. Daddario, of Connecticut, advised him
of that fact, and Mr. O'Neill gained unanimous consent to further
proceed for five minutes. At the expiration of that time, Mr. O'Neill
offered a pro forma amendment and the Chair ruled that he was not
entitled to further recognition to gain debate time by amending his own
amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 112 Cong. Rec. 19662-64, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 77.10 A Member recognized for five minutes on a pro forma
amendment may not extend his time by offering
a substantive amendment without being recognized by the Chair for
that purpose.
On July 28, 1965,(13) Chairman Leo W. O'Brien, of New
York, recognized Mr. William H. Ayres, of Ohio, the ranking minority
member of the Committee on Education and Labor which had reported the
bill under discussion, on a pro forma amendment. The Chair ruled that
Mr. Ayres was not then recognized to offer a substantive amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 111 Cong. Rec. 18631, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Ayres: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for an
additional 5 minutes. . . .
Mr. Chairman, I am most gratified at the assurance of Chairman
Powell
[[Page 11076]]
that a complete committee investigation of National Labor Relations
Board election procedures will be held. Mr. Powell's House floor
statement to me, just prior to a vote on the repeal of section
14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act, means that we can now delve into a
part of labor relations that could have great impact on the
establishment of a good climate for labor-industry relations. . . .
In order to have a cooling-off period, Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Chairman: The Chair has not recognized the gentleman for
that purpose.
Does any other Member offer an amendment at this time?
Motion To Strike Enacting Clause
Sec. 77.11 In the Committee of the Whole, on a motion to rise and
report a recommendation to strike out the enacting clause, only two
five-minute speeches are permitted, and the Chair declines to
recognize for a pro forma amendment.
On Aug. 1, 1957,(14) after Mr. Earl Wilson, of Indiana,
offered a motion that the Committee of
the Whole rise and report back
the pending bill with the recommendation the enacting clause be
stricken, Mr. Leon H. Gavin, of Pennsylvania, sought to gain
recognition on a motion to strike out the last word. Chairman Richard
W. Bolling, of Missouri, declined to recognize him for that purpose.
After two five-minute speeches had been had on the motion, Mr. Gavin
again sought recognition to debate the motion, and the Chairman ruled
that no further debate could be had.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 103 Cong. Rec. 13385, 13386, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 77.12 On a motion to strike out the enacting clause in the
Committee of the Whole, only two five-minute speeches are
permitted, notwithstanding the fact that the second Member,
recognized in opposition to the motion, actually spoke in favor
thereof.
On Mar. 18, 1960,(15) Mr. Paul C. Jones, of Missouri,
offered a motion that the Committee of the Whole rise and report the
pending bill back to the House with the recommendation that the
enacting clause be stricken. Mr. Jones was recognized for five minutes'
debate in support of the motion. Mr. William M. Colmer, of Mississippi,
rose in opposition to the motion and consumed his five minutes,
actually speaking in favor of the motion. Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of
Michigan, then made a point of
[[Page 11077]]
order, which was overruled by Chairman Francis E. Walter, of
Pennsylvania:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 106 Cong. Rec. 6026, 6027, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Chairman, a point of order. I seek recognition in
opposition to the amendment on the ground that the gentleman from
Mississippi [Mr. Colmer] did not talk against the motion.
The Chairman: The 5 minutes for the preferential motion and the
5 minutes against the motion have expired.
Sec. 77.13 On a motion to strike out the enacting clause offered in the
Committee of the Whole, only two five-minute speeches are permitted
and the Chair declines to recognize a request for an extension of
that time.
On July 18, 1951,(16) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan,
offered a motion that the Committee of
the Whole rise and report back
the pending bill with the recommendation that the enacting clause be
stricken. He then asked unanimous consent to revise and extend his
remarks and to proceed for five additional minutes. Mr. Brent Spence,
of Kentucky, objected to the request. Chairman Wilbur D. Mills, of
Arkansas, ruled as follows on the request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 97 Cong. Rec. 8371, 8372, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The gentleman may revise and extend his remarks, without
objection, but he may not proceed for an additional 5 minutes on a
motion to strike out the enacting clause.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. See also 111 Cong. Rec. 6098, 6099, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 26,
1965; and 98 Cong. Rec. 1829, 1830, 82d Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 4,
1952 (debate on the motion is limited to two five-minute
speeches).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 77.14 A motion that the Committee of the Whole rise and report a
bill back to the House with the recommendation that the enacting
clause be stricken takes precedence over a pending amendment to the
bill which has not been debated; such motion
is debatable for 10 minutes (five on each side), and following
disposition of such motion 10 minutes of debate (five on each side)
is permitted on the pending amendment.
On Oct. 17, 1945,(18) the Committee of the Whole was
considering under the five-minute rule an amendment (not yet debated)
to a bill when a motion to rise with the recommendation that the
enacting clause be stricken was made. Chairman Graham A. Barden, of
North Carolina, answered a parliamentary inquiry on the precedence and
effect of the mo
[[Page 11078]]
tion when an amendment was pending:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 91 Cong. Rec. 9751, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a
preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Hoffman moves that the Committee rise and report the
bill back to the House with the recommendation that the
enacting clause be stricken out.
Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. McCormack: My understanding is that on the motion offered
by the gentleman from Michigan there may be 10 minutes of debate, 5
minutes for and 5 minutes against, and that if the motion is
defeated the 10 minutes of debate on the amendment still remain to
be used. Is that correct?
The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
Sec. 77.15 A Member offering a motion in the Committee of the Whole to
strike out the enacting clause of a bill may yield part of the five
minutes available to him to another to make a comment while he has
the floor and remains on his feet.
On Sept. 27, 1945,(19) Chairman Aime J. Forand, of Rhode
Island, ruled as follows on the yielding of time under the five-minute
rule:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 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.
Sec. 77.16 Where a bill has been amended subsequent to the rejection of
a motion to strike out the enacting clause, a second such motion is
in order and is debatable under the five-minute rule
notwithstanding a limitation of remaining debate on the bill.
On May 9, 1947,(20) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan,
offered a motion that the Committee of the Whole rise and report a bill
to the House with the recommendation
[[Page 11079]]
that the enacting clause be stricken, after a previous such motion had
been offered before the bill had been amended, and after a limitation
on debate had been agreed to. Chairman Francis H. Case, of South
Dakota, overruled points of order against the motion:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 93 Cong. Rec. 4974, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hoffman: Mr. Chairman, I offer a preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Hoffman moves that the Committee do now rise and report
the bill back to the House with the recommendation that the
enacting clause be stricken.
Mr. [Pete] Jarman [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order
against the motion.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Jarman: Mr. Chairman, that motion has already been made and
was voted down once.
The Chairman: There have been several amendments adopted on the
bill, it has been changed since that motion was previously acted
on. The Chair overrules the point of order.
Mr. [John M.] Vorys [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Vorys: Mr. Chairman, debate is limited on the bill by
action of the committee.
The Chairman: The gentleman from Michigan has offered a
preferential motion which is in order in spite of the agreement on
closing debate.
Sec. 77.17 The preferential motion to strike the enacting clause may be
offered, debated for five minutes, and then, by unanimous consent,
withdrawn.
On Oct. 7, 1965,(1) Mr. Thomas M. Pelly, of Washington,
offered
a motion in the Committee of
the Whole to strike the enacting clause and gained five minutes' time
for debate thereon, although a limitation on debate had been previously
agreed to. After debate on the motion, Mr. Pelly withdrew the motion by
unanimous consent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 111 Cong. Rec. 26306, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 77.18 The Chair recognizes only two Members to speak on the
preferential motion that the Committee rise and report with the
recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken.
On Dec. 18, 1975,(2) during consideration of the Airport
and Airway Development Act Amendments of 1975 (H.R. 9771) in the
Committee of the Whole, the proceedings described above were as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 121 Cong. Rec. 41799, 41800, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 11080]]
bill back to the House with the
recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken.
The Chairman: (3) The gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Conte) is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his
amendment. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
California (Mr. Anderson).
Mr. [Glenn M.] Anderson of California: Mr. Chairman, I rise in
opposition to the gentleman's motion and yield back the balance of
my time.
The Chairman: The question is on the preferential motion
offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Conte).
The preferential motion was rejected.
Parliamentarian's Note: Since Mr. Anderson utilized only a small
fraction of his time to speak against the preferential motion, Mr.
Garry Brown, of Michigan, sought recognition to speak against the
motion. The Chair declined to recognize him, since only two Members may
be recognized to speak on the motion.
Effect of Special Rule Limiting Amendments
Sec. 77.19 When a bill is being considered under a closed rule
permitting only committee amendments and no amendments thereto,
only two five-minute speeches on an amendment are in order, one in
support and one in opposition.
On May 18, 1960,(4) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 5, the Foreign Investment Tax Act of 1960, reported
by the Committee on Ways and Means, pursuant to the provisions of House
Resolution 468, permitting only amendments offered at the direction of
that committee. Chairman William H. Natcher, of Kentucky, indicated in
response to a parliamentary inquiry that only five minutes for and five
minutes against an amendment were in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 106 Cong. Rec. 10576, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 77.20 When a committee amendment is being considered under a
closed rule prohibiting amendments thereto, only two five-minute
speeches are in order, pro forma amendments are not permitted and a
third Member may be recognized only by unanimous consent.
An illustration of the proposition described above occurred in the
Committee of the Whole on Mar. 8, 1977,(5) during consider
[[Page 11081]]
ation of the Tax Reduction and Simplification Act of 1977 (H.R. 3477).
The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 123 Cong. Rec. 6632, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [William M.] Ketchum [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike the requisite number of words, and I rise in support of
the committee amendment.
The Chairman: (6) The Chair will state that only two
5-minute speeches are in order under the rule absent unanimous
consent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Tom Bevill (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Ketchum: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I may
be permitted to speak in favor of the amendment.
The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Sec. 77.21 Where a bill is being considered under a special rule
permitting only committee amendments and prohibiting amendments
thereto, a second Member rising to support the committee amendment
cannot be recognized.
On Sept. 3, 1959,(7) Chairman William Pat Jennings, of
Virginia, stated that to the pending bill, H.R. 9035, no amendments
were in order under the special rule adopted by the House except
amendments offered by the Committee on Public Works. Mr. Frank J.
Becker, of New York, was recognized for five minutes
to support the second committee amendment offered. At the conclusion of
his remarks, Mr. Toby Morris, of Oklahoma, sought recognition in
support of the amendment. Chairman Jennings declined to recognize Mr.
Morris for that purpose:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 105 Cong. Rec. 17987-89, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair will state to the gentleman that only 5 minutes is
permitted in support of the amendment and 5 minutes in opposition.
Five minutes has been consumed in support of the amendment.
Therefore, the Chair cannot recognize the gentleman at this
time.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. See also 106 Cong. Rec. 10579, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., May 18, 1960
(third Member not entitled to recognition notwithstanding the
fact that the second Member, recognized in opposition, spoke in
favor of the amendment); and 101 Cong. Rec. 4829-34, 84th Cong.
1st Sess., Apr. 20, 1955 (no pro forma amendments permitted).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 77.22 Where a bill is being considered under a special rule which
permits only committee amendments to title I, only the text of a
designated concurrent resolution as an amendment to title II, and
one motion to strike out title III, and prohibits amend
[[Page 11082]]
ments to said amendments, five minutes of debate in support of and
five minutes in opposition to each amendment are in order.
On Oct. 10, 1972,(9) the House adopted House Resolution
1149, called up by Mr. John A. Young, of Texas, from the Committee on
Rules, which provided for the consideration of a bill and limited the
amendments that could be offered thereto:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 118 Cong. Rec. 34583, 34584, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration
of the bill (H.R. 16810) to provide for a temporary increase in the
public debt limit. . . . [T]he bill shall be considered as having
been read for amendment. No amendment shall be in order to said
bill except (1) amendments offered by direction of the Committee on
Ways and Means to title I of the bill; (2) an amendment containing
the text or a portion of the text of H. Con. Res. 713 if offered as
an amendment in the nature of a substitute to title II of the bill
H.R. 16810; and (3) an amendment proposing to strike out title III
of the bill; and said amendments shall be in order, any rule of the
House to the contrary notwithstanding, but shall not be subject to
amendment. . . .
After general debate on the bill in the Committee of the Whole,
Chairman Thomas G. Abernethy, of Mississippi, inquired whether any of
the permitted amendments would be offered. Mr. George H. Mahon, of
Texas, offered the designated amendment to title II of the bill and was
recognized for five minutes in favor of it. The Chair then recognized
Mr. Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas, for five minutes in opposition to the
amendment. The amendment was rejected, no further amendments were
offered, and the Committee rose.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Id. at pp. 34633-36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Debate on Two or More Amendments Considered En Bloc
Sec. 77.23 A Member offering two amendments may, with the consent of
the Committee of the Whole, have them considered together, but such
consent does not permit the Member to debate the measure for two
five-minute periods.
On Mar. 5, 1937,(11) while the Committee of the Whole
was considering for amendment under the five-minute rule an
appropriation bill, Mr. Everett M. Dirksen, of Illinois, asked
unanimous consent that two amendments he was
[[Page 11083]]
offering, both applicable to the same page, be considered together.
There was no objection to the request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 81 Cong. Rec. 1919, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Dirksen then stated he assumed that he was entitled to proceed
for 10 minutes, having two amendments. Chairman Schuyler Otis Bland, of
Virginia, stated that Mr. Dirksen was entitled to only five minutes.
Sec. 77.24 Where amending language is offered to several paragraphs of
a bill as one amendment, only five minutes of debate is permitted
for the amendment and five minutes against.
On July 20, 1942,(12) Chairman Fritz G. Lanham, of
Texas, answered a parliamentary inquiry on the time for debate on an
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 88 Cong. Rec. 6385, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: All debate on the bill has been concluded. Are
there any committee amendments to be offered to the bill?
Mr. [Robert L.] Doughton [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I
offer a committee amendment which I send to the desk.
The Clerk read as follows:
Committee amendment offered by Mr. Doughton: Page 14, line
6, strike out ``32 percent'' and insert in lieu thereof ``22
percent.''
Page 14, lines 9 and 10, strike out ``21 percent'' and
insert in lieu thereof ``16 percent.''
Page 15, line 13, strike out ``87\1/2\ percent'' and insert
in lieu thereof ``90 percent.''
Page 18, line 13, strike out ``37 percent'' and insert in
lieu thereof ``36 percent.''
Page 18, line 18, strike out ``$22,900'' and insert in lieu
thereof ``$22,800.''
Page 18, line 20, strike out ``$22,900'' and insert in lieu
thereof ``$22,800.''
Page 18, line 24, strike out ``$22,900'' and insert in lieu
thereof ``$22,800.''
Mr. [Jere] Cooper [of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary
inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Cooper: It is correct, is it not, that as this is offered
as one amendment under the rule, under which the bill is being
considered only 5 minutes' debate is allowed for the amendment and
5 minutes against?
The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
Sec. 77.25 Where consideration en bloc is granted, by unanimous
consent, of several amendments which had been printed in the
Record, the proponent is entitled only to a total of five minutes
of debate on the amendments.
On July 25, 1974,(13) during consideration of the
Surface Mining
[[Page 11084]]
Control and Reclamation Act of 1974(14) in the Committee of
the Whole, the proposition stated above was demonstrated. The
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 120 Cong. Rec. 25224, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
14. H.R. 11500.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Craig] Hosmer [of California]: . . . I offer . . . my
amendments Nos. 121, 127, 118, and 142 to the committee amendment
in the nature of a substitute, and I ask unanimous consent that all
of these amendments be considered en bloc and considered as read
and printed in the Record.
The Chairman: (15) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from California?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
Mr. Hosmer: Mr. Chairman, I make the additional unanimous-
consent request that instead of the 25 minutes to which I might be
entitled because of the application of rule XXIII, consisting of 5
minutes for each one of these amendments, notwithstanding that
rule, I be recognized only for 5 minutes in toto.
The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman that 5
minutes on his amendments considered en bloc is all the time the
gentleman is entitled to in any event.
Reintroduced Amendments
Sec. 77.26 Upon reintroduction of an amendment which has,
by unanimous consent, been withdrawn in the Committee of the Whole,
the Member is entitled to debate his amendment for a second five-
minute period.
On May 3, 1956,(16) Chairman J. Percy Priest, of
Tennessee, stated, in response to a parliamentary inquiry, that a
Member who reoffers an amendment he has withdrawn in the Committee of
the Whole by unanimous consent is again entitled to debate the
amendment for five minutes:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 102 Cong. Rec. 7439, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Noah M.] Mason [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Mason: Under the rules of the House does a man get two 5-
minute discussions on the same amendment?
The Chairman: The gentleman withdrew his amendment, and it has
been offered again. The gentleman from Maine is recognized for 5
minutes in support of his amendment.
Yielding Under Five-minute Rule
Sec. 77.27 A Member recognized in the Committee of the Whole to debate
an amendment may yield to another for debate if he so desires.
On June 22, 1945,(17) the Committee of the Whole was
consid
[[Page 11085]]
ering a House joint resolution under the five-minute rule. Chairman
Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, recognized for five minutes Mr. Forest A.
Harness, of Indiana, who then yielded 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 and inquired whether one Member
could yield another Member his time under the five-minute rule. The
Chairman overruled the point of order and stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 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: A Member who offers the preferential motion
to strike the enacting clause may yield to another, but may not yield
his full five minutes (see Sec. 77.15, supra); in this instance, 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. 77.28 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,(18) 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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 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.
Sec. 77.29 A Member recognized under the five-minute rule may not yield
to another Member to offer an amendment, as it is within the power
of the Chair to recognize each Member to offer amendments.
On Apr. 19, 1973,(19) the Committee of the Whole was
consid
[[Page 11086]]
ering a bill for amendment under the five-minute rule. Chairman Morris
K. Udall, of Arizona, refused to allow a Member with the floor to yield
to another to offer an amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 119 Cong. Rec. 13240, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Don H. Clausen [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I have an
amendment at the desk. However, at this time I want to yield to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Bingham) who has another appointment,
so that he may offer his amendment at this time.
The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman from
California (Mr. Don H. Clausen) he cannot yield for that purpose.
If the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bingham) were here, the Chair
would recognize him.
Sec. 77.30 Under the five-minute rule in the Committee of the Whole the
Member handling a bill has preference in recognition for debate but
the power of recognition remains with the Chair and the Member
cannot, in contravention of this rule, ``yield'' himself time for
debate.
On Mar. 26, 1965,(20) Adam C. Powell, of New York, was
the Member in charge of debate on H.R. 2362, the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965, which was being considered for
amendment under the five-minute rule in the Committee of the Whole. Mr.
Powell arose and stated ``I yield myself 5 minutes.'' Chairman Richard
Bolling, of Missouri, stated as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 111 Cong. Rec. 6113, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The gentleman cannot yield himself 5 minutes. The Chair assumes
he moves to strike out the last word.
Mr. Melvin R. Laird, of Wisconsin, objected that Mr. Powell had not
moved to strike out the last word, and so moved himself. The Chairman
first recognized Mr. Powell for the motion, as manager of the bill and
Chairman on the Committee on Education and Labor.
Reading Papers
Sec. 77.31 A decision of the Committee of the Whole to permit a Member
to read a letter means that the Member may read the letter within
the five minutes allotted to him, and does not necessarily permit
him to read the entire letter.
On June 26, 1952,(1) while the Committee of the Whole
was considering under the five-minute rule H.R. 8210, the Defense
Production Act Amendments of 1952, Mr. Clinton D. McKinnon, of
California, was recognized on a pro
[[Page 11087]]
forma amendment and began reading a statement by Governor Arnall on a
previously adopted amendment to the bill. Mr. Jesse P. Wolcott, of
Michigan, objected to the reading. Chairman Wilbur D. Mills, of
Arkansas, put the question to the Committee, which voted to permit Mr.
McKinnon to read the letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 98 Cong. Rec. 8175, 8176, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While Mr. McKinnon was reading the letter, Chairman Mills
interrupted him and stated that his five minutes had expired. Mr.
Herman P. Eberharter, of Pennsylvania, made the point of order that the
vote by the Committee permitted Mr. McKinnon to read the entire letter;
the Chairman overruled the point of order:
Mr. Eberharter: Mr. Chairman, the House decided by a teller
vote to permit the reading of this letter. I submit that the letter
should be read in its entirety; that is the point of order I make.
The Chairman: That is not the decision made by the Committee.
The Committee made the decision that the gentleman could read the
letter within the time allotted to the gentleman of 5 minutes.
Mr. Eberharter: I did not hear it so stated when the motion was
put, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: The question put to the Committee had nothing
whatsoever to do with the time to be consumed by the gentleman from
California. The Chair recognized the gentleman from California for
5 minutes; the question arose as to whether or not he could within
that 5 minutes time read extraneous papers.
The point of order is overruled.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. See Rule XXX, House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 915-917 (1995), for
the former rule prohibiting the reading of papers, over
objection, without the consent of the House. For discussion of
Rule XXX, see Sec. Sec. 80 et seq., infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Debate on Appeals
Sec. 77.32 An appeal in the Committee of the Whole is debatable under
the five-minute rule and such debate is confined to the appeal.
On Feb. 22, 1950,(3) the Committee of the Whole was
considering under the five-minute rule H.R. 4453, the Federal Fair
Employment Practice Act. Mr. Adam C. Powell, Jr., of New York, who had
the floor, yielded one minute of debate to Mr. Howard W. Smith, of
Virginia. Mr. Smith delivered some remarks on the lateness of the
session and then moved that the Committee rise. Chairman Francis E.
Walter, of Pennsylvania, ruled that Mr. Smith could not so move, having
been recognized for debate only. Mr. Smith appealed the Chair's ruling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 96 Cong. Rec. 2178, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to a parliamentary inquiry by Mr. John E. Rankin, of
[[Page 11088]]
Mississippi, the Chairman stated that debate on the appeal was under
the five-minute rule. Mr. Rankin debated the appeal, and Mr. Vito
Marcantonio, of New York, made a point of order against Mr. Rankin's
remarks on the ground he was not confining himself to the subject of
the appeal. The Chairman sustained the point of order.
Vacating Proceedings To Permit Debate
Sec. 77.33 By unanimous consent, the proceedings in the Committee of
the Whole by which an amendment was adopted were vacated and the
Chair asked a second time if any Member desired to debate it.
On Mar. 27, 1947,(4) a committee amendment was offered
in the Committee of the Whole. Chairman Francis H. Case, of South
Dakota, inquired whether any Member desired to debate the amendment,
and when no Member so indicated, the Chair put the question on the
amendment. The Committee of the Whole then vacated the proceedings by
unanimous consent in order to permit further debate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 93 Cong. Rec. 2773, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, a
point of order.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. McCormack: My point of order is that the amendment has
apparently been adopted and, as I see it, there has to be unanimous
consent to have the action vacated in order that further
proceedings may be had.
The Chairman: The gentleman is correct. The amendment was
agreed to.
Mr. McCormack: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the
proceedings by which the amendment was adopted be vacated so that
we can go along in an orderly way.
The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
The Chairman: The Chair will again invite anyone who desires to
do so to speak on the committee amendment.
Debate on Points of Order
Sec. 77.34 Debate on points of order against an amendment is within the
discretion of the Chair and does not come out of debate time on the
merits of the amendment under the five-minute rule; thus, the
proponent of an amendment against which a point of order has been
reserved does not reserve a portion of his time under the five-
minute rule to oppose any points of order if made, as separate
debate time is permitted on points of order at the discretion of
the Chair.
[[Page 11089]]
During consideration of H.R. 7014, the Energy Conservation and Oil
Policy Act of 1975, on Aug. 1, 1975,(5) the proposition
described above was demonstrated in the Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 121 Cong. Rec. 26945, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: (6) Are there further amendments to
title III?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Brown of Ohio: Strike out Title
III, as amended, and reinsert all except for Section 301, as
amended.
Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a
point of order against the amendment.
Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I also reserve a
point of order.
Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, the thrust of this amendment
is to strike from the bill the provisions of the Staggers pricing
amendment, section 301, by revising title III to strike the whole
title and to reinsert all in the title, except section 301.
Mr. Chairman, may I speak on the amendment?
The Chairman: The gentleman has been recognized for 5 minutes,
so the gentleman may proceed.
Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, may I reserve 2 minutes of my
time to speak on the points of order?
The Chairman: The Chair will recognize the gentleman to speak
on the points of order at the appropriate time.
Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I have not yet made the point of
order. I reserved it.
The Chairman: The Chair has recognized the gentleman from Ohio
to speak on the gentleman's amendment for 5 minutes. Then the
gentlemen who reserved the points of order may press them or they
may not.
Where Pro Forma Amendment Is in Third Degree
Sec. 77.35 Where a ``modified closed rule'' provides that a designated
amendment may be offered as a new title to a bill and, with the
exception of committee amendments thereto, only one designated
amendment to that amendment may be offered, only two five-minute
speeches are permitted on that amendment to the amendment since a
pro forma amendment thereto would be in the third degree (and a pro
for-ma amendment to the original amendment inserting a new title is
specifically prohibited by the rule), and further debate may be had
only by unanimous consent.
On Dec. 18, 1975,(7) the following proceedings occurred
in the Committee of the Whole during
[[Page 11090]]
consideration of H.R. 9771, the Airport and Airway Development Act of
1975:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 121 Cong. Rec. 41788-90, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Glenn M.] Anderson of California: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment to the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Anderson of California to the
amendment offered by Mr. Ullman: In proposed section 301,
strike out subsections (b) and (c) and insert in lieu thereof
the following:
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to obligations incurred on or after the date of the
enactment of this Act. . . .
Mr. [Sam] Gibbons [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I rise in
opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I will be brief. I have made my talk already. . .
.
Mr. [Alphonzo] Bell [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I rise in
support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from California.
Mr. [James C.] Corman [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve
a point of order.
I will not make the objection, but I only reserve a point of
order to get a ruling from the Chair, because I want some time
also.
Mr. Gibbons: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: (8) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Gibbons: Mr. Chairman, as I understood the rule granted by
the Ways and Means Committee, there was only one amendment, and the
time under the rule was limited to 5 minutes on each side, and that
pro forma amendments or any other amendments are out of order. That
is the way I understand the rule.
The Chairman: The rule is a rather complex rule, and if the
gentleman will permit the Chair to review this matter, the Chair
will respond.
Without objection, the gentleman from California (Mr. Bell) is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection. . . .
Mr. Gibbons: Mr. Chairman, I insist on regular order.
The Chairman: Regular order is demanded.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
California (Mr. Anderson) to the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Oregon (Mr. Ullman).
Debate Under Reservation of Objection
Sec. 77.36 On one occasion, where a Member reserved the right to object
to another Member's unanimous-consent request to revise and extend
his remarks in the Record, debate proceeded under the reservation
of objection rather than under the five-minute rule; the Chairman
of the Committee of the Whole suggested that extensions of time for
debate under the five-minute rule be accomplished by unanimous
consent rather than by reserva
[[Page 11091]]
tion of objection to the unanimous-consent request.
On June 4, 1975,(9) the following proceedings occurred
in the Committee of the Whole during consideration of the Voting Rights
Act extension (H.R. 6219):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 121 Cong. Rec. 16887-89, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Don] Edwards of California: Mr. Chairman, I yield to the
gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Matsunaga).
Mr. [Spark M.] Matsunaga [of Hawaii]: Mr. Chairman, I rise in
support of H.R. 6219; however, there are certain questions which I
would like to have answered relative to title II, as well as title
III.
I would like for the purpose of establishing legislative
history to engage in colloquy with the gentleman from California,
the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Edwards.
To begin with, in both titles II and III of H.R. 6219 coverage
depends on their servicing the voting age population who are
members of single language minority groups. Although the bill
defines minority, the term ``single language minority'' is not
defined.
What is the meaning of ``single language minority''? Does it
mean, for instance, that the minority must have a common single
language?
(Mr. Edwards of California asked and was given permission to
revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Matsunaga: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I may
revise and extend my remarks.
The Chairman: (10) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Hawaii?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert] McClory [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, reserving the
right to object to the unanimous-consent request, I think that it
is appropriate that the committee hear the debate on this subject.
If we are making legislative history with respect to some matter
that is not actually orally debated on the floor of the House, it
seems to me that it is not going to be worth much to the Supreme
Court or any other body that is going to interpret what we are
doing here today.
I do not want any secret, unwritten history with regard to the
extension of the Voting Rights Act. I want to know what we are
doing.
The Chairman: The gentleman from Illinois reserves the right to
object to the unanimous-consent request of the gentleman from
Hawaii to revise and extend his remarks, and makes the point that
there should be debate on that subject rather than extension to
achieve a legislative history.
Mr. Matsunaga: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I may
proceed for 3 additional minutes.
The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Hawaii?
There was no objection. . . .
Mr. McClory: Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield to me on
that point?
Mr. Matsunaga: I will yield to the gentleman as soon as the
gentleman has finished.
The Chairman: The Chair will state that the committee is now
operating under the prior reservation of objection of the gentleman
from Illinois. The time of the gentleman from Hawaii has expired.
[[Page 11092]]
Mr. McClory: Mr. Chairman, further reserving the right to
object, I would like to ask the gentleman where in the legislation
is there provision for this bailout with regard to the subgroups of
a single-language minority group such as Asian Americans? Will the
gentleman point that out in the bill? . . .
The Chairman: The Chair desires to state that this is an
unusual procedure to continue with colloquy under the reservation
of objection during the 5-minute rule. The gentleman who last had
the floor in his own right was the chairman of the subcommittee,
the gentleman from California (Mr. Edwards).
If the chairman of the subcommittee desires to continue this
discussion, the Chair would recommend that the gentleman ask
unanimous consent to proceed for some additional time.
Mr. Edwards of California: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that I may be allowed to proceed for an additional 30
seconds so that we may finish this discussion.
Parliamentarian's Note: An attempt to develop a legislative history
by inserting an apparent colloquy in the Record by unanimous consent is
improper, since the purpose of the request is to permit a Member to
insert only such materials as do not affect the statement of another
Member; a colloquy during proceedings under the five-minute rule must
be presented to all Members of the Committee of the Whole.
Effect of Adoption of Amendment in Nature of Substitute
Sec. 77.37 Where an amendment in the nature of a substitute for a bill
has been adopted
in Committee of the Whole,
the stage of amendments is passed and further amendments, including
pro forma amendments for debate, are not in order; but on one
occasion, when the Committee of the Whole had adopted an amendment
in the nature of a substitute, the Chair, by unanimous consent,
vacated that action to allow a Member to offer a pro forma
amendment.
On May 13, 1977,(11) during
consideration of the Intergovernmental Antirecession Assistance Act of
1977 (H.R. 6810) in the Committee of the Whole, the following
proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 123 Cong. Rec. 14622, 14625, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: (12) Are there further amendments?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Elizabeth Holtzman (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hearing none, the question is on the committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute, as amended.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as
amended, was agreed to.
The Chairman: Under the rule, the committee rises.
[[Page 11093]]
Mr. [Joe D.] Waggonner [Jr., of Louisiana]: Madam Chairman, I
was seeking recognition by the Chair.
The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman that the
Chair had put the question on the committee amendment in the nature
of a substitute. There were no further amendments and, under the
rule, the committee rises.
Mr. [L. H.] Fountain [of North Carolina]: Madam Chairman, I
would like to say that I was standing and was prepared to make a
statement about an amendment which I was going to offer but can no
longer offer because I was not recognized.
The Chairman: Without objection, the Chair will vacate the
proceedings so as to permit the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
Fountain) to make a statement.
There was no objection.
The Chairman: The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Fountain)
is recognized for 5 minutes. . . .
The Chairman: Are there further amendments? If not, the
question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute, as amended.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as
amended, was agreed to.
The Chairman: Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Debate on Divisible Amendment
Sec. 77.38 Where the question has been put on the first portion of a
divisible amendment, further debate on the remaining portion may be
had under the five-minute rule before the Chair puts the question
thereon.
On Aug. 4, 1983,(13) the following proceedings occurred
in the Committee of the Whole during consideration of H.R. 2230 (Civil
Rights Commission Act of 1983):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 129 Cong. Rec. 23134, 23142, 23143, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Don] Edwards of California: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Edwards of California: Page 2,
line 2, insert ``(a)'' after ``Sec. 2''.
Page 2, line 4, strike out ``1998'' and insert ``1988'' in
lieu thereof.
Page 2, after line 4, insert the following:
(b) Section 104(c) of the Civil Rights Act of 1957 (42
U.S.C. 1975c(c)) is amended . . . .
Mr. [F. James] Sensenbrenner [Jr., of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman,
pursuant to the rule, I demand a division of the question. . . .
The Chairman: (14) . . . The Chair would propose to
put the question first only on the date change, and then
on the remainder of the amendment which constitutes in effect one
proposition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Morris K. Udall (Ariz.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Sensenbrenner: That is fine, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: The question now is on that portion of the
amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Edwards)
dealing with the date change from ``1998'' to ``1988.'' . . .
[[Page 11094]]
So that portion of the amendment dealing with the date change
from ``1998'' to ``1988'' was agreed to. . . .
Mr. [Elliott H.] Levitas [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I have a
parliamentary inquiry. . . .
I understand the vote that was just taken was on the first part
of a divided question. My inquiry is: Is it in order at this time
for there to be any further debate on the second portion of the
question that has been divided?
The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman that further
debate would be in order under the 5-minute rule until the Chair
puts the question.
Debate After Adoption of Substitute
Sec. 77.39 Under the five-minute rule, no debate may intervene after a
substitute for an amendment has been adopted and before the vote on
the amendment, as amended, except by unanimous consent (since the
amendment has been amended in its entirety and no further
amendments including pro forma amendments are in order).
The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on
Oct. 18, 1983,(15) during consideration of H.R. 3231, the
Export Administration Amendments:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 129 Cong. Rec. 28185, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman Pro Tempore: (16) The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Bonker), as amended, as a substitute for the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Roth), as amended. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
So the amendment, as amended, offered as a substitute for the
amendment, as amended, was agreed to. . . .
Mr. [Edwin V. W.] Zschau [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike the last word.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: Without objection, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Zschau) is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Effect of Time Limitation on Right to Recognition
Sec. 77.40 In the Committee of the Whole the Member in charge of the
bill having spoken on an amendment may speak again on the amendment
following adoption of a motion to limit debate under the five-
minute rule, where time is allocated by the Chair and the five-
minute rule is abrogated.
On June 25, 1952,(17) Mr. Brent Spence, of Kentucky,
manager of a
[[Page 11095]]
bill being considered in the Committee of the Whole, moved that all
debate on the pending amendment and all amendments thereto conclude at
a certain time, and the motion was agreed to. Chairman Wilbur D. Mills,
of Arkansas, then answered a parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 98 Cong. Rec. 8028, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman [of Michigan]: Under this limitation is
the chairman of the committee, who has already spoken once on this
amendment, entitled to be heard again under the rule?
The Chairman: The chairman of the committee could rise in
opposition to a pro forma amendment and be recognized again.
CHAPTER 29
Consideration and Debate
I. DURATION OF DEBATE IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Sec. 78. -- Closing and Limiting Debate
Rule XXIII clause 6 provides a privileged motion for closing five-
minute debate in the Committee of the Whole:
The committee may, by the vote of a majority of the members
present, at any time after the five minutes' debate has begun upon
proposed amendments to any section or paragraph of a bill, close
all debate upon such section or paragraph or, at its election, upon
the pending amendments only (which motion shall be decided without
debate); but this shall not preclude further amendment, to be
decided without debate. However, if debate is closed on any section
or paragraph under this clause before there has been debate on any
amendment which any Member shall have caused to be printed in the
Congressional Record after the reporting of the bill by the
committee but at least one day prior to floor consideration of such
amendment, the Member who caused such amendment to be printed in
the Record shall be given five minutes in which to explain such
amendment, after which the first person to obtain the floor shall
be given five minutes in opposition to it, and there shall be no
further debate thereon; but such time for debate shall
not be allowed when the offering of
such amendment is dilatory. Material placed in the Record pursuant
to this provision shall indicate the full text of the proposed
amendment, the name of the proponent Member, the number of the bill
to which it will be offered and the point in the bill or amendment
thereto where the amendment in intended to be offered, and shall
appear in a portion of the Record designated for that
purpose.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. House Rules and Manual Sec. 874 (1995). The clause preserving five-
minute debate regardless of a limitation for an amendment which
has been printed in the Record was added to the rule by H. Res.
5 in the 92d Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the House may by unanimous consent limit five-minute
debate in Committee of the Whole, the motion or unanimous-consent
request is ordinarily made in the Committee.(19) The
[[Page 11096]]
motion, which is not debatable, is privileged, but is not in order
until the portion of the bill to which it applies has been read and
debated.(20) By unanimous consent, time under the five-
minute rule may be limited before the relevant portion of the bill is
read, or before there has been debate thereon.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See Sec. Sec. 78.1, 78.2, 78.39, infra. A dated precedent, at 5
Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5229, indicates that the motion under
Rule XXIII clause 6 may be offered in the House.
20. See Sec. Sec. 78.5-78.9, infra, for the privilege of the motion and
Sec. Sec. 78.58, 78.59, infra, for the precedence of the motion
to strike the enacting clause over the motion to close debate.
For the nondebatability of the motion, see Sec. Sec. 78.16,
78.17, infra.
For the proper time of offering
the motion, see Sec. Sec. 78.5, 78.26-78.31, infra (after
reading of relevant portion of bill); Sec. Sec. 78.21-78.25,
infra (after some debate has been had).
1. See Sec. Sec. 78.93-78.95, infra.
To permit a request to limit debate on an entire bill prior
to completion of its reading for amendment would allow
amendments under the limitation only to that portion of the
bill which has been read and, if the limitation were reached,
would require subsequent reading of the remainder of the bill
without further debate on any amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although a motion to close debate is not in order to change the
effect of a prior motion to close debate, the House or the Committee
may by unanimous consent vacate, rescind, or extend a
limitation.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. See Sec. Sec. 78.81-78.88, infra.
A Member who is allotted time, by the Chair, under a
limitation, may not extend his time even by unanimous consent
(see Sec. 79.50, infra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Debate may be closed instantly by motion or unanimous-consent
request; and it may be limited either to a certain number of minutes or
to a fixed time by the clock.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. See Sec. Sec. 78.41, 78.50, 78.51, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The motion may not include a reservation or allocation of time
under the limitation, but time may be reserved under a unanimous-
consent request to limit debate.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. See Sec. Sec. 78.61, 78.62, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another method in which debate may be suspended in the Committee of
the Whole is the motion to rise, which is highly
privileged.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. See Sec. Sec. 78.53-78.55, infra. If the Committee rises and time
was set at a certain amount of minutes of debate when debate is
resumed the unexpired time remains; if time was set to expire
at a fixed time by the clock, and the Committee rises and does
not resume before the time arrives, all time is construed as
having expired (see Sec. 78.57, infra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross References
Closing debate generally, see Sec. 7, supra.
Closing five-minute debate in the House as in the Committee of the
Whole, see Sec. 72, supra.
Closing and limiting general debate, see Sec. 76, supra.
[[Page 11097]]
Effect of limitation on five-minute debate, see Sec. 79, infra.
Procedure generally in Committee of the Whole, see Ch. 19, supra.
Recognition for motion to close debate, see Sec. 23, supra.
Recognition under a limitation on five-minute debate, see Sec. 22,
supra.
Special orders limiting or dispensing with five-minute debate, see
Sec. 74, supra. -------------------
In General; Authority of the Committee of the Whole
Sec. 78.1 The right to close debate under the five-minute rule may be
exercised by the Committee of the Whole.
On Feb. 8, 1964,(6) inquiries were made by Mr. William
M. McCulloch, of Ohio, relative to closing or limiting debate time on
certain unread titles of a bill. Chairman Eugene J. Keogh, of New York,
affirmed the right of the Committee of the Whole to close debate on
those titles by unanimous consent under the five-minute rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 110 Cong. Rec. 2614, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 78.2 By unanimous consent, the Committee of the Whole agreed that
when it resumed consideration of a pending bill on the following
day, debate on all amendments to the bill would be limited to two
hours.
On Mar. 28, 1972,(7) the Committee of the Whole agreed
to a unanimous-consent limitation of debate under the five-minute rule,
to take effect on the following day when consideration would be
resumed:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 118 Cong. Rec. 10673, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert E.] Jones of Alabama: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that debate on all amendments to the bill conclude 2 hours
after the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union
resumes consideration of this bill tomorrow, Wednesday, March 29,
1972.
The Chairman: (8) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Alabama?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
Mr. Jones of Alabama: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee
do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Sec. 78.3 While it is customary for the Chair to recognize the manager
of the pending bill to offer motions to limit debate, any Member
may, pursuant to Rule XXIII clause 6, move to limit debate at the
appropriate time in Committee of the Whole.
[[Page 11098]]
The following proceedings occurred in the House on July 31, 1975:
(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 121 Cong. Rec. 26223, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: (10) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hays of Ohio: Would it be in order for a person not a
member of the committee to move to close debate on whatever pending
amendment there might be, and all amendments thereto, to this bill
when we go into the Committee of the Whole?
The Speaker: It is the practice and custom of the House that
the Chair looks to the manager of the bill for motions relating to
the management of the bill.
Mr. Hays of Ohio: If I made the motion--and I will make it more
specific--would it be out of order or in violation of the rules?
The Speaker: A proper motion could be entertained at the proper
time.
Mr. Hays of Ohio: I am prepared to make such a motion and I
will seek the proper time.
Sec. 78.4 The Chair refused to entertain a unanimous-consent request
regarding the limitation of time for debate on an amendment during
the reading of the amendment.
During consideration of the Energy Conservation and Oil Policy Act
of 1975 (H.R. 7014) in the Committee of the Whole on Sept. 18,
1975,(11) the proceedings described above occurred as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 121 Cong. Rec. 29322, 29323, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [James M.] Jeffords [of Vermont]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Jeffords: Page 331, after line 10,
add the following:
TITLE VI--ENERGY LABELING AND EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR BEVERAGE
CONTAINERS
definitions and coverage
Sec. 601.--For purposes of this part--
(1) The term ``beverage container'' means a bottle, jar,
can, or carton of glass, plastic, or metal, or any combination
thereof, used for packaging or marketing beer . . . or a
carbonated soft drink of any variety in
liquid form which is intended for human consumption. . . .
Mr. Jeffords (during the reading): Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and
printed in the Record due to the fact that it was printed in the
Record with the exception of two words which I shall explain. . . .
Mr. [Phillip H.] Hayes of Indiana: Mr. Chairman, I object. . .
.
Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to
make a unanimous consent request with regard to a limitation of
time. . . .
The Chairman: (12) The Chair will state to the
gentleman from Michigan
[[Page 11099]]
that the reading of the amendment has not been completed and we
should dispose of the reading of the amendment prior to such a
request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk will proceed to read the amendment.
Privilege of Motion
Sec. 78.5 A motion to close debate on a committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute and all amendments thereto is privileged
when made af-ter the amendment has been read and debated.
On Aug. 16, 1967,(13) Chairman Richard Bolling, of
Missouri, overruled a point of order against a motion to limit debate
on a bill and amendments thereto, after a committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute had been read and debated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 113 Cong. Rec. 22754, 22755, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I now move
that all debate on the bill and all amendments thereto conclude at
5 minutes to 4. . . .
Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, a further point of
order.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Hays: Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that a motion
may be made to close debate on an amendment. But this motion is to
close debate on the bill and all amendments thereto.
The Chairman: It happens that the Committee of the Whole is
considering an amendment which is a committee amendment, and the
motion made by the gentleman from New York under the circumstances
is in order.
Sec. 78.6 The pendency of an amendment to a committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute does not preclude a motion to limit debate
on the substitute and all amendments thereto.
On Aug. 16, 1967,(14) Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York,
moved
to limit debate on a committee amendment in the nature of a substitute
and all amendments thereto while an amendment to the substitute was
pending, and Chairman Richard Bolling, of Missouri, overruled a point
of order against the motion:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 113 Cong. Rec. 22754, 22755, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. Hays: Mr. Chairman, the point of order is that there is an
amendment pending, the point of order being can we have another
motion intervene to close debate?
Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the gentleman's
motion is out of order.
The Chairman: The Chair will state that the Chair will have to
overrule
[[Page 11100]]
the gentleman's point of order because a motion may be made on the
amendment, or to close debate, at any time after debate has been
had on the pending amendment.
Sec. 78.7 The motion to limit debate on the pending portion of a bill
and all amendments thereto is in order while an amendment is
pending.
On June 21, 1973,(15) while an amendment was pending in
the Committee of the Whole, Mr. Augustus F. Hawkins, of California,
moved that debate on the bill and amendments thereto close at a certain
time. Chairman Robert C. Eckhardt, of Texas, then answered a
parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 119 Cong. Rec. 20753, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John T.] Myers [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary
inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Myers: Mr. Chairman, there is one motion pending before the
motion made by the gentleman from California. Is this a substitute
motion?
The Chairman: There is an amendment pending, but the motion of
the gentleman from California is in order at this time.
The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from
California (Mr. Hawkins) that all debate on the bill and all
pending amendments thereto close at 11 p.m.
The motion was agreed to.
Sec. 78.8 A motion to close debate in the Committee of the Whole is
privileged after
debate has been had on a
section or paragraph (and amendments thereto) to which the motion
applies.
On Jan. 26, 1932,(16) Chairman John W. McCormack, of
Massachusetts, ruled in the Committee of the Whole that the motion to
close debate under the five-minute rule was privileged and
nondebatable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 75 Cong. Rec. 2749, 72d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [William B.] Oliver [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman----
Mr. [James P.] Buchanan [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman----
The Chairman: For what purpose does the gentleman from Texas
rise?
Mr. Buchanan: Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate upon this
amendment and upon this section do now close.
The Chairman: The question is on the motion of the gentleman
from Texas that all debate on this amendment and the section do now
close.
Mr. [Charles L.] Underhill [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, a
point of order.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Underhill: The Chairman had already recognized the
gentleman from Alabama, and he has the floor and can not be taken
off the floor.
The Chairman: The Chair overrules the point of order. The
question is on
[[Page 11101]]
the motion of the gentleman from Texas.
The question was taken and the motion was agreed to.
Mr. [Allen T.] Treadway [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Treadway: Does the adoption of that vote foreclose debate
on any other part of this section?
The Chairman: The motion closes debate on the pending
paragraph.
Mr. Treadway: Mr. Chairman, I was on my feet asking
recognition.
The Chairman: The motion of the gentleman from Texas is . . . a
privileged motion after debate has been had on the paragraph.
Sec. 78.9 During the five-minute debate in the Committee of the Whole,
the Member managing the bill is entitled to prior recognition to
move to close debate on a pending amendment over other Members who
desire to debate
the amendment or to offer amendments thereto.
On Nov. 25, 1970,(17) the Committee of the Whole was
conducting five-minute debate on H.R. 19504, which was being handled by
Mr. John C. Kluczynski, of Illinois. Mr. Kluczynski was recognized by
Chairman Chet Holifield, of California, to move that all debate on the
pending amendment immediately close. The motion was adopted; Mr.
Jonathan B. Bingham, of New York, attempted to offer an amendment and
Mr. Andrew Jacobs, Jr., of Indiana, attempted to debate the amendment
on which debate had been closed. The Chairman stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 116 Cong. Rec. 38990, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair had not recognized the gentleman from New York or the
gentleman from Indiana. The Chair had recognized the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Kluczynski). The gentleman from Indiana misunderstood
the Chair had recognized him. The Chair had to recognize the
gentleman from Illinois as chairman of the
subcommittee.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. The manager of the bill, and not the proponent of a particular
amendment, is entitled to recognition to close debate on the
amendment. See 111 Cong. Rec. 16228, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., July
9, 1965 (cited at Sec. 7, supra, wherein is generally discussed
the closing of debate and recognition therefor).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 78.10 Although any Member may move, or request unanimous consent,
to limit debate under the five-minute rule in the Committee of the
Whole, the manager of the bill has the prior right to recognition
for such purpose.
The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on
June 19, 1984,(19) during
[[Page 11102]]
consideration of the Immigration Reform and Control Act (H.R. 1510):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 130 Cong. Rec. 17055, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Daniel E.] Lungren [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment end at 7:15.
The Chairman: (20) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from California?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Theodore S.] Weiss [of New York]: Objection, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Objection is heard.
Mr. Lungren: Mr. Chairman, I move----
Mr. [Romano L.] Mazzoli [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I should
be recognized as the floor manager.
The Chairman: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky
(Mr. Mazzoli).
Mr. Mazzoli: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Mazzoli: Mr. Chairman, I believe under the rule, the
gentleman from Kentucky, the floor manager, is entitled to be heard
and to be recognized on matters limiting debate.
Let me just respectfully suggest to my friend, the gentleman
from California, the House has made it clear we are not going to
protract the debate tonight. . . .
Mr. Lungren: Mr. Chairman, if I might reclaim my time, I
indulged the gentleman from Texas and asked him to withdraw his
motion on the pretext that I would make a motion, as I have the
ability to do under the rule, that debate on this amendment shall
end in a half hour. Since I had the gentleman agree to withdraw it,
I feel bound that I will then continue with this motion, and I so
move.
Mr. Mazzoli: Mr. Chairman, can the gentleman say 45 minutes? I
understand 45 minutes will be enough.
The Chairman: If the gentleman from Kentucky has no motion, the
gentleman from California is entitled to make his motion. Does the
gentleman offer a motion?
Mr. Lungren: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I move that debate on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Wright) be concluded at 7:30.
The Chairman: The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Lungren).
The motion was agreed to.
Sec. 78.11 Under the five-minute rule in Committee of the Whole, the
subcommittee chairman who is managing the bill is entitled to prior
recognition to move to limit debate over a Member seeking
recognition to offer a pro forma amendment.
The Committee of the Whole was considering H.R. 7797 (the Foreign
Assistance and related agencies appropriations, 1978) under the five-
minute rule on June 22, 1977,(1) when the following
proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 123 Cong. Rec. 20288, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 11103]]
Mr. [Jonathan B.] Bingham [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike the requisite number of words.
Mr. [Clarence D.] Long of Maryland: Mr. Chairman, I was on my
feet seeking recognition.
The Chairman: (2) For what purpose does the
gentleman from Maryland rise?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Abraham Kazen, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Long of Maryland: Mr. Chairman, I rise to ask unanimous
consent for a limitation on the debate.
The Chairman: Will the gentleman make his request.
Mr. Long of Maryland: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that all debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto cease
in 10 minutes.
Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I object.
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I object.
The Chairman: Objection is heard.
Mr. Long of Maryland: Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on
this amendment and all amendments thereto cease in 10 minutes.
Mr. Ashbrook: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. Ashbrook: Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that the
Chairman recognized the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bingham) and
he was halfway down the aisle.
The Chairman: The Chair saw both gentlemen at the same time,
and he did recognize the gentleman from Maryland because the Chair
had to, by custom and rule, I believe, recognize the chairman of
the subcommittee. . . .
The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Long).
The motion was agreed to.
Sec. 78.12 The Chair may recognize the manager of a bill to request a
limit on debate on a pending portion of the bill before recognizing
a Member to offer an amendment thereto.
On Dec. 4, 1979,(3) the following proceedings occurred
in the Committee of the Whole during consideration of the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission Authorization bill (H.R. 2608):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 125 Cong. Rec. 34516, 34518, 34519, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: (4) Is there any further debate on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Harris)? If
not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Harris).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Leon E. Panetta (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The amendment was agreed to.
The Chairman: The Chair will indicate that we believe there is
one additional amendment to be offered by the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Gonzalez).
Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: Mr. Chairman, then I would
ask unanimous consent that all debate on this bill and all
amendments thereto close at 4:15.
The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Arizona?
[[Page 11104]]
There was no objection.
The Chairman: Members standing at the time the unanimous
consent request was granted will be recognized for 10 seconds each.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez).
Mr. [Henry B.] Gonzalez [of Tex-as]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Gonzalez: Page 11, after line 15,
add the following new title:
TITLE IV--PROTECTION FOR INSPECTORS
Sec. 401. Section 1114 of Title 18, United States Code is
amended by inserting ``any construction inspector or quality
assurance inspector on any Nuclear Regulatory Commission
licensed project,'' after ``Department of Justice.''.
After debate on a point of order, Mr. Gonzalez made a parliamentary
inquiry:
The Chairman: . . . The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez) is
recognized for 40 seconds.
Mr. Gonzalez: Mr. Chairman, I would like now to interpose my
parliamentary inquiry with regard to the time allotted me. . . .
Why should I be limited to a motion that was made subsequent to
the knowledge that I had a pending amendment to offer?
Had I known that I would come under that limitation on a
subsequent motion, though I had not been recognized for the purpose
of amendment, because the gentleman from Arizona was recognized
anticipatorily on a motion I had no knowledge was going to be made.
If I had known, I would have objected to the unanimous-consent
request, because I wanted the opportunity to offer the amendment
and be given at least 5 minutes, that is the customary time
allotted a Member.
Let me say this, in order to avoid any kind of an argument. How
much net time will I have to present this amendment?
The Chairman: The gentleman has 1 minute and 20 seconds on his
amendment. . . .
With regard to the parliamentary inquiry, the Chair would
indicate that he first recognized the chairman, the gentleman from
Arizona as manager of the bill, that the gentleman made a
unanimous-consent agreement with regard to limitation of time and
that there was no objection.
Therefore, the gentleman is recognized for 1 minute and 20
seconds on his amendment.
Interruption of Member by Proposal To Limit Debate
Sec. 78.13 A Member having the floor in debate on his amendment may not
be interrupted without his consent by a motion to close debate in a
specified time.
On Aug. 21, 1940,(5) Mr. John C. Schafer, of Wisconsin,
offered an amendment under the five-minute rule in the Committee of
[[Page 11105]]
the Whole and was recognized for five minutes:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 86 Cong. Rec. 10698, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: (6) The gentleman from Wisconsin is
recognized for 5 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Abe Murdock (Utah).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Schafer of Wisconsin: Mr. Chairman----
Mr. [Henry B.] Steagall [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that all debate on this section and all
amendments thereto close in 5 minutes.
Mr. [Jesse P.] Wolcott [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I object.
Mr. Steagall: Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on this
section----
Mr. Schafer of Wisconsin: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Schafer of Wisconsin: Mr. Chairman, I did not yield to the
gentleman from Alabama to submit a unanimous-consent request or to
make a motion. I have some rights here under the rules of the
House. I demand the regular order, and that is that I be permitted
to continue without interruption.
The Chairman: The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes, but
there is a motion before the House.
Mr. Schafer of Wisconsin: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of
order against that motion. I did not yield for the gentleman to
make a motion. I had the floor. The gentleman did not ask me to
yield and I did not yield. I have some rights under the rules of
the House and I ask that they be respected by the gentleman who has
interrupted even though he is chairman of the important committee
in charge of the pending legislation.
The Chairman: The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5
minutes.
Sec. 78.14 A motion to limit debate on an amendment, while privileged,
cannot deprive another Member of the floor.
On Mar. 12, 1964,(7) a Member with the floor on his
amendment under the five-minute rule declined to yield to another
Member to move to limit debate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 110 Cong. Rec. 5118, 5119, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Glen C.] Cunningham [of Nebraska]: Mr. Chairman, I rise in
support of my amendment.
Mr. [James H.] Morrison [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield for a unanimous-consent request?
Mr. Cunningham: For a unanimous-consent request I yield; yes.
Mr. Morrison: I wonder if we can agree that all debate on the
amendment and all other amendments to title II end in 20 minutes.
Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Chairman, I do not yield for that purpose.
That would come out of my time.
Mr. Morrison: After consideration of the gentleman's amendment,
could all debate on all amendments end in 20 minutes?
Mr. [August E.] Johansen [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I object.
Mr. [Paul C.] Jones of Missouri: I object.
[[Page 11106]]
The Chairman: (8) Objection is heard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Morrison: Mr. Chairman, I move that be done.
The Chairman: The gentleman from Nebraska has the floor. Does
the gentleman from Nebraska yield to the gentleman from Louisiana?
Mr. Cunningham: No, because I wish to make a statement.
Following my statement the gentleman can be recognized.
The Chairman: The gentleman from Nebraska is recognized for 5
minutes.
Sec. 78.15 Time consumed in disposing of unanimous-consent requests or
motions to limit debate on an amendment in the Committee of the
Whole is charged to the Member who had been recognized under the
five-minute rule and who had yielded for that purpose.
On June 1, 1972,(9) Chairman Robert N. Giaimo, of
Connecticut, ruled on whether time for interruptions for which a Member
with the floor under the five-minute rule yielded, would be taken out
of that Member's time:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 118 Cong. Rec. 19476, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [William V.] Chappell [Jr., of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I
offer an amendment. . . .
Mr. [Harley O.] Staggers [of West Virginia]: Mr. Chairman,
would the gentleman yield to me?
Mr. Chappell: I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
Mr. Staggers: I have asked the gentleman from Florida to yield
to me in order to ascertain if we could set a limit of debate on
this amendment.
Having heard the amendment read, it is a very simple amendment,
and it can be read again if needed.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all
debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 10
minutes.
The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from West Virginia?
Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I object.
The Chairman: Objection is heard.
Mr. Staggers: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all
debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 15
minutes.
The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from West Virginia?
Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary
inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. Gross: Mr. Chairman, is this coming out of the gentleman's
time?
The Chairman: The Chair will state that that is correct.
Motion Not Debatable
Sec. 78.16 A motion to close debate under the five-minute rule in the
Committee of the Whole is not debatable.
On Mar. 26, 1965,(10) Chairman Richard Bolling, of
Missouri, ruled
[[Page 11107]]
that a motion to close debate under the five-minute rule is
nondebatable:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 111 Cong. Rec. 6098, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Adam C.] Powell [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I move that
all debate on this title and all amendments thereto close now. . .
.
Mrs. [Edith S.] Green of Oregon: Mr. Chairman . . . I rise in
opposition to this motion.
The Chairman: Does the gentleman from New York [Mr. Powell]
withdraw his motion?
Mr. Powell: I do not, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. [Robert P.] Griffin [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Griffin: Mr. Chairman, I understand the chairman of the
full committee to move that debate on title II be cut off at this
time. Was that the motion by the gentleman from New York?
The Chairman: The motion, as the Chair understood it, was that
all debate on section 202 of title II close.
The question is on the motion of the gentleman from New York.
Mr. [William M.] Colmer [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman----
The Chairman: For what purpose does the gentleman from
Mississippi rise?
Mr. Colmer: Mr. Chairman, do I understand the ruling of the
Chair to be that a motion to close debate is not debatable?
The Chairman: That is correct.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See also 75 Cong. Rec. 11453, 72d Cong. 1st Sess., May 27, 1932;
and 75 Cong. Rec. 2749, 72d Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 26, 1932.
For the basis of the ruling, see Rule XXIII clause 6, House
Rules and Manual Sec. 874 (1995): ``The committee may, by the
vote of a majority of the members present, at any time after
the five minutes' debate has begun upon proposed amendments to
any section or paragraph of a bill, close all debate upon such
section
or paragraph or, at its election,
upon the pending amendments only (which motion shall be decided
without debate).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 78.17 A motion to fix the closing of debate under the five-minute
rule in the Committee of the Whole is not debatable.
On Mar. 30, 1950,(12) Chairman Oren Harris, of Arkansas,
responded as follows to a parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 96 Cong. Rec. 4423, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John] Kee [of West Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I move that
all debate on title I and all amendments thereto close in 30
minutes.
Mr. [Compton I.] White of Idaho: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary
inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. White of Idaho: I would like to know if this motion is
debatable.
The Chairman: The motion is not debatable.
Similarly, Chairman Howard W. Smith, of Virginia, ruled on Jan.
[[Page 11108]]
19, 1944,(13) that a motion that ``all debate on section 2
and all amendments thereto close in 30 minutes'' was not debatable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 90 Cong. Rec. 418, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Jan. 26, 1932, Mr. James P. Buchanan, of Texas, moved, in the
Committee of the Whole, that all debate on a pending amendment and on a
pending section close instantly. Chairman John W. McCormack, of
Massachusetts, ruled that the motion was privileged and not
debatable.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 75 Cong. Rec. 2749, 72d Cong. 1st Sess. See also 111 Cong. Rec.
6098, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 26, 1965; and 90 Cong. Rec.
418, 78th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 19, 1944.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 78.18 The motion to close debate is not subject to debate.
An illustration of the principle described above was demonstrated
in the Committee of the Whole on June 5, 1975,(15) as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 121 Cong. Rec. 17187, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I move that
all debate on the committee amendment and all amendments thereto
conclude at 5:15 o'clock.
Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
The Chairman: (16) The motion is not debatable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Bob Wilson (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from
Michigan.
The motion was agreed to.
Sec. 78.19 A motion to limit debate under the five-minute rule in
Committee of the Whole is not subject to debate.
On May 18, 1977,(17) during debate in the Committee of
the Whole on the Federal Employees' Political Activities Act of 1977
(H.R. 10), Mr. William Clay, of Missouri, made the following motion:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 123 Cong. Rec. 15418, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Clay: Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on the bill and
all amendments thereto close at 9 o'clock.
The Chairman: (18) . . . Does the Chair understand
the gentleman's motion to be that all debate on the committee
amendment and all amendments thereto cease at 9 o'clock?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. James R. Mann (S.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Clay: And the bill is a part of the motion.
The Chairman: That is the bill. . . .
Mr. [Daniel R.] Glickman [of Kansas]: Mr. Chairman, under this
type of motion is it true that no Member of the body is allowed to
speak for or against the motion?
I would like to speak against the motion. Is that possible?
The Chairman: The Chair will state that the motion is not
debatable.
The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Clay).
[[Page 11109]]
Sec. 78.20 A motion to limit debate under the five-minute rule in
Committee of the Whole is not subject to debate.
During consideration of the foreign aid authorization bill (H.R.
12514) in the Committee of the Whole on Aug. 1, 1978,(19)
the following exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 124 Cong. Rec. 23716, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I move
that all debate on the pending amendments and all amendments
thereto conclude at 4:30. . . .
Mr. Gary A. Myers [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, is the
motion now before the House debatable?
The Chairman: (20) The Chair will advise the
gentleman that it is not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Don Fuqua (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time for Motion To Close Debate
Sec. 78.21 A motion to close five-minute debate in the Committee of the
Whole is in order after some debate has been had on the pending
proposition.
On Feb. 27, 1931,(1) Mr. James S. Parker, of New York,
moved to close debate in the Committee of the Whole after some debate
had been had under the five-minute rule. Chairman William H. Stafford,
of Wisconsin, overruled a point of order against the motion:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 74 Cong. Rec. 6300, 71st Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Parker: There is no reason why amendments can not be
offered to the bill. There is no reason why Members should not
offer as many amendments as they choose. Mr. Chairman, I make the
motion that all debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto
close in 15 minutes.
The Chairman: The gentleman from New York moves that all debate
on the pending amendment and all amendments thereto close in 15
minutes.
Mr. [George] Huddleston [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, I make the
point of order that this is an attempt in the committee to fix time
for the future, which is in violation of the rules of the House.
The Chairman: The Chair will state that, under the rules of the
House, after any quota of debate has been had on one amendment it
is then the privilege of the committee to close debate. . . .
Paragraph 6 of Rule XXIII provides:
The committee may, by the vote of a majority of the members
present, at any time after the five minutes' debate has begun
upon proposed amendments to any section or paragraph of a bill,
close all debate upon such section or paragraph or, at its
election, upon the pending amendments only (which motion shall
be decided without debate); but this shall not preclude further
amendment, to be decided without debate.
Mr. Huddleston: Of course, I understand that, but the point I
am making is that this is not a motion to close
[[Page 11110]]
debate but it is a motion to fix time. That is what the motion is.
The Chairman: The present occupant of the chair cannot follow
the argument of the gentleman. It seems to the Chair, with due
respect, that the gentleman's point is a distinction without a
difference.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. The Chair may entertain a motion to close debate before debate has
been had where no point of order is made against the motion.
See 114 Cong. Rec. 22094, 22095, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., July 18,
1968.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 78.22 A motion to close debate on a section of or an amendment to
a bill in the Committee of the Whole is not in order until there
has been some debate on the section or amendment.
On Mar. 26, 1965,(3) Chairman Richard Bolling, of
Missouri, stated that a motion to close debate on a section in the
Committee of the Whole was not in order until some debate had been had
thereon:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 111 Cong. Rec. 6100, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
State Plans
Sec. 203. (a) Any State which desires to receive grants
under this title shall submit to the Commissioner a State plan,
in such detail as the Commissioner deems necessary, which--
(1) designates a State agency which shall, either directly
or through arrangements with other State or local public
agencies, act as the sole agency for administration of the
State plan. . . .
The Chairman: For what purpose does the gentleman from New
York, the chairman of the committee, rise?
Mr. [Adam C.] Powell [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I move that
all debate on section 203 of title II----
The Chairman: If the gentleman will permit, the Chair will
advise the chairman of the committee that motion is not in order
until there is debate on the section.
On the same day,(4) Chairman Bolling sustained a point
of order by Mrs. Edith S. Green, of Oregon, against a motion offered by
Mr. Powell to close debate on a section, which motion had been offered
immediately after the section had been read and before any debate had
occurred thereon.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Id. at pp. 6097, 6098.
5. See also 111 Cong. Rec. 6104, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 26, 1965;
and 82 Cong. Rec. 1809, 75th Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 17, 1937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 9, 1965,(6) Chairman Richard Bolling, of
Missouri, ruled as follows on the proper time to offer a motion to
close debate on an amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 111 Cong. Rec. 16233, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Basil L.] Whitener [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I
offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
[[Page 11111]]
Amendment offered by Mr. Whitener: On page 14 after line 6
strike all of section 4 and insert in lieu thereof the
following:
``Sec. 4. (a) To assure that the right of citizens of the
United States to vote. . . .
Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield for a unanimous-consent request?
Mr. Whitener: I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. Celler: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all
debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto end in 10
minutes.
The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I object.
Mr. Celler: Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on this
amendment and all amendments thereto end in 10 minutes.
The Chairman: The Chair will have to advise the gentleman that
no such motion is in order until the gentleman from North Carolina
has been heard on his amendment. The gentleman from North Carolina
is recognized for 5 minutes.
On Mar. 21, 1930,(7) Chairman Earl C. Michener, of
Michigan, ruled that a motion to close debate on an amendment was in
order after one speech of five minutes had been had on the
amendment.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 72 Cong. Rec. 5858, 71st Cong. 2d Sess.
8. See also 113 Cong. Rec. 32349, 32350, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Nov.
14, 1967; and 93 Cong. Rec. 2557, 80th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar.
25, 1947.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 78.23 The motion to close debate in the Committee of the Whole is
in order after one five-minute speech.
On Mar. 26, 1965, Chairman Richard Bolling, of Missouri, answered a
parliamentary inquiry as follows:
Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Halleck: Mr. Chairman, under the Rules of the House would
it be possible or permissible to move to close debate on the whole
bill until each section has been read?
The Chairman: Under the practices and precedents of the House
the bill is being read by sections. A motion is in order to close
debate on each section after it has been read and debated.
Mr. Halleck: How much debate on each section is required to be
had?
The Chairman: At least 5 minutes.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 111 Cong. Rec. 6104, 89th Cong. 1st Sess. See also 72 Cong. Rec.
5858, 71st Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 21, 1930.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 78.24 After debate, however brief, the motion to close debate
under the five-minute rule is in order.
On Apr. 8, 1964,(10) Chairman Phillip M. Landrum, of
Georgia,
[[Page 11112]]
overruled a point of order against a motion to limit debate under the
five-minute rule:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 110 Cong. Rec. 7298, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Harold D.] Cooley [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I
move that all debate on this amendment and on this bill close by 6
o'clock.
Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, a point of
order.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Halleck: As I understand it, that motion is not in order
until the first speech has been made in support of the amendment
and then a 5-minute speech in opposition to it.
Mr. [Carl] Albert [of Oklahoma]: He just made the 5-minute
speech.
The Chairman: There has been debate on this amendment already.
The motion is in order.
Mr. [Charles B.] Hoeven [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Hoeven: Mr. Chairman, has the entire bill been read?
The Chairman: The entire bill has been read, and there has been
debate on this amendment.
Mr. [Ralph F.] Beermann [of Nebraska]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Beermann: As I understand it, one speaker may speak for the
amendment and one against it. Is that correct?
The Chairman: That has been done.
Mr. Beermann: So far only the author of the amendment has
spoken for it. Three minutes were granted additionally by the
majority leader and 3 minutes were requested by the minority
leader. There has been no 5-minute debate against the amendment.
The Chairman: There has been debate on the amendment, the Chair
advises the gentleman, and the motion of the gentleman from North
Carolina is in order.
--What Qualifies as ``Debate'' To Permit Clause 6 Motion
Sec. 78.25 The motion to close
debate under the five-min-ute rule is in order after
one speech, even though the Member making the speech, after gaining
recognition to strike out the last word, obtains consent to speak
out of order.
On Mar. 26, 1965,(11) Chairman Richard Bolling, of
Missouri, stated in response to a parliamentary inquiry that a motion
to close debate under the five-minute rule on an entire bill could not
be offered until the last section of the bill had been read and debated
for at least five minutes. The Clerk then read the last section of the
pending bill, and Mr. George W. Andrews, of Alabama, gained recognition
by moving to strike out the last word. He asked and was given
permission to speak out of
[[Page 11113]]
order and delivered remarks not related to the pending bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 111 Cong. Rec. 6104, 6105, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following Mr. Andrews' remarks, Mr. Adam C. Powell, of New York,
moved that all debate on the final section close instantly, and the
Chairman stated in response to a parliamentary inquiry that the motion
was properly offered:
Mr. Powell: Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on this
section close now.
Mr. [Albert H.] Quie [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Quie: The gentleman who has just spoken, spoke out of
order. Therefore, there was no debate on the bill. Therefore, I ask
if it is possible to strike out the last word.
The Chairman: The gentleman obtained the 5 minutes by the
motion to strike out the last word. Therefore, there has been
debate on this section.
The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from New
York.
The motion was agreed to.
Motion To Close Debate in Order Only on Matter Read
Sec. 78.26 A motion to close debate on a bill in the Committee of the
Whole is not in order until the bill has been completely read.
On June 29, 1949,(12) Chairman Hale Boggs, of Louisiana,
sustained a point of order against a motion to close debate on a bill
because the motion was offered before the bill had been read:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 95 Cong. Rec. 8652, 8653, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Brent] Spence [of Kentucky]: Then Mr. Chairman, I move
that all debate on the bill and all amendments thereto conclude at
5 minutes past 5, the remainder of the bill to be considered as
read and be open to amendment at any point.
Mr. [T. Millet] Hand [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, a point of
order.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Hand: The motion is not in order. The gentleman from
Kentucky does not have the floor.
Mr. [Sam] Rayburn [of Texas]: The gentleman from Mississippi
[Mr. Whittington] yielded to the gentleman from Kentucky.
The Chairman: The gentleman from Mississippi yielded and the
gentleman from Kentucky is not out of order.
Mr. [Frank B.] Keefe [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I make a
point of order against the motion because the bill has not yet been
read in its entirety.
The Chairman: The Chair must sustain the point of order because
the remainder of the bill has not been read.
Sec. 78.27 A motion to close debate on a bill and amendments thereto is
not in order until the bill has been completely read.
On July 22, 1965,(13) Mr. Adam C. Powell, of New York,
moved
[[Page 11114]]
that all debate on the pending bill and amendments thereto close at 5
p.m. Chairman John J. Rooney, of New York, stated that the motion was
not in order, the bill not having been fully read. When Mr. Powell made
a unanimous-consent request to close debate on the bill, it was
objected to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 111 Cong. Rec. 17932, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 18, 1966,(14) Chairman Eugene J. Keogh, of New
York, stated in response to a parliamentary inquiry that it was in
order by unanimous consent, but not by motion, to close debate on a
bill and all remaining amendments thereto, the bill not having been
read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 112 Cong. Rec. 10911, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 78.28 Until the last section of a bill being read by sections has
been read, a motion to close debate on the entire bill is not in
order.
On Mar. 26, 1965,(15) Chairman Richard Bolling, of
Missouri, answered a parliamentary inquiry on whether a motion to close
debate on a bill can be offered before the entire bill has been read or
debated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 111 Cong. Rec. 6104, 6105, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Halleck: Mr. Chairman, under the rules of the House would
it be possible or permissible to move to close debate on the whole
bill until each section has been read?
The Chairman: Under the practices and precedents of the House
the bill is being read by sections. A motion is in order to close
debate on each section after it has been read and debated.
Sec. 78.29 When a bill is being read for amendment by titles or by
sections, debate under the five-minute rule on the portion of the
bill which has been read and debated may be closed by motion, but
on titles or sections that have not been read, debate may only be
closed by unanimous consent.
On Feb. 8, 1964,(16) Chairman Eugene J. Keogh, of New
York, answered parliamentary inquiries on closing debate under the
five-minute rule:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 110 Cong. Rec. 2614, 2615, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [William M.] McCulloch [of Ohio]: I should like to ask, Mr.
Chairman, if the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the
Union can now effect binding action as to time on the titles of the
bill which we have not reached?
The Chairman: The Chair would inform the gentleman from Ohio
that
[[Page 11115]]
that could be done only by unanimous consent.
Mr. [Carl] Albert [of Oklahoma]: And cannot it be done in
Committee of the Whole, Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman: It can be done in Committee of the Whole. It
would also depend in a measure on the nature of the request. . . .
Mr. Albert: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate
on title VII on Monday next be limited to 2 hours and that the
debate on the remainder of the bill be limited to 2 hours, making a
total of 4 hours.
The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Oklahoma?
Mr. [William M.] Colmer [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman,
reserving the right to object, and I am just one ordinary Member of
this House, but I do have certain rights as one ordinary Member of
the House, if I understand what was agreed upon originally, I
am willing to abide by that agreement. . . .
Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman
yield to me?
Mr. Colmer: I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. Hays: Mr. Chairman, I would like to propound a
parliamentary inquiry. If the unanimous-consent request of the
majority leader should be objected to, would not the majority
leader or the chairman of the committee have a right to move that
that be set and that the debate be ended at a specified time on
Monday?
The Chairman: The Chair would say a motion to limit debate
would be in order after there has been debate on the title.
Parliamentarian's Note: The bill under consideration, H.R. 7152,
the Civil Rights Act of 1963, was being read for amendment by titles
instead of by sections, pursuant to House Resolution 616 from the
Committee on Rules making in order its consideration.
On Mar. 25, 1965,(17) Chairman Richard Bolling, of
Missouri, answered inquiries on a motion to limit debate which had been
agreed to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 111 Cong. Rec. 6016, 6020, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: All time on section 2 has expired. The question
is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr.
Quie].
Mr. [Robert P.] Griffin [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. Griffin: The Chair said ``on section 2.'' It was my
understanding that the chairman of the Committee on Education and
Labor said ``title I.'' Am I incorrect?
The Chairman: The Chair put the motion on section 2, which
contains a title I.
Mr. Griffin: So the debate is closed at 6 o'clock on section 2,
but not on the remainder of title I?
The Chairman: That is correct.
Mr. [Adam C.] Powell [of New York]: Mr. Chairman----
The Chairman: For what purpose does the gentleman rise?
Mr. Powell: I should like for the Clerk to repeat my request.
[[Page 11116]]
The Chairman: The gentleman may have made another request than
that, but since the other sections of this title have not been
read, and since no unanimous-consent request has been made that
they be considered as read, no motion could have been in order on
anything except that which was read. That was section 2.
Mr. Powell: I beg to state, Mr. Chairman, that the motion I
offered was on all amendments and debate on title I, and there was
no point of order raised against it.
The Chairman: There may have been a misunderstanding, but the
Chair knows how he put the motion, and he knows he could not have
put the other motion at that time. The other sections of that title
had not been read, nor had unanimous consent been requested that
they be considered as read. It does happen that section 2 contains
a different title I. That is the motion which the Chairman put.
Mr. Powell: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. Powell: Is it possible for the Chairman to put the motion
as made?
The Chairman: The Chair stated the motion as the Chair at that
time understood it. There was no correction of the Chair's
statement of the motion. The motion stands as stated. That was what
the Committee voted on.
Sec. 78.30 Where the Committee of the Whole has by unanimous consent
dispensed with further reading of a bill for amendment, a motion to
fix the time for debate on the
remainder of the bill and amendments thereto is in order after
there has been debate.
On Apr. 25, 1947,(18) Chairman Earl C. Michener, of
Michigan, overruled a point of order against a motion to close debate,
under the five-minute rule, on a bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 93 Cong. Rec. 4100, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert F.] Jones of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I move that all
debate on the bill and all amendments thereto, and amendments, be
limited to 40 minutes.
Mr. [Francis E.] Walter [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, a
point of order.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Walter: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the
motion may eliminate the possibility of debate on an amendment or
amendments to amendments; therefore, until it is determined how
many amendments there are the motion is subject to a point of
order.
The Chairman: The Chair will be constrained to overrule the
point of order because by unanimous consent the further reading of
the bill was waived.
The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. Jones].
The motion was agreed to.
Sec. 78.31 Where a special rule provided for the reading of a
[[Page 11117]]
bill in its entirety, and not by sections, it was held in order
following debate under the five-minute rule to move to close debate
on the bill and all amendments thereto.
On Aug. 22, 1935,(19) the Committee of the Whole was
conducting five-minute debate on H.R. 8455, relative to public works,
pursuant to House Resolution 349, providing that the bill ``in its
entirety shall be read for amendment.'' Mr. Jack Nichols, of Oklahoma,
moved to close debate on the entire bill and amendments thereto, and
Chairman Claude A. Fuller, of Arkansas, overruled a point of order
against the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 79 Cong. Rec. 14192, 14193, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Nichols: Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on this bill
and all amendments thereto close in 30 minutes.
The Chairman: The gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Nichols] moves
that all debate on the bill and all amendments thereto close in 30
minutes.
Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of
order against that motion.
The Chairman: The Chair will hear the gentleman.
Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, such a motion is only in order when a
bill is being read by sections and after an amendment has been
offered. The motion is not in order at this stage.
The Chairman: The rule provided for the reading of the entire
bill, and the Chair holds that the motion of the gentleman from
Oklahoma is in order.
Sec. 78.32 A motion under Rule XXIII clause 6 to close debate on a bill
and all amendments thereto is not in order until the reading of the
bill has been completed.
The proposition stated above was demonstrated on June 21,
1974,(20) during consideration of H.R. 15472 (agriculture,
environmental, and consumer appropriations for fiscal year 1975) in the
Committee of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 120 Cong. Rec. 20583, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike the requisite number of words. . . .
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this
bill and all amendments thereto close at 5:30.
The Chairman: (1) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Mississippi?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Sam Gibbons (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: I object.
The Chairman: Objection is heard.
Mr. Whitten: Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on this bill
and all amendments thereto close at 5:30.
The Chairman: The Chair will state that the committee must
complete the reading of the bill before such a motion could be
entertained.
Mr. Whitten: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that further
read
[[Page 11118]]
ing of the bill be dispensed with, and that it be printed in the
Record and open to amendment at any point.
The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Mississippi?
Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: I object.
The Chairman: Objection is heard.
The Clerk will read.
Sec. 78.33 The Chair may decline to entertain a unanimous-consent
request that all debate on a pending measure be limited, in advance
of completion of reading of that measure in its entirety and in the
absence of a unanimous-consent agreement to consider the measure as
having been read.
On July 16, 1975,(2) during consideration of House
Resolution 591 (establishing a Select Committee on Intelligence) in the
Committee of the Whole, Mr. Richard Bolling, of Missouri, made a
unanimous-consent request, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 121 Cong. Rec. 23112, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Bolling: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the necessary
number of words. . . . I am going to ask unanimous consent that the
resolution be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open
to amendment at any point.
The Chairman: (3) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Missouri?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Frank E. Evans (Colo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I object.
The Chairman: Objection is heard.
Mr. Bolling: Mr. Chairman, then I can only ask unanimous
consent that all debate on the resolution and all amendments
thereto close at 2:30.
The Chairman: The gentleman should be advised that that request
cannot be made until the resolution has been read.
Sec. 78.34 A motion to close all debate on a bill and all amendments
thereto under the five-minute rule is not in order when the bill
has not been completely read; such motion may be made only with
respect to that portion which has been read and on which there has
been debate.
The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on
June 4, 1975,(4) during consideration of the Voting Rights
Act Extension (H.R. 6219):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 121 Cong. Rec. 16899, 16901, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Don] Edwards of California: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike
the requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I believe we have an agreement to vote on the
final passage of the bill at 6:30 and with a time limitation on
certain amendments that remain, so I ask unanimous consent at this
time that the bill be considered as read in full and open to
amendment at any point.
[[Page 11119]]
The Chairman: (5) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from California?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [James P.] Johnson of Colorado: Mr. Chairman, I object.
Mr. Edwards of California: Mr. Chairman, I so move.
The Chairman: The motion is not in order. Only title II could
be closed at this time by a motion.
Sec. 78.35 Where the Committee of the Whole was considering a bill
pursuant to a special rule making in order a motion to strike out a
title thereof and insert a new text to be read by section for
amendment, the Chair stated, in response to a parliamentary
inquiry, that a motion would be in order to close debate under the
five-minute rule on a section of said amendment which had been read
for amendment.
On July 26, 1977,(6) the Committee of the Whole had
under consideration the Agriculture Act of 1977 (H.R. 7171), when the
following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 123 Cong. Rec. 24973, 24974, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: (7) Pursuant to the rule, it shall be
in order to consider an amendment striking out title XII and
inserting in lieu thereof the text of the bill H.R. 7940, which
shall be considered as original text for the purpose of amendment
and shall be read for amendment by sections. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Frank E. Evans (Colo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
TITLE XII--FOOD STAMPS
Sec. 1201. The Food Stamp Act of 1964, as amended, is
amended as follows:
(a) New sections 18 and 19 are added as follows: . . .
Mr. [Thomas S.] Foley [of Washington] (during the reading): Mr.
Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of title XII
be dispensed with, that it be considered as read, and open to
amendment at any point.
The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Washington?
Mr. [Steven D.] Symms [of Idaho]: Reserving the right to
object, Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Foley) explain to the Members of the House just what the
parliamentary procedure is here.
Mr. Foley: If the gentleman will yield, Mr. Chairman, the
parliamentary situation is that the title which was about to be
read is the title of the original bill, H.R. 7171. It is a
truncated food stamp title, and it would be my purpose at the time
we conclude the reading or the waiving of the reading to offer a
substitute in lieu of title XII, which will be the text of H.R.
7940, which is made in order as a substitute by the rule that the
House has previously adopted.
In the event that that substitute is then offered, the
substitute would be read by section. . . .
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: If this particular
request is
[[Page 11120]]
granted then there would be no curtailment of the reading of the
substitute amendment by section and time could not be limited on
any section or amendments thereto except by unanimous consent? . .
.
Mr. Foley: If the gentleman from Maryland will permit me to
continue . . . the gentleman is correct in that if the substitute
is before the committee, it would be in order to move to cut off
the debate but by section by section and not on the whole title.
The Chairman: The Chair would advise the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Bauman) that that is correct.
Sec. 78.36 By unanimous consent, a bill under consideration in the
Committee of the Whole may be considered as read and open for
amendment at any point; but until a bill has been read in full or
its reading dispensed with by unanimous consent, a motion to limit
debate on the bill (and amendments thereto) is not in order.
On June 27, 1979,(8) the following proceedings occurred
in the Committee of the Whole during consideration of the Departments
of Labor and Health, Education, and Welfare appropriation bill for
fiscal 1980 (H.R. 4389):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 125 Cong. Rec. 17013, 17014, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [William H.] Natcher [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that the balance of the bill be considered as
read, open to amendment at any point, and further, Mr. Chairman,
that all debate on the bill and all amendments thereto end at 8
o'clock.
The Chairman: (9) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Kentucky? . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Don Fuqua (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Natcher: Mr. Chairman, I would . . . like to propound a
parliamentary inquiry.
As I understand it, under the rules of the House, it requires a
unanimous-consent request to open the bill for amendment at any
point; am I correct in that?
The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
Mr. Natcher: Mr. Chairman, it requires unanimous consent before
the time of 8 or 8:30 could be fixed? A motion would not be in
order at this time? . . .
The Chairman: The Chair will state that a motion would not be
in order until the bill is read.
Sec. 78.37 Clause 6 of Rule XXIII permits the Committee of the Whole by
motion to limit debate on the pending portion of a bill (and on all
amendments thereto) or just on
a pending amendment (and
all amendments thereto), but does not permit a motion to limit and
allocate separate time for debate on perfecting amendments not yet
offered; unanimous consent is re
[[Page 11121]]
quired to limit or allocate debate time on such amendments.
During consideration of the nuclear freeze resolution (H.J. Res.
13) in the Committee of the Whole on Mar. 16, 1983,(10) the
following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 129 Cong. Rec. 5796, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I move
that all debate close at 11:30 on the resolve clause and all
amendments pending thereto. . . .
Mr. Philip M. Crane [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, under the
provisions of the motion just made, does this mean again that one
of the 11 amendments that are pending on the resolution could
theoretically consume the entire time until 11:30?
The Chairman: (11) The answer is yes, but the Chair
would remind the gentleman that the committee could separately
adopt a limitation of debate on any amendment that was pending if
there were a unanimous-consent request and no objection, or if
there were a motion so adopted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Zablocki) to limit debate on the resolve clause and
all amendments thereto to 11:30 p.m. . . .
[The motion was rejected.]
Mr. [Albert A.] Gore [Jr., of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that debate be limited to 6 minutes on each
amendment, divided equally for and against.
Mr. [Thomas F.] Hartnett [of South Carolina]: I object.
The Chairman: Objection is heard.
Mr. Gore: Mr. Chairman, I move that debate be limited to 6
minutes per amendment, divided equally for and against.
The Chairman: That is not an appropriate motion and is not in
order.
Mr. Gore: Mr. Chairman, would the motion be in order if those
amendments protected under the rule received 5 minutes for and
against?
The Chairman: It is not appropriate or proper to limit and
allocate time for debate on amendments not yet offered.
Parliamentarian's Note: As indicated in the Chair's remarks above,
the Committee of the Whole, pursuant to clause 6 of Rule XXIII, may by
motion limit debate on a pending committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute (considered as having been read as original text) and on all
amendments thereto to a time certain, and may then, by subsequent
unanimous consent or motions, separately limit debate on each
perfecting amendment after it has been offered.
Sec. 78.38 Pursuant to clause 6 of Rule XXIII, the Committee of the
Whole may, by motion, limit debate to a time certain on a pending
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute (once it has been
considered as having been
[[Page 11122]]
read) and on all amendments which might be offered thereto, since
the original amendment is pending and has been read in its
entirety, but may not separately by motion limit debate or allocate
time thereon on perfecting amendments not yet offered.
On Mar. 16, 1983,(12) during consideration of House
Joint Resolution 13, the nuclear freeze resolution, in the Committee of
the Whole, a motion to close debate on all amendments resulted in the
following parliamentary inquiries:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 129 Cong. Rec. 5803, 5804, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I move
that all debate end at a quarter to 12 on this amendment and all
amendments thereto and on all amendments to the resolve clause.
The Chairman: (13) The gentleman moves that debate
on this amendment and all amendments to the text following the
resolve clause end at a quarter to 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair would inquire of the gentleman, does his motion cover
all amendments to the text following the resolve clause?
Mr. Zablocki: All amendments. . . .
Mr. [Trent] Lott [of Mississippi]: In line with my
parliamentary inquiry, I did not think we had even completed debate
on the Levitas amendment, and the distinguished chairman of the
Committee on Foreign Affairs is now asking that we dispense with
all further debate and vote on amendments by a quarter to 12, many
of which have not even been considered, amendments which have great
value. Some of the best amendments that could be offered here in
this body tonight have not even been offered and considered.
My parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman, is, is that in order at
this point before we have even dispensed with the amendment pending
before us?
The Chairman: The motion is in order since the underlying
committee substitute to the text has been considered as read in its
entirety and is pending.
Mr. [Daniel E.] Lungren [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Lungren: Mr. Chairman, is this not the same motion that was
suggested by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gore) a few minutes
ago and ruled out of order by the Chair?
The Chairman: No. The Chair would advise the gentleman it is a
different limitation motion on a text which is pending and all
amendments thereto, and does not allocate time.
The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Zablocki) to limit debate on this amendment and all
amendments to the resolving clause to 11:45 p.m.
[The motion was rejected.]
The motion by Mr. Gore and ruling thereon, referred to by Mr.
Lungren, were as follows: (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 129 Cong. Rec. 5796, 98th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 16, 1983.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 11123]]
The Chairman: For what purpose does the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Gore) rise?
Mr. [Albert A.] Gore [Jr., of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that debate be limited to 6 minutes on each
amendment, divided equally for and against.
Mr. [Thomas F.] Hartnett [of South Carolina]: I object.
The Chairman: Objection is heard.
Mr. Gore: Mr. Chairman, I move that debate be limited to 6
minutes per amendment, divided equally for and against.
The Chairman: That is not an appropriate motion and is not in
order.
Mr. Gore: Mr. Chairman, would the motion be in order if those
amendments protected under the rule received 5 minutes for and
against?
The Chairman: It is not appropriate or proper to limit and
allocate time for debate on amendments not yet offered.
Closing Debate Instanter or After Stated Time
Sec. 78.39 A motion to close debate under the five-minute rule in the
Committee of the Whole may be made to close debate instantly or
after a stated time.
On Feb. 27, 1931,(15) after some debate had been had on
an amendment in the Committee of the Whole, Mr. James S. Parker, of New
York, moved that all debate on the amendment and amendments thereto
close in 15 minutes. Mr. George Huddleston, of Alabama, made a point of
order against the motion and Chairman William H. Stafford, of
Wisconsin, ruled that the motion could be made, pursuant to Rule XXIII,
at any time after five minutes' debate has begun. Mr. Huddleston then
contended that the motion was not to close debate under the rule but to
fix time. The Chairman stated that there was no difference between the
motions as to their coming within the rule:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 74 Cong. Rec. 6300, 71st Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Huddleston: May I call this to the attention of the Chair?
This is not a motion to close debate but it is a motion to fix
time, which is a very different thing. I do not question the right
of the gentleman to move to close debate now, but you can not move
to fix time in the future.
The Chairman: Paragraph 6 of Rule XXIII provides:
The committee may, by the vote of a majority of the members
present, at any time after the five minutes' debate has begun
upon proposed amendments to any section or paragraph of a bill,
close all debate upon such section or paragraph or, at its
election, upon the pending amendments only (which motion shall
be decided without debate); but this shall not preclude further
amendment, to be decided without debate.
Mr. Huddleston: Of course, I understand that, but the point I
am making is that this is not a motion to close debate but it is a
motion to fix time. That is what the motion is.
[[Page 11124]]
The Chairman: The present occupant of the chair can not follow
the argument of the gentleman. It seems to the Chair, with due
respect, that the gentleman's point is a distinction without a
difference.
Mr. [C. William] Ramseyer [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Ramseyer: Is the motion to close debate directed to the
amendment offered by the gentleman from New York or to the
amendment to the amendment now pending?
The Chairman: There is pending before the committee at the
present time one amendment in the nature of a substitute.
Mr. Ramseyer: That is the amendment offered by the gentleman
from New York [Mr. Parker]?
The Chairman: Yes. The motion the gentleman makes is to close
debate on the amendment and all amendments thereto in 15 minutes.
That is the motion. The Chair will state that there is only one
amendment pending before the committee at the present time, and
that is an amendment in the nature of a substitute.
Mr. Huddleston: I call the Chair's attention to the fact that
the motion is to close debate in 15 minutes and not to close it
now.
The Chairman: It is the general practice, long established and
well recognized in the committee to entertain a motion to either
close the debate instanter or after any stated time for debate.
Sec. 78.40 The Committee of the Whole agreed to a unanimous-consent
request that all debate on the pending bill and all amendments
thereto terminate by a time certain on the following day.
On June 20, 1979,(16) during consideration of the Panama
Canal Act of 1979 (H.R. 111) in the Committee of the Whole, the
following unanimous-consent request was agreed to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 125 Cong. Rec. 15775, 15776, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John M.] Murphy of New York: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that all debate on H.R. 111 and all amendments thereto
conclude at 1 p.m. tomorrow. . . .
The Chairman: (17) Is there objection to the
unanimous-consent request by the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Murphy)?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Thomas S. Foley (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
Parliamentarian's Note: The form of Mr. Murphy's initial request
was to cut off debate and amendments at a time certain, a unanimous-
consent request which is not in order in Committee of the Whole where
it would abrogate the rights of Members under special rules adopted by
the House to offer amendments. Thus the request as restated affected
only debate time.
Extending Debate Beyond Limitation
Sec. 78.41 The House, before resolving itself into the Com
[[Page 11125]]
mittee of the Whole for the further consideration of a bill, agreed
by unanimous consent to extend debate un-der the five-minute rule
to two minutes on each side on the amendments remaining undisposed
of at the desk where all debate time on the bill had expired.
On May 11, 1961,(18) the House, with Speaker Sam
Rayburn, of Texas, presiding, agreed to a limitation on debate on
certain amendments at the Clerk's desk to be considered in the
Committee of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 107 Cong. Rec. 7869, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Harold D.] Cooley [of North Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, in
view of the extraordinary situation in which the House found itself
on yesterday, I ask unanimous consent that when the House resolve
itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the
Union for the further consideration of the bill, H.R. 2010, that
each of the authors of the two pending amendments now on the
Speaker's desk may be given 2 minutes to present their amendments
and that the committee be given 2 minutes in opposition.
Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman
yield?
Mr. Cooley: I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. Gross: What happens to the allocation of other time other
than on the amendments?
Mr. Cooley: We have no other time.
Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, reserving
the right to object, how many amendments does this request cover?
Mr. Cooley: I understand there are only two amendments now at
the desk.
The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from North Carolina?
There was no objection.
Parliamentarian's Note: The Committee of the Whole had risen on the
prior day before 4:15 p.m., which was the hour appointed by a
unanimous-consent agreement for the closing of debate on the bill and
all amendments thereto. By so rising, the Committee had allowed the
time to expire and there was no time left on the following day, May 11.
Sec. 78.42 A time limitation on debate imposed by the Committee of the
Whole, pursuant to Rule XXIII clause 6, may be rescinded or
modified only by unanimous consent; and a unanimous consent request
to extend debate time on an amendment may not be entertained while
there is pending a demand for a recorded vote on that amendment.
During consideration of the Energy Conservation and Oil Policy Act
of 1975 (H.R. 7014) in the
[[Page 11126]]
Committee of the Whole on Sept. 17, 1975,(19) the following
proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 121 Cong. Rec. 28904, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: (20) When the Committee rose on
Friday, August 1, 1975, all time for debate on title III of the
committee amendment in the nature
of a substitute and all amendments thereto had expired and there
was pending the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Brown) to title III on which a recorded vote had been requested by
the gentleman from Ohio.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Without objection, the Clerk will again read the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).
There was no objection.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Brown of Ohio: Strike out sections
301, 302, 303.
Renumber the succeeding sections of title III accordingly.
. . .
Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I have a
parliamentary inquiry. . . . The parliamentary inquiry, Mr.
Chairman is, Would it be in order at this point while the vote is
pending to ask unanimous consent of the House that 2 minutes may be
granted on either side of the aisle for a discussion at this point
of the pending vote?
The Chairman: Such a request would be in order only if the
gentleman first withdrew his request for a recorded vote. . . .
Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, then I ask unanimous consent
to withdraw my request for a recorded vote at this point.
The Chairman: That does not require unanimous consent. The
gentleman withdraws his request for a recorded vote.
Does the gentleman now ask unanimous consent for debate time? .
. .
Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 1
minute be granted to the Democratic side in the hands of the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and 1 minute to the
Republican side to be in the hands of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Brown).
The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
Extending Time Under Limitation
Sec. 78.43 Where the Committee of the Whole has fixed the time for
debate on amendments, such time may be extended only by unanimous
consent.
On Aug. 18, 1949,(1) the Committee of the Whole agreed
to a request that all debate on pending amendments close in one hour.
Chairman Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas, then advised Members that since
30 Members wished to speak, each would be entitled to two minutes. Mr.
Cecil F. White,
[[Page 11127]]
of California, inquired whether it would be in order to move that the
time be extended in view of the fact that so many Members had requested
time. The Chairman responded that such an extension would require
unanimous consent, debate already having been limited.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 95 Cong. Rec. 11760, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 78.44 The House can, by unanimous consent, agree to an extension
of time for debate under the five-minute rule in the Committee of
the Whole after such debate has been limited, but a motion to that
effect is not in order.
On May 10, 1961,(2) the Committee of the Whole rose
before the hour had arrived when further debate on a bill and
amendments thereto would expire pursuant to a unanimous-consent
limitation. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, stated in response to a
parliamentary inquiry that when the Committee resumed consideration of
the bill on the following day, no time would be left, the time having
expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 107 Cong. Rec. 7725, 7727, 7728, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker stated in response to a parliamentary inquiry by Mr.
Charles A. Halleck, of Indiana, that extension of the time for debate
could be accomplished by unanimous consent, but only by unanimous
consent.
When Mr. Alfred E. Santangelo, of New York, submitted such a
request, for 25 additional minutes of debate on the following day, the
request was objected to. Mr. Santangelo then made a motion to that
effect, and the Speaker ruled that such a motion was not in order.
Sec. 78.45 The House, by unanimous consent, agreed to an extension of
time for debate under the five-minute rule in the Committee of the
Whole, where the Committee had previously agreed to terminate
debate at a certain time on the preceding day.
On May 11, 1961,(3) the House agreed to the following
unanimous-consent request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 107 Cong. Rec. 7869, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Harold D.] Cooley [of North Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, in
view of the extraordinary situation in which the House found itself
on yesterday, I ask unanimous consent that when the House resolve
itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the
Union for the further consideration of the bill, H.R. 2010, that
each of the authors of the two pending amendments now on the
Speaker's desk may be given 2 minutes to present their amendments
and that
[[Page 11128]]
the committee be given 2 minutes in opposition.
Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman
yield?
Mr. Cooley: I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. Gross: What happens to the allocation of other time other
than on the amendments?
Mr. Cooley: We have no other time.
Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, reserving
the right to object, how many amendments does this request cover?
Mr. Cooley: I understand there are only two amendments now at
the desk.
The Speaker: (4) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from North Carolina?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
The ``extraordinary situation'' referred to was the fact that on
the prior day the Committee had risen before 4:15 p.m., without
concluding consideration of the bill and amendments thereto, after the
Committee had agreed to a limitation that all debate on the bill and
amendments thereto close at 4:15. Speaker Rayburn had stated, after the
Committee had risen, that no time would remain for debate when the
Committee resumed consideration of the bill, since 4:15 would have
passed.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 107 Cong. Rec. 7727, 7728, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., May 10, 1961.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 78.46 Where the Committee of the Whole has, by unanimous consent,
limited debate on an amendment, the Chair declines to recognize for
a motion to extend the time for the debate but a unanimous-consent
request to extend or allot the time may be entertained.
On June 11, 1968,(6) Mr. Daniel J. Flood, of
Pennsylvania, was recognized under the five-minute rule and yielded to
Mr. George H. Mahon, of Texas, who submitted
a unanimous-consent request to close debate at a time certain, which
request was agreed to. Chairman James G. O'Hara, of Michigan, advised
Mr. Flood that the time consumed by making the request came out of his
time, since he had yielded. Mr. Flood then moved that debate be
extended to close in 30 minutes and the Chairman stated that such a
motion was not in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 114 Cong. Rec. 16699, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to a parliamentary inquiry by Mr. Melvin R. Laird, of
Wisconsin, the Chairman stated that he would entertain a unanimous-
consent request for an extension of time for Mr. Flood.
Sec. 78.47 The Committee of the Whole, by unanimous consent, extended
the time previously fixed for debate un-der the five-minute rule.
[[Page 11129]]
On Nov. 15, 1967,(7) the Committee of the Whole agreed
to a motion to close all debate on a pending section and amendments
thereto at 8:05 p.m. A preferential motion and teller votes consumed
much of the time under the limitation, and the Committee then agreed by
unanimous consent to extend the time previously agreed upon:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 113 Cong. Rec. 32691-94, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John N.] Erlenborn [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I wonder
if I would be in order now to ask for unanimous consent to extend
the time limitation to 25 minutes after eight, in view of the fact
that so much time has been taken up by the preferential motion.
The Chairman: (8) The Chair will put the request of
the gentleman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. John J. Rooney (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Erlenborn: I make that unanimous consent request.
Mr. [Charles S.] Joelson [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I
object.
The Chairman: Objection is heard.
Mr. [Carl] Albert [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the order limiting the time to 8:05 p.m. be vacated,
and that all time on this section be closed at 8:45 p.m.
The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Oklahoma?
There was no objection.
Sec. 78.48 Although all time for debate on a title had expired, the
Chair advised that a unanimous-consent request would be entertained
for a Member to speak for five minutes in explanation of an
amendment.
On Oct. 7, 1965,(9) Mr. Thomas M. Pelly, of Washington,
offered an amendment to a title of a bill after debate had expired
under a limitation of debate on the title and amendments thereto. Mr.
Samuel S. Stratton, of New York, inquired whether it would be in order
for him to ask unanimous consent that Mr. Pelly be allowed to speak for
five minutes in support of a ``very important amendment.'' Chairman
Phillip M. Landrum, of Georgia, responded that if the request was made
he would put the request to the Committee. The request was made and
objected to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 111 Cong. Rec. 26306, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 78.49 Although only two five-minute speeches are permitted on an
amendment printed in the Congressional Record after a limitation on
debate under the five-minute rule has expired, the Chair may in his
discretion entertain a unanimous-consent request to extend the time
for debate on the amendment, or
[[Page 11130]]
enter his own objection by refusing to entertain such a request.
The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on
June 27, 1979,(10) during consideration of the Housing and
Urban Development and independent agencies appropriation bill (H.R.
4394):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 125 Cong. Rec. 16965-67, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: (11) When the Committee of the Whole
rose on Friday, June 22, 1979, the remainder of the bill beginning
on line 10, page 15, had been considered as having been read and
open to amendment at any point, and all time for debate on the bill
and all amendments thereto had expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Elliott H. Levitas (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are there any further amendments? . . .
Amendment offered by Mr. Nelson: On page 24, line 23,
strike ``$6,854,-924,000'', and insert in lieu thereof
``$6,169,924,000''.
The Chairman: Did the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Nelson) have
this amendment printed in the Record?
Mr. [Bill] Nelson [of Florida]: I did, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Then the gentleman qualifies. The Chair
recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Nelson). . . .
The time of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Nelson) has
expired.
Mr. [Bob] Traxler [of Michigan]: I ask unanimous consent that
the gentleman be given 2 additional minutes.
The Chairman: The Chair will state that under the rules, 5
minutes is all the gentleman is entitled to.
Mr. [Edward P.] Boland [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I rise
in opposition to the amendment. . . .
Mr. [Timothy E.] Wirth [of Colorado]: At the time there was a
request for time of the gentleman from Florida, the Chair reported
that we were under the 5-minute rule. I wondered how that jibed
with the grant of additional time for the gentleman from
Massachusetts.
The Chairman: By unanimous consent the House can extend time.
Mr. Wirth: Had not the request been made for unanimous consent
that the gentleman be allowed 2 additional minutes?
The Chairman: The Chair did not share in the unanimous-consent
request at that time.
Mr. Wirth: I thank the Chairman.
I wanted to rise in support of the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida.
The Chairman: The gentleman can do that only by unanimous
consent.
Mr. Wirth: I thank the Chairman.
Offering Amendments After Expiration of Debate Time
Sec. 78.50 The adoption of a
motion to close debate on
a section and all amendments thereto does not prevent Members from
offering amendments to the pending proposition after the stated
time has expired, but no debate may be had on such amendments.
[[Page 11131]]
On Jan. 5, 1932,(12) Chairman Lindsay C. Warren, of
North Carolina, ruled that the adoption of a motion to close debate on
a section and all amendments thereto did not preclude the offering of
further but nondebatable amendments:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 75 Cong. Rec. 2077, 72d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Henry B.] Steagall [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, I move that
all debate on this section and all amendments thereto do now close.
The motion was agreed to.
The Chairman: The question is on the adoption of the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Maine.
The question was taken, and on a division (demanded by Mr.
Stafford) there were--ayes 13, noes 130.
So the amendment was rejected.
Mr. [LaFayette L.] Patterson [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, I
offer an amendment and desire to be heard on it.
Mr. [William F.] Stevenson [of South Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I
make the point of order that the motion was to close debate on this
section and on all amendments. There will be another section read
in a moment, and I direct the Chair's attention to the fact that
debate on this section has been closed.
The Chairman: But that does not prevent the gentleman from
Alabama from offering an amendment to this section and having it
voted upon by the committee.
The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for the purpose of
offering an amendment, which the Clerk will report.
Timekeeping
Sec. 78.51 Where the Committee of the Whole fixes the time for debate
on an amendment at 20 minutes, such time is counted as 20 minutes
of debate and not 20 minutes by the clock.
On Feb. 8, 1950,(13) after the Committee of the Whole
had agreed to fix debate on an amendment at 20 minutes, and points of
order and other matters had intervened, Chairman Chet Holifield, of
California, answered a parliamentary inquiry and overruled a point of
order on the counting of the time:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 96 Cong. Rec. 1693, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Thomas J.] Murray of Tennessee: Mr. Chairman, how much
more time remains?
The Chairman: There are 6 minutes remaining.
Mr. [Donald W.] Nicholson [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, a
point of order. I raise the point of order that 20 minutes ago we
voted to close debate. The 20 minutes have gone.
The Chairman: The Chair advises the gentleman that the 20
minutes for debate have not been used. The Chair will watch the
matter closely.
Parliamentarian's Note: If the limitation had provided that de
[[Page 11132]]
bate close at a certain time, exactly 20 minutes away (i.e., 4:00
p.m.), time for purposes other than debate would have been charged
against the remaining time.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See Sec. 79, infra, for a full discussion of the effect of
different types of limitations on five-minute debate, and the
computation of time thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Demand That Motion Be in Writing
Sec. 78.52 A motion to limit debate must, pursuant to Rule XVI clause
1, be reduced to writing upon the demand of any Member.
On Dec. 14, 1973,(15) Mr. Samuel L. Devine, of Ohio,
offered, in the Committee of the Whole, a motion that debate on an
amendment in the nature of a substitute and on all amendments thereto
close at a certain time. Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, inquired whether
that motion did not have to be
in writing. Chairman Richard Bolling, of Missouri, responded that the
motion had to be in writing if Mr. Gross insisted upon it. Mr. Gross so
insisted.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 119 Cong. Rec. 41712, 41713, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
16. Rule XVI clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 775 (1995), provides
that every motion made and entertained shall be reduced to
writing on the demand of any Member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motion To Rise During Five-minute Debate
Sec. 78.53 A motion that the Committee of the Whole rise is of high
privilege, and may be offered by a Member who holds the floor by
virtue of having offered an amendment.
On Nov. 15, 1967,(17) Mr. Paul C. Jones, of Missouri,
was recognized under the five-minute rule in the Committee of the Whole
to offer an amendment. He then inquired of Chairman John J. Rooney, of
New York, whether it would be in order for him to move that the
Committee rise. The Chairman responded that the motion was highly
privileged and could be made by Mr. Jones.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 113 Cong. Rec. 32694, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
18. See also 116 Cong. Rec. 25628, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., July 23, 1970
(motion to rise is highly privileged and can be offered any
time when the proponent secures the floor in his own right
during the five-minute rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 78.54 A simple motion to rise made in the Committee of the Whole
is not debatable.
On Apr. 8, 1964,(19) Chairman Phillip M. Landrum, of
Georgia,
[[Page 11133]]
advised Mr. Ben F. Jensen, of Iowa, who had moved that the Committee of
the Whole rise, that the motion was not debatable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 110 Cong. Rec. 7298, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa [Mr.
Jensen].
Mr. Jensen: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise
out of further respect for one of the greatest Americans, Gen.
Douglas MacArthur.
The Chairman: The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Jensen].
Mr. Jensen: Mr. Chairman, I demand tellers. It is disgraceful
to have this sort of thing going on while General MacArthur is
lying here in the Capitol.
The Chairman: The Chair will inform the gentleman that a vote
on his motion is being taken. He is not recognized to make a
speech.
Sec. 78.55 The motion that the Committee of the Whole rise (thereby
cutting off debate at that time) is not debatable and is always
within the discretion of the Member handling the bill before the
Committee.
On June 16, 1948,(20) Mr. Walter G. Andrews, of New
York, was handling the consideration of H.R. 6401 in the Committee of
the Whole. He moved that the Committee rise, and Chairman Francis H.
Case, of South Dakota, ruled that the motion was within Mr. Andrews'
discretion:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 94 Cong. Rec. 8521, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Andrews of New York: Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that
two or three Members who have time are not here, I move that the
Committee do now rise.
The Chairman: The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Andrews].
Mr. [George A.] Smathers [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I would
like to be heard on that.
The Chairman: That is not a debatable motion. It is always
within the discretion of the gentleman handling the bill to move
that the Committee rise.
Sec. 78.56 The motion that the Committee of the Whole rise is
privileged and may be offered during the pendency of a motion to
limit debate or immediately upon the adoption of that motion.
On Oct. 7, 1974,(1) the following proceedings occurred
in the Committee of the Whole during consideration of House Resolution
988 (to reform the structure, jurisdiction, and procedures of House
committees):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 120 Cong. Rec. 34170, 34171, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Richard] Bolling [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I move that
all debate on the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered
by the gen
[[Page 11134]]
tlewoman from Washington (Mrs. Hansen), and all amendments thereto,
conclude in 5 hours.
The Chairman:(2) The question is on the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. Bolling: Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote. . . .
[Several parliamentary inquiries ensued at this point.]
Mr. [David T.] Martin of Nebraska: Mr. Chairman, I offer a
preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Martin of Nebraska moves that the Committee rise and
report the resolution H. Res. 988 to the House with the
recommendation that the resolving clause be stricken out.
The Chairman: The Chair would like to ask the gentleman from
Nebraska, is the gentleman opposed to this resolution?
Mr. Martin of Nebraska: I am, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: The gentleman qualifies to make the motion.
The gentleman from Nebraska is recognized for 5 minutes in
support of his motion.
Mr. Bolling: Mr. Chairman, I wish to propound a parliamentary
inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. Bolling: Mr. Chairman, my understanding of the situation is
that the question that is now pending is on the motion that I made
to limit debate on the amendment in the nature of a substitute
offered by the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. Hansen) and all
amendments thereto.
My parliamentary inquiry is this: If that motion carries, my
intention is to move that the Committee then rise.
Mr. Chairman, is there anything unparliamentary in that?
The Chairman: The gentleman's motion in that event would be in
order.
Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a
preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Dingell moves the Committee do now rise.
The Chairman: The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).
[After rejection of the motion, the Chair put the question on
Mr. Martin's motion:]
The Chairman: The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Martin) to strike the resolving
clause.
[The preferential motion was rejected.]
Mr. [John H.] Dent [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I have a
parliamentary inquiry. . . .
[A]s I understand the motion, the motion is to limit the time
to 5 hours on the issue itself, the Hansen amendment and all
amendments thereto; is that true?
The Chairman: The Chair will now state the question.
The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Bolling) moves that debate on
the Hansen amendment in the nature of a substitute, and all
amendments thereto be limited to 5 hours. . . .
The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr.
[[Page 11135]]
Bolling) that all debate on the amendment in the nature of a
substitute offered by the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs.
Hansen), and all amendments thereto, be limited to 5 hours, on
which a recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
Resuming Debate When Committee Resumes Consideration
Sec. 78.57 Where time for debate has been fixed on an amendment in the
Committee of the Whole and the Committee rises before the time
expires, debate continues when the Committee resumes its
deliberations (if time was not set by the clock).
On June 16, 1948,(3) Chairman Francis H. Case, of South
Dakota, answered parliamentary inquiries on the procedure where the
Committee of the Whole rises before a certain amount of time, agreed to
by the Committee, has expired for debate on an amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 94 Cong. Rec. 8521, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Walter G.] Andrews of New York: Mr. Chairman, in view of
the fact that two or three Members who have time are not here, I
move that the Committee do now rise.
The Chairman: The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Andrews].
Mr. [George A.] Smathers [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I would
like to be heard on that.
The Chairman: That is not a debatable motion. It is always
within the discretion of the gentleman handling the bill to move
that the Committee rise.
Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Marcantonio: Mr. Chairman, under the arrangement entered
into limiting debate on this amendment, will the Members who were
scheduled to be recognized be recognized when the Committee resumes
its deliberations?
The Chairman: They will be recognized, if the Committee should
vote to rise, when the Committee meets again.
Mr. Andrews of New York: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Andrews of New York: My understanding is that all those
gentlemen whose names are on the list will be recognized
immediately tomorrow.
The Chairman: The statement of the gentleman from New York is
correct.
Parliamentarian's Note: The agreement in question provided that
debate on the amendment close in 50 minutes. If the agreement had
provided that debate close at a certain time, by the clock, and the
Committee rose to resume after that time had arrived, no time would be
left for debate on the amendment.
[[Page 11136]]
Motion To Close Debate as Related to Motion To Strike Enacting Clause
Sec. 78.58 A timely motion that the Committee of the Whole rise and
report a bill to the House with the recommendation that the
enacting clause be stricken out under Rule XXIII clause 7 takes
precedence over a motion to limit debate under Rule XXIII clause 6.
On Dec. 14, 1973,(4) Mr. Samuel L. Devine, of Ohio,
offered a motion in the Committee of the Whole to close debate on a
pending amendment and on amendments thereto to a time certain. Mr. H.
R. Gross, of Iowa, then demanded that the motion be put in writing.
Immediately following that demand, Mr. Phillip M. Landrum, of Georgia,
offered the preferential motion that the Committee rise and report the
bill back to the House with the recommendation that the enacting clause
be stricken, and was recognized by Chairman Richard Bolling, of
Missouri, for five minutes on that motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 119 Cong. Rec. 41712, 41713, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman Bolling stated in response to a parliamentary inquiry by
Mr. Devine that the motion to strike the enacting clause took
precedence over the motion to limit debate. After the motion to strike
was disposed of, the question recurred on the motion to limit debate.
--Enacting Clause Preferential
Sec. 78.59 The motion to strike or recommend striking the enacting
clause is preferential to the motion to close debate.
The proceedings of June 28, 1995,(5) demonstrate that
the motion to strike the enacting clause is preferential to the motion
to close debate. The Committee of the Whole had under consideration
H.R. 1868, the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related
Programs Appropriations Act of 1996:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 141 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Porter J.] Goss [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I move that
all debate on the Goss amendment and all amendments thereto close
immediately.
Mr. [Harold L.] Volkmer [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I have a
preferential motion at the desk.
The Chairman: The Clerk will report the preferential motion.
Mr. Volkmer moves that the Committee do now rise and report
the bill back to the House with recommendation that the
enacting clause be stricken.
[[Page 11137]]
Mr. Volkmer: Mr. Chairman, the attempt by the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Goss] to limit debate on this very important amendment
of the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] to the gentleman's
amendment, I do not think is appropriate at this time.
On July 13, 1995,(6) a motion to limit debate was made
during consideration of H.R. 1977, the Department of the Interior and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1996, followed by a motion to
recommend striking the enacting clause.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 141 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Ralph] Regula [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I move to limit
debate on title I and all amendments thereto to 90 minutes not
including vote time.
Mr. [David R.] Obey [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a
privileged motion. I move that the Committee rise and report the
bill back to the House with a recommendation that the enacting
clause be stricken.
Mr. Chairman, what is at issue here, in my view, is whether or
not this House is going to be able to conduct the business at
reasonable times in public view or whether we are going to be
reduced to making virtually every major decision in subcommittees
and on the floor at near midnight, with minimal public attention
and minimal public understanding and minimum attention. . . .
Mr. Regula: Mr. Chairman, I oppose the motion.
I was not a party to the earlier negotiations. The gentleman
from Illinois [Mr. Yates] and I discussed a possible agreement here
that we would finish title I with time limits on the amendments
that remain. . . .
The Chairman: The question is on the preferential motion
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. Obey: Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes
162, noes 236, not voting 36, as follows: . . .
On one occasion, when a preferential motion to close debate was
before the Committee of the Whole, the Chair declined to recognize a
Member to offer another privileged motion until the pending motion had
been disposed of. On Mar. 26, 1965,(7) Adam C. Powell, of
New York, Chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor, offered the
privileged motion that all debate close on the pending title of H.R.
2362, the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, reported
[[Page 11138]]
by his committee. Chairman Richard Bolling, of Missouri, advised
Members that the motion to close debate was not debatable. Mrs. Edith
S. Green, of Oregon, then sought recognition to offer a preferential
motion. The Chairman ruled that since the preferential motion to close
debate was before the Committee of the Whole, no Member could be
recognized to offer another preferential motion until the pending
motion was disposed of.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 111 Cong. Rec. 6098, 6099, 89th Cong. 1st Sess. See Sec. 23.31,
supra, indicating that while a motion to limit debate is
pending, the preferential motion that the Committee of the
Whole rise with the recommendation that the enacting clause be
stricken may be offered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effect of Limitation on Pro Forma Motion To Strike the Last Word
Sec. 78.60 By unanimous consent, debate under the five-minute rule on
possible amendments to be offered by two designated Members (one as
a substitute for the other) and on all amendments thereto was
limited and equally divided between proponents and opponents prior
to the offering of those amendments; and where debate has been so
limited and allocated on amendments to the pending section of the
bill, a Member may not obtain time by moving to strike out the last
word unless there is
no amendment pending (debate having been limited on amendments but
not on the section).
During consideration of the Legal Services Corporation Act
Amendments of 1981 (H.R. 3480) in the Committee of the Whole on June
18, 1981,(8) the following unanimous-consent requests
resulted in a discussion, as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 127 Cong. Rec. 12958, 12959, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert W.] Kastenmeier [of Wisconsin] (during the
reading): Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that section 11 be
considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at
any point.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: (9) Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Wisconsin?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Bruce F. Vento (Minn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
Mr. Kastenmeier: . . . I ask unanimous consent all debate on
amendments to section 11 do not exceed more than 20 minutes, one-
half to be controlled by the proponents of the amendment and one-
half by the opponents of the amendment, excepting in the case of
the so-called alien amendments to be offered by the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Kazen) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum), in
which case the debate on those amendments do not exceed 40 minutes,
those amendments and all amendments thereto on the question of
aliens.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: A point of clarification from the
stand
[[Page 11139]]
point of the Chair. Is the gentleman suggesting to limit debate on
each amendment to section 11 and on any amendment thereto to 20
minutes, the time to be divided equally between the proponents and
the opponents, and 40 minutes on the amendments being offered by
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Kazen) and the possible substitute
therefor of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) and all
amendments thereto?
Mr. Kastenmeier: Yes. The request of 40 minutes pertains to
both amendments, that is to say that they may be offered in tandem,
but that the total amount of time allocated to the subject
represented by those two amendments not exceed 40 minutes.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: And all amendments thereto.
Mr. Kastenmeier: Yes. . . .
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair would point out to the
Members that are discussing this, that the request addresses itself
to each amendment and any amendment thereto, inclusive. . . .
The unanimous-consent request has been modified to 1 hour of
debate on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Kazen) and the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
McCollum) and all amendments thereto, 1 hour.
Is there objection to the unanimous-consent request of the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kastenmeier)?
Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman,
reserving the right to object, I have a couple of questions.
Under the proposal would we be prevented from offering motions
to strike the requisite number of words in order to engage in
debate that might not be directly related to the amendment?. . .
Mr. Kastenmeier: I would have to ask the Chairman if that would
entitle the speaker to time other than that allocated under this
request.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: If an amendment to section 11 were
pending, under this request, a motion to strike the last word would
not be in order, since time would be allocated. . . .
The unanimous-consent request does not go to the section
itself, but only goes to substantive amendments if offered; so it
would be possible, if there are no other amendments pending, at the
right time, to be recognized as the Chair has permitted to strike
the requisite number of words.
Control of Time Under Limitation
Sec. 78.61 A motion to close debate under the five-minute rule is not
in order if it includes a provision for division of time between
the proponents and opponents of the pending amendment.
On May 24, 1967,(10) Chairman Charles M. Price, of
Illinois, sustained a point of order against a motion to close debate
which divided the time under the limitation:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 113 Cong. Rec. 13824, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Carl D.] Perkins [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I move that
all
[[Page 11140]]
debate on the so-called Quie amendments and all amendments thereto
close within 1 hour and 30 minutes, the time to be equally divided.
Mr. [Porter] Hardy [Jr., of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Hardy: It is proper to move that time be equally divided
between two Members?
The Chairman: No, the motion is not in order.
Mr. Hardy: Then, I make a point of order against the motion.
The Chairman: The Chair sustains the point of
order.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See also 117 Cong. Rec. 43406, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 30, 1971
(not in order, in motion to limit debate, to reserve three
minutes of the time to each side); and 96 Cong. Rec. 11837,
81st Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 4, 1950.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 78.62 The Committee of the Whole, by unanimous consent, limited
debate to 30 minutes on a pending motion to strike and provided
that the time should be controlled equally by the managers of the
bill.
On Aug. 4, 1966,(12) while the Committee of the Whole
was considering H.R. 14765, the Civil Rights Act of 1966, the Committee
agreed to a unanimous-consent request on the time and control of debate
on a motion to strike a pending title:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 112 Cong. Rec. 18207, 18208, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Carl] Albert [of Oklahoma]: The unanimous-consent request
is that when the Committee resumes consideration of the bill, H.R.
14765, after the recess tonight the first order of business shall
be after 30 minutes of debate a vote on the Moore amendment to
strike out title IV and, in the event that amendment is defeated,
the Committee shall then continue the consideration of title IV.
Mr. [John Bell] Williams [of Mississippi]: Do I understand that
the gentleman dropped that portion in which he provided for a
division of time equally between the proponents and opponents?
Mr. Albert: No. That is included. Fifteen minutes shall be
under the control of the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Rodino] and
15 minutes under the control of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.
McCulloch]. I think it is well understood that they will yield the
time to both proponents and opponents of the Moore amendment.
Mr. Williams: By gentleman's agreement?
Mr. Albert: Yes.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation.
The Chairman: (13) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Oklahoma?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
Sec. 78.63 By unanimous consent, the Committee of the Whole
[[Page 11141]]
provided for two hours of debate on a pending amendment (abrogating
the five-minute rule) and vested control of such time in the
chairman and ranking minority member of the committee that had
reported the bill.
On July 8, 1965,(14) the Committee of the Whole was
considering for amendment the Civil Rights Act of 1965, H.R. 6400. Mr.
William M. McCulloch, of Ohio, offered an amendment, and the Committee
agreed to the following unanimous-consent request for the time of
debate and control thereof on the amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 111 Cong. Rec. 16036-38, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that all debate on the so-called McCulloch
substitute and all amendments thereto be limited to 2 hours, and
that such time be equally divided and controlled by myself and the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. McCulloch].
Parliamentarian's Note: The McCulloch amendment, was made in order
by House Resolution 440 as a substitute for the committee amendment in
the nature of a substitute. Where such a unanimous-consent agreement
for control of time for debate on an amendment has been fixed, the
proponent is first recognized for debate.
--Allocating Time
Sec. 78.64 Where all time for debate on an amendment and all amendments
thereto is limited and, by unanimous consent, placed in control of
the proponent of the amendment and the chairman
of the committee (in opposition), the Chair first recognizes the
proponent of the amendment under the limitation.
On July 9, 1965,(15) the unfinished business in the
Committee of the Whole was H.R. 6400, the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Chairman Richard Bolling, of Missouri, made the following statement on
the order of recognition, the Committee having limited, on the prior
day, time for debate on a pending amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 111 Cong. Rec. 16207, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When the Committee rose on yesterday, there was pending the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. McCulloch] as a
substitute for the committee amendment.
It was agreed that all time for debate on the so-called
McCulloch substitute and all amendments thereto would be limited to
2 hours, such time to be equally divided and controlled by the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Celler] and the gentleman from Ohio
[Mr. McCulloch]. Under the unani
[[Page 11142]]
mous-consent agreement, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. McCulloch] in support of his amendment.
Parliamentarian's Note: The time limitation coupled with the
unanimous-consent agreement on control of time abrogated the five-
minute rule. Under the agreement, the two Members controlling debate
could yield for debate or for amendments. Amendments could also be
offered by Members not yielded time, after the expiration of the time
limitation, but without debate on such amendments.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. For an example of a unanimous-consent agreement for control of time
on an appropriations bill, see Sec. 24.38, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 78.65 Debate on an amendment and all amendments thereto pending in
the Committee of the Whole may be limited to a time certain by
motion; and the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may divide
remaining debate time equally between two Members following such
limitation.
On July 26, 1984,(17) during consideration of the
Education Amendments of 1984 (H.R. 11) in the Committee of the Whole,
the Chair divided the remaining time for debate equally between the
chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor and the proponent of
the pending amendment. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 130 Cong. Rec. 21249, 21250, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Carl D.] Perkins [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that all debate on the pending amendment, all
amendments thereto and all substitutes, close at 2 p.m.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: (18) Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Kentucky?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Abraham Kazen, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Dan R.] Coats [of Indiana]: Reserving the right to object,
Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding, and I am not sure, I just
want to check, I think a perfecting amendment is going to be
offered, and I just want to check to see if that is the case. If
that is the case, I would have to object to that unanimous-consent
request.
Mr. Perkins: Then, Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on the
Coats amendment, all substitutes and all amendments thereto, be
concluded at 2 p.m.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The question is on the motion offered
by the gentleman from Kentucky. . . .
So the motion was agreed to.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair will proceed to divide the
time.
Since there are so many Members seeking recognition, the Chair
at this time will divide the time equally
between the chairman, Mr. Perkins,
and the gentleman from Indiana, Mr.
[[Page 11143]]
Coats, 10 minutes each, and they will yield time as they see fit.
Parliamentarian's Note: During the above proceedings, the Chairman
also ruled that a parliamentary inquiry relating to a pending motion
occurring after the Chairman has announced the results of a voice vote
does not constitute such intervening business as to preclude the right
of a Member to demand a recorded vote on the pending motion. After the
result of the voice vote was announced in the above instance (that a
majority favored the motion), a parliamentary inquiry was made:
(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 130 Cong. Rec. 21249, 21250, 98th Cong. 2d Sess., July 26, 1984.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [William F.] Goodling [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I
have a parliamentary inquiry. . . .
I want to make sure the motion was talking only about this
portion of this bill.
Mr. Perkins: . . . This does not include the Goodling
amendment, the funding of the school programs.
Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: I want to get a
record vote.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: This motion referred to the Coats
amendment and all amendments thereto.
Mr. Walker: That is right, and I want a record vote on the
ruling of the Chair.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: Those in favor of taking this by
recorded vote. . . .
Mr. [Richard J.] Durbin [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, a point of
order.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his point of
order.
Mr. Durbin: Is it my understanding there was intervening
business between the vote which was taken orally, the parliamentary
inquiry made by the gentleman?
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The intervening business was a
parliamentary inquiry that was related to the motion, and no
independent business has been taken up.
Mr. Durbin: As a further parliamentary inquiry of the Chair,
does not
this parliamentary inquiry and interruption preclude the gentleman
from Pennsylvania's right to ask for a recorded vote?
The Chairman Pro Tempore: No; it is related to the status of
the vote, and of the motion.
Sec. 78.66 A motion to limit debate under the five-minute rule on a
pending amendment in the Committee of the Whole is not in order if
it includes a provision for division of time between two Members,
since debate time can be allocated between Members only by
unanimous consent; but where debate
on an amendment and all amendments thereto has been limited to a
time certain, the Chair may exercise his discretion and allocate
the remaining time between two Members and may indicate which
Member may close the debate.
[[Page 11144]]
The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on
Aug. 2, 1984,(20) during consideration of the Department of
Interior Appropriations Act of 1985 (H.R. 5973):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 130 Cong. Rec. 22180, 22181, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I move that
all time on the Conte amendment and all amendments thereto with the
exception of the Ottinger amendment end at 3:30, the time to be
equally divided between the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Conte) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Ratchford).
The Chairman: (1) The Chair will remind the
gentleman that time cannot be allocated between sides or between
Members except by unanimous consent. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
But the motion only to limit debate is in order. . . .
Mr. [Bill] Frenzel [of Minnesota]: If the gentleman's motion
passes I will not object to the unanimous-consent request at that
time to divide the time.
The Chairman: . . . The motion offered by the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Yates) is to end all debate on the Conte amendment
and all amendments thereto except the Ottinger amendment at 3:30.
Mr. Yates: That is correct, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates).
[The motion was agreed to.]
Mr. Yates: Mr. Chairman, the time has been limited to 3:30. I
ask unanimous consent that the time be expanded to permit 10
minutes on each side, with those favoring the Conte amendment to be
controlled by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Conte) and
those favoring the Ratchford amendment to be controlled by
the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Ratchford).
The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. [Marty] Russo [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I object.
The Chairman: Objection is heard.
The Chair now intends to allocate 6 minutes to the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Conte) and 6 minutes to the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Ratchford).
The Chair intends that the debate will end with Mr. Ratchford.
Reservation of Time Under Limitation
Sec. 78.67 A motion to limit debate on an amendment in
the Committee of the Whole under Rule XXIII clause 6, may not
include a reservation of time for any purpose, such reservation
depriving the Chair of his power of recognition.
On May 9, 1973,(2) Mr. Wright Patman, of Texas, in
control of the bill pending before the Committee of the Whole, moved as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 119 Cong. Rec. 15010, 15011, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I move that all debate conclude in 20 minutes on this amendment
only, and
[[Page 11145]]
all amendments thereto, and that the last 5 minutes be reserved.
Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, made a point of order against the motion
and Chairman Otis G. Pike, of New York, sustained it, ruling that the
last part of the motion (reserving time) was not in or-
der.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. See also 118 Cong. Rec. 34137, 92d Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 5, 1972
(motion to limit debate may not include reservation of time for
an individual Member); 118 Cong. Rec. 10771-74, 92d Cong. 2d
Sess., Mar. 29, 1972; 111 Cong. Rec. 20263, 89th Cong. 1st
Sess., Aug. 12, 1965 (no reservation of time for committee);
105 Cong. Rec. 12127, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., June 29, 1959; 103
Cong. Rec. 12370, 85th Cong. 1st Sess., July 22, 1957; and 95
Cong. Rec. 9949, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., July 21, 1949.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 78.68 Under the five-minute rule, debate may be fixed but control
of the time may not be allotted by motion if a point of order is
made.
On May 11, 1949,(4) Chairman Albert A. Gore, of
Tennessee, stated in response to a parliamentary inquiry that where the
Committee of the Whole fixes by unanimous consent the time for debate,
the Chairman ordinarily divides such time equally among Members seeking
recognition. Mr. Brent Spence, of Kentucky, therefore made the
following motion which the Chairman ruled out of order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 95 Cong. Rec. 6055, 6056, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Spence: Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on section 1
and all amendments thereto conclude at 3:30 and that the time be
equally divided among those Members who asked for time and that the
last 5 minutes be assigned to the committee.
Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, the same
point of order. The Committee of the Whole cannot allot time that
way. That is in the discretion of the House of Representatives and
not the committee. It must be by unanimous consent.
The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.
Mr. Spence: Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on section 1
and all amendments thereto conclude at 3:30.
The Chairman: The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Kentucky.
The motion was agreed to.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Control of time under a time limitation may be effected either by
motion, where no point of order is made (see Sec. 22.39,
supra), or by unanimous consent (see Sec. 22.26, supra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 78.69 The Committee of the Whole may, by unanimous consent, limit
further debate on an amendment and reserve part of the time to the
reporting committee.
On June, 9, 1960,(6) Mr. Overton Brooks, of Louisiana,
asked
[[Page 11146]]
unanimous consent that further debate on the pending amendment (the
only amendment to be offered to the bill) and on amendments thereto
close in 10 minutes, with five minutes to be allowed to each side, the
last five minutes to the chairman of the reporting committee. Mr.
Leonard G. Wolf, of Iowa, made a point of order and questioned whether
time could be divided that way. Chairman Edwin E. Willis, of Louisiana,
stated that time could be so divided by unanimous consent. There was no
objection to the request.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 106 Cong. Rec. 12250, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
7. See also 109 Cong. Rec. 8144, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., May 9, 1963.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 78.70 Where a committee amendment in the nature of a substitute
was being read by titles as an original bill for amendment, the
Committee of the Whole agreed, by unanimous consent, that: (1) the
remainder of the committee amendment be considered as read and open
to amendment at any point; (2) all debate on the bill and
all amendments thereto conclude in 3 hours plus additional time
claimed upon offering of amendments printed in the Record; and (3)
designated portions of the 3 hours be allotted to each remaining
title of the committee amendment.
During consideration of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation
Act of 1974 (8) in the Committee of the Whole on July 23,
1974,(9) the unanimous-consent agreement stated above was
proposed as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. H.R. 11500.
9. 120 Cong. Rec. 24621, 24622, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent as the first that the remainder of the bill,
titles II through VIII in their entirety be considered as read,
printed in the Record, and open for amendment at any point.
Second, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on all the
bill, including all titles and all amendments, close after 3 hours
of debate tomorrow, that time not to include time out for rollcalls
or quorum calls.
Mr. [Craig] Hosmer [of California]: Mr. Chairman, reserving the
right to object, would the gentleman also include in that request,
excluding time for offering and debate of any posted amendments
which have not been offered?
Under those circumstances, I would not offer more than my 10
and I think Mr. Hechler would have to make the same gentleman's
agreement for his.
Mr. Udall: We will accept the word of the gentleman from
California that he will abide by that.
I will ask the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Hechler) if he
will also abide by that gentleman's agreement?
[[Page 11147]]
Mr. [Ken] Hechler of West Virginia: Yes, I certainly will.
Mr. Hosmer: Will the gentleman's request for unanimous consent
be agreed to on printing under clause 6, rule XXIII?
Mr. Udall: The Parliamentarian tells me we do not need that as
part of the unanimous-consent request.
Mr. Hosmer: Mr. Chairman, further reserving the right to
object, now that we have had our gentleman's agreement,
nevertheless when the expiration of the 3 hours have occurred and
there are one or more amendments of myself or the gentleman from
West Virginia (Mr. Hechler) still pending, I would like to ask that
notwithstanding, they would be in order.
Mr. Udall: I think that is clear under the rules; but in order
to make it perfectly clear, I add to the request that at the
conclusion of 3 hours of debate it shall be in order under clause 6
of rule XXIII for any Members having posted amendments to call up
their amendments claimed under the 5-minute rule. . . .
Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: The amendments I have referred
to are not published in the Record. Would they be included?
Mr. Udall: No; but as I said earlier, we will protect the
gentleman on that.
The final part of my request is that the 3-hour time referred
to be divided as follows:
Title II not to exceed 60 minutes. . . .
Title VII not to exceed 30 minutes.
Title VIII not to exceed 10 minutes. . . .
Mr. [Teno] Roncalio of Wyoming: Could we have 40 minutes
instead of 30 minutes on title VII?
Mr. Udall: Yes. . . .
Mr. Chairman, I would amend my request by taking 10 minutes off
title II and adding 10 minutes to title VII. . . .
The Chairman: (10) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Arizona?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
Sec. 78.71 A motion to close debate and reserve time is not in order.
On June 5, 1975,(11) the following proceedings occurred
in the Committee of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 121 Cong. Rec. 17187, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that all debate on the committee amendment and
all amendments thereto conclude at 5:15 o'clock, and that the last
5 minutes be reserved for me.
The Chairman: (12) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Michigan?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Bob Wilson (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [J. J.] Pickle [of Texas]: I object, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on the
committee amendment and all amendments thereto conclude at 5:15
o'clock, with the last 5 minutes reserved for me.
The Chairman: The Chair will state the gentleman cannot reserve
time under his motion.
Sec. 78.72 A motion to limit debate under the five-minute
[[Page 11148]]
rule pursuant to clause 6 of Rule XXIII may not include a
reservation of time to designated Members.
During consideration of the State Department authorization for
fiscal year 1977 (H.R. 13179) in the Committee of the Whole on June 18,
1976,(13) the following exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 122 Cong. Rec. 19251, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I move
that all debate on the bill and all amendments thereto close at
2:30, and that 10 minutes of the 30 minutes may be allotted to the
amendment to be offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane),
5 minutes of that time to be allotted to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Crane) and 5 minutes of the time to be allotted in
opposition to the amendment.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: (14) The Chair will advise
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Morgan) that it is not in
order to allocate time within such a motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. John Brademas (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania, therefore, wish to
restate his motion?
Mr. Morgan: Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on the bill
and all amendments thereto close at 2:30, with the understanding
that 5 minutes be allotted to the gentleman from Illinois on behalf
of his amendment.
The motion was agreed to.
Sec. 78.73 A portion of debate on a pending amendment and all
amendments thereto can be reserved only by unanimous consent, and a
motion including a reservation of time within a limitation of
debate is not in order.
On Sept. 15, 1976,(15) during consideration of the Clean
Air Act Amendments of 1976 (H.R. 10498) in the Committee of the Whole,
the following exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 122 Cong. Rec. 30465, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Paul G.] Rogers [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I move that
all debate on the Waxman-Maguire amendment and on the Dingell
amendment terminate at 1:25, and that the last 10 minutes be
reserved for the chairman.
The Chairman: (16) The Chair will state to the
gentleman that he cannot reserve time under a motion. That can be
done only by a unanimous-consent request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. J. Edward Roush (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Rogers: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all
debate on the Waxman-Maguire amendment and on the Dingell amendment
end at 1:25, and that the last 10 minutes be reserved for the
chairman of the subcommittee.
Where Time Is Limited by Minutes, Not Clock; Reserving Time
Sec. 78.74 Where time for debate is limited to a specific number of
minutes rather than a
[[Page 11149]]
limitation to a time certain on the clock, the Chair may permit
Members to reserve time until an amendment to an amendment has been
disposed of so as to speak on the main amendment.
On Oct. 3, 1975,(17) the proposition described above was
demonstrated in the Committee of the Whole, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 121 Cong. Rec. 31602-04, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Thomas S.] Foley [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw
my request and now I ask unanimous consent that all debate on the
Brown amendment and all amendments thereto end in 20 minutes.
The Chairman: (18) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Washington?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. William L. Hungate (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Peter A.] Peyser [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, reserving
the right to object, I would like to ask the chairman of the
committee, if this is going to be ending in 20 minutes and we have
a vote on the Symms amendment, as I understand it, does that time
for the vote go into the 20 minutes?
Mr. Foley: No. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield. I
asked unanimous consent that all debate on the Brown amendment and
all amendments thereto end in 20 minutes. . . .
The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Washington that all debate will end on the Brown
amendment in the nature of a substitute and the Symms amendment and
all amendments thereto in 20 minutes?
There was no objection. . . .
The Chairman: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. McCormack).
Mr. [Mike] McCormack [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve
my time in order to speak on the Brown of California amendment
after the vote on the Symms amendment. . . .
The Chairman: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Peyser).
Mr. Peyser: Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time until after the
vote on the Symms amendment. . . .
Mr. Foley: Is it correct that approximately 2\1/2\ minutes
remain of debate under the limitation previously adopted, and that
following that a vote will occur on the Brown amendment in the
nature of a substitute?
The Chairman: The gentleman states the question correctly. The
gentleman from New York (Mr. Peyser) has 1\1/4\ minutes, and the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. McCormack) has 1\1/4\ minutes. Then
a vote will occur on the Brown amendment.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Peyser).
Parliamentarian's Note: Where time is limited by the clock, a
Member attempting to reserve time may be preempted by votes, quorum
calls, etc., which come out of the time remaining. Therefore, the
Chair, to protect Members' right to speak, might refuse to permit a
reservation of time.
[[Page 11150]]
Setting Time by Clock
Sec. 78.75 A request or motion to close debate at a time certain under
the five-minute rule
in Committee of the Whole should specify that the debate cease at a
certain time, and not that the Committee vote at a certain time,
since the Chair cannot control time consumed by quorum calls and
votes on other intervening motions.
On June 29, 1977,(19) the following proceedings occurred
in the Committee of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 123 Cong. Rec. 21383, 21384, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [George E.] Shipley [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that we vote on this amendment at 1:15 p.m. . . .
The Chairman: (20) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Illinois?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. John M. Murphy (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Reserving the right to
object, Mr. Chairman, I believe the gentleman's request was that we
vote on this amendment at 1:15. I do not believe that that request
is in order.
A request to limit all debate on this amendment would be in
order, but not that a vote be ordered at a certain time. It is not
provided in the rules, Mr. Chairman. . . .
Mr. Shipley: Mr. Chairman, would it be possible to set it at a
time certain, that time to be 1 p.m.? . . .
The Chairman: The Chair would state to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Shipley) that the Chair cannot guarantee a 1 o'clock
time certain because of the possibility of a quorum call or other
extension of debate. . . .
Mr. Shipley: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my unanimous-consent
request.
Mr. Chairman, let me renew the request in this way, since we
are trying to get all of the Members on the floor before we vote, I
would ask unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment end
at 1 o'clock, no later than 1 o'clock. . . .
The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Illinois?
Mr. [John H.] Rousselot [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I
object.
The Chairman: Objection is heard.
Mr. Shipley: Mr. Chairman, I move that 1:15 p.m. be used as a
time certain to end the debate on this amendment.
The motion was agreed to.
Sec. 78.76 A unanimous-consent request or motion to close debate under
the five-minute rule in the Committee of the Whole should limit
debate time either by the clock or to a number of minutes of
debate, and not by setting a time certain for voting, since the
Chair cannot control motions or points of order which might
intervene at that time.
During consideration of H.R. 4102 (Universal Telephone Preser
[[Page 11151]]
vation Act of 1983) in the Committee of the Whole on Nov. 10,
1983,(1) the following exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 129 Cong. Rec. 32172, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Timothy E.] Wirth [of Colorado]: Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that we vote on the Tauke amendment at 6:30 and
that the 30 minutes will be allocated with the first 10 minutes on
our side, the next 5 minutes to your side, 10, and then you close
with the final 5.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: (2) Is the unanimous-
consent request for debate time only, excluding voting time?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Sam M. Gibbons (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Wirth: We will then vote at 6:30 on the Tauke amendment.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair cannot entertain a request
for a vote at a time certain. The Chair will entertain a motion for
the debate time to terminate.
Mr. Wirth: The debate time on the Tauke amendment would
terminate at 6:30.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: As the Chair understands it, the
gentleman is asking for 30 additional minutes for debate on the
amendment and all amendments thereto, with 20 minutes going to the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Wirth) and 10 minutes going to the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Broyhill)?
Mr. Wirth: That is correct, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from Colorado?
There was no objection.
Chair's Discretion in Limiting Debate
Sec. 78.77 Where a bill was being read for amendment by titles instead
of by sections, the Chair declined to entertain
a unanimous-consent request to limit debate on just one section
within that title where such an agreement would be difficult to
enforce.
On Sept. 15, 1976,(3) during
consideration of the Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1976 (H.R.
10498) in the Committee of the
Whole, the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 122 Cong. Rec. 30464, 30465, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that all debate on the so-called Dingell-Broyhill
amendment and the Waxman-Maguire amendment and all amendments
thereto, and on section 203(b) end at 1:20 o'clock p.m. with the
last 10 minutes being reserved by the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Rogers).
The Chairman: (4) May the Chair suggest to the
gentleman from Michigan that because the entire title is open to
amendment at any point, he limit his request to the pending
amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. J. Edward Roush (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Dingell: My unanimous-consent request is to the two pending
amendments and to section 203.
[[Page 11152]]
The Chairman: Permit the Chair to state to the gentleman from
Michigan that the Chair has some difficulty with that portion of
the request because he is limiting debate on a section when the
entire title is open to amendment. If the gentleman could limit his
request to his amendment and the substitute, and amendments
thereto, it would make the limitation of time more manageable.
Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all
debate on the Dingell-Broyhill amendment and the Waxman-Maguire
amendment, the two amendments now pending, and all amendments
thereto terminate at 20 minutes after 1.
The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Michigan?
Mr. [David E.] Satterfield [of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I
object.
Sec. 78.78 Where there was pending an amendment and a substitute
therefor, the Chair declined to entertain a unanimous-consent
request that debate end 10 minutes after another Member ``has had
an opportunity to offer'' a further substitute, where the
offering of such substitute might be precluded by the adoption of
the pending substitute.
During consideration of the Defense Production Act Amendments of
1979 (H.R. 3930) in the Committee of the Whole on June 26,
1979,(5) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 125 Cong. Rec. 16670, 16672, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer
amendments as a substitute for the amendments.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendments offered by Mr. Michel as a substitute for the
amendments offered by Mr. Wright of Texas: On page 5, line 2,
strike out the period after ``section'' and insert in lieu
thereof ``and at least 2,000,000 barrels per day crude oil
equivalent of synthetic fuels . . . .
Mr. [William S.] Moorhead of Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman, I see
only about five or six Members standing. I ask unanimous consent
that all debate on the Wright amendment and all amendments thereto
close in 15 minutes.
The Chairman: (6) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Pennsylvania?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [James M.] Jeffords [of Vermont]: Reserving the right to
object, the gentleman knows I have a substitute which I think ought
to be considered . . . and I just cannot agree to 15 minutes unless
I am sure I am going to have 5 minutes myself in order to be able
to explain the substitute.
Mr. Moorhead of Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that all debate on the Wright amendment and all amendments
thereto close 10 minutes after the gentleman has had an opportunity
to offer his substitute amendment.
[[Page 11153]]
The Chairman: The Chair would advise the gentleman that in the
event the amendment offered as a substitute by the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Michel) were adopted, no other substitute would be in
order and the request would be unworkable.
Reconsideration of Vote To Close Debate
Sec. 78.79 Where the Committee of the Whole has, by motion, agreed to
limit debate on a pending amendment, a motion to reconsider its
action is not in order since the
motion to reconsider does
not lie in Committee of the Whole.
On May 24, 1967,(7) after the Committee of the Whole had
adopted a motion limiting debate, Chairman Charles M. Price, of
Illinois, stated that a motion to reconsider that action would not be
in order in the Committee:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 113 Cong. Rec. 13824, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Roman C.] Pucinski [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman from Illinois will state his
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. Pucinski: Mr. Chairman, is a motion to reconsider the last
motion in order?
The Chairman: The Chair will state to the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Pucinski] that such motion is not in order in the
Committee of the Whole.
Sec. 78.80 The motion to reconsider a limitation on debate is not in
order in Committee of the Whole.
While a unanimous-consent agreement may be subject to a motion to
reconsider in the House,(8) the motion to reconsider is not
in order in Committee of the Whole. This principle is illustrated in
the proceedings of Oct. 5, 1981,(9) relating to H.R. 3112,
to extend the Voting Rights Act of 1965:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2794.
9. 127 Cong. Rec. 23154, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Don] Edwards of California: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that all debate on this amendment close in 15 minutes.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: (10) The Chair will
inquire of the gentleman from California whether his unanimous-
consent request includes this amendment and all amendments thereto.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Dennis E. Eckart (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Edwards of California: Just on this amendment, Mr.
Chairman.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: Just on this amendment.
Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
There was no objection. . . .
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair will first allocate the
time
[[Page 11154]]
among all Members seeking recognition on this amendment.
The Chair has observed the following Members standing: The
gentleman from California (Mr. Edwards), the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Hyde) . . . and the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs.
Fenwick).
Mr. [Henry J.] Hyde [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Hyde: Mr. Chairman, I have three Members who want to speak
on this side. . . .
I was assuming 5 minutes apiece, 15 minutes total. . . .
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair will point out to the
gentleman from Illinois that the Chair merely allocated the time
among those Members who rose by the time that the unanimous-consent
request was granted.
Mr. Hyde: Mr. Chairman, having voted on the prevailing side, I
move to reconsider the vote by which we limited this to 15 minutes.
I have three Members who want to talk on this side.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: A motion to reconsider is not in
order.
The Chair would suggest to the gentleman from Illinois that
those who merely wish to speak for a short time could allocate the
remainder of their time to another Member by unanimous consent.
Vacating or Rescinding a Time Limitation
Sec. 78.81 The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole indicated, in
response to a
parliamentary inquiry, that whether the House could rescind a time
limitation (on the five-minute rule) imposed by the Committee of
the Whole was a matter for the Speaker, and not the Chairman, to
determine.
On Dec. 14, 1973,(11) the Committee of the Whole had
agreed to a motion limiting five-minute debate. In response to a
parliamentary inquiry, Chairman Richard Bolling, of Missouri, stated
that the question whether the House could rescind that limitation would
be a question for the Speaker and not for the Chairman:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 119 Cong. Rec. 41731, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John] Buchanan [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary
inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. Buchanan: Mr. Chairman, should a motion be offered that the
committee do now rise, and that motion would be accepted by the
Committee, would it be possible then in the House for time to be
extended or for the earlier motion limiting time to be rescinded?
The Chairman: The Chair will state to the gentleman from
Alabama that the gentleman is asking the Chairman of the Committee
of the Whole to rule on a matter that would come before
[[Page 11155]]
the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Mr. Buchanan: The Chairman cannot answer that according to the
rules of the House?
The Chairman: The Chair will state that the Chair is not in a
position to answer for the Speaker.
Parliamentarian's Note: A motion in the House to extend debate
beyond a limitation agreed to in the Committee would not be privileged,
but the House could rescind a limitation by unanimous consent, by
special rule, or under suspension of the rules. The Committee could
only rescind or modify a limitation by unanimous consent, the motion to
reconsider not being in order in the Committee.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See Sec. 78.79, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 78.82 Where debate on a pending amendment and all amendments
thereto had been limited to a time certain, the Committee of the
Whole, by unanimous consent, vacated the limitation and then agreed
to limit debate on an amendment to the pending amendment.
On Sept. 30, 1971,(13) the Committee of the Whole agreed
to a unanimous-consent request propounded by Mr. Carl D. Perkins, of
Kentucky, to close debate on an amendment and all amendments thereto at
2:30 p.m. Following a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Perkins stated that he
had intended the limitation to apply only to his own perfecting
amendment to the amendment, and not to other perfecting amendments to
be offered to the pending amendment. He therefore asked unanimous
consent to vacate the unanimous-consent limitation previously agreed
to. This request was granted, and he restated his proposal, which was
agreed to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 117 Cong. Rec. 34289, 34290, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 78.83 Instance where the Committee of the Whole, by unanimous
consent, limited debate under the five-minute rule to ``15 minutes
on each amendment''; it later, by motion, curtailed all debate to
``40 minutes to the bill and all amendments thereto.''
On Oct. 14, 1966,(14) the Committee of the Whole agreed
to a unanimous-consent request by Mr. Wright Patman, of Texas, that
debate under the five-minute rule be limited not to exceed 15 minutes
on each amendment which might be offered to the pending bill (the bill
having been considered as read).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 112 Cong. Rec. 26968, 26976, 26977, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Later in the debate, when it appeared that there were 23 amend
[[Page 11156]]
ments remaining to the bill, the Committee agreed to a motion by Mr.
Patman to close all debate on the bill and amendments thereto in 40
minutes.
Sec. 78.84 The Chair advised that only by unanimous consent could the
Committee of the Whole rescind an agreement it had previously
reached limiting debate on an amendment.
On Aug. 5, 1966,(15) Chairman Richard Bolling, of
Missouri, answered a parliamentary inquiry on the power of the
Committee of the Whole to rescind a limitation:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 112 Cong. Rec. 18416, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John Bell] Williams [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I do
have a legitimate parliamentary inquiry if the other was not. Would
it be in order to make a unanimous-consent request at this time
that the action of the House in voting to limit debate be vacated?
The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman that a
unanimous consent is in order.
Mr. Williams: If such a request is in order, I make the
request.
Mr. [Peter W.] Rodino [Jr., of New Jersey]: I object.
The Chairman: The gentleman from North Carolina has the floor.
Mr. [William L.] Dickinson [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, I have a
point of order.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. Dickinson: Mr. Chairman, if I understand correctly, we were
granted 2 hours in which to submit amendments. One hour and 45
minutes has been used up. We have 15 minutes remaining. Did the
Chair just rule that would be inappropriate, and this Committee
would be unable to reconsider, the fixing of this time? Was that
the ruling of the Chair?
The Chairman: A motion to reconsider is not in order in the
Committee of the Whole.
Sec. 78.85 Where the Committee of the Whole has limited debate on a
paragraph of a bill and all amendments thereto, it may on the
succeeding day by unanimous consent vacate such agreement.
On Mar. 11, 1942,(16) Chairman Alfred L. Bulwinkle, of
North Carolina, advised Mr. J. Buell Snyder, of Pennsylvania, that he
had on the previous day submitted a unanimous-consent request, which
was agreed to by the Committee of the Whole, that debate on a paragraph
and amendments thereto close in 15 minutes. The Chairman stated however
that the unanimous-consent limitation reached on the prior day could be
vacated by unanimous consent, and the Committee so agreed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 88 Cong. Rec. 2269, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 78.86 The Chair advised that by unanimous consent the
[[Page 11157]]
Committee of the Whole could rescind an agreement it had previously
reached limiting debate on an amendment in the nature of a
substitute and all amendments thereto, and could impose other
limitations.
On Dec. 14, 1973,(17) Chairman Richard Bolling, of
Missouri, stated in response to a parliamentary inquiry that the
Committee could by unanimous consent rescind a time limitation formerly
agreed to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 119 Cong. Rec. 41743, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Edward J.] Derwinski [of Illinois]: Then, Mr. Chairman,
one further parliamentary inquiry:
Would it be in order for me at this time to ask unanimous
consent that all debate on the amendment in the nature of a
substitute and all amendments thereto be open until midnight? . . .
The Chairman: If the Chair understands the gentleman, the
gentleman is proposing by unanimous consent that the Committee of
the Whole rescind its previous agreement?
Mr. Derwinski: That is exactly right, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: And the gentleman is proposing that the Committee
of the Whole enter into a new agreement which would provide for no
further debate at midnight?
Mr. Derwinski: Well, Mr. Chairman, the real intent is to
provide that we vote on amendments after some explanation of their
content so we are not voting in the blind. This is not a proper
parliamentary statement, but it is a statement of the facts before
us.
The Chairman: The Chair will try to state the unanimous-consent
request which I understand the gentleman is seeking to make.
The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Derwinski) seeks unanimous
consent to rescind the agreement heretofore entered into by the
Committee of the Whole and to provide that all debate on the
Staggers amendment and all amendments thereto close at midnight
tonight.
Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Illinois?
Sec. 78.87 The Committee of the Whole having limited time for debate on
a pending amendment and all amendments thereto, that limitation can
be rescinded only by unanimous consent.
An illustration of the proposition stated above can be seen
in the proceedings of the Committee of the Whole during consideration
of H.R. 6096 (18) on Apr. 23, 1975: (19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Vietnam Humanitarian Evacuation Assistance Act.
19. 121 Cong. Rec. 11507, 11508, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a
substitute for the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The Clerk read as follows:
[[Page 11158]]
Amendment offered by Mr. Eckhardt as a substitute for the
amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Edgar:
strike all after enacting clauses and add:
Sec. 2. There is authorized to be appropriated to the
President for the fiscal year 1975 not to exceed $150,- 000,000
to be used, notwithstanding any other provision of law, on such
terms and conditions as the President may deem appropriate for
humanitarian assistance to an evacuation program from South
Vietnam. . . .
Mr. [William J.] Randall [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I make
the point of order that the understanding was the debate on the
substitute and all amendments thereto would end at 4 o'clock and
the hour of 4 o'clock has arrived. What is the parliamentary
situation?
The Chairman: The parliamentary situation is, as the Chair
understands it, as follows:
A substitute amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas for
the amendment in the nature of a substitute can be read but cannot
be debated.
If there are amendments to the substitute offered by the
gentleman from Texas they will be reported by the Clerk but they
will not be debated and they will be disposed of as soon as they
are reported by the Clerk. . . .
Mr. [Peter A.] Peyser [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, would it be
in order to ask unanimous consent that the proposer of this
substitute amendment could have 5 minutes of time, because what we
are dealing with obviously is a major change and could he by
unanimous consent of the House have 5 minutes time?
The Chairman: The Chair will state that by unanimous consent
and by unanimous consent only could that be done.
Mr. Peyser: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a unanimous-
consent request that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Eckhardt) have 5
minutes in order to explain his amendment, because it will
undoubtedly take that much time.
Mr. [Michael T.] Blouin [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I object.
(Several other Members objected.)
The Chairman: Objection is heard.
Extensions of Allotted Time
Sec. 78.88 Where debate on an amendment has been limited to a time
certain, and the time equally divided by the Chair among those
Members desiring to speak, the Chair declined to entertain a
unanimous-consent request to give one of those allotted time a
larger share.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See Sec. 79.50, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Procedure Where Language of Limitation is Disputed
Sec. 78.89 Where a Member disagreed with the Chair's interpretation of
a motion to limit debate, the Chair indicated that the Member could
verify the Chair's interpretation by consulting the notes of the
reporters of debates.
[[Page 11159]]
On June 13, 1947,(1) Mr. George E. MacKinnon, of
Minnesota, made a point of order against
the interpretation by Chairman Thomas A. Jenkins, of Ohio, of a request
for unanimous consent to close debate which had been agreed to. Mr.
MacKinnon contended that the Chair misread the agreement as limiting
debate on a section and on amendments thereto, when the agreement
purportedly applied only to the section and not to amendments thereto.
The Chair answered parliamentary inquiries on the matter of
disagreement as to the provisions of a limitation on debate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 93 Cong. Rec. 6972, 6973, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: The gentleman cannot be right in his observation,
for the motion was not to limit debate on the bill but only to that
section which had been read.
Mr. MacKinnon: I mean on the section. The motion was only to
limit time of debate on the section. The words ``and amendments
thereto'' were not included.
I make that point of order. May we have it checked?
The Chairman: The Chair will overrule the point of order
because the motion was made to close all debate with reference to
any amendments to section 202. The question now is on section 203,
which the Clerk is reading.
Mr. MacKinnon: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. MacKinnon: What will be the situation if the Chair is in
error in the Chair's recollection according to the record?
The Chairman: We will have to decide that when we come to it.
Mr. MacKinnon: I thank the Chairman.
Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Hoffman: May we have a copy of that part of the record?
The Chairman: The gentleman may secure that from the reporters.
The Clerk will report the committee amendment.
Parliamentarian's Note: The Chair did in fact interpret the
limitation correctly.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Id. at p. 6968.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 78.90 When the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole understood
that a motion to limit debate under the five-minute rule did not
contain a reservation of time to the committee handling the bill,
the time was divided without reservation.
On May 9, 1963,(3) the Committee of the Whole agreed to
a motion to limit debate and Chair
[[Page 11160]]
man John W. Davis, of Georgia, answered a parliamentary inquiry on the
terms and effect of the limitation:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 109 Cong. Rec. 8144, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Edwin E.] Willis [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I observed
only a few Members standing. I ask unanimous consent that all time
on this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 15 minutes,
the last 5 minutes to be reserved for the opposition.
The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Louisiana?
Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I object.
Mr. Willis: Mr. Chairman, I so move.
The Chairman: The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Louisiana.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. Willis: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Willis: Mr. Chairman, I ask for a clarification of the
motion just voted on. The time was limited to 15 minutes, but was
the last 5 minutes reserved to the committee?
The Chairman: The Chair did not understand that the motion
included the reservation of the last 5 minutes to the committee.
The Chair therefore rules that the motion agreed to by the
committee simply limits the time to 15 minutes without that
reservation.
Parliamentarian's Note: The Chair may refuse to entertain a motion
to limit debate with a reservation of time, that motion not being in
order; and the Chair could object to, as could any Member, or refuse to
entertain a unanimous-consent request which includes a reservation of
time.
Sec. 78.91 The Committee of the Whole having agreed that debate on an
amendment be limited to five minutes and the Chair having
misinterpreted the agreement as limiting debate on the amendment
and all amendments thereto, the Chair later apologized to the
Committee and to a Member who was denied the privilege of debate on
his amendment to the amendment through the misinterpretation.
On May 3, 1946, Chairman Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas, made the
following statement and apology relative to an agreement, previously
agreed to by the Committee, to close debate:
The Chair desires to make a statement.
Earlier today, immediately upon the House resolving itself into
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the
consideration of the present bill, H.R. 6065, the chairman of the
subcommittee handling the bill propounded a unanimous-consent
request which the Chair endeavored to understand. The Chair, in
attempting to understand the unani
[[Page 11161]]
mous-consent request, failed, however, to understand that request
as it was transcribed by the official reporter. The Chair has
before him the transcript of the record as taken by the official
reporter, of the request made by the gentleman from Michigan. The
request of the gentleman from Michigan was that all debate on the
pending amendment close in 5 minutes. The Chair misunderstood the
gentleman so that when the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Vorys] offered
an amendment to his amendment, the gentleman from Ohio, instead of
being recognized for the 5 minutes to which he was entitled, was
barred by the Chair from speaking in support of his amendment to
the amendment.
The Chair wishes to apologize to the Committee and to the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Vorys] for making a most unintentional
misinterpretation of the request of the gentleman from Michigan.
The Chair trusts the apology of the Chair may be accepted both by
the gentleman from Ohio and the Committee.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 92 Cong. Rec. 4418, 79th Cong. 2d Sess. For the proceedings
referred to by the Chair, see id. at pp. 4404-06.
A limitation may be vacated, extended, or rescinded by
unanimous consent (see Sec. Sec. 78.81-78.88, supra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chair's Role in Interpreting or Enforcing Time Limitations
Sec. 78.92 Where the Committee of the Whole has, by unanimous consent,
limited five-minute debate on a pending title and the remaining
time has been allocated among those Members desiring to speak, the
Chair has declined to entertain a unanimous-consent request to
close debate prior to calling each name on his list of Members to
be recognized under the time limitation.
On Nov. 3, 1971,(5) the Committee of the Whole had
agreed upon a time limitation on five-minute debate, and Chairman James
C. Wright, Jr., of Texas, had prepared a list of those Members desiring
to speak under the limitation. In response to a parliamentary inquiry,
he stated that he would not entertain a unanimous-consent request to
further close debate and preclude Members on the list from speaking:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 117 Cong. Rec. 39091, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John N.] Erlenborn [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state the parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. Erlenborn: Mr. Chairman, would it be in order to ask
unanimous consent that we pass to the next item if there are no
further amendments to this title?
The Chairman: The Chair would have to advise the gentleman that
the committee has already determined that there be a limitation on
debate. Those Members who were standing and seek
[[Page 11162]]
ing recognition at the time are entitled to recognition if they
wish to use their time and it is their privilege to do so.
Opening Bill for Amendment, Dispensing With Reading, Limiting Debate
Sec. 78.93 The Committee of the Whole may, by unanimous consent, limit
debate on all amendments to a pending bill, but such a request
should include the condition that the remainder of the bill be
considered as read and open to amendment at any point.
On May 18, 1972,(6) a unanimous-consent request to limit
five-minute debate was propounded and then modified in the Committee of
the Whole, with Chairman Thomas G. Abernethy, of Mississippi,
presiding:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 118 Cong. Rec. 18052, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John J.] Rooney of New York: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that all debate on the pending amendments and any further
amendments thereto, as well as any other amendments to the bill,
close in 15 minutes.
The Chairman: The Chair advises the gentleman that his request
is not in order inasmuch as the remainder of the bill has not yet
been read.
Mr. Rooney of New York: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that the remainder of the bill be considered as read, printed in
the Record at this point and that all debate on the pending
amendments and any further amendments thereto, as well as any
further amendments to the bill, shall close in 5 minutes.
Mr. [Andrew J.] Jacobs [Jr., of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, I
object.
Mr. Rooney of New York: Mr. Chairman, I should like to amend my
request by extending the time to 10 minutes.
The Chairman: The gentleman from New York asks unanimous
consent that the bill be considered as read, printed in the Record
at this point, and that debate on the pending amendments and all
amendments to the bill close in 10 minutes.
Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New
York?
There was no objection.
Sec. 78.94 Debate on a bill and all amendments thereto was, by
unanimous consent, limited prior to the conclusion of the reading
of the bill.
On Sept. 12, 1968,(7) the Committee of the Whole agreed
to a unanimous-consent request propounded by Mr. George H. Mahon, of
Texas, that all debate on the pending bill and all amendments thereto
close in 30 minutes, before the entire reading of the bill had been
concluded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 114 Cong. Rec. 26566, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 78.95 Debate on a bill and all amendments thereto may be
[[Page 11163]]
limited by unanimous consent prior to the complete reading of the
bill.
On May 18, 1966,(8) Chairman Eugene J. Keogh, of New
York, stated in response to a parliamentary inquiry that debate on a
bill, prior to its reading, could be limited by unanimous consent:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 112 Cong. Rec. 10911, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Halleck: The gentleman from Texas asked that the bill be
considered as read. I do not know whether that request was acted
upon or not.
The Chairman: Objection was heard on that request.
Mr. Halleck: Mr. Chairman, a further parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Halleck: Under the rules of the House, would it then be
possible to limit debate unless the bill has been considered as
read?
The Chairman: Under a unanimous-consent agreement it would be
possible, and the Chair understands that the gentleman from Texas
is trying
to get an unanimous-consent agreement.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. See also 114 Cong. Rec. 26566, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 12, 1968.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 78.96 By unanimous consent, the Committee of the Whole agreed
that, on a general appropriations bill considered as read and open
to amendment at any point, debate under the five-minute rule should
terminate at a time certain, with 30 minutes of the time remaining
for debate to be allowed on a particular amendment and to
be equally divided and controlled.
On Sept. 22, 1983,(10) the following proceedings
occurred in the Committee of the Whole during consideration of H.R.
3913 (the Departments of Labor and Health and Human Services
appropriations for fiscal year 1984):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 129 Cong. Rec. 25407, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [William H.] Natcher [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, at this
time
I would ask unanimous consent that
all debate on the bill and all amendments thereto conclude not
later than 3:30. . . .
Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman,
reserving the right to object, the motion does not, however,
include the 30 minutes for the abortion debate that I thought the
gentleman from Illinois was assured of? . . .
Mr. Natcher: The gentleman is correct.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask that debate conclude not later than
3:30 with 30 minutes of the time to be allocated to the amendment
pertaining to abortion. . . .
[[Page 11164]]
Mr. [Les] AuCoin [of Oregon]: Reserving the right to object,
Mr. Chairman, I want to be sure I understand what the gentleman
just said. My understanding is that in that 30 minutes the time
will be divided equally between those who agree with Mr. Hyde and
those who agree with the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. AuCoin)? . . .
Mr. Natcher: . . . The gentleman (Mr. AuCoin) is correct. . . .
The Chairman Pro Tempore: (11) Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Kentucky?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Abraham Kazen, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
Limiting Debate on Amendment in Nature of Substitute
Sec. 78.97 Where there was pending an amendment in the nature of a
substitute for a bill, the Chair indicated in response to a
parliamentary inquiry that motions to limit debate on each
amendment to said amendment could only be made after the amendment
was offered and could not include an allocation of time.
On Dec. 14, 1973,(12) there was pending in the Committee
of the Whole an amendment in the nature of a substitute for a bill.
Chairman Richard Bolling, of Missouri, stated in response to a
parliamentary inquiry that only by unanimous consent could time be
limited and allocated on each amendment to be offered to the amendment
in the nature of a substitute. He then answered a further inquiry on a
motion to limit debate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 119 Cong. Rec. 41712, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Lawrence] Williams [Jr., of New Jersey]: Would a motion to
limit debate on each amendment to 10 minutes be in order?
The Chairman: That would be in order.
Mr. Williams: Then, in that case, I would like to say to my
esteemed colleague----
The Chairman: On individual amendments. A motion to limit
debate on individual amendments to 10 minutes with no allocation of
the 10 minutes would be in order.
Mr. Williams: But it has to be made on each individual
amendment?
The Chairman: It has to be offered to each individual amendment
after each amendment is offered.
Sec. 78.98 Where there was pending an amendment in the nature of a
substitute for a bill, the Chair indicated in response to a
parliamentary inquiry that a motion to close all debate on the said
amendment and all amendments thereto would be in order.
On Dec. 14, 1973,(13) there was pending an amendment in
the
[[Page 11165]]
nature of a substitute for a bill
in the Committee of the Whole. Chairman Richard Bolling, of Missouri,
stated in response to parliamentary inquiries that: (1) debate on
amendments to the substitute could be limited and allocated only by
unanimous consent; and (2) that motions to limit debate to a certain
amount of time on each amendment to be offered could be made only after
each amendment was offered and could not include an allocation of time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 119 Cong. Rec. 41712, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair answered a further inquiry:
Mr. [Thomas P.] O'Neill [Jr., of Massachusetts]: A
parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
A motion would be in order to end all debate on all amendments
pending at 7 o'clock?
The Chairman: Such a motion to end all debate on the Staggers
amendment and all amendments thereto at an hour certain would be in
order.
Mr. O'Neill: I thank the Chairman.
After further discussion, the Chair answered an inquiry on the same
subject:
Mr. [Samuel L.] Devine [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary
inquiry?
The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. Devine: Mr. Chairman, my parliamentary inquiry is this: Is
a motion now in order to say that the House will vote on the bill
and all amendments thereto by a time certain?
The Chairman: The Chair will state that a motion to limit
debate on the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by
the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Staggers) and all amendments
thereto, to a time certain, would be in order.
Mr. Devine: Mr. Chairman, I therefore will make that motion.
Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on the amendment in the
nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from West Virginia
(Mr. Staggers) and all amendments thereto, close at 5:30 p.m.
today.
Variations on Unanimous Consent To Limit Debate
Sec. 78.99 By unanimous consent, the Committee of the Whole agreed at
the beginning of general debate to limit and divide control of time
for
debate on any amendments
to be offered by designated Members to certain paragraphs (or to
amendments thereto).
The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on
July 23, 1981,(14) during consideration of the energy and
water development appropriations for fiscal 1982 (H.R. 4144):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 127 Cong. Rec. 16983, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Tom] Bevill [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the debate on the amendments by
[[Page 11166]]
the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Pritchard) and the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Edgar) in title I to the paragraph entitled
``Construction, General'' on page 2, be limited to 2 hours, one-
half of the time to be controlled equally by the gentleman from
Washington and one-half by myself.
The Chairman: (15) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Alabama?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Anthony C. Beilenson (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
Mr. Bevill: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the
debate on the amendments by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Coughlin) in title III to the paragraph entitled ``Energy Supply,
Research and Development Activities'' on page 16, be limited to 2
hours, one-half of the time to be controlled equally by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania and one-half by myself.
The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Alabama?
There was no objection.
Curtailing Previously Limited Time
Sec. 78.100 Where the Committee of the Whole has limited debate on a
pending amendment and all amendments thereto, a further limitation
may be imposed only by unanimous consent and not by motion.
On Oct. 8, 1974,(16) during consideration of House
Resolution 988 (to reform the structure, jurisdiction, and procedures
of House committees), Richard Bolling, of Missouri, was recognized and
made the following statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 120 Cong. Rec. 34459, 34460, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Bolling: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I have been talked to and have talked to a great
number of Members on both sides of the aisle. There is a
substantial amount of time left under the agreement voted
yesterday. I believe the time is in the order of 2 hours and 15
minutes. . . .
Most of the Members with whom I have discussed this matter
would like to cut back that amount of time.
Now, there is no attempt in any request that I make to limit
the right of Members with noticed amendments to offer their noticed
amendments. . . . I propose to ask by unanimous consent that the
debate on amendments, not including those noticed under the rule,
be limited to 30 minutes on the amendment in the nature of a
substitute offered by the gentlewoman from Washington and all
amendments thereto.
The Chairman: (17) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Missouri? . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: Objection is heard. . . .
Mr. Bolling: Mr. Chairman, would it be proper to make my
unanimous-consent request as a motion?
The Chairman: The Chair would like to inform the gentleman that
such a motion would not be in order at this time.
[[Page 11167]]
Parliamentarian's Note: In this instance, a motion to further limit
debate on each amendment as it was offered to the pending amendment in
the nature of a substitute would have been in order, but it would not
be in order by motion to change the overall limitation imposed by the
Committee on the amendment and all amendments thereto.
Motion To Require a Certain Amount of Debate
Sec. 78.101 A motion to require a certain amount of debate on an
amendment under the five-minute rule is not in order in the
Committee of the Whole.
On June 18, 1959,(18) Chairman Wilbur D. Mills, of
Arkansas, ruled as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 105 Cong. Rec. 11302, 11303, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Barratt] O'Hara of Illinois: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. O'Hara of Illinois: On page 10,
strike out all of lines 14, 15, and 16, and renumber the
paragraphs. . . .
Mr. O'Hara of Illinois: . . . I earnestly urge the adoption of
my amendment.
The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. O'Hara].
Mr. O'Hara of Illinois: Mr. Chairman, I think this matter is
very important and certainly I believe there should be more time
given to the discussion than just taking a vote now.
The Chairman: The Chair did not observe anyone standing.
Mr. O'Hara of Illinois: Mr. Chairman, I move that one-half hour
be given to discussing my amendment.
The Chairman: The gentleman's motion is not in order. . . .
The time of the gentleman from Iowa has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. O'Hara].
The amendment was agreed to.
CHAPTER 29
Consideration and Debate
I. DURATION OF DEBATE IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Sec. 79. -- Effect of Limitation; Distribution of Remaining Time
Where a limitation on debate under the five-minute rule is agreed
to, the Chair usually notes the names of those Members who indicate
their desire to speak by standing, and equally divides the time among
those Members.(19) Such distribution is, however, in the
discretion of the Chair, and he may recognize a Member for a full five
minutes.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See Sec. 22, supra (recognition under a limitation on five-minute
debate).
20. See Sec. 79.46, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee may provide by unanimous consent that time on
[[Page 11168]]
amendments be limited and controlled, and that the Members in charge
control and distribute the time under the limitation.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. See Sec. Sec. 79.83, 79.87, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If debate is closed instantly, no further debate is in order for
any purpose (including the preferential motion that the enacting clause
be stricken if the limitation is on the entire bill) and further
amendments may be offered but not debated (2) unless they
have been printed in the Congressional Record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. See Sec. Sec. 79.1, 79.23, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If debate is limited to a time certain (e.g., 5 p.m.), time runs
for all purposes, including the taking of votes, reading amendments,
quorum calls, and debating the preferential motion to strike the
enacting clause.(3) If the Committee rises before the
expiration of such a limitation, and does not
resume consideration before the time certain arrives, no further time
for debate remains.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. See Sec. Sec. 79.2 et seq., infra.
4. See Sec. 79.128, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If debate on an amendment or portion of a bill is limited to a
fixed period for debate (e.g., 20 minutes), time runs only for debate
and not for votes, quorum calls, reading amendments, or offering and
debating the preferential motion to strike the enacting
clause.(5) But if time is limited to a fixed period on the
entire bill and all amendments thereto, the time for the preferential
motion does consume time under the limitation.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. See Sec. Sec. 79.10 et seq., infra.
6. See Sec. 79.17, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether the expiration of a limitation precludes debate on an
amendment yet to be offered depends on whether the amendment comes
within the scope of the limitation, which may apply to an amendment, a
section, a paragraph, a title, or the entire bill, and also to
amendments to each of those.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. See Sec. Sec. 79.30, 79.35, 79.38-79.40, 79.43, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The expiration of a limitation does not apply to amendments which
have been printed, pursuant to Rule XXIII clause 6, in the
Congressional Record at least one day prior to their
consideration.(8) Amendments which are covered by the
limitation may be offered after the expiration thereof, but may not be
debated.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. See Sec. 79.104, infra.
9. See Sec. Sec. 79.95-79.98, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross References
Opening and closing debate generally, see Sec. 7, supra.
Recognition for offering and debating amendments, see Sec. 19, supra.
Recognition where five-minute debate has been limited, see Sec. 22,
supra.
[[Page 11169]]
Reserving time under limitation, see Sec. 78, supra.
Yielding time under limitation, see Sec. 31,
supra. -------------------
Debate Closed Instantly
Sec. 79.1 Where debate on a pending amendment has been closed instantly
by motion, the Chair puts the question on the amendment and does
not recognize Members who seek to debate the amendment further.
On Nov. 25, 1970,(10) Mr. John C. Kluczynski, of
Illinois, the manager of the pending bill in the Committee of the
Whole, moved that all debate on the pending amendment close instantly.
The Committee agreed to the motion by division vote. Mr. Andrew Jacobs,
Jr., of Indiana, and Mr. Jonathan B. Bingham, of New York, then sought
recognition to debate the amendment. Chairman Chet Holifield, of
California, ruled that no further debate was in order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 116 Cong. Rec. 38990, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Jacobs: What about those of us who were on our feet when
debate was choked off? Will we be recognized?
The Chairman: There was no count made of Members standing for
time, and the motion of the gentleman from Illinois was to close
debate, and that motion was agreed to.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. The manager of a bill has priority of recognition to move to close
debate instantly on an amendment, even if other Members seek to
debate it further or to offer amendments thereto; see
Sec. 21.30, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Running of Time Under Limitation to Time Certain
Sec. 79.2 Where the Committee of the Whole has agreed to close debate
on an amendment and all amendments thereto at a time certain, the
Chair attempts to divide the time equally between Members desiring
recognition; but where part of the fixed time is consumed by votes,
it may not be possible for the Chair to reach each Member on the
list before the time expires.
On Aug. 7, 1964,(12) the Committee of the Whole agreed
to a motion offered by Mr. Phillip M. Landrum, of Georgia, that debate
under the five-minute rule on an amendment in the nature of a
substitute and amendments thereto close at 6:30 p.m. Before the time
expired, various teller votes intervened and prevented all the Members
who were noted by the Chair and who desired recognition under the
limitation from being heard before the time expired. Chairman Albert
Rains, of Ala
[[Page 11170]]
bama, answered an inquiry on that subject as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 110 Cong. Rec. 18583, 18608, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: All time has expired for debate on the
amendments.
Mr. [Charles E.] Goodell [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry. I was standing on my feet when the original
time limitation was made. There are others here who were standing
on their feet. Everybody had 2 minutes. Do I understand now, since
time has elapsed, that we are prevented from even taking the 2
minutes?
The Chairman: The Chair will state that the Committee voted to
close all debate at 6:30 and that most of the time was taken up by
the ordering of teller votes. There were many Members who did not
get to be recognized who were standing on their feet.
On Oct. 7, 1965,(13) the Committee of the Whole agreed
to a motion that debate on a title of a bill and amendments thereto
close at 8:20 p.m. Mr. William C. Cramer, of Florida, offered an
amendment and debated it, and a division vote and teller vote consumed
the time. Chairman Phillip M. Landrum, of Georgia, stated in response
to a parliamentary inquiry that Members who had indicated their desire
to speak when the limitation was agreed to could not be recognized for
further debate, the time for votes having consumed the time under the
limitation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 111 Cong. Rec. 26305, 26306, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 79.3 Time consumed by teller votes comes out of a limitation of
time for debate on a pending amendment and all amendments thereto
where that debate has been limited to a time certain.
On Nov. 30, 1971,(14) the Committee of the Whole agreed
to a motion by Mr. Wayne L. Hays, of Ohio, that all debate on an
amendment and amendments thereto end at 7 o'clock p.m. Chairman Richard
Bolling, of Missouri, answered a parliamentary inquiry on the effect of
teller votes on such a time limitation:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 117 Cong. Rec. 43406, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman a parliamentary
inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Brown of Ohio: If there is a teller vote on the Bingham
amendment, or any subsequent amendment, would those teller votes
come out of the time limitation at 7 o'clock?
The Chairman: The Chair will state in response to the
parliamentary inquiry of the gentleman from Ohio that the time
limitation has been fixed at 7 o'clock and all time used comes out
of that time limitation.
Sec. 79.4 Where time for debate
is limited to a certain hour rather than a number of
minutes of debate time, the
time taken by teller votes is counted as time out of the time
allowed for debate.
[[Page 11171]]
On Feb. 22, 1950,(15) the Committee of the Whole agreed
to the following motion to close debate offered by Mr. John W.
McCormack, of Massachusetts:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 96 Cong. Rec. 2240-46, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that all debate on the McConnell amendment and all
amendments thereto close at 2:30 a.m.
Chairman Francis E. Walter,
of Pennsylvania, then answered
a parliamentary inquiry on the counting of time under the limitation:
Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Case of South Dakota: The limitation on time fixed the time
at a precise hour rather than so many minutes. The effect of teller
votes, then, is simply to take time out of the time allowed for
debate?
The Chairman: Of course, it comes out of the time.
Sec. 79.5 After time for debate has been fixed to a certain hour by
motion, time for parliamentary inquiries, rereading of amendments,
and the like, is taken from the time remaining, thus cutting the
time for debate apportioned to Members who have not yet spoken.
On Jan. 23, 1962,(16) the Committee of the Whole had
agreed to a motion that debate under the five-minute rule close at 5:30
p.m. on an amendment and amendments thereto. Mr. Charles McC. Mathias,
Jr., of Maryland, offered an amendment and was recognized. Mr. Hale
Boggs, of Louisiana, then made a unanimous-consent request and Chairman
Charles M. Price, of Illinois, answered a parliamentary inquiry on the
consumption of time under the limitation:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 108 Cong. Rec. 769, 773, 774, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Boggs: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the
amendment may be reread by the Clerk.
Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, reserving the right
to object is this coming out of the gentleman's time?
The Chairman: It is coming out of the time allotted for general
debate which closes at 5:30 p.m. There will be a loss of time to
succeeding Members.
Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Louisiana?
Mr. Gross: Yes; I object.
The Chairman: The gentleman from Maryland is recognized.
Sec. 79.6 In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Chair indicated
that a limitation of time for debate on a bill and all amendments
thereto at a time certain
[[Page 11172]]
would preclude any debate thereafter except on amendments printed
in the Record, while time consumed by votes and quorum calls is not
counted where the limitation is on the number of minutes of debate
and not by the clock.
During consideration of H.R. 6096, the Vietnam Humanitarian and
Evacuation Assistance Act, in the Committee of the Whole on Apr. 23,
1975,(17) the proceedings relative to limiting debate were
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 121 Cong. Rec. 11534, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: . . . It is my
intention at this time to seek a time limit on the debate if I can
obtain the permission of the House.
Mr. Chairman, I move that the debate on the bill and all
amendments thereto be concluded at 11:30.
Mr. [Paul S.] Sarbanes [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield for a question?
The Chairman: (18) This motion is not a debatable
question. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Otis G. Pike (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary
inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Eckhardt: Mr. Chairman, do I understand correctly that when
such a motion is passed setting a time certain for conclusion of
the debate, that regardless of the situation which may exist in the
House debate is absolutely cut off and amendments must proceed
without presentation of any argument, whereas if a time is provided
as for instance an hour and a half, then when the Chair establishes
time for each Member, that time is not cut off at any specific
hour?
The Chairman: The gentleman has stated the case properly, with
the exception that even under the pending motion those amendments
which have previously been printed in the Record would get the time
allotted to them under the basic House rules.
Sec. 79.7 Where all debate on a bill and all amendments thereto has
been limited to a time certain, time consumed by votes comes out of
the time remaining for debate.
On Dec. 17, 1975,(19) an example of the principle stated
above was demonstrated in the Committee of the Whole during
consideration of the Regional Rail Reorganization Act amendments (H.R.
10979). The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 121 Cong. Rec. 41386, 41389, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Fred B.] Rooney [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I move
that all debate on the bill and all amendments thereto conclude at
5 o'clock.
The Chairman: (20) The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rooney).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 11173]]
The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr.
Skubitz) there were--ayes 61, noes 37.
Mr. [William A.] Steiger of Wisconsin: Mr. Chairman, I demand a
recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device and there were--ayes
258, noes 161, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 14, as follows: .
. .
Mr. [Peter A.] Peyser [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. Peyser: Mr. Chairman, does the time of the vote go against
the 5 o'clock deadline?
The Chairman: The Chair will state that it does, yes.
Mr. Peyser: In other words, Mr. Chairman, if we have another
vote we would then cut 15 more minutes out of that time?
The Chairman: The gentleman is correct, yes.
Sec. 79.8 A limitation of debate to a time certain terminates all
debate at that time notwithstanding reallocations of allotted time
which remain unused when debate expires.
During consideration of the Vocational Educational Act amendments
(H.R. 12835) in the Committee of the Whole on May 11,
1976,(1) a motion to limit debate was offered as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 122 Cong. Rec. 13416, 13427, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Carl D.] Perkins [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I move that
all debate on title III and all amendments thereto close at 4:50
p.m.
The motion was agreed to. . . .
The Chairman: (2) All time has expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. B. F. Sisk (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Conlan).
Mr. [John B.] Conlan [of Arizona]: Mr. Chairman, I have time.
Five minutes were allowed.
The Chairman: The time was set certain and, unfortunately, the
time has expired.
--Argument on Point of Order
Sec. 79.9 Where debate under the five-minute rule has been limited to a
time certain, debate consumed for argument on a point of order
comes out of all the time under the limitation (and not only out of
the time of the Member whose amendment was the subject of the point
of order), and reduces the time allotted to each Member who had
indicated a desire to speak under the limitation.
On Apr. 26, 1978,(3) during consideration of H.R. 8494,
the Pub-lic Disclosure of Lobbying Act of
[[Page 11174]]
1978, a limitation on debate was agreed to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 124 Cong. Rec. 11641-43, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [George E.] Danielson [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I move
that all debate on this bill and all amendments thereto be
terminated at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m. tonight.
[The motion was agreed to.]
Mr. Gary A. Myers [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Gary A. Myers: Page 39, insert the
following after line 7:
(8) If any lobbying communication was made on the floor of
the House of Representatives or adjoining rooms thereof, or on
the floor of the Senate or adjoining rooms thereof, a statement
that such lobbying communication was made. . . .
Mr. Danielson: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that
this amendment is not germane to the bill. The bill calls for
disclosure of lobbying activities under the terms of expenditure
and the like, and related lobbying activities as to influencing the
conduct and disposition of legislation. This has to do with
activities within the Capitol Building and is not necessarily
within the purview of the bill. . . .
Mr. Gary A. Myers: Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that
the amendment is more narrowly drafted than the amendment which I
offered last year. It only requires an item of disclosure by those
individuals who otherwise would have to be reporting. . . . In last
year's amendment there was a point of order raised about the
invasion of the House rules. It would seem to me that article I,
section 5 of the Constitution clearly states that:
. . . each House may determine the rules of its
proceedings.
Numerous precedents have held that the power to make rules is
not impaired by rules of previous Congresses or by laws passed by
previous Congresses. So that this amendment in no way adds to or
impairs the rules of the House. . . .
The Chairman: (4) The Chair will notify the members
of the committee that time taken from the allotted time for the
discussion of the point of order was not allotted to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania but will come out of the general time and will
reduce everyone's time to 5 minutes each.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Lloyd Meeds (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are there further amendments?
Running of Time Under Fixed-period Limitation
Sec. 79.10 Where the Committee of the Whole limits debate under the
five-minute rule to a fixed period of debate time, time consumed by
voting is not counted against this limitation.
On Feb. 10, 1964,(5) Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York,
propounded a unanimous-consent request that all debate on the pending
title and amendments thereto conclude in two hours. Chairman
[[Page 11175]]
Eugene J. Keogh, of New York, answered a parliamentary inquiry on the
effect of interruptions on such a limitation:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 110 Cong. Rec. 2705, 2706, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: If the limit is 2 hours,
would that 2 hours include teller votes or division votes, or
matters of that sort, or would it be actually 2 hours of debate.
The Chairman: If the unanimous-consent agreement is that there
be 2 hours' debate, division votes would not be taken out of the 2
hours.
Sec. 79.11 Where debate has been limited ``to 30 minutes,'' time is
counted only during debate, not during quorum calls.
On Aug. 4, 1966,(6) Majority Leader Carl Albert, of
Oklahoma, propounded a unanimous-consent request that debate on a
pending motion to strike a title of a bill be limited to 30 minutes.
Chairman Richard Bolling, of Missouri, answered a parliamentary inquiry
on the effect of a quorum call on time under the limitation:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 112 Cong. Rec. 18207, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, is my
understanding correct that the unanimous-consent request propounded
by the distinguished majority leader would preclude a quorum call
prior to the first order of business and the 30 minutes before the
vote?
The Chairman: The Chair will reply to the gentleman that if
there is no quorum present any Member at any time can make a point
of order. In other words, it will not preclude a quorum call.
Mr. Hall: A further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman. Would
that time come out of the 30 minutes allotted for debate?
The Chairman: It would not.
Sec. 79.12 Time consumed by a quorum call does not come out of a
limitation of time for debate on a pending amendment and all
amendments thereto where that limitation specifies minutes of
debate rather than a time certain by the clock.
On Nov. 9, 1971,(7) Chairman William L. Hungate, of
Missouri, answered a parliamentary inquiry on whether time for a quorum
call would come out of the time for debate under a limitation:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 117 Cong. Rec. 40060, 40061, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [William R.] Poage [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I move that
all debate on the Dow amendment in the nature of a substitute, the
Kyl substitute amendment, and all amendments thereto close in 20
minutes.
The Chairman: The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poage).
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. [John G.] Dow [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point
of order that a quorum is not present.
[[Page 11176]]
The Chairman: The Chair will count.
Mr. Dow: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. Dow: Mr. Chairman, if there is a rollcall will this come
out of the time limitation?
The Chairman: The Chair will state in response to the inquiry
of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Dow) that the motion that was
agreed to, that was offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poage)
was for 20 minutes of debate, and the Chair will advise the
gentleman from New York that there will be 20 minutes allotted for
debate.
Sec. 79.13 In answer to a parliamentary inquiry, the Chair indicated
that when debate is limited to ``60 minutes,'' the time consumed
for purposes other than debate is not counted as part of the time.
On May 26, 1966,(8) Mr. Adam C. Powell, of New York,
made a unanimous-consent request that debate on a pending amendment be
limited to ``60 minutes.'' Mr. Charles A. Halleck, of Indiana,
propounded a parliamentary inquiry whether that limitation would be a
specific number of minutes or to a given time on the clock. Chairman
Charles M. Price, of Illinois, responded that the language of the
limitation meant one hour of debate (to exclude time for purposes other
than debate).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 112 Cong. Rec. 11608, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When a quorum call was had during the limitation, the time consumed
thereby was not taken out of the remaining time for
debate.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Id. at p. 11618.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 79.14 Where time for debate is limited without reference to a time
certain, the time consumed by the reading of amendments is not
taken from that remaining for debate.
On Oct. 3, 1969,(10) the Committee of the Whole agreed
to a motion by Mr. L. Mendel Rivers, of South Carolina, that all debate
on a title and amendments thereto close in 15 minutes. Under the
limitation, Mr. John B. Anderson, of Illinois, offered a perfecting
amendment to the title, and it was read by the Clerk. During the
reading, Mr. Harold R. Collier, of Illinois, inquired whether the
reading of the amendment was charged against the time under the
limitation. Chairman Daniel D. Rostenkowski, of Illinois, responded
that the time for the
[[Page 11177]]
reading would not be charged against the limited time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 115 Cong. Rec. 28459, 28460, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 79.15 Where the Committee of the Whole has agreed to a limitation
for debate on a pending amendment and the limitation specified
minutes of debate rather than a time certain, time consumed by
votes does not come out of the time under the limitation.
On Sept. 28, 1976,(11) during consideration of H.R. 15
(the Public Disclosure of Lobbying Act of 1976), the Chair responded to
parliamentary inquiries regarding a limitation on debate time, as
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 122 Cong. Rec. 33081, 33082, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Walter] Flowers [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, I move that
all debate on the amendment in the nature of a substitute and all
amendments thereto be limited to 30 minutes.
The Chairman: (12) The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Flowers). . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
So the motion was agreed to.
The Chairman: Members standing at the time the motion was
agreed to will each be recognized for a fraction over 2 minutes.
Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Ashbrook: Mr. Chairman, the way the motion was stated,
would the time for votes be taken out of the 30 minutes, or will
there be 30 minutes of debate?
The Chairman: The Chair will state that the time consumed by
votes would be excluded from the time allotted.
Mr. Ashbrook: So, Mr. Chairman, the time for votes, if we would
have votes, would not come out of the 30 minutes?
The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
Sec. 79.16 When debate under the five-minute rule has been limited to a
certain amount of time for debate, time is counted only during
debate and not during quorum calls and recorded votes, unless
otherwise stipulated in the request to limit debate.
During consideration of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (H.R.
1614) in the Committee of the Whole on Feb. 1, 1978,(13) the
following exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 124 Cong. Rec. 1827, 1828, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John M.] Murphy of New York: Mr. Chairman, I will revise
the unanimous-consent request.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that when we convene
tomorrow, all debate on H.R. 1614 and all amendments and
substitutes thereto end after 3 hours of debate.
[[Page 11178]]
The Chairman: (14) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from New York?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [William A.] Steiger [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman,
reserving the right to object, may I inquire of the Chairman of the
committee: Does that include quorum calls and rollcall votes?
Mr. Murphy of New York: Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will
yield, we did not set 3 o'clock tomorrow as the time to terminate
the debate. We said we would have 3 hours of debate. . . .
The Chairman: The Chair would like to make an inquiry of the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Murphy).
Assuming that the unanimous-consent request for 3 hours is
approved, ordinarily the time for quorum calls and rollcall votes
would not be deducted from the 3 hours of debate unless that is the
intention of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Murphy). The
unanimous-consent request for 3 hours would cover debate time only,
and it would not take into consideration the time consumed for
quorum calls and rollcall votes.
That would be the ordinary procedure, unless the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Murphy) would like to stipulate that those be
included in the 3 hours.
Mr. Murphy of New York: Mr. Chairman, I would like to stipulate
in the unanimous-consent request that any time allocated to quorum
calls or to rollcalls not be included in the 3 hours.
Time on Enacting Clause
Sec. 79.17 After debate on a bill and all amendments thereto had been
limited to 10 minutes and five had been consumed, a preferential
motion to strike the enacting clause consumed the remaining time
and prevented recognition of a member of the committee handling the
bill to speak against the pending amendment or against the motion
to strike the enacting clause.
On Mar. 28, 1958,(15) the Committee of the Whole agreed
to a motion, offered by Mr. George P. Miller, of California, the
manager of the pending bill, that all debate on the bill and amendments
thereto close in 10 minutes. After five minutes of debate following the
limitation agreement, Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, offered the
motion that the Committee of the Whole rise and report the bill to the
House with the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken.
Chairman William H. Natcher, of Kentucky, stated in response to
parliamentary inquiries that the time for the motion would come out of
remaining time on the bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 104 Cong. Rec. 5701, 5702, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hoffman: If my motion is defeated can there be further
debate on the pending amendment, since time for debate has been
limited?
[[Page 11179]]
The Chairman: The Chair informs the gentleman that all debate
will be concluded in 5 minutes.
Mr. [Albert P.] Morano [of Connecticut]: Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield for a parliamentary inquiry?
The Chairman: Does the gentleman yield for a parliamentary
inquiry? It will come out of his time.
Mr. Hoffman: Will the Chair inform me how much time I have?
The Chairman: The gentleman has 4 minutes remaining.
Mr. Hoffman: I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Connecticut.
Mr. Morano: As I understand, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from
Michigan moves to strike out the enacting clause.
The Chairman: That is the pending motion.
Mr. Morano: Do the rules of the House not provide that there
may be 5 minutes debate in opposition to strike the enacting
clause?
The Chairman: That would be the case ordinarily, but in this
particular instance the Committee adopted a motion closing all
debate on the bill in 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoffman].
Sec. 79.18 The 10 minutes of debate on a motion to strike the enacting
clause in the Committee of the Whole is not taken from the time
fixed for debate on an amendment previously offered, where the time
was not fixed by the clock.
On Apr. 28, 1953,(16) the Committee of the Whole agreed
to limit debate on a pending amendment, the time thereto to expire
after a fixed number of minutes (not to expire at a specified time on
the clock). Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, offered the preferential
motion to strike the enacting clause and debated it, as did a Member in
opposition to the motion. After the 10 minutes on the motion expired,
Chairman J. Harry McGregor, of Ohio, answered a parliamentary inquiry
on the time left to debate the pending amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 99 Cong. Rec. 4125-28, 83d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, I offer a preferential
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Hoffman of Michigan moves that the Committee do now
rise and report the bill back to the House with the
recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken. . . .
[After 10 minutes debate on the motion.]
The Chairman: The time of the gentleman from Missouri has
expired. All time has expired.
Mr. [Herman P.] Eberharter [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Eberharter: The time on the preferential motion offered by
the gen
[[Page 11180]]
tleman from Michigan is not taken out of the time already allotted
for debate on this subject?
The Chairman: That is correct. All debate on the preferential
motion has expired, but not all debate on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Texas.
Sec. 79.19 When time for debate on an amendment is limited to a time
certain, the 10 minutes permitted for debate on a preferential
motion that the Committee rise and report with the recommendation
that the enacting clause be stricken comes out of the time
remaining under the limitation and reduces the time which may be
allocated to Members wishing to speak.
On May 6, 1970,(17) the Committee of the Whole agreed to
a motion that all debate on a pending amendment and amendments thereto
close at a time certain, 5 o'clock. During debate under the limitation,
Mr. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr., of Massachusetts, offered the preferential
motion that the Committee rise and report back the bill with the
recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken. Chairman Daniel D.
Rostenkowski, of Illinois, stated in response to a parliamentary
inquiry that regardless of the allocation by the Chair of time
remaining under the limitation, the motion could be debated for 10
minutes, five in favor of and five against the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 116 Cong. Rec. 14452, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman then answered a further parliamentary inquiry on the
charging of the time on the motion to the time remaining under the
limitation:
Mr. [Robert L.] Leggett [of California]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Leggett: Mr. Chairman, considering the fact that a time
limitation has now been set in relation to today at 5 o'clock, does
the time of the debate on the motion that we have already heard,
come out of the time on the amendments?
The Chairman: The time will come out of the time of those who
are participating in debate.
Mr. Leggett: Mr. Chairman, a further parliamentary inquiry. If
we choose to rise right now and come back tomorrow, then would
there be any time limitation on debate?
The Chairman: There would be no further debate.
The time was set at 5 o'clock.
The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. O'Neill).
The motion was rejected.
Sec. 79.20 When because of a limitation of debate on a para
[[Page 11181]]
graph or section a Member is unable to obtain time during the stage
of amendments, he may offer a motion to strike out the enacting
clause and thus secure time for debate, if he is opposed to the
bill.
On Mar. 13, 1942,(18) the Committee of the Whole had
agreed to limit debate on a paragraph of the pending bill and
amendments thereto. When the time expired, Mr. Andrew J. May, of
Kentucky, offered the motion that the Committee rise and report the
bill to the House with the recommendation that the enacting clause be
stricken. He indicated he would withdraw the motion after it was
discussed, or expect the House to vote it down. Chairman Robert
Ramspeck, of Georgia, recognized Mr. May for five minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 88 Cong. Rec. 2439, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, then made a point of order
against recognition of Mr. May for that purpose, stating that the
offering of the motion merely to secure time for debate should not
abrogate the right of the Committee to close debate when it chose. The
Chairman overruled the point of order.
When Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, made the point of order
that Mr. May had not qualified to offer the motion by stating he was
opposed to the bill, Mr. May assured the Chairman that he was opposed
to the bill in its present form.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See also 91 Cong. Rec. 5149, 79th Cong. 1st Sess., May 26, 1945;
and 86 Cong. Rec. 1883, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., Feb. 23, 1940. For
argument opposing such use of the motion, see 88 Cong. Rec.
2441, 2442, 77th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 13, 1942; and 86 Cong.
Rec. 2017-19, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., Feb. 26, 1940.
A Member offering the motion or opposing the motion may
discuss the entire bill, the motion opening the bill up for
discussion (see Sec. 38, supra).
The Member making the motion, if challenged, must qualify
by stating he is opposed to the bill (see 104 Cong. Rec. 3443,
85th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 5, 1958), and to obtain recognition
in opposition to the motion a Member must qualify by stating he
is opposed to the motion (see 97 Cong. Rec. 8539, 82d Cong. 1st
Sess., July 20, 1951). When no member of the reporting
committee seeks recognition in opposition to the motion, the
Chair may recognize a Member from the opposite party of the
Member making the motion (see 101 Cong. Rec. 12997, 84th Cong.
1st Sess., Aug. 2, 1955).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 79.21 Where a bill has been amended subsequent to the rejection of
a motion to strike out the enacting clause, a second such motion
[[Page 11182]]
is in order and is debatable notwithstanding a limitation of
unexpired debate on the bill.
On May 9, 1947,(20) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan,
offered a motion that the Committee of the Whole rise and report a bill
to the House with the recommendation that the enacting clause be
stricken, after a previous such motion had been offered before the bill
had been amended, and after a limitation on debate had been agreed to.
Chairman Francis H. Case, of South Dakota, overruled points of order
against the motion:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 93 Cong. Rec. 4974, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hoffman: Mr. Chairman, I offer a preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Hoffman moves that the Committee do now rise and report
the bill back to the House with the recommendation that the
enacting clause be stricken.
Mr. [Pete] Jarman [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order
against the motion.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Jarman: Mr. Chairman, that motion has already been made and
was voted down once.
The Chairman: There have been several amendments adopted on the
bill, it has been changed since that motion was previously acted
on. The Chair overrules the point of order.
Mr. [John M.] Vorys [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Vorys: Mr. Chairman, debate is limited on the bill by
action of the committee.
The Chairman: The gentleman from Michigan has offered a
preferential motion which is in order in spite of the agreement on
closing debate.
Sec. 79.22 A preferential motion to strike the enacting clause is not
debatable after all time for debate on the bill and amendments
thereto has expired.
On July 9, 1965,(1) while the Committee of the Whole was
considering the Voting Rights Act of 1965, H.R. 6400, Chairman Richard
Bolling, of Missouri, ruled that a motion to strike the enacting clause
was not debatable, all time having expired on the bill and amendments
thereto:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 111 Cong. Rec. 16280, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: All time has expired.
Mr. Gerald R. Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I was on the
list, but the time has expired. I have a preferential motion.
The Chairman: All debate is concluded even with a preferential
motion. The agreement was that all debate would conclude at 7:20
p.m. The hour is now 7:20 p.m. There is no further time.
[[Page 11183]]
The question is on the committee amendment, as amended.
Sec. 79.23 A motion having been adopted in the Committee of the Whole
to close debate instantly on a bill, a preferential motion that the
Committee rise and report back to the House a recommendation that
the enacting clause be stricken is not debatable.
On June 11, 1959,(2) Mr. Harold D. Cooley, of North
Carolina, moved and the Committee of the Whole agreed to close all
debate on the pending bill and on all amendments thereto. Chairman
Joseph L. Evins, of Tennessee, then ruled that a preferential motion on
the bill was not debatable since debate on the bill had been closed:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 105 Cong. Rec. 10560, 10561, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, I offer a
preferential motion.
The Chairman: The Chair must inform the gentleman from Michigan
that the motion is not debatable.
Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: Is this a Senate bill?
The Chairman: This is a House bill.
Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: This is a Senate bill and the Chair
holds that it is not debatable at this time?
The Chairman: All debate on the bill has been ordered closed.
Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: This is not on the bill. This is on a
motion to strike out the enacting clause on the ground that the
first amendment has been denied to the minority here, the right of
free speech in debate, and this being the greatest deliberative
body in the world and the accusation having been made the other day
that the minority was intimidated, or the majority was being
intimidated.
The Chairman: The gentleman from Michigan is a very beloved and
very distinguished and very able parliamentarian, but the majority
have ruled and ordered that all debate is concluded at this time.
Sec. 79.24 Where all debate on
a bill and all amendments thereto has been limited and there
remains less than 10 minutes, a Member offering the preferential
motion that the Committee rise and report with a recommendation to
strike the enacting clause, is entitled to one-half of the time
remaining and a Member in opposition to the motion is recognized
for the other half.
On June 19, 1975,(3) during consideration of the Energy
Conservation and Conversion Act of 1975 (H.R. 6860) in the Committee of
the Whole, the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 121 Cong. Rec. 19785-87, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Al] Ullman [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent
[[Page 11184]]
that all debate on the bill and all amendments cease in 2 minutes.
The Chairman: (4) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Oregon?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
The Chairman: Under the rule, the Chairman has the right at
this time to recognize one Member on each side. The Chair will do
that. All debate on the bill is limited to 2 minutes. The Chair
would be unable to recognize 40 or 50 Members for 1 second or 2
seconds.
Mr. [William A.] Steiger of Wisconsin: Mr. Chairman, I offer a
preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Steiger of Wisconsin moves that the Committee do now
rise and report the bill back to the House with the
recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken. . . .
Mr. [John H.] Rousselot [of California]: Why, on a motion which
the gentleman from Wisconsin made, is he not allowed 5 minutes?
The Chairman: The Chair would like to state to the gentleman
from California that all debate on the bill and all amendments
thereto is limited to two minutes. . . .
Mr. Rousselot: But he has 5 minutes on a preferential motion.
The Chairman: All time has been fixed on the bill, and all
amendments thereto, and the time was 2 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Phillip
Burton) for 1 minute in opposition to the preferential motion.
Sec. 79.25 Despite a limitation of time for debate on the remaining
portion of a bill and all amendments thereto to a time certain and
the subsequent allocation of less than five minutes time to each
Member seeking recognition, a full 10 minutes' debate, five for and
five against, may still be demanded on a preferential motion that
the Committee rise and report with the recommendation that the
enacting clause be stricken.
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,(5) the following proceedings
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 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: (6) The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Evins). . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 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:
[[Page 11185]]
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 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.
Sec. 79.26 The 10 minutes of debate otherwise permitted on a
preferential motion to recommend that the enacting clause be
stricken is not available where all time for debate under the five-
minute rule on a bill and all amendments thereto has expired.
On Apr. 9, 1976,(7) during consideration of the military
procurement authorization bill (H.R. 12438) in the Committee of the
Whole, the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 122 Cong. Rec. 10245, 10246, 10249, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Melvin] Price [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that all debate on the remainder of the bill, title VII and
all amendments thereto, close in 10 minutes.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: (8) Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Illinois?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. John Brademas (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection. . . .
The Chairman Pro Tempore: All time for debate has expired. . .
.
Mr. [Tom] Harkin [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a
preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Harkin moves that the Committee do now rise and report
the bill back to the House with the
recommendation that the enacting clause of H.R. 12438 be
stricken.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman's motion is not
debatable, in that all time has expired.
The question is on the preferential motion offered by the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Harkin).
The preferential motion was rejected.
Sec. 79.27 When the Committee of the Whole has limited debate on the
bill and all amend
[[Page 11186]]
ments thereto to a time certain, even a preferential motion to
strike the enacting clause is not debatable if offered after the
expiration of time for debate.
On Aug. 1, 1984,(9) during consideration of H.R. 6028
(Departments of Labor and Health, Education, and Welfare appropriations
for fiscal 1985) in the Committee of the Whole, the following
proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 130 Cong. Rec. 21869, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: (10) All time has expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Don Fuqua (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [William E.] Dannemeyer [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I
have a preferential motion at the desk.
The Chairman: The Clerk will state the motion.
The Chair will first advise the gentleman that it is not
debatable at this point under the unanimous-consent agreement.
Mr. Dannemeyer: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry. .
. .
Is it not true that on behalf of this motion this Member would
have 5 minutes?
The Chairman: All debate on the bill and all amendments to the
bill under the unanimous-consent agreement was to end at 1:30,
unless amendments had been printed in the Record.
Mr. Dannemeyer: This is not an amendment.
The Chairman: All debate on the bill ended at 1:30, under the
unanimous-consent agreement.
Mr. Dannemeyer: Maybe this Member does not understand, but the
preferential motion takes precedence over the time limitation that
has been agreed to; does it not?
The Chairman: It could be offered, but there will be no debate
on the preferential motion.
Mr. Dannemeyer: This Member would have no time on behalf of it?
The Chairman: The gentleman would not have any time under the
unanimous-consent agreement.
Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I have
a parliamentary inquiry. . . .
The time limitation was on the bill itself; is that correct?
The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
Mr. Walker: The preferential motion deals with a specific
motion before the House which would be my understanding, would
permit the gentleman 5 minutes of time to debate his motion. That
is the pattern that I have understood we have used before when time
limitations have been declared. Is this a change of policy on the
part of the Chair?
The Chairman: The Chair will state that the precedents of the
House are that when the time limit is on the
entire bill, that includes all motions thereto.
Mr. Walker: So that the Chair is ruling that this motion is a
part of the debate on the bill?
The Chairman: That is correct.
Where Enacting Clause Debate Uses All Time Remaining
Sec. 79.28 A limitation of all debate time on a bill and all
[[Page 11187]]
amendments thereto to a time certain does not preclude the offering
of a preferential motion to rise with the recommendation that the
enacting clause be stricken, nor debate thereon during time
remaining under the limitation; and where the remaining time for
debate on
a bill and all amendments thereto is consumed by debate on a
preferential motion, an amendment pending when the preferential
motion was offered is voted on without further debate, if that
amendment was not printed in the Record.
On Oct. 6, 1981,(11) during consideration of H.R. 4560
(Labor, Health and Human Services appropriations for fiscal year 1982)
in the Committee of the Whole, the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 127 Cong. Rec. 23361, 23362, 23396, 23397, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [William H.] Natcher [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that all debate on the bill and all amendments
thereto conclude not later than 5 o'clock.
The Chairman: (12) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Kentucky?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Don Fuqua (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Theodore S.] Weiss [of New York]: . . . I wonder if the
distinguished gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Natcher) would not agree
that a 6 o'clock time frame would be more appropriate?
Mr. Natcher: Mr. Chairman, I would accept the recommendation,
and so move.
The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Kentucky?
There was no objection.
The Chairman: The time will be limited to 6 o'clock. . . .
Mr. [Trent] Lott [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a
preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Lott moves that the Committee do now rise and report
the bill back to the House with the recommendation that the
enacting clause be stricken out. . . .
Mr. Weiss: Mr. Chairman, at the time the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Natcher) requested unanimous consent that debate be
terminated at 6 o'clock, we were given assurances that all the
amendments that . . . any Member had to offer would be entertained.
So I now raise the point of order that in fact the gentleman is
proceeding out of the regular order that was agreed to.
The Chairman: The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Lott) has
offered a preferential motion which is in order and not precluded
by the unanimous-consent agreement, and under the unanimous-consent
agreement, the gentleman from Mississippi is recognized for 2\1/2\
minutes. . . .
Mr. [Joseph M.] Gaydos [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make
a point of order.
[[Page 11188]]
The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. Gaydos: Mr. Chairman, I am asking the Chair whether or not
I have 5 minutes to respond to the amendment as offered by the
gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg).
The Chairman: All time for debate on the bill and on the
pending amendment has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg). . . .
So the amendment was rejected.
Mr. [Donald J.] Pease [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Chairman: Is the gentleman's amendment printed in the
Record?
Mr. Pease: It is, Mr. Chairman. It is amendment No. 1.
[Mr. Pease was subsequently recognized to debate the
amendment.]
Parliamentarian's Note: During debate on the preferential motion,
there was discussion of a prospective motion to recommit. For
discussion of the distinction between a motion to recommit pending a
vote on a motion to strike the enacting clause, and the motion to
recommit pending final passage, see Sec. 15, supra.
Applicability of Limitation to Particular Measures
Sec. 79.29 The closing of debate on a section of a bill and
all amendments thereto does not apply to an amendment offered as a
new section.
On June 30, 1939,(13) Chairman Jere Cooper, of
Tennessee, ruled that the adoption of a motion to close debate on a
section did not preclude offering a new section with debate thereon:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 84 Cong. Rec. 8500, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [James E.] Van Zandt [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I
offer an amendment which I send to the Clerk's desk.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Van Zandt: Page 9, line 14,
insert:
``Arming of American Merchant Vessels Prohibited
``Sec. 9. Whenever the President shall have issued a
proclamation under the authority of section 1, it shall
thereafter be unlawful, until such proclamation is revoked, for
any American vessel engaged in commerce with any belligerent
state, named in such proclamation, to be armed, except small
arms and ammunition therefor which the President may deem
necessary and shall publicly designate for the preservation of
discipline aboard such vessels.''
Mr. Luther A. Johnson [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I call the
attention of the Chair to the fact that debate has expired on
section 9 by unanimous consent.
The Chairman: The Chair invites the attention of the gentleman
to the fact that section 9 has been eliminated. This is a new
section.
Similarly, Chairman Emanuel Celler, of New York, ruled as follows
on Mar. 12, 1935: (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 79 Cong. Rec. 3478, 74th Cong. 1st Sess. See also 78 Cong. Rec.
9397, 73d Cong. 2d Sess., May 23, 1934; 75 Cong. Rec. 4887, 72d
Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 27, 1932; and 72 Cong. Rec. 7640, 71st
Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 24, 1930.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 11189]]
Mr. [Henry] Ellenbogen [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment which I send to the desk.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment by Mr. Ellenbogen: Page 15, after line 15, insert
a new section, as follows:
``Sec. 29. Any loan insured under the National Housing Act
shall bear interest at a rate not to exceed 6 percent per
annum, inclusive of all charges.''
Mr. Ellenbogen: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
proceed for 3 minutes.
Mr. [Henry B.] Steagall [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, all debate
has been closed.
The Chairman: The Chair will say to the gentleman from Alabama
that his request covered section 27 and all amendments thereto.
Mr. Steagall: Mr. Chairman, a motion was made and carried, as I
understood, closing debate on this section and all amendments
thereto.
The Chairman: The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Ellenbogen]
has offered an amendment adding a new section, and is entitled to
recognition for 5 minutes.
Sec. 79.30 Under a limitation of time for debate on a paragraph and all
amendments thereto, a Member may not offer a second amendment until
the pending amendment is disposed of.
On June 29, 1959,(15) the Committee of the Whole agreed
to a unanimous-consent request that debate on the pending paragraph and
amendments thereto close in 15 minutes. Mr. Joel T. Broyhill, of
Virginia, inquired when he could offer another amendment to the
paragraph. Chairman Paul J. Kilday, of Texas, responded that he could
so offer it after the pending amendment was disposed of.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 105 Cong. Rec. 12122-24, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 79.31 A limitation on debate under the five-minute rule in
Committee of the Whole on a section of a bill and all amendments
thereto does not affect debate on an amendment adding a new section
to the bill.
On Aug. 1, 1979,(16) during consideration of the
Emergency Energy Conservation Act of 1979 (S. 1030), the following
proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 125 Cong. Rec. 21963, 21964, 21969, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I move that
all debate on Section 3 and all amendments thereto end at 4
o'clock.
The Chairman: (17) The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell). . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Dante B. Fascell (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes
247, noes 164, not voting 23, as follows. . . .
[[Page 11190]]
Amendment offered by Mr. Tauke: Page 50, after line 2,
insert the following new section: . . .
Mr. [John N.] Erlenborn [of Illinois]: I have a point of order,
Mr. Chairman.
I understood we were operating under a time limit.
The Chairman: Will the gentleman restate his point of order?
Mr. Erlenborn: Mr. Chairman, the point of order is that I
understood that the House voted a time limit.
The Chairman: The Chair will state to the gentleman that the
time limitation agreement involves debate on section 3. This is a
new section.
Status of ``Amendments at the Desk'' Under Limitation
Sec. 79.32 Where all time for debate in Committee of the Whole on a
bill and all amendments thereto is limited to a time certain, the
Chair may in his discretion continue to recognize Members under the
five-minute rule, rather than allocate the remaining time among all
Members desiring to speak or between two Members, subject to
subsequent limitations on time ordered by the Committee of the
Whole on separate amendments when offered.
The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole
during consideration of the military procurement authorization for
fiscal 1983 (H.R. 6030) on July 29, 1982: (18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 128 Cong. Rec. 18569, 18570, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Melvin] Price [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, we are now in
our seventh day of the authorization bill. . . .
I therefore move that the debate on the bill and all amendments
thereto conclude at 2 p.m. . . .
So the motion was agreed to. . . .
Mr. Price: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if we could resolve this and
compromise and make it 3 o'clock.
The Chairman: (19) The gentleman from Illinois is
asking unanimous consent that debate be concluded at 3 o'clock as
opposed to 2 o'clock. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Illinois?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman,
reserving the right to object, I do so to ask the Chairman whether
or not, under the procedure that he is adopting here, we are going
to have all amendments protected that have been at the desk and
have been awaiting consideration. . . .
The Chairman: The Chair expects that we will continue under the
5-minute rule, and all amendments are protected. . . .
Mr. Walker: . . . I am trying to find out how many of the
amendments already at the desk are going to be permitted to be
called here under the 2 o'clock or 3 o'clock time.
The Chairman: The gentleman understands, though, that the
Committee has every right to limit debate on any amendment which is
pending? . . .
[[Page 11191]]
The Chair hears no objection. . . .
Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: Would it be in order to
propose that the time between now and 3 o'clock be controlled one-
half by the Chairman and one-half by the ranking minority Member?
The Chairman: The Chair would make the observation that that
would be very difficult with all the amendments which may be
offered.
Mr. Stratton: Then in what way are Members who want to discuss
various amendments protected on the opportunity to speak in favor
or against them?
The Chairman: The gentleman would be protected under the 5-
minute rule unless there is a further limitation.
Parliamentarian's Note: Where a limitation on the entire bill is
agreed to far in advance of the expiration of time (in the instant case
4 or 5 hours later) the Chair will normally proceed under the five-
minute rule subject to subsequent limitations or allocations of time.
Pro Forma Amendments During Allocated Time
Sec. 79.33 By unanimous consent, debate under the five-minute rule on
possible amendments to be offered by two designated Members (one as
a substitute for the other) and on all amendments thereto was
limited and equally divided between proponents and opponents prior
to the offering of those amendments; and where debate has been so
limited and allocated on amendments to the pending section of the
bill, a Member may not obtain time by moving to strike out the last
word unless there is
no amendment pending (debate having been limited on amendments but
not on the section).
During consideration of the Legal Services Corporation Act
Amendments of 1981 (H.R. 3480) in the Committee of the Whole on June
18, 1981,(20) the following unanimous-consent requests
resulted in a discussion, as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 127 Cong. Rec. 12958, 12959, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert W.] Kastenmeier [of Wisconsin] (during the
reading): Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that section 11 be
considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at
any point.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: (1) Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Wisconsin?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Bruce F. Vento (Minn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
Mr. Kastenmeier: . . . I ask unanimous consent all debate on
amendments to section 11 do not exceed more than 20 minutes, one-
half to be con
[[Page 11192]]
trolled by the proponents of the amendment and one-half by the
opponents of the amendment, excepting in the case of the so-called
alien amendments to be offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Kazen) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum), in which case
the debate on those amendments do not exceed 40 minutes, those
amendments and all amendments thereto on the question of aliens.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: A point of clarification from the
standpoint of the Chair. Is the gentleman suggesting to limit
debate on each amendment to section 11 and on any amendment thereto
to 20 minutes, the time to be divided equally between the
proponents and the opponents, and 40 minutes on the amendments
being offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Kazen) and the
possible substitute therefor of the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
McCollum) and all amendments thereto?
Mr. Kastenmeier: Yes. The request of 40 minutes pertains to
both amendments, that is to say that they may be offered in tandem,
but that the total amount of time allocated to the subject
represented by those two amendments not exceed 40 minutes.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: And all amendments thereto.
Mr. Kastenmeier: Yes. . . .
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair would point out to the
Members that are discussing this, that the request addresses itself
to each amendment and any amendment thereto, inclusive. . . .
The unanimous-consent request has been modified to 1 hour of
debate on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Kazen) and the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
McCollum) and all amendments thereto, 1 hour.
Is there objection to the unanimous-consent request of the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kastenmeier)?
Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman,
reserving the right to object, I have a couple of questions.
Under the proposal would we be prevented from offering motions
to strike the requisite number of words in order to engage in
debate that might not
be directly related to the amendment? . . .
Mr. Kastenmeier: I would have to ask the Chairman if that would
entitle the speaker to time other than that allocated under this
request.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: If an amendment to section 11 were
pending, under this request, a motion to strike the last word would
not be
in order, since time would be allocated. . . .
The unanimous-consent request does not go to the section
itself, but only goes to substantive amendments if offered; so it
would be possible, if there are no other amendments pending, at the
right time, to be recognized as the Chair has permitted to strike
the requisite number of words.
Limitation on Resolving Clause, Not on Preamble
Sec. 79.34 Where the text of a joint resolution (all after the
resolving clause) is open to amendment at any point, a
[[Page 11193]]
motion to limit debate thereon and on all amendments thereto to a
time certain:
(1) does not include debate
on amendments to the preamble, which has not been read for
amendment; (2) does not include debate on an amendment in the
nature of a substitute to be offered to the text and preamble at
the end of the amendment process pursuant to a special rule; (3)
cannot include separate allocations of time on amendments to
amendments not yet offered (only by unanimous consent or separate
motion when the amendments are pending); (4) would permit the Chair
in his discretion to continue under the five-minute rule rather
than allocate the lengthy amount of remaining time, with printed
amendments guaranteed 10 minutes' debate at the expiration of time;
and (5) would include time consumed by votes and quorum calls.
On Apr. 21, 1983,(2) during consideration of House Joint
Resolution 13 (nuclear weapons freeze) in the Committee of the Whole,
the Chair responded to several parliamentary inquiries regarding a
motion to limit debate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 129 Cong. Rec. 9347, 9348, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I move
that all debate on the text of House Joint Resolution 13 and all
amendments thereto close at 3:30 p.m.
Mr. [Elliott H.] Levitas [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I have a
parliamentary inquiry. . . .
Mr. Chairman, as I understand the motion of the gentleman from
Wisconsin, all debate on House Joint Resolution 13 and all
amendments thereto will end at 3:30 today?
Mr. Zablocki: Mr. Chairman, my motion only covers the resolving
clause. It does not include the preamble, the whereas clauses, or
the substitute if the gentleman intends to offer it.
Mr. Levitas: . . . What would be the status of amendments
printed in the Record with respect to the resolving clause, and,
also, how would the time be allocated with respect to amendments
pending between now and 3:30 p.m.?
The Chairman: (3) The Chair will advise the
gentleman from Georgia that, with respect to the amendments printed
in the Record which have not been offered before 3:30, the
proponents of the amendment would be entitled to offer those
amendments after 3:30, and 5 minutes would be allotted for the
proponent of the amendment and 5 minutes would be allocated to an
opponent of the amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the time between now and 3:30, if the motion
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Za
[[Page 11194]]
blocki) is agreed to, the Chair would have discretion as to how to
allot the time.
Mr. [Trent] Lott [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I have a
parliamentary inquiry. . . .
I would like to inquire if it would be possible for the
distinguished chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs to amend
his motion, to put some amendment in there with regard to these
perfecting amendments or the amendments to amendments that are
being offered that wind up tying up a good portion of the time and
in fact delaying the debate on the amendments that are the crucial
amendments.
Could the gentleman offer a change in that or some suggestion?
The Chairman: The Chair would advise the gentleman from
Mississippi that that would not be appropriate in the form of a
motion but only by a unanimous-consent request. . . .
Mr. [James A.] Courter [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, my
parliamentary inquiry is with regard to exactly what the motion
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Zablocki) covers.
The gentleman from Wisconsin indicated in language which I did
not hear that it in fact excluded some clauses or some sections of
the resolutions.
Would the Chair state what this motion includes and what it
does not include, and I think we would be satisfied.
The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman from New
Jersey that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Zablocki) has moved
that debate on the resolving clause and all amendments thereto
cease at 3:30. That would cover all amendments to the resolving
clause except those that have been printed in the Record and which
have not been offered prior to 3:30.
Mr. Courter: . . . Those amendments that we have proffered so
far, the pending amendments, are they on the resolving clause?
The Chairman: The amendments which are now being considered are
amendments to the resolving clause.
Mr. Courter: So the result of the gentleman's motion is,
basically, to cut off debate at 3:30 on any amendments that are not
printed in the Record.
The Chairman: With respect to the amendments to the resolving
clause. That does not cover the amendments to the preamble or the
substitute which the gentleman from Michigan may offer, which is
protected by the rule. . . .
Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, would the
Chair define what amendments are to the resolving clause?
The Chairman: Any amendments which relate to the resolving
portion of the joint resolution.
Mr. Stratton: Suppose there is the addition of a section. Is
that an amendment to the resolving clause?
The Chairman: That would be an amendment to the resolving
clause.
Mr. Stratton: Mr. Chairman, how does the Chair propose to
allocate the time on individual amendments?
We have to know how many amendments are pending in order for
this thing to become other than just a rat race where someone
hardly has time to read the amendment, as I understand it.
The Chairman: The Chair would intend, at least for a time, to
proceed
[[Page 11195]]
under the 5-minute rule, in expectation that Members who have
amendments to offer would do so in accordance with the 5-minute
rule.
Mr. [William] Carney [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I have a
parliamentary inquiry. . . .
I would like to know if the Chair would consider the time
necessary for rollcall votes would be taken out, or would that be
part of the limitation to 3:30?
The Chairman: Under the motion as offered, all time would cease
at 3:30. So the time for rollcall votes would be covered by the
3:30 limitation.
Pro Forma Amendments After Closing of All Debate on Bill
Sec. 79.35 When debate on a bill is limited by unanimous consent prior
to the reading thereof, and, after the time for debate expires, the
remainder of the bill is read, pro forma amendments are not
debatable.
On Sept. 12, 1968,(4) the Committee of the Whole agreed
by unanimous consent to limit debate on a bill and amendments thereto
before the bill had been completely read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 114 Cong. Rec. 26574, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When the limitation expired, Chairman Daniel D. Rostenkowski, of
Illinois, directed the Clerk to read the remainder of the bill. Mr.
John E. Moss, Jr., of California, sought recognition to move to strike
the last word, and the Chairman ruled that he could not be recognized
for that purpose, all debate having been concluded.
Sec. 79.36 Where a limitation on debate under the five-minute rule on
an amendment and all amendments thereto has expired, no further
debate is in order and a Member may not gain time for debate by
offering a pro forma amendment ``to strike the last word.''
On Aug. 2, 1978,(5) the Committee of the Whole had under
consideration the foreign aid authorization bill (H.R. 12514) when the
following exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 124 Cong. Rec. 23947, 23954, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I move
that
all debate on the pending amendment
and all amendments thereto end at 4 o'clock.
The Chairman: (6) The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Zablocki).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Don Fuqua (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The motion was agreed to. . . .
The Chairman: For what purpose does the gentleman from
California (Mr. Lagomarsino) rise?
Mr. [Robert J.] Lagomarsino [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike the last word.
[[Page 11196]]
The Chairman: The Chair will inform the gentleman that no
further debate is in order at this time.
Applicability of Limitation on Amendment and Amendments Thereto
Sec. 79.37 A motion to close all debate on a pending amendment and
amendments thereto includes all amendments to the pending amendment
not yet offered or at the desk.
On Aug. 13, 1959,(7) Chairman Francis E. Walter, of
Pennsylvania, answered a parliamentary inquiry on the application of a
motion to close debate on an amendment and amendments thereto:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 105 Cong. Rec. 15850, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Graham A.] Barden [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I
move that all debate on the amendment and
all amendments thereto close at 4 o'clock. . . .
Mr. [Edwin E.] Willis [of Louisiana]: My parliamentary inquiry
is this: Would the suggested time of closure of debate on all
pending amendments--I seek an interpretation of ``all pending
amendments.'' Does that include amendments on the desk?
Mr. Barden: Pending amendment and all amendments thereto.
The Chairman: The Chair may say that the pending amendment is
the Landrum-Griffin bill. Amendments thereto are the amendments
that are on the desk which have not yet been offered.
Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a further
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Taber: And that would include any other amendments which
may hereafter be offered?
The Chairman: That would include all amendments.
Sec. 79.38 Where the Committee of the Whole limits debate on a
substitute and all amendments thereto, such limitation does not
apply to amendments which may
be offered to the original amendment.
On Sept. 29, 1965,(8) Mr. B. F. Sisk, of California,
propounded
a unanimous-consent request to limit five-minute debate to a certain
time on a substitute amendment and amendments thereto, offered to an
amendment in the nature of a substitute for the pending bill. Chairman
Eugene J. Keogh, of New York, stated in response to a parliamentary
inquiry that if perfecting amendments to the amendment in the nature of
a substitute were offered, such amendments would not be subject to the
limitation:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 111 Cong. Rec. 25426, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: The House is in Committee of the Whole House on
the
[[Page 11197]]
State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill H.R.
4644.
When the Committee rose there was pending a substitute
amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Sisk] for
the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Multer].
Mr. Sisk: Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a unanimous-consent
request.
Mr. Chairman, in order to expedite the business of the House--
and after some 3 days of debate it seems to me the time has come to
move along--I ask unanimous consent that all debate on the Sisk
amendment and all amendments thereto close in 20 minutes. It is my
understanding that there is one amendment at the desk to be offered
by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Craley] and as part of my
unanimous-consent request, I ask unanimous consent that 3 minutes
of that time be reserved to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Craley]. . . .
Mr. [Abraham J.] Multer: Mr. Chairman, there is an amendment to
be offered to the Multer amendment. Would that come out of the time
reserved for the closing of debate on the Sisk amendment, if that
is offered--in other words, if someone offers an amendment to the
Multer amendment?
The Chairman: The Chair will state to the gentleman from New
York that as the Chair understood the request of the gentleman from
California, it was that all debate on the Sisk substitute and all
amendments thereto close in 20 minutes and that, therefore, would
not preclude the offering of any amendments to the amendment
offered by the gentleman from New York.
Sec. 79.39 A limitation of debate on a pending amendment and all
amendments thereto does not, following the disposition of the
amendment, proscribe offering and debating further amendments to
the pending section of a bill.
On May 4, 1966,(9) Mr. John E. Fogarty, of Rhode Island,
propounded a unanimous-consent request that debate under the five-
minute rule be limited on the pending amendment and all amendments
thereto. In response to a parliamentary inquiry by Mr. Frank T. Bow, of
Ohio, who intended to offer an amendment to the pending section should
the pending amendment thereto fail, Chairman Frank Thompson, Jr., of
New Jersey, stated that the limitation applied only to the pending
amendment and amendments thereto and did not preclude offering and
debating further amendments to the pending section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 112 Cong. Rec. 9829, 9830, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 79.40 A substitute offered to a pending committee amendment is
considered an amendment for the purpose of a debate limitation
imposed on the pending amendment and all amendments thereto.
[[Page 11198]]
On Aug. 5, 1970,(10) Chairman Pro Tempore Neal Smith, of
Iowa, answered a parliamentary inquiry on the effect of a limitation on
debate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 116 Cong. Rec. 27466, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [William R.] Poage [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I move that
all debate on the pending amendment and all amendments thereto
close at 4 o'clock.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The question is on the motion offered
by the gentleman from Texas.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. [Joe D.] Waggonner [Jr., of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. Waggonner: Do I correctly understand that we are closing
debate at 4 o'clock on the Lowenstein amendment?
The Chairman Pro Tempore: On all amendments pending.
Mr. Waggonner: Mr. Chairman, was not the Findley motion offered
as a substitute, rather than an amendment?
The Chairman Pro Tempore: It was a substitute amendment.
Mr. Waggonner: Then debate will not close at 4 o'clock, will
it?
The Chairman Pro Tempore: There is a committee amendment
pending. The limitation of debate applies to the committee
amendment and all amendments thereto, including the substitute and
amendment thereto.
Sec. 79.41 Where there was pending an amendment proposing to strike out
an entire section of text and insert new language, and a substitute
for that amendment, the Chair indicated in response to a series of
parliamentary inquiries that: (1) termination of debate on the
pending amendment and all amendments thereto at a time certain
would preclude further debate on amendments offered to the
amendment or substitute but not printed in that form in the Record
pursuant to Rule XXIII clause 6; (2) rejection of the amendment as
amended would permit further amendments to the pending section and
debate thereon; (3) adoption of an amendment changing the entire
section would preclude further amendment to that section--and
amendments printed in the Record could not be offered to that
section.
During consideration of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation
Act of 1974 (11) in the Committee of the Whole on July 22,
1974,(12) the Chair responded to
[[Page 11199]]
several parliamentary inquiries, as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. H.R. 11500.
12. 120 Cong. Rec. 24459, 24460, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: Mr. Chairman, I move that
all debate on the pending Hosmer amendment and the Mink substitute
for that amendment and all perfecting amendments to either close at
40 minutes past 4 o'clock.
Mr. [Craig] Hosmer [of California]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: (13) The gentleman will state his
parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hosmer: Mr. Chairman, does that mean all these gentlemen
who have any amendments that pertain to section 201 either by way
of amendment to the Mink substitute or by way of amendment to my
substitute or by way of amendment to the language in the bill
itself are preemptorily cut off in 40 minutes?
The Chairman: As far as further amendments to section 201 of
the committee bill is concerned, that depends on the committee's
disposition of the Hosmer amendment. . . .
Mr. [Ken] Hechler of West Virginia: Supposing there are several
votes in the process that we discovered the other day, this would
effectively cut off all debate, such as we had three rollcalls or
quorum calls.
The Chairman: The time will be set by the clock. The Chair
thinks the motion is clear. . . .
Mr. [William M.] Ketchum [of California]: What effect would
this motion have on those individuals who under the rules or who
have published their amendments in the Record, is that going to
close them off? . . .
The Chairman: That depends on the form of the amendment printed
in the Record and on the disposition of the substitute amendment of
the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) and the amendment offered
by the gentleman from California (Mr. Hosmer). . . .
Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, reserving
the right to object for the purpose of making a parliamentary
inquiry, as I understand there are a number of us who do have
amendments to the bill itself or which are appropriate to the
substitute amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Hawaii or the
gentleman from California.
Now, what is the ruling of the Chair with regard to the
limitation of time on section 201? Are those amendments published
in the Record foreclosed from the 5-minute rule by reason of the
debate here, or foreclosed by expiration of the time under the
clock, if the time does expire from even offering an amendment?
The Chairman: If section 201 of the bill is later open to
amendment due to adverse disposition of the Mink substitute and the
Hosmer amendment, then those rights would obtain; but those rights
would be foreclosed if no further amendments to section 201 were in
order. . . .
Mr. Dingell: I am of the impression that what the Chair is
saying is that if the Mink amendment is adopted or if the Hosmer
amendment is adopted that Members will not be protected by the
provisions of the rule affording them 5 minutes to discuss or offer
amendments, even if they are published in the Record in compliance
with the rule?
[[Page 11200]]
The Chairman: If further amendments to section 201 are not in
order, then amendments cannot be submitted under which 5 minutes
would otherwise be allowed. . . .
Mr. Dingell: The provisions of the rule relating to 5 minutes
of time for a Member where he has published his amendment in the
Record in appropriate fashion will not be protected if either the
Mink amendment or the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Hosmer is
adopted; am I correct?
The Chairman: If the substitute is adopted to the Hosmer
amendment and then the Hosmer amendment as amended by the
substitute is adopted, further amendments to section 201 could not
be offered. Therefore, there would be no further amendments
appropriate. . . .
Mr. Dingell: Then I understand the ruling to be further that
the rule relating to a Member getting 5 minutes on an amendment
does not apply to the substitute offered by the gentlewoman from
Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) or the gentleman from California (Mr. Hosmer),
even previous to the time that those amendments are adopted, am I
correct?
The Chairman: That would be true if they were not printed in
the Record as amendments to the substitute. . . .
Mr. Hosmer: Does that mean if either amendment, the Hosmer or
the Mink substitute, is adopted, that is it as far as section 201
is concerned, even if somebody had placed his amendment?
The Chairman: If the Hosmer amendment is not adopted as amended
by the Mink substitute, then further amendments to section 201 will
be in order. . . .
Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, is it not true
that if, under the gentleman's motion, an amendment--I am now
giving a hypothetical situation--the Mink substitute for that
portion of the Hosmer amendment were to prevail, and the Hosmer
amendment would be defeated, is it not true that the rest of that
section which the Mink substitute does not pertain to would be
proper to amend at any point?
The Chairman: If the entire section has been amended, further
amendments to that section would not be in order.
Mr. Hays: Not if the Hosmer substitute were defeated, it would
not be true, would it? Just to section 201?
The Chairman: If the Mink substitute is adopted, the vote would
then recur on the Hosmer amendment since it is a substitute for the
entire amendment. If the Hosmer amendment were then adopted,
section 201 would not be open to amendment.
Mr. Hays: Yes, section 201 only. Not all of title II?
The Chairman: Not the rest of title II; just section 201.
Sec. 79.42 A limitation of debate under the five-minute rule on a
pending amendment and all amendments thereto includes debate on any
substitute for the amendment that might subsequently be offered.
During consideration of House Joint Resolution 13 (nuclear weapons
freeze) in the Committee
[[Page 11201]]
of the Whole on Apr. 21, 1983,(14) the following proceedings
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 129 Cong. Rec. 9341, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: (15) When the Committee rose on
Wednesday, April 20, 1983, pending was an amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Carney) and an amendment to the
amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solarz).
Debate on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Carney) and all amendments thereto had been limited to 10 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair will recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Zablocki) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Broomfield) for 5
minutes each. . . .
Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I have
a substitute for the pending amendment, the pending amendment and
the amendment thereto.
Mr. [William] Carney [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Carney: Mr. Chairman, if the substitute is offered, I would
like to know what that does to the standing agreement on the 5-
minute debate between the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solarz) and
myself.
The Chairman: The Chair will state that the previously agreed
to time will still apply with respect to the two pending
amendments, including the amendment offered by the gentleman from
New York.
Mr. Carney: And will the substitute then be open to normal 5-
minute rule procedures? . . .
The Chairman: The substitute, if offered, will be subject to
the same 10-minute limitation since the limitation was on the
Carney amendment and all amendments thereto.
Chair's Distribution of Time
Sec. 79.43 Where the Committee of the Whole has agreed to close debate
on a title of
a bill and all amendments thereto to a time certain, the Chair
endeavors to recognize as many Members as possible prior thereto,
and after the time fixed has arrived will recognize Members only to
offer amendments which will be voted on without debate.
On Feb. 10, 1964,(16) the Committee of the Whole agreed
to a motion by Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, that debate on the
pending title of a bill and amendments thereto close at 1 o'clock p.m.
Chairman Eugene J. Keogh, of New York, answered a parliamentary inquiry
on recognition under and after the expiration of the limitation:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 110 Cong. Rec. 2706, 2719, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Richard H.] Poff [of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman from Mississippi yield for a parliamentary inquiry?
[[Page 11202]]
Mr. [William M.] Colmer [of Mississippi]: I yield, very
briefly.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. Poff: Mr. Chairman, in light of the limitation on time may
I inquire what amendments will be voted upon when the time expires?
I have two amendments at the desk which I may or may not offer,
depending upon developments. I would like to be advised whether I
will be recognized to offer the amendments and if so when that time
will occur.
The Chairman: The Chair will state to the gentleman from
Virginia that up to 1 o'clock the Chair will undertake to recognize
such Members as he can. After 1 o'clock the Chair will recognize
those Members desiring to offer amendments and the question on each
amendment will be put immediately without debate.
Mr. Poff: I thank the Chair.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. A Member who has previously debated an amendment may speak again
under a limitation thereon. See 113 Cong. Rec. 17762, 90th
Cong. 1st Sess., June 28, 1967; and 113 Cong. Rec. 15903, 90th
Cong. 1st Sess., June 15, 1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 79.44 Where the Committee of the Whole agrees to terminate debate
on an amendment and all amendments thereto to a time certain, the
Chair generally divides the time equally among Members who indicate
a desire to speak and may decline to
apportion the time solely among Members who have amendments.
On Jan. 23, 1962,(18) the Committee of the Whole agreed
to a limitation of debate under the five-minute rule (on an amendment
and amendments thereto). Mr. John M. Ashbrook, of Ohio, inquired
whether the Chair would divide the remaining time among those Members
having amendments to offer, and Chairman Charles M. Price, of Illinois,
responded that the time would be equally divided among all Members
desiring to speak.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 108 Cong. Rec. 769, 773, 774, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
19. But see Sec. 79.49, infra (Chair may in his discretion recognize
only Members with amendments and others opposed thereto).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 79.45 While a limitation of debate in the Committee of the Whole
on a pending amendment and on all amendments thereto normally
abrogates the five-minute rule, the Chair may, in his discretion,
announce his intention to recognize each Member offering an
amendment for five minutes where it is apparent that all Members
who might offer amendments are not in the Chamber at the time the
limitation is imposed.
[[Page 11203]]
On Dec. 14, 1973,(20) Chairman Richard Bolling, of
Missouri, stated in response to a parliamentary inquiry that where
there was pending an amendment in the nature of a substitute for a
bill, a motion to close all debate on that amendment and all amendments
thereto at a time certain would be in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 119 Cong. Rec. 41712, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman answered a further parliamentary inquiry on
recognition by the Chair should five-minute debate be limited:
Mr. [James T.] Broyhill of North Carolina: Mr. Chairman, my
parliamentary inquiry is this: If the time is limited, would only
those Members who are presently standing and would be listed--would
they be the only Members who could be recognized either to propose
an amendment or to oppose an amendment?
The Chairman: The Chair will state any motion that the Chair
can conceive of would involve enough time so that the Chair would
feel that he could reserve that right to recognize Members under
the 5-minute rule.
The Chair will explain that if needed.
The gentleman is talking about limiting debate on the amendment
in the nature of a substitute, and all amendments thereto?
Mr. Broyhill of North Carolina: That is correct, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: The Chairman would presume that there will be a
substantial block of amendments, and the Chair would feel that the
Chair should not fail to protect the Members who are not in the
Chamber at the moment who might have amendments that they sought to
offer.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. See also 111 Cong. Rec. 17961, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., July 22, 1965
(where all debate on a section and all amendments thereto has
been limited, the Chair generally divides the time equally
among those seeking recognition; but if there has been no
agreement as to the division of time, the Chair may recognize
each Member who seeks recognition for the full five minutes to
which he is entitled under the rule, until the time has
expired).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 79.46 Where the Committee of the Whole fixed debate at an hour and
a half, the Chair did not note the names of the Members seeking
recognition and divide the time at less than five minutes each, as
is the practice when a shorter period is fixed.
On Feb. 22, 1950,(2) Mr. John W. McCormack, of
Massachusetts, moved that debate close on pending amendments at 2:30
a.m. and the Committee of the Whole agreed thereto. Chairman Francis E.
Walter, of Pennsylvania, then answered a parliamentary inquiry on
division of the time:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 96 Cong. Rec. 2240-46, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Jacob K.] Javits [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, is the Chair
dis
[[Page 11204]]
posed to divide the time in view of the fact that it has been
limited, and to announce the Members who will be recognized?
The Chairman: In view of the fact that one hour and a half
remains for debate, and since it was impossible for the Chair to
determine the number of Members who were on their feet, I believe
it is advisable to follow the strict rule [five minutes for each
Member recognized].
Sec. 79.47 After time for debate under the five-minute rule has been
fixed by motion, and the Chair announces the list of Members to be
recognized, the Chair does not recognize in his own right a Member
not on the list.
On Jan. 23, 1962,(3) the Committee of the Whole agreed
to limit debate under the five-minute rule to a certain hour. Chairman
Charles M. Price, of Illinois, noted the names of the Members who
wished to be recognized under the limitation and announced the list of
those Members. He then answered a parliamentary inquiry on recognition
under the limitation:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 108 Cong. Rec. 769, 774, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Ben F.] Jensen [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary
inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Jensen: How much time will be allowed in support of this
amendment?
The Chairman: The time has been allocated under the motion to
limit debate.
Mr. Jensen: Will I have any time in support of the amendment?
The Chairman: Not unless the gentleman's name is on the
list.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. See also 114 Cong. Rec. 19757, 19914, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., July 2
and 3, 1968 (after the Committee of the Whole agrees to a
limitation of time for debate on a bill and all amendments
thereto, the Chair notes and announces the names of the Members
who are standing to indicate their desire to be recognized and
then allots equal time to each).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 79.48 Where the Committee of the Whole fixes the time for debate
on a substitute amendment, the Chair in counting those seeking
recognition may in his discretion and without objection allot a
portion of the time to the committee reporting the bill.
On Feb. 8, 1950,(5) the Committee of the Whole fixed
time for
debate on amendments to a committee substitute. Chairman Chet
Holifield, of California, then stated, in response to a parliamentary
inquiry, that the Chair could recognize the same committee member in
opposition to each amendment offered where no other mem
[[Page 11205]]
ber of the committee sought such recognition:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 96 Cong. Rec. 1691, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Case of South Dakota: Under what precedent or ruling is the
Chair recognizing a certain member of the committee for 1 minute in
opposition to each amendment being offered? That was not included
in the motion. Had it been included in the motion, it would have
been subject to a point of order.
The Chairman: The Chair is trying to be fair in the conduct of
the committee, and the only gentleman that has arisen on the
opposite side has been the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Murray].
There was no point of order raised at the time that I announced
that I would recognize the committee for 1 minute in rebuttal to
each amendment.
Mr. Case of South Dakota: But the gentleman from South Dakota
got up at the time the Chair proposed to recognize the gentleman
from Tennessee a second time. Obviously, when the committee avails
itself of the opportunity to make a motion to limit debate it, in a
sense, is closing debate, and unless it does seek to limit time and
is successful in so doing, in principle it forfeits that courtesy.
The Members who have proposed amendments here have been waiting all
afternoon to be heard, and if the committee adopted the procedure
of seeking to close debate on 20 minutes' notice, with 10
amendments pending, it would seem as a matter of courtesy that the
committee should restrain itself to one member of the committee who
might have been on his feet, but to recognize one gentleman a
succession of times seems entirely out of keeping with the spirit
of closing debate.
The Chairman: The Chairman, in the list of names, also read the
name of the committee. If the Chair was
so inclined, the Chair could recognize
two Members for 5 minutes each on amendments, on each side, and
that would preclude the others from having any voice in the
amendments that are pending, or in the debate.
Mr. Case of South Dakota: That, of course, is true, the Chair
could do that. But, ordinarily, under the precedents always
followed in the House, when time is closed on amendments, the time
is divided among those who are seeking to offer amendments, and
unless the motion specifically reserves time to the committee, it
has been the precedent to divide the time among those who are
seeking to offer amendments.
The Chairman: The Chair feels that the committee is entitled to
a rebuttal on any amendment that is offered, and has so announced,
and there was no point of order made at the time. The Chair
sustains its present position.
Sec. 79.49 Where debate on a bill and all amendments thereto is limited
to a time certain, the five-minute rule is abrogated, and the Chair
may choose either to allocate the time among those Members standing
and desiring to speak, or choose to recognize only Members wishing
to
[[Page 11206]]
offer amendments and to oppose amendments.
On May 6, 1970,(6) the Committee of the Whole agreed to
a motion, offered by Mr. L. Mendel Rivers, of South Carolina, that all
debate on the pending bill and amendments thereto close at a certain
hour. Chairman Daniel D. Rostenkowski, of Illinois, stated his
intention to recognize under the time limitation Members offering and
opposing amendments, rather than to divide time among all Members
indicating their desire to speak:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 116 Cong. Rec. 14465, 14466, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: Under the limitation of
debate imposed by the House, a moment ago, is there any restriction
on those Members who will be permitted to speak on amendments,
either for or against, between now and 7 o'clock?
The Chairman: The Chair will endeavor to divide the time
equally among the proponents and the opponents of those who have
amendments.
Sec. 79.50 Where debate on an amendment has been limited to a time
certain, and the time equally divided by the Chair among those
Members desiring to speak, the Chair declined to entertain a
unanimous-consent request to extend the time of one Member.
On Mar. 31, 1971,(7) the Committee of the Whole agreed
to
a motion by Mr. Charles W. Whalen, Jr., of Ohio, that debate on an
amendment and amendments thereto close at 6 p.m. Mr. Whalen was
recognized in support of his amendment and when his time had expired
asked unanimous consent to proceed for two additional minutes. Chairman
Edward P. Boland, of Massachusetts, declined to entertain the request
and advised Mr. Whalen that the time had been fixed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 117 Cong. Rec. 8814, 8815, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: Time under a limitation may be extended by
a unanimous-consent request to vacate the limitation, if the Chair
entertains that request.
Sec. 79.51 Where debate has been limited on a pending title and all
amendments thereto and the Chair has divided the remaining time
among Members desiring to offer amendments or to speak, a Member
not allocated time may not speak in opposition to an amendment;
thus, such a time limitation imposed in Committee of the Whole
abrogates the right of a Member under Rule XXIII clause 5 to speak
for five minutes
[[Page 11207]]
in opposition to an offered amendment.
On July 25, 1974,(8) during consideration of the Surface
Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1974 (H.R. 11500), the Chair made
a statement and responded to a parliamentary inquiry regarding debate
on amendments offered to the pending title of the bill. The proceedings
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 120 Cong. Rec. 25214, 25217, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: (9) When the Committee rose on
yesterday, titles II through VIII inclusive were subject to
amendment at any point, and there was pending an amendment offered
by the gentleman from California (Mr. Hosmer) to title II of the
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. Before
recognizing the gentleman from California, the Chair will state for
the information of the Committee of the Whole that there are 42
minutes remaining out of 50 minutes debate allocated to title II
under the unanimous consent agreement of Tuesday, July 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before the Chair recognizes the gentleman from California, the
Chair will reiterate his announcement of yesterday that if listed
Members who have printed their amendments to title II in the Record
would agree to offer those amendments during the 42-minute period,
and to be recognized for 1 minute and 20 seconds, the Chair will
recognize both committee and noncommittee members for that purpose.
The Chair will request that Members who have amendments printed
in the Record and who insist upon 5 minutes for debate defer
offering those amendments until the conclusion of the 42 remaining
minutes.
Mr. [John H.] Rousselot [of California]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Rousselot: In this time frame, when somebody might object
or support the amendment, how does he get time to do it? He does
not?
The Chairman: Not unless he is on the list.
Mr. Rousselot: In other words, if anyone wants to oppose the
amendment, he has no time; is that correct?
The Chairman: Not unless the gentleman is on the list announced
by the Chair.
Sec. 79.52 Where debate under the five-minute rule has been limited on
a pending portion of a bill and the Committee of the Whole is about
to rise on motion, the Chair may, in his discretion, defer his
allocation of that time until the Committee resumes consideration
of the bill on a subsequent day.
On Sept. 11, 1978,(10) during consideration of the Civil
Service Reform Act of 1978 (H.R. 11280)
[[Page 11208]]
in the Committee of the Whole, the following exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 124 Cong. Rec. 28800, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: . . . Mr. Chairman, we have
had a long and difficult day . . . the hour is late, and I am not
sure we can be productive much longer. We do have a number of
important amendments left.
Mr. Chairman, I am going to make a unanimous-consent request in
just a moment, and if it is agreed to, at that point I would move
that the Committee rise. . . .
Mr. Chairman, my unanimous-consent request is that the
remaining time for debate on title VII, and all amendments
thereto--that is the title we are now considering--be limited to a
total of 2 hours. . . .
Mr. Gary A. Myers [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, reserving
the right to object, I do so [to] make inquiry on parliamentary
procedure. It is normal parliamentary procedure upon such a request
for Members to stand and request time. Is it the Chairman's intent
that the time to be divided be divided tonight?
The Chairman: (11) The Chair would advise the
gentleman that the Chair would not intend to divide the time
tonight, but that subject will be taken up at the time we reconvene
in connection with this bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. George E. Danielson (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Significance of Members Standing To Be Noted
Sec. 79.53 In allocating time un-der a limitation on debate on an
amendment under the five-minute rule, the Chair divides the time
among all Members standing when the limitation is agreed to, not
just those standing when the request or motion is first stated.
The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on
June 22, 1983,(12) during consideration of H.R. 3329
(Department of Transportation appropriations for fiscal 1984):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 129 Cong. Rec. 16845, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [William] Lehman of Florida: Would the Chair count how many
want to speak?
The Chairman: (13) The Chair has only seen one
person rise who has not yet spoken, unless the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Coughlin) is also seeking recognition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Philip R. Sharp (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Lehman of Florida: Mr. Chairman, there is one at this time
on this side.
Mr. [Lawrence] Coughlin [of Pennsylvania]: How about 3:30?
Mr. Lehman of Florida: 3:25.
Mr. Coughlin: 3:25 it is.
The Chairman: Is there objection to the unanimous-consent
request of the gentleman from Florida that all debate on this
amendment and all amendments thereto close at 3:25?
There was no objection.
The Chairman: It is so ordered, and the Chair saw standing at
the time the limitation was agreed to the gentleman
[[Page 11209]]
from Florida (Mr. Lehman) . . . the gentlemen from California, Mr.
Fazio, Mr. Coelho, and Mr. Dixon.
Mr. Coughlin: Mr. Chairman, un-der my reservation, I do not
think that is a proper count.
Mr. [Julian C.] Dixon [of California]: Mr. Chairman, will the
minority leader on this issue yield?
I had no intention of speaking. As we looked around the room--
--
The Chairman: The Chair heard no objection to the request.
Mr. Coughlin: I reserved the right to object, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. [James C.] Wright [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, regular
order.
The unanimous-consent request was made, opportunity was given
for objection, and no objection was heard. The Chair waited to see
if there was objection, and agreement was reached.
Mr. Coughlin: I object, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wright: Debate was limited on the amendment. The
gentleman's objection comes too late.
The Chairman: The majority leader is correct. The regular order
is to proceed, and those standing when the request was agreed to,
their names have been taken down and the time will be allocated
among them.
Mr. [Daniel E.] Lungren [of California]: I have a parliamentary
inquiry, Mr. Chairman. . . .
At the time the reservation was expressed, was there not an
understanding, at least implicit, that those who rose were the ones
who intended to speak, and that being the case, should it not be
limited to the people who rose at that time, rather than the
additional three or four people who rose after the time that the
limit was placed?
The Chairman: The Chair will have to indicate that the Chair
has no control over that. The Chair was asked how many wished to
speak and how many were standing prior to the request. The
gentleman from California was the only person standing. However,
when the request was put, others began to rise and take an interest
in the issue, including the author of the amendment.
Reserving Time Under Limitation
Sec. 79.54 An agreement to limit debate in the Committee of the Whole
abrogates the five-minute rule and the Member holding the floor at
the time the agreement is entered into may not reserve any part of
the five minutes for debate under the limitation (unless such
reservation was stated as part of the agreement).
On Sept. 19, 1967,(14) Mr. Harley O. Staggers, of West
Virginia, offered a pro forma amendment under the five-minute rule and
was recognized for five minutes. He then propounded a unanimous-consent
agreement to limit debate on the pending amendment and amendments
thereto to 20
[[Page 11210]]
minutes. The request was agreed to, and Mr. Staggers stated he would
reserve the balance of his time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 113 Cong. Rec. 26030, 26033, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the limitation, Mr. Staggers was recognized for one and one-
half minutes by Chairman Jack B. Brooks, of Texas, but Mr. Staggers
contended he was entitled to more time, having reserved the time he had
not used when he had been recognized for five minutes. The Chairman
stated that he was only entitled to the one and one-half minutes:
. . . The gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Staggers] is
recognized for 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Staggers: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from West Virginia
had been recognized prior to the time the motion for the limitation
of debate had been made, the gentleman had been recognized for 5
minutes.
The Chairman: The Chair will state that the Chair understood
that the limitation as to time was made prior to the expiration of
the gentleman's 5 minutes, for which the gentleman was recognized,
which was when the gentleman made the motion that all debate on
this amendment cease after 20 minutes' time.
Mr. Staggers: That is correct, Mr. Chairman, but I had been
recognized for 5 minutes.
The Chairman: The Chair will state that the gentleman was among
those standing, and was included among those who were standing; in
addition to the gentleman 13 other Members were standing, so that
there were 14 Members who were entitled to a minute and a half.
Mr. Staggers: Mr. Chairman, I will do the best I can in a
minute and a half.
Sec. 79.55 The Chair indicated that he would permit a Member to use a
portion of his time under a limitation on one amendment and reserve
the remainder of his time for further debate on another amendment
yet to be offered.
On July 3, 1968,(15) Chairman Daniel D. Rostenkowski, of
Illinois, indicated that Members recognized under a limitation of
debate could use part of their allotted time on one amendment and part
on another by reserving time:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 114 Cong. Rec. 19914, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Chet] Holifield [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I
understand that there are at least two amendments which are major
amendments, one being as to section 17, and the other on section
22.
Section 17 is now being considered in the amendment offered by
the gentleman from New York [Mr. McCarthy].
The Chairman: The Chair will state that that amendment is now
pending.
Mr. Holifield: Those gentlemen who wish to speak on that
amendment must speak at this time, and they will be precluded from
speaking on the section 22 amendment; is that correct?
[[Page 11211]]
The Chairman: The Chair will state that if they so speak on the
McCarthy amendment, that is correct.
Mr. Holifield: I thank the Chairman.
Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, a further
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. Gross: That would be true if they exhaust their time?
The Chairman: The Chair will state that that is correct.
Mr. Gross: And only in the event that they exhaust their time
will they not be permitted to speak on another matter?
The Chairman: The Chair will state that that is
correct.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See also 104 Cong. Rec. 14659, 14664, 85th Cong. 2d Sess., July 22,
1958 (when debate on a bill and all amendments thereto has been
limited, a Member allotted time pursuant to the limitation may
in the discretion of the Chair use whatever part thereof he
desires in support of each of various amendments he may offer).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 79.56 After time for debate under the five-minute rule has been
fixed by motion, the remaining time is divided equally among those
Members indicating a desire to speak; but when the parliamentary
situation warrants it, the Chair may allow a Member, when
recognized, to use a portion of his allotted time and reserve the
balance.
On Feb. 28, 1962,(17) the Committee of the Whole agreed
to
a motion to limit debate on
an amendment and amendments thereto to an hour certain. Chairman George
H. Mahon, of Texas, indicated he would recognize the Members who
indicated they wished to speak under the limitation (he divided the
remaining time at two minutes per Member). The Chairman then overruled
a point of order against a Member's reserving a portion of his time:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 108 Cong. Rec. 3069, 3070, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Adam C.] Powell [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I rise in
opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida
[Mr. Cramer].
Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
The gentleman exhausted his time on the previous amendment, did
he not? I demand the regular order.
The Chairman: Each Member was allocated 2 minutes.
Mr. Gross: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Gross: Mr. Chairman, did not the gentleman from New York
use his time in response to a previous amendment?
The Chairman: The Chair will say to the gentleman from Iowa
that the gentleman from New York did not use his full 2 minutes.
[[Page 11212]]
Mr. Gross: How much time does the gentleman have remaining?
The Chairman: The gentleman from New York has 1\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Sec. 79.57 Where time for debate on amendments has been limited and
equally divided among those desiring to speak, the Chair may in his
discretion insist that each Member utilize or yield back his full
time when recognized and may permit a portion to be reserved only
by unanimous consent.
During consideration of H.R. 10760 (Black Lung Benefits Reform Act
of 1976) in the Committee of the Whole on Mar. 2, 1976,(18)
the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 122 Cong. Rec. 4992, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John H.] Dent [of Pennsylvania]: . . . I . . . ask
unanimous consent to end all debate on amendments in 1 hour's time.
The Chairman: (19) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Pennsylvania that all debate cease in 1 hour
on the committee amendment and all amendments thereto?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Sam Gibbons (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection. . . .
Mr. Dent: As a point of information, Mr. Chairman, would the
Chair establish the time basis.
The Chairman: The Chair will state to the gentleman that it is
1 hour of time on the committee amendment and all amendments
thereto. . . .
The Chair will state, for the gentleman's information, that
there are 12 speakers who were standing at the time the request was
made, and there is only 1 hour allotted, each speaker will have 5
minutes, and that is all. . . .
Mr. [Gary] Myers of Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman, in utilization
of the 5-minute allotment will the speakers be allowed to divide it
up into different periods and reserve time back and forth?
The Chairman: The Chair will state that by unanimous consent,
Members may do that, yes. . . .
Mr. Myers of Pennsylvania: The Chairman is then saying, it
takes unanimous consent to reserve time for later usage?
The Chairman: The Chair will state that the Members will be
recognized for 5 minutes each. If the gentleman from Pennsylvania
wishes to reserve a portion of his five minutes then it requires
unanimous consent to do so.
Sec. 79.58 Where debate has been limited under the five-minute rule to
a time certain and the Chair has allocated the remaining time among
those Members desiring to speak, the Chair may require that Members
wishing to reserve a portion of their allocated time may do so only
by unanimous consent.
On May 11, 1976,(20) the Committee of the Whole had
under
[[Page 11213]]
consideration H.R. 12835 (the Vocational Education Act amendments) when
a motion to limit debate was offered as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 122 Cong. Rec. 13416, 13417, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Carl D.] Perkins [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I move that
all debate on title III and all amendments thereto close at 4:50
p.m.
The motion was agreed to.
The Chairman: (1) Members standing at the time the
motion was made will each be recognized for approximately a minute
and a quarter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. B. F. Sisk (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Albert H.] Quie [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Quie: Mr. Chairman, would it be in order for a Member to
divide his minute and a quarter into parts if he wishes to speak on
more than one amendment?
The Chairman: The gentleman might make that request by
unanimous consent.
Sec. 79.59 The allocation of time pursuant to a limitation un-der the
five-minute rule is within the discretion of the Chair, who may
refuse to permit Members to whom time has been allotted to split
their time except by unanimous consent.
On Apr. 26, 1978,(2) during consideration of H.R. 8494,
the Pub-lic Disclosure of Lobbying Act of 1978, a limitation on debate
to a time certain was agreed to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 124 Cong. Rec. 11641, 11643, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [George E.] Danielson [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I move
that all debate on this bill and all amendments thereto be
terminated at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m. tonight.
[The motion was agreed to.]
Mr. [Thomas N.] Kindness [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Kindness: On page 31, line 18, in-
sert . . . before the comma the following language: ``or to the
membership of an organization''. . . .
Mr. Danielson: Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The Chairman: (3) At this time the Chair will advise
Members that even if they have 5 minutes, they may address
themselves only to one amendment. They will not be able to split
their time except by unanimous consent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Lloyd Meeds (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Danielson: Between amendments?
The Chairman: That is correct.
Sec. 79.60 A Member to whom time is allocated under a limitation on
debate under the five-minute rule may, by unanimous consent,
consume a portion of his time and reserve the unused portion for
debate on another amendment to be offered under the limitation.
[[Page 11214]]
The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on
May 24, 1978,(4) during consideration of H.R. 10929 (the
Department of Defense authorization for fiscal 1979):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 124 Cong. Rec. 15338, 15341, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Melvin] Price [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I move that all
debate on the bill and all amendments thereto close at 6:30.
The Chairman: (5) The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Price).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The motion was agreed to. . . .
Mr. Gary A. Myers [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Gary A. Myers: Page 35, line 10,
strike out ``and''. . . .
Mr. Gary A. Myers: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I
be allotted one-half my time at this time and reserve the balance
for another amendment.
The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
Sec. 79.61 A Member allocated time under a limitation of debate under
the five-minute rule must obtain unanimous consent to reserve his
time, and time for other Members in opposition, for debate on an
amendment if offered.
During consideration of the foreign assistance authorization bill
(H.R. 12514) in the Committee of the Whole on Aug. 2,
1978,(6) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 124 Cong. Rec. 23950, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Richard H.] Ichord [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I have an
amendment pending at the desk, which I will offer in the event that
the amendment of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Findley) to the
substitute amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Zablocki)
fails.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I may
reserve my time for the discussion of that amendment.
The Chairman: (7) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Missouri?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Don Fuqua (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Stephen J.] Solarz [of New York]: Reserving the right to
object, Mr. Chairman, if the Findley amendment is defeated and the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Ichord) offers his amendment, at that
point, after he makes his remarks, will there be time for other
Members to speak on the amendment?
The Chairman: The Chair will inform the gentleman that any
other Member or Members will be permitted to speak only if a
unanimous-consent request is made and granted.
Mr. Solarz: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of
objection.
Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I do
not intend to object, but I would join in the gen
[[Page 11215]]
tleman's unanimous-consent request that, if his time is reserved
just prior to the consideration of his amendment, he also include
my time.
Mr. Ichord: Mr. Chairman, I would so request.
The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Missouri?
There was no objection.
Reserving Time To Debate Amendments Not Yet Pending
Sec. 79.62 Notwithstanding a limitation of debate under the five-minute
rule, an amendment printed in the Record in the proper form will be
guaranteed 10 minutes of debate thereon.
On Sept. 11, 1978,(8) during consideration of the Civil
Service Reform Act of 1978 (H.R. 11280) in the Committee of the Whole,
the Chair responded to an inquiry regarding the effect of a limitation
of debate on amendments printed in the Record:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 124 Cong. Rec. 28800, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: . . . Mr. Chairman, we have
had a long and difficult day . . . the hour is late, and I am not
sure we can be productive much longer. We do have a number of
important amendments left.
Mr. Chairman, I am going to make a unanimous-consent request in
just a moment, and if it is agreed to, at that point I would move
that the Committee rise. . . .
Mr. Chairman, my unanimous-consent request is that the
remaining time for debate on title VII, and all amendments
thereto--that is the title we are now considering--be limited to a
total of 2 hours. . . .
Mr. [Bill] Frenzel [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, reserving the
right to object, as I understand it, there will be two substitutes
posed, and a number of Members have amendments in the Record. They
are, of course, amendments to the bill and not to the substitutes.
I wonder if the Chair could tell me how we could protect the
amendments which are now filed so that they would be in order and
have time under the proposal that the gentleman suggests, to either
of the substitutes.
The Chairman: (9) The Chair advises the gentleman
that the amendments which have been printed in the Record would be
protected under our rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. George E. Danielson (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Frenzel: Will we be able to make the amendments to the
substitute, Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman: Yes. If they can be redrafted to pertain to the
substitute, and placed in the Record, the answer is in the
affirmative.
Mr. Frenzel: I thank the Chair.
Additional Debate Time Beyond Original Cutoff
Sec. 79.63 The Committee of the Whole may by unanimous consent permit
additional debate on an amendment prior
[[Page 11216]]
to its being offered, notwithstanding a previous limitation on
debate under the five-minute rule on all amendments to the bill.
On Oct. 4, 1983,(10) the following proceedings occurred
in Committee of the Whole during consideration of H.R. 2379 (National
Park System Protection and Resources Management Act of 1983):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 129 Cong. Rec. 27099, 27102, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John F.] Seiberling [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, reserving the
right to object, I wonder if we could have agreement on putting a
time limitation on discussions on this amendment and all other
amendments to this bill of 4:15?
I make that as a unanimous-consent request.
The Chairman: (11) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Ohio?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Carl D. Perkins (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
Mr. [Manuel] Lujan [Jr., of New Mexico]: Mr. Chairman, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Lujan: Mr. Chairman, we undoubtedly will have a vote on
this bill which will take us beyond 4:15, and I was wondering if it
would be in order, by a unanimous-consent request, that we could
change that 4:15 time so that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Murphy) would have time to offer his amendment after the vote on
this amendment?
The Chairman: By unanimous consent, he can obtain time to
debate his amendment. . . .
Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that following the vote on the pending Hansen
amendment the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Brown) have 3 minutes
and some member in opposition have 3 minutes for debate; and that
the same request be extended to the amendment of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy).
The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Arizona?
There was no objection.
Chair's Discretion in Allocating Time
Sec. 79.64 A limitation of debate on a bill and all amendments thereto
to a time certain abrogates in effect the five-minute rule, and
decisions regarding the division of time and the order of
recognition of those Members desiring to speak are largely within
the discretion of the Chair, who may decline to recognize Members
more than one time under the limitation and may refuse to permit
Members to divide their allotted time so as to speak to several of
the amendments which are to be offered.
[[Page 11217]]
On May 6, 1970,(12) after the Committee of the Whole had
agreed to close debate on a pending bill and amendments thereto at a
certain hour, Chairman Daniel D. Rostenkowski, of Illinois, answered a
parliamentary inquiry on whether he would, under his discretion, allow
Members to speak more than once or to allot their time under the
limitation:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 116 Cong. Rec. 14467, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Stratton: Under the limitation of debate, is it permissible
for a Member to speak twice within his allotted time either for or
against two specific amendments?
The Chairman: The Chair will recognize the gentleman for one
time in support of or in opposition to an amendment.
Mr. Stratton: But not more than once?
The Chairman: No; not more than once.
Sec. 79.65 While the Chair normally allocates time for debate among
those standing at the time a motion to limit debate is adopted, the
Chair may refrain from doing so where several hours of debate
remain under the limitation and where it would be premature to
deviate from the five-minute rule by dividing all remaining time
just among Members who are then present.
On Oct. 7, 1974,(13) during consideration of H. Res. 988
(to reform the structure, jurisdiction, and procedures of House
committees), the Chair responded to a parliamentary inquiry as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 120 Cong. Rec. 34170, 34171, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Richard] Bolling [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I move that
all debate on the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered
by the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. Hansen), and all
amendments thereto, conclude in 5 hours.
The Chairman: (14) The question is on the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. Bolling: Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote. . . .
Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I have a . . .
parliamentary inquiry. . . .
Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that when time is limited
under the rules of the House, the Chair normally recognizes those
Members standing and allocates time. I pose the question to the
Chair whether that would or would not be the procedure for as long
as we would proceed, for as long as a period of 5 hours?
[[Page 11218]]
The Chairman: The Chair would like to advise the gentleman that
those amendments pending and those that would be offered would, of
course, be considered. As far as the Members standing on the
request that is now before the committee, it would seem to the
Chair that it would be premature to recognize the Members standing
when there are a number of Members not present at this time who
would like to be heard.
Mr. [Frank] Thompson [Jr. of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. Thompson of New Jersey: Mr. Chairman, I did not understand
the Chair's answer to the parliamentary inquiry by the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. O'Hara). Is it my understanding that
notwithstanding that 5 hours under the gentleman's motion would
dispose of the Hansen and Martin substitutes, in addition thereto
for those amendments which have been printed in the Record will
there be time to debate them allowed?
The Chairman: The Chair would like to advise the gentleman from
New Jersey that the proponents of all amendments printed in the
Record that have not been reached during the 5-hour period will be
recognized under the rules of the House for 5 minutes in support of
their amendments. They would be protected.
Mr. Thompson of New Jersey: How about time in opposition?
The Chairman: And 5 minutes in opposition. The gentleman is
correct.
Sec. 79.66 A limitation on time for debate on a pending amendment and
all amendments thereto in effect abrogates the five-minute rule and
the Chair, at his discretion, may allocate time to all Members
desiring to speak, whether or not they have previously spoken on
the amendment; and where time for debate has been limited and the
time remaining allocated to those Members wishing to speak, an
extension of time for debate by unanimous consent would increase
the time allotted to individual Members but would not allow
additional Members to seek recognition.
On Oct. 1, 1975,(15) during consideration of the
Department of Defense appropriation bill (H.R. 9861) in the Committee
of the Whole, the proceedings described above occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 121 Cong. Rec. 31074, 31075, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I move to
strike the requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I had misjudged before the desire of the House at
an earlier time to try to limit debate to 30 minutes. I want to be
sure that no one is denied the opportunity to speak. I ask
unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment and all
amendments thereto conclude in 15 minutes.
[[Page 11219]]
The Chairman: (16) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Texas?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection. . . .
Mr. [Burt L.] Talcott [of California]: Mr. Chairman, may I
inquire whether or not the Members who have already spoken on this
amendment may speak again during limited time?
The Chairman: When time is limited, Members are permitted to
speak again under the allocation of time.
Mr. Talcott: And they can yield their time to other Members?
The Chairman: That is a unanimous-consent request. . . .
Mr. [Barry] Goldwater [Jr., of California]: . . . I ask
unanimous consent that the time be extended another 15 minutes.
The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
Mr. [Andrew J.] Hinshaw [of California]: Mr. Chairman,
reserving the right to object, if we were to accede to the
unanimous-consent request, would that open the door for additional
Members to stand up to seek additional time?
The Chairman: The Chair has already announced his allocation of
time.
Sec. 79.67 Where time for debate is limited to a specific number of
minutes rather than a limitation to a time certain on the clock,
the Chair may permit Members to reserve time until an amendment to
an amendment has been disposed of so as to speak on the main
amendment.
On Oct. 3, 1975,(17) the proposition described above was
demonstrated in the Committee of the Whole, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 121 Cong. Rec. 31602-04, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Thomas S.] Foley [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw
my request and now I ask unanimous consent that all debate on the
Brown amendment and all amendments thereto end in 20 minutes.
The Chairman: (18) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Washington?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. William L. Hungate (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Peter A.] Peyser [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, reserving
the right to object, I would like to ask the chairman of the
committee, if this is going to be ending in 20 minutes and we have
a vote on the Symms amendment, as I understand it, does that time
for the vote go into the 20 minutes?
Mr. Foley: No. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield. I
asked unanimous consent that all debate on the Brown amendment and
all amendments thereto end in 20 minutes. . . .
The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Washington that all debate will end on the Brown
amendment in the nature of a substitute and the Symms amendment and
all amendments thereto in 20 minutes?
There was no objection. . . .
The Chairman: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. McCormack).
[[Page 11220]]
Mr. [Mike] McCormack [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve
my time in order to speak on the Brown of California amendment
after the vote on the Symms amendment. . . .
The Chairman: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Peyser).
Mr. Peyser: Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time until after the
vote on the Symms amendment. . . .
Mr. Foley: Is it correct that approximately 2\1/2\ minutes
remain of debate under the limitation previously adopted, and that
following that a vote will occur on the Brown amendment in the
nature of a substitute?
The Chairman: The gentleman states the question correctly. The
gentleman from New York (Mr. Peyser) has 1\1/4\ minutes, and the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. McCormack) has 1\1/4\ minutes. Then
a vote will occur on the Brown amendment.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Peyser).
Parliamentarian's Note: Where time is limited by the clock, a
Member attempting to reserve time may be preempted by votes, quorum
calls, etc., which come out of the time remaining. Therefore, the
Chair, to protect Members' right to speak, might refuse to permit a
reservation of time.
Sec. 79.68 A limitation of debate on a bill and all amendments thereto
to a time certain in effect abrogates the five-minute rule; and
decisions regarding the division of the remaining time and the or-
der of recognition of those Members desiring to speak are largely
within the discretion of the Chair, who may defer recognition of
listed Members whose amendments have been printed in the Record and
who are therefore guaranteed five minutes notwithstanding the
limitation.
The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on
June 4, 1975,(19) during consideration of the Voting Rights
Act Extension (H.R. 6219):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 121 Cong. Rec. 16899, 16901, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Don] Edwards of California: Mr. Chairman, I move that all
debate on the bill and all amendments thereto terminate at 6:45
p.m.
The Chairman: (20) The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from California.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The motion was agreed to. . . .
The Chairman: With the permission of the Committee, the Chair
will briefly state the situation.
There are a number of Members who do not have amendments that
were placed in the Record, and the Chair feels that he must try to
protect them somewhat, so he proposes to go to a number of Members
on the list so they will at least get some time. The time allotted
will be less than a minute.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. de la
Garza).
[[Page 11221]]
Sec. 79.69 Where the Committee of the Whole agrees to limit debate on a
pending amendment, the five-minute rule is abrogated and the Chair
allocates the remaining time among those Members standing at the
time the limitation is agreed to, and not among those Members who
stand after the allocation of time is announced.
On May 4, 1977,(1) the situation described above
occurred in the Committee of the Whole, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 123 Cong. Rec. 13413, 13414, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Dante B.] Fascell [of Florida]: I am trying to be
reasonable about this.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Dornan) and
the amendment offered as a substitute by the gentleman from Alabama
(Mr. Buchanan), and all amendments thereto, close in 10 minutes.
The Chairman: (2) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Florida?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Elliott Levitas (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
The Chairman: Members standing at the time the unanimous-
consent request was granted will be recognized for 50 seconds each.
. . .
Mr. [Parren J.] Mitchell of Maryland: Mr. Chairman, was the
limitation set on debate a time period of 10 minutes?
The Chairman: The gentleman is correct. The time limitation is
10 minutes.
Mr. Mitchell of Maryland: Ten minutes. And may I ask the
Chairman, how many Members were standing? I figured there were
roughly 120 Members standing.
The Chairman: At the time the unanimous-consent request for
limitation of debate was agreed to the Chair saw 14 Members on
their feet. That observation was made at the time the request for
limitation was agreed to, and not later on. The Chair saw 14
Members standing at the time the request for limitation was agreed
to, and under the precedents the Chair has discretion to divide the
remaining time only among those Members
Mr. [Ronald V.] Dellums [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Dellums: Mr. Chairman, would the Chair announce the names
of the Members who were standing? The gentleman from California was
standing at the time of the agreement to the limitation. This
gentleman from California was on his feet, and I do not recall
hearing my name announced.
The Chairman: The Chair named each Member he saw standing at
the time the unanimous-consent agreement for a time limitation was
agreed to. . . .
The Chair will once again read the names of the Members who
were seen standing at the time the unanimous-consent request was
agreed to.
[[Page 11222]]
Sec. 79.70 Where the Committee of the Whole has limited to 5 minutes
the remaining time for debate on an amendment, the five-minute rule
is in effect abrogated and the Chair may in his discretion
recognize two Members to equally control the time in support of and
in opposition to the amendment, granting priority of recognition to
control the time in opposition to a member of the committee
handling the bill; but where no committee member seeks recognition
for that purpose, the Chair may recognize any Member to control the
time.
On June 22, 1977,(3) during consideration of H.R. 7797
(the foreign assistance and related agencies appropriation bill for
fiscal 1978) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair made an
announcement regarding debate un-der the five-minute rule. The
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 123 Cong. Rec. 20291, 20292, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Clarence D.] Long of Maryland: Mr. Chairman, I move that
all debate on this amendment and any amendments thereto close in 5
minutes.
The motion was agreed to.
The Chairman: (4) Let the Chair make this
announcement. There is no way that the Chair can divide 5 minutes
among all who wish to speak. Therefore, under the prerogative of
the Chair, the Chair will recognize one proponent and one opponent
each for 2\1/2\ minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Abraham Kazen, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair at this time recognizes the proponent, the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Wolff). . . .
Is there any member of the committee who wishes to be
recognized in opposition to the amendment?
If not, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Weiss) as an opponent of the amendment.
Sec. 79.71 Adoption of a motion to limit debate in Committee of the
Whole abrogates the five-minute rule, and the allocation of the
remaining time is within the discretion of the Chair, who may
divide the time between the majority and minority manager of the
bill rather than among all Members indicating a desire to speak.
On Apr. 1, 1976,(5) during consideration of H.R. 12406
(the Federal Election Campaign Act amendments of 1976) in the Committee
of the Whole, the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 122 Cong. Rec. 9088, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I move that all
debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto finish at 3
p.m.
[[Page 11223]]
The Chairman: (6) The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hays).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. Hays
of Ohio) there were--ayes 93, noes 48. . . .
So the motion was agreed to. . . .
The Chairman: With the permission of the Committee, the Chair
would like to make a brief statement.
The Committee has just limited the time on this amendment and
all amendments thereto to 3 o'clock. The gentleman from California
(Mr. Phillip Burton) had been recognized for 5 minutes. That will
leave approximately 6 minutes to be allocated.
The precedents provide under chapter 29, section 31, of
Deschler's Procedures that the Chair has discretion in distributing
the time. Due to the obvious impossibility of satisfying all
Members the Chair proposes to allocate 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Hays) and 3 minutes to the gentleman from California
(Mr. Wiggins), whereby they may yield time.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr.
Phillip Burton).
Sec. 79.72 Where there was pending an amendment in the nature of a
substitute for a bill and the permissible degree of amendments
thereto, the Chair indicated in response to parliamentary
inquiries: (1) that a motion to limit debate on the amendment in
the nature of a substitute and all amendments thereto was in order
although the bill itself had not been read; (2) that amendments
printed in the Record would be debatable for 10 minutes
notwithstanding the limitation; and (3) that all Members would be
allocated equal time under the limitation regardless of committee
membership but that Members seeking to offer amendments could be
first recognized.
The proceedings in the Committee of the Whole relating to
consideration of H.R. 13367 (a bill to amend and extend the State and
Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972) on June 10, 1976,(7)
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 122 Cong. Rec. 17380, 17381, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Frank] Horton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I move that all
debate on the Brooks amendment and all amendments thereto end by 6
p.m. . . .
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: . . . I do not remember
the bill being open at any point to amendment.
The Chairman: (8) The motion of the gentleman from
New York, as the Chair understood it, was that all debate on the
Brooks amendment and all amendments thereto end at 6 p.m.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Bauman: So that the motion is in order?
The Chairman: The motion is in order. It is limited to the
Brooks amendment and amendments thereto.
[[Page 11224]]
Mr. [Clarence D.] Long of Maryland: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Long of Maryland: Mr. Chairman, of course I believe it is
understood that this does not apply to any amendments that are
printed in the Congressional Record?
The Chairman: Under the rules of the House, it does not apply
to those amendments. . . .
Mr. [J. J.] Pickle [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary
inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Pickle: Mr. Chairman, under the proposed time limitation,
would the Chair tend to recognize a Member who is not a member of
the commit-tee? For instance, the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Adams) has an important amendment, and if he is not recognized
within the time limitation, would the chairman of the committee let
the gentleman be recognized?
Mr. [Jack] Brooks [of Texas]: I do not have control of the
time. I think the answer, obviously, is that he will be recognized.
The Chairman: The Chair will state that under limitation of
time committee members no longer have priority in seeking
recognition. Time is equally allocated.
So the motion was agreed to.
The Chairman: Members standing at the time the motion was made
will be recognized for approximately 1 minute and 55 seconds each.
Sec. 79.73 Where debate has been limited to a time certain and the
Chair has divided the remaining time among those desiring to speak,
the Chair may, in his discretion, entertain a parliamentary inquiry
without deducting the time from that allocated to the Member
raising the inquiry.
On June 18, 1976,(9) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 13179 (the State Department authorization for fiscal
year 1977) when a time limitation on debate was agreed to, following
which several parliamentary inquiries were directed to the Chair. The
proceedings were as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 122 Cong. Rec. 19251, 19254, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I move
that all debate on the bill and all amendments thereto close at
2:30. . . .
The motion was agreed to. . . .
The Chairman Pro Tempore: (10) The Chair recognizes
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Biester).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. John Brademas (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Edward G.] Biester [Jr., of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. Biester: Mr. Chairman, so far we have been discussing only
one of the five remaining amendments that the Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole informed the chairman of the
[[Page 11225]]
Committee on International Relations that were at the desk.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: That is correct.
Mr. Biester: I am wondering what the plans of the Chair are
with respect to allocating time to those Members who wish to speak
on the various other amendments.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that Members
will have to use the time that is allotted to them prior to 2:30
p.m. to debate any of the amendments that remain, under the
unanimous-consent request that was granted earlier.
Mr. Biester: Since I have engaged in this parliamentary
inquiry, I presume that my time has about expired; is that correct?
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that the
gentleman's parliamentary inquiry will not come out of his time.
Sec. 79.74 Where debate under the five-minute rule is limited to three
hours of debate, the Chair may determine that any allocation of the
time at that point is premature, and continue to recognize Members
for five minutes.
On Feb. 1, 1978,(11) during consideration of H.R. 1614
(the Out-er Continental Shelf Lands Act Amendments) in the Committee of
the Whole, the Chair responded to inquiries regarding allocation of
time for debate, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 124 Cong. Rec. 1827, 1828, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John M.] Murphy of New York: Mr. Chairman, I will revise
the unanimous-consent request.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that when we convene
tomorrow, all debate on H.R. 1614 and all amendments and
substitutes thereto end after 3 hours of debate. . . .
Mr. [William A.] Steiger [of Wisconsin]: . . . If we were to
agree to this procedure tonight, what Members are going to be
recognized tomorrow? Will it be those Members who are standing, the
majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Wright), the
gentleman from Illinois, and a few others? There are four or five
Members standing, and I am one of those standing. . . .
The Chairman: (12) The Chair would like to advise
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Steiger) that regardless of the
time fixed, we would proceed under the 5-minute rule at the outset.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Steiger: Regardless of the time fixed, we proceed under the
5-minute rule?
The Chairman: We will proceed under the 5-minute rule. The
Chair would like to advise the gentleman that it would be premature
for the Chair to allocate time at this point.
Sec. 79.75 Priority of recognition under a limitation of time for
debate under the five-minute rule is in the complete discretion of
the Chair, who may disregard committee se
[[Page 11226]]
niority and consider amendment sponsorship.
On June 26, 1979,(13) it was demonstrated that where the
Committee of the Whole has agreed to a limitation on debate under the
five-minute rule on a section of a bill and all amendments thereto,
distribution of the time under the limitation is within the discretion
of the Chair. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 125 Cong. Rec. 16677, 16678, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
Under consideration was H.R. 3930, the Defense Production
Act Amendments of 1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [William S.] Moorhead of Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman, I move
that all debate on section 3 and all amendments thereto cease at
6:40 p.m. . . .
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes
209, noes 183, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 41, as follows: .
. .
The Chairman: (14) The Chair will attempt to explain
the situation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee has just voted to end all debate on section 3 and
all amendments thereto at 6:40. The Chair in a moment is going to
ask those Members wishing to speak between now and then to stand.
The Chair will advise Members that he will attempt, once that list
is determined, to recognize first those Members on the list with
amendments which are not protected by having been printed in the
Record. . . .
Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, did I understand
the Chair correctly that Members who are protected by having their
amendments printed in the Record will not be recognized until the
time has run so that those Members will only have 5 minutes to
present their amendments, but that other Members will be recognized
first for the amendments which are not printed in the Record?
The Chairman: Those Members who are recognized prior to the
expiration of time have approximately 20 seconds to present their
amendments. Those Members whose amendments are printed in the
Record will have a guaranteed 5 minutes after time has expired. . .
.
The Chair will now recognize those Members who wish to offer
amendments which have not been printed in the Record.
The Chair will advise Members he will recognize listed Members
in opposition to the amendments also for 20 seconds. . . .
Mr. [Richard] Kelly [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, is it not
regular order that the Members of the Committee with amendments be
given preference and recognition?
The Chairman: The Chair would advise the gentleman once the
limitation of time has been agreed to and time divided, that
priority of recognition is within the complete discretion of the
Chair.
Sec. 79.76 Where the Committee of the Whole has, by unanimous consent,
permitted four designated amendments to be offered to a title of a
bill
[[Page 11227]]
which has been passed in the reading for amendment, and has limited
time on those amendments to a time certain, the Chair may, in his
discretion, allocate in advance a portion of that time among the
proponent and opponent of those amendments and then allocate the
remaining time among other Members desiring to speak.
On Jan. 29, 1980, the Committee of the Whole, having under
consideration H.R. 4788, the Water Resources Development Act, had by
unanimous consent agreed to allow four specified amendments to be
offered to a title of the bill that had been passed in the reading for
amendment.
Mr. Ray Roberts, of Texas, subsequently asked unanimous consent
that debate on the title and amendments end at a time certain:
(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 126 Cong. Rec. 993, 994, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Roberts: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all
debate on title III and all amendments thereto end at 4:40.
The Chairman: (16) Does the gentleman from Texas
wish to allocate any portion of that time under his unanimous-
consent request, consistent with the discussion that took place
previously?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Roberts: Five minutes only. I think there is enough to go
around. I will not use my 5 minutes.
The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roberts)?
Mr. [Robert W.] Edgar [of Pennsylvania]: Reserving the right to
object, in our colloquy we had suggested that the gentleman from
Montana be given at least a minimum of 5 minutes and the gentleman
from Washington be given 5 minutes. I would have no objection to
that.
The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roberts) so
revise his unanimous-consent request?
Mr. Roberts: I do, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roberts) as revised? . . .
There was no objection.
The Chairman: The Chair has discretion to allocate time under
the unanimous-consent request. In addition to the allocation which
has been requested of 5 minutes for the gentleman from Montana and
5 minutes for the gentleman from Washington, the Chair in the
exercise of that discretion will allocate a total of 10 minutes to
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Edgar) on the basis that he is
offering three amendments, and will allocate the balance of the
time to those Members who are standing.
Members standing at the time the unanimous-consent request was
agreed to will be recognized for 40 seconds each, with the possible
loss of time if there are any recorded votes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Edgar) for 10 minutes.
[[Page 11228]]
Sec. 79.77 Debate on an amendment and all amendments thereto pending in
the Committee of the Whole may be limited to a time certain by
motion; and the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may divide
remaining debate time equally between two Members following such
limitation.
On July 26, 1984,(17) during
consideration of the Education Amendments of 1984 (H.R. 11) in the
Committee of the Whole, the Chair divided the remaining time for debate
equally between the chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor
and the proponent of the pending amendment. The proceedings were as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 130 Cong. Rec. 21249, 21250, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Carl D.] Perkins [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that all debate on the pending amendment, all
amendments thereto and all substitutes, close at 2 p.m.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: (18) Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Kentucky?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Abraham Kazen, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Dan R.] Coats [of Indiana]: Reserving the right to object,
Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding, and I am not sure, I just
want to check, I think a perfecting amendment is going to be
offered, and I just want to check to see if that is the case. If
that is the case, I would have to object to that unanimous-consent
request.
Mr. Perkins: Then, Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on the
Coats amendment, all substitutes and all amendments thereto, be
concluded at 2 p.m.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The question is on the motion offered
by the gentleman from Kentucky. . . .
So the motion was agreed to.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair will proceed to divide the
time.
Since there are so many Members seeking recognition, the Chair
at this time will divide the time equally between the chairman, Mr.
Perkins, and the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Coats, 10 minutes
each, and they will yield time as they see fit.
Parliamentarian's Note: During the above proceedings, the Chairman
also ruled that a parliamentary inquiry relating to a pending motion
occurring after the Chairman has announced the results of a voice vote
does not constitute such intervening business as to preclude the right
of a Member to demand a recorded vote on the pending motion. After the
result of the voice vote was announced in the above instance (that a
majority favored the motion), a parliamentary inquiry was made:
(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 130 Cong. Rec. 21249, 21250, 98th Cong. 2d Sess., July 26, 1984.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [William F.] Goodling [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I
have a parliamentary inquiry. . . .
[[Page 11229]]
I want to make sure the motion was talking only about this
portion of this bill.
Mr. Perkins: . . . This does not include the Goodling
amendment, the funding of the school programs.
Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: I want to get a
record vote.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: This motion referred to the Coats
amendment and all amendments thereto.
Mr. Walker: That is right, and I want a record vote on the
ruling of the Chair.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: Those in favor of taking this by
recorded vote. . . .
Mr. [Richard J.] Durbin [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, a point of
order.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his point of
order.
Mr. Durbin: Is it my understanding there was intervening
business between the vote which was taken orally, the parliamentary
inquiry made by the gentleman?
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The intervening business was a
parliamentary inquiry that was related to the motion, and no
independent business has been taken up.
Mr. Durbin: As a further parliamentary inquiry of the Chair,
does not
this parliamentary inquiry and interruption preclude the gentleman
from Pennsylvania's right to ask for a recorded vote?
The Chairman Pro Tempore: No; it is related to the status of
the vote, and of the motion.
Sec. 79.78 Following an agreement to limit debate on an amendment and
an amendment thereto to a time certain, the Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole may exercise his discretion and allot the
remaining time in three equal parts; in this case time was
controlled by the offeror of the amendment (Brown), the offeror of
the amendment to the amendment (Leach) and the floor manager of the
bill (Zablocki).
The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on
Apr. 13, 1983,(20) during consideration of House Joint
Resolution 13 (nuclear weapons freeze):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 129 Cong. Rec. 8425, 8426, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: . . . I ask unanimous
consent that debate close at 6:05.
The Chairman: (1) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Wisconsin?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Jack] Kemp [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I object.
The Chairman: Objection is heard.
Mr. Zablocki: 6:15?
The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
The Chairman: The unanimous-consent request is agreed to and
debate is limited to 6:15.
[[Page 11230]]
The Chair is going to exercise discretion and allot the time in
three equal parts to the gentleman from Iowa
(Mr. Leach), the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Brown) and the
gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Zablocki) and, of course, those Members can
yield for purposes of debate.
Mr. [Newt] Gingrich [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary
inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Gingrich: Mr. Chairman, if I may express my ignorance for a
moment, is it, in fact, the prerogative of the Chair in that sort
of unanimous-consent request to then design whatever system seems
workable?
The Chairman: Yes, it is. The Chair has exercised its
discretion in light of the circumstances and allocates 6 minutes to
the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach); 6 minutes to the gentleman
from Colorado (Mr. Brown); and 6 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Zablocki).
Sec. 79.79 Where debate under the five-minute rule on a bill and all
amendments thereto has been limited by motion to a time certain
(with approximately 90 minutes remaining) the Chair may in his
discretion continue to recognize Members under the five-minute
rule, according priority to members of the committee reporting the
bill, instead of allocating time between proponents and opponents
or among all Members standing, where it cannot be determined what
amendments will be offered.
On July 29, 1983,(2) during consideration of the
International Monetary Fund Authorization (H.R. 2957) in the Committee
of the Whole, the Chair responded
to several parliamentary inquiries regarding recognition following
agreement to a motion to limit debate to a time certain:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 129 Cong. Rec. 21649, 21650, 21659, 21660, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Fernand J.] St Germain [of Rhode Island]: Mr. Chairman, I
ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill, H.R. 2957, be
considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at
any point.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from Rhode Island?
There was no objection.
The text of title IV and title V is as follows:
TITLE IV--INTERNATIONAL LENDING SUPERVISION
Sec. 401. This title may be cited as the ``International
Lending Supervision Act of 1983''. . . .
Mr. St Germain: I have a motion, Mr. Chairman. . . .
I now move that all debate on the bill, H.R. 2957, and all
amendments thereto, cease at 12 o'clock noon. . . .
Mr. [Ed] Bethune [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary
inquiry. . . .
[[Page 11231]]
Mr. Chairman, the parliamentary inquiry is for the Chair to
please state the process by which we will do our business from now
until the time is cut off. . . .
Mr. [Stephen L.] Neal [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, would
it not be in order at this time to ask that the time be divided
between the proponents and the opponents of this measure, since
there is a limitation on the time?
The Chairman: (3) The Chair believes not, because
the time has been limited on the entire bill. It would be very
difficult to allocate time to any one particular party or two
parties when the Chair has no knowledge of the amendments that will
be offered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Donald J. Pease (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Neal: Mr. Chairman, a further parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Neal: Mr. Chairman, is it not true that members of the
committee should be given preference in terms of recognition?
The Chairman: That is true. At the time the gentleman from
Pennsylvania was recognized, he was the only one seeking
recognition.
Chair Allocates Limited Time, Not Proponent of Amendment
Sec. 79.80 Where debate is limited on an amendment in the Committee of
the Whole, the Chair divides the remaining time among all Members
desiring to speak at the time the limitation was agreed to, and not
merely among those Members mentioned by a Member as having wished
to be recognized prior to the limitation.
The proceedings in the Committee of the Whole on Oct. 5,
1981,(4) during consideration of H.R. 3112 (to extend the
Voting Rights Act of 1965) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 127 Cong. Rec. 23154, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Don] Edwards of California: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that all debate on this amendment close in 15 minutes.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: (5) The Chair will inquire
of the gentleman from California whether his unanimous-consent
request includes this amendment and all amendments thereto.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Dennis E. Eckart (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Edwards of California: Just on this amendment, Mr.
Chairman.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: Just on this amendment.
Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
There was no objection.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: For what purpose does the gentleman
from Louisiana seek recognition?
Mr. [W. Henson] Moore [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I move to
strike the requisite number of words.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair will first allocate the
time
[[Page 11232]]
among all Members seeking recognition on this amendment.
The Chair has observed the following Members standing: The
gentleman from California (Mr. Edwards), the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Hyde) . . . and the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs.
Fenwick).
Mr. [Henry J.] Hyde [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Hyde: Mr. Chairman, I have three Members who want to speak
on this side. That is the gentleman from Louisiana, the gentleman
from Michigan, and the gentlewoman from New Jersey.
I was assuming 5 minutes apiece, 15 minutes total.
Are we talking about a whole slew of Members who want to talk
now?
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair will point out to the
gentleman from Illinois that the Chair merely allocated the time
among those Members who rose by the time that the unanimous-consent
request was granted.
Where Division of Time by Unanimous Consent Was Objected to, Chair Used
His Discretion
Sec. 79.81 A motion to limit debate under the five-minute rule on a
pending amendment in the Committee of the Whole is not in order if
it includes a provision for division of time between two Members,
since debate time can be allocated between Members only by
unanimous consent; but where debate
on an amendment and all amendments thereto has been limited to a
time certain, the Chair may exercise his discretion and allocate
the remaining time between two Members and may indicate which
Member may close the debate.
The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on
Aug. 2, 1984,(6) during consideration of the Department of
Interior Appropriations Act of 1985 (H.R. 5973):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 130 Cong. Rec. 22180, 22181, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I move that
all time on the Conte amendment and all amendments thereto with the
exception of the Ottinger amendment end at 3:30, the time to be
equally divided between the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Conte) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Ratchford).
The Chairman: (7) The Chair will remind the
gentleman that time cannot be allocated between sides or between
Members except by unanimous consent. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
But the motion only to limit debate is in order. . . .
Mr. [Bill] Frenzel [of Minnesota]: If the gentleman's motion
passes I will not object to the unanimous-consent request at that
time to divide the time.
[[Page 11233]]
The Chairman: . . . The motion offered by the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Yates) is to end all debate on the Conte amendment
and all amendments thereto except the Ottinger amendment at 3:30.
Mr. Yates: That is correct, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates).
[The motion was agreed to.]
Mr. Yates: Mr. Chairman, the time has been limited to 3:30. I
ask unanimous consent that the time be expanded to permit 10
minutes on each side, with those favoring the Conte amendment to be
controlled by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Conte) and
those favoring the Ratchford amendment to be controlled by
the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Ratchford).
The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. [Marty] Russo [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I object.
The Chairman: Objection is heard.
The Chair now intends to allocate 6 minutes to the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Conte) and 6 minutes to the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Ratchford).
The Chair intends that the debate will end with Mr. Ratchford.
Procedure Where Control of Time Set by Unanimous Consent
Sec. 79.82 The Committee of the Whole may by unanimous consent limit
the time for debate under the five-minute rule and provide for the
time to be controlled and divided between the majority and minority
sides.
On May 26, 1966,(8) Adam C. Powell, of New York,
Chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor which had reported the
bill under discussion under the five-minute rule in the Committee of
the Whole, asked unanimous consent that debate on a pending amendment
be limited to 60 minutes, 30 minutes on each side (majority and
minority), to be equally divided and controlled by the proponent of the
amendment and the subcommittee chairman handling the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 112 Cong. Rec. 11608, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The request was agreed to.
On May 10, 1966,(9) the Committee of the Whole agreed to
a request limiting five-minute debate and dividing the control of the
time between the majority and minority Members in charge of the bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Id. at p. 10232.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Carl] Albert [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, for the purpose
of clarification, would it be in order for the gentleman from
Tennessee to ask unanimous consent that debate on this amendment be
confined to 20 minutes
[[Page 11234]]
on each side, the 20 minutes on this side to be controlled by the
gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Evins] and the 20 minutes on the
Republican side by the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Jonas]?
Mr. [Joseph L.] Evins: Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished
majority leader for the suggestion and now make the unanimous-
consent request accordingly.
The Chairman: (10) Without objection, it is so
ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See also 111 Cong. Rec. 16227, 16228, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., July 9,
1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 79.83 Where the Committee of the Whole has by unanimous consent
fixed debate on an amendment to two hours and divided control of
the time between the proponent of the amendment and the chairman of
the committee, the two Members controlling debate may yield time as
in general debate, and Members may offer and debate amendments in
the time yielded them.
On July 9, 1965,(12) the Committee of the Whole was
considering 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 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.
Sec. 79.84 Where by unanimous consent the final portion of debate under
a limitation has been reserved to the manager of the bill, and that
Member has also consumed five minutes in opposition
to a preferential motion to strike the enacting clause, he is
nevertheless recognized again where all other time under the
limitation has been preempted by debate on the preferential motion.
During consideration of the Clean Air Act Amendments of
[[Page 11235]]
1976 (H.R. 10498) in the Committee of the Whole on Sept. 15,
1976,(13) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 122 Cong. Rec. 30466, 30469-71, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Paul G.] Rogers [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that debate on the Waxman-Maguire amendment and
the Dingell amendment, and all amendments thereto, conclude at 1:30
. . . and that the last 10 minutes be reserved for myself.
The Chairman: (14) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Florida?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. J. Edward Roush (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
The Chairman: Members standing at the time the unanimous-
consent request was made will be recognized for 30 seconds each. .
. .
Mr. [James C.] Wright [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a
preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Wright 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 gentleman from Texas (Mr. Wright) is
recognized for 5 minutes in support of his preferential motion. . .
.
Mr. Rogers: Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the motion.
The Chairman: The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rogers) is
recognized for 5 minutes in opposition to the preferential motion.
. . .
The time of the gentleman has expired. . . .
The question is on the preferential motion offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Wright).
The preferential motion was rejected.
The Chairman: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Rogers) for the balance of the time.
Mr. [James T.] Broyhill [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, did
the Chair not mean to recognize the gentleman from North Carolina?
The Chairman: The Chair will state to the gentleman from North
Carolina that the Chair is operating under the limitation which was
imposed by the unanimous-consent request. There are two key points
that come into play at this time, the limitation of the time and
the reservation of time to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rogers)
of the last 10 minutes. The gentleman from Florida will not get the
full 10 minutes because the time will have expired at 1:30.
The Chair again recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Rogers).
Sec. 79.85 Although a motion to limit debate on a pending amendment is
in order in the Committee of the Whole, such a motion may not
allocate the time proposed under the limitation or vary the order
of recognition to close debate under the limitation.
During consideration of the Defense Savings Act of 1988 (H.R. 4481)
in the Committee of the
[[Page 11236]]
Whole on July 12, 1988,(15) the following exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 134 Cong. Rec. 17767, 100th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [William L.] Dickinson [of Alabama]: I think that the rule
provides a division of time of all those standing and who want to
speak. But if it would be proper, Mr. Chairman, I would so move
that limitation of time would be within 30 minutes of the present
time, the time to be divided equally by the proponents and
opponents and that the gentleman from Texas, the author of the
amendment, be allowed to close debate.
Mr. [Dennis M.] Hertel [of Michigan]: . . . I have no problem
with the gentleman closing debate. I just do not know if it is
proper to put it in a motion. I have no objection to him being the
last person to speak. . . .
The Chairman: (16) The gentleman . . . has made a
motion. He has moved. But the gentleman should make a unanimous-
consent request to allocate time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Harold L. Volkmer (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Dickinson: Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent that
all debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto close
within 30 minutes, that the 30 minutes be divided half and half
between the proponents and the opponents and that the gentleman
from Texas be allowed to close.
Mr. [G. V.] Montgomery [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman,
reserving the right to object, I agree with the gentleman's first
part with respect to 30 minutes but over the years the House
procedure is I believe, and I will have the Chair correct me if I
am wrong, that when an amendment is offered and the chairman of the
committee objects to that amendment, that he has the right to close
debate. Is that proper?
The Chairman: Normally when the Committee of the Whole divides
the time on an amendment the person handling the bill, the
chairman, has the right to end the debate. That is normal.
There has been a unanimous-consent request to alter that, which
can be done, to permit the gentleman from Texas to close the
debate.
Special Rule May Permit Time Allocation by Motion
Sec. 79.86 A special rule agreed to by the House for consideration of a
bill permitted motions by the chairman of the committee reporting
the bill to include the allocation of time in any motion to limit
debate, and to consider the remainder of the bill or any titles
thereof read and open to amendment.
On Dec. 9, 1981,(17) Mr. Anthony C. Beilenson, of
California, called up House Resolution 291 (providing for consideration
of H.R. 3566, International Security and Development Assistance
authorizations for fiscal 1982 and 1983) in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 127 Cong. Rec. 30193, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Beilenson: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I
[[Page 11237]]
call up House Resolution 291 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 291
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for
the consideration of the bill (H.R. 3566) to authorize
appropriations for the fiscal years 1982 and 1983 for
international security and development assistance and for the
Peace Corps, and for other purposes, the first reading of the
bill shall be dispensed with. . . . After general debate, which
shall be confined to the bill and shall continue not to exceed
one hour, to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign
Affairs, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the
five-minute rule by titles instead of by sections, and each
title shall be considered as having been read. It shall be in
order at any time while the bill is being considered for
amendment under the five-minute rule for the chairman of the
Committee on Foreign Affairs to move to limit debate on the
pending portion of the bill and to provide in said motion for
the allocation of time under the limitation on the pending
portion of the bill, or on amendments, or on amendments to
amendments, thereto. It shall also be in order at any time
while the bill is being considered for amendment under the
five-minute rule for the chairman of the Committee on Foreign
Affairs to move that the remainder of the bill, or any title
thereof, be considered as having been read and open to
amendment. At the conclusion of the consideration of the bill
for amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the bill to
the House with such amendments as may have been adopted, and
the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
bill and amendments thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit.
Where All Debate on Pending Amendment Is Limited, Enacting Clause Still
Debatable
Sec. 79.87 During consideration of an amendment in the Committee of the
Whole, where time for debate thereon has been fixed and control
vested in two Members, the motion that the Committee rise and
report the bill to the House with the recommendation that the
enacting clause be stricken is in order and privileged and the
Member making the motion as well as the Member rising in opposition
thereto are entitled to recognition for five minutes.
On July 9, 1965,(18) the Committee of the Whole was
conducting debate on an amendment pursuant to a unanimous-consent
agreement limiting debate on the amendment and amendments thereto to
two hours, to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and the
ranking minority member of the Committee on
[[Page 11238]]
the Judiciary which reported the bill (Emanuel Celler, of New York, and
William M. McCulloch, of Ohio, respectively). The bill under
consideration was H.R. 6400, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the
amendment was the ``McCulloch substitute.'' During debate under the
unanimous-consent agreement, Mr. Albert W. Watson, of South Carolina,
offered the preferential motion that the Committee of the Whole rise
and report the bill to the House with the recommendation that the
enacting clause be stricken. Chairman Richard Bolling, of Missouri,
entertained the motion and recognized Mr. Watson for five minutes in
favor of the motion and Mr. William T. Cahill, of New Jersey, for five
minutes against the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 111 Cong. Rec. 16227, 16228, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: Since the limitation previously agreed to
was not on the bill and not by the clock, the time consumed in debating
the motion was not charged to the time remaining under the limitation.
Sec. 79.88 Where debate has been closed on all amendments to a bill,
but not on the bill itself, the preferential motion to strike the
enacting clause is debatable for 10 minutes, five to a side.
During consideration of the military procurement authorization
(H.R. 6674) in the Committee of the Whole on May 20,
1975,(19) the proposition described above was demonstrated
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 121 Cong. Rec. 15458, 15465, 15466, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Melvin] Price [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I move that all
debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto, and on further
amendments to the bill, end in 20 minutes.
The Chairman: (20) The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Illinois.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The motion was agreed to. . . .
The Chairman: The time of the gentleman has expired. [All time
has expired.]
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a
preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Bauman moves that the Committee do now rise and report
the bill back to the House with the recommendation that the
enacting clause be stricken out.
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, I only offer this motion in order to
obtain time since I was not able to receive any time from the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Harkin) who offered what he claimed to be
the Bauman amendment. I have read his amendment very carefully. It
is not the same amendment which I offered to the National Science
Foundation authorization bill. . . .
Mr. [Tom] Harkin [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words, and I rise in opposition to the
preferential motion.
[[Page 11239]]
I thank the gentleman from Maryland for giving me an
opportunity to expand a little bit more on some of these ridiculous
spending programs that waste the taxpayers' dollars. . . . If we
pass this routine authorization bill for the Defense Department of
$32 billion in the usual manner, we will have to answer to our
constituents if we choose to be honest about it.
Sec. 79.89 Where all time for debate on a committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute (being read as an original bill for
amendment pursuant to a special rule) and all amendments thereto
has been terminated, a preferential motion that the Committee rise
with the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken out is
debatable for 10 minutes since the preferential motion applies to
the bill and all debate on the bill has not been closed.
On June 20, 1975,(1) during debate in the Committee of
the Whole pertaining to the Energy Research and Development
Administration authorization for fiscal year 1976 (H.R. 3474), and
after a motion to terminate that debate had been agreed to, the
preferential motion described above was offered. The proceedings were
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 121 Cong. Rec. 19966, 19970, 19971, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John] Young of Texas: Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate
on the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute and all
amendments thereto terminate at 4 o'clock p.m.
The Chairman: G5(2) The question is on the motion offered by
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Young). . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. J. Edward Roush (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
So the motion was agreed to. . . .
The Chairman: All time has expired. . . .
Mr. [Tom] Harkin [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a
preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Harkin moves that the Committee do now rise and report
the bill back to the House with the recommendation that the
enacting clause be stricken out. . . .
The Chairman: . . . The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Sec. 79.90 A Member who has been recognized under a time limitation on
an amendment in Committee of the Whole may offer a preferential
motion (that the Committee rise and report the bill to the House
with the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken out)
and be recognized for five minutes to debate the motion.
During consideration of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act
[[Page 11240]]
for fiscal year 1978 (H.R. 6689) in the Committee of the Whole on May
4, 1977,(3) Mr. Dante B. Fascell, of Florida, was granted a
unanimous-consent request limiting debate, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 123 Cong. Rec. 13413, 13414, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Fascell: . . . Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that
all debate on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
California (Mr. Dornan) and the amendment offered as a substitute
by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Buchanan), and all amendments
thereto, close in 10 minutes.
The Chairman:(4) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Florida?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Elliott Levitas (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
The Chairman: Members standing at the time the unanimous-
consent request was granted will be recognized for 50 seconds each.
. . .
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Dornan)
for 50 seconds.
Mr. [Robert K.] Dornan [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to
offer a preferential motion.
The Chairman: Does the gentleman from California (Mr. Dornan)
have such a motion?
Mr. Dornan: Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: The Clerk will report the motion offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Dornan). Is there such a motion at
the desk?
Mr. Dornan: Mr. Chairman, the motion is offered to get time for
debate, providing 5 more minutes on each side, and this is to try
to wipe out this part of the bill. The motion is to strike all
after the enacting clause. . . .
Mr. Chairman, I have my motion in writing.
Mr. Chairman, I offer a preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Dornan 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 gentleman from California (Mr. Dornan) is
recognized for 5 minutes in support of his preferential motion.
Sec. 79.91 Where debate in Committee of the Whole on an amendment has
been limited to a number of minutes of debate (rather than to a
time certain), time consumed debating a preferential motion does
not reduce the time remaining under the limitation.
During consideration of the Treasury Department and Postal Service
appropriation bill for fiscal year 1981 (H.R. 7593) in the Committee of
the Whole on Aug. 20, 1980,(5) the Chair responded to a
parliamentary inquiry concerning debate time as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 126 Cong. Rec. 22173-76, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Tom] Steed [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I move that all
debate on
[[Page 11241]]
this amendment and all amendments thereto end in 15 minutes.
The Chairman: (6) The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Steed).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Richardson Preyer (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The motion was agreed to.
preferential motion offered by mr. bauman
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a
preferential motion.
Mr. [Peter A.] Peyser [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Peyser: Mr. Chairman, does the time for the preferential
motion come out of the 15 minutes that we have just agreed to?
The Chairman: The Chair informs the gentleman that it does not
come out of the preferential motion.
Disposition of Unused Time
Sec. 79.92 While a motion to limit debate on a portion of a bill and
all amendments thereto was pending, the Chair advised that in the
event the motion carried: (1) the Chair would first recognize those
Members standing, each for five minutes, then any other Members
seeking recognition, also for five minutes, until the time expired
or there were no other requests for recognition; and (2) if
requests for recognition did not consume the time set, the Chair
would direct the Clerk to read.
On Aug. 1, 1966,(7) while the Committee of the Whole was
considering under the five-minute rule H.R. 14765, the Civil Rights Act
of 1966, Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, moved that all debate on
title I and amendments thereto close in one and one-half hours.
Chairman Richard Bolling, of Missouri, then answered a parliamentary
inquiry stated by Mr. Gerald R. Ford, of Michigan, on the order of
recognition should the motion be agreed to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 112 Cong. Rec. 17759, 17760, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Gerald R. Ford: Mr. Chairman, I notice that there are
relatively only a few standing. How will the Chair determine under
that process those who will be eligible to speak? The lack of those
standing does not necessarily mean that Members will not wish to
speak.
The Chairman: The Chair will state that if the time is fixed at
1\1/2\ hours and there are no other gentlemen to be recognized or
who desire to be heard, the Chair will proceed to ask the Clerk to
read the next title.
If, however, there are 1\1/2\ hours, each Member standing now
will be recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Gerald R. Ford: A further parliamentary inquiry, Mr.
Chairman. If
[[Page 11242]]
there are not a sufficient number of Members standing at the
present time, will the Chair proceed under the 5-minute rule during
the 1\1/2\ hours?
The Chairman: The Chair will see to it that each of those
Members now standing will be recognized in an orderly fashion. If
there are others desiring to speak within the time limitation, the
Chair will then recognize them. Those now standing will receive a
priority from the Chair.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. See also 116 Cong. Rec. 25809, 25810, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., July 27,
1970 (where time limitation on amendment and amendments
thereto, time divided among Members wishing to speak, Chair
indicated in response to a parliamentary inquiry that he would
put the question on the amendments prior to the designated hour
if all those Members listed had not consumed their allotted
time and if there were no further requests to speak).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 79.93 Where the Committee of the Whole agrees to terminate all
debate on an amendment at a certain time, the Chair divides the
time remaining among those Members who indicate a desire to speak;
and if free time remains after these Members have been recognized,
the Chair may recognize Members who have not spoken to the
amendment or Members who were recognized for less than five minutes
under the limitation of time.
On Mar. 17, 1960,(9) the Committee of the Whole agreed
to a request that all debate on the pending amendment close at 3:50
p.m. Chairman Francis E. Walter, of Pennsylvania, recognized under the
limitation Members who had indicated they wished to speak. When those
Members had spoken, time still remained and the Chairman recognized for
debate Members who were not standing seeking recognition when the
limitation was agreed to. The Chair answered a parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 106 Cong. Rec. 5911, 5914, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [James C.] Davis of Georgia: Was not the time fixed for
this debate, and was not the time limited to those who were
standing on their feet seeking recognition?
The Chairman: The time was fixed at 3:50. The Chair made a list
of the names of those Members who indicated they desired to speak.
However, the thing that governs is the time that was fixed in the
unanimous-consent request made by the gentleman from New York, but
because the time has not arrived when debate will end, the Chair
will recognize those Members who seek recognition.
Mr. Davis of Georgia: Mr. Chairman, a further parliamentary
inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Davis of Georgia: Does that limitation then of 2 minutes
apply to me, or could I have some of this additional time?
[[Page 11243]]
The Chairman: Yes, the gentleman could be recognized again if
he sought recognition.
Amendments Offered After Debate Time Expires
Sec. 79.94 Where all time expires for debate on a paragraph of a bill
and on amendments thereto, further amendments to the paragraph may
be offered but are not debatable.
On June 29, 1959,(10) the Committee of the Whole agreed
to
a unanimous-consent request to limit debate on the pending paragraph
and amendments thereto. In response to parliamentary inquiries,
Chairman Paul J. Kilday, of Texas, stated that when all time had
expired pursuant to that agreement, further amendments could be offered
but not debated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 105 Cong. Rec. 12122-24, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Joel T.] Broyhill [of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, when could
I offer this other amendment?
The Chairman: To this paragraph?
Mr. Broyhill: Yes.
The Chairman: After the disposition of the pending amendment.
The Chair would point out that under the arrangement made, the
gentleman might find himself in the position of not being permitted
to debate the other amendment.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See also 113 Cong. Rec. 32691-94, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 15,
1967 (where time expires on section and amendments thereto,
Chair may still recognize Members to offer amendments, which
will be voted upon without debate).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 79.95 Members may offer amendments to a title, after a time
limitation for debate on the title and all amendments thereto has
expired, and such amendments may be reported and voted on, but not
debated.
On May 21, 1959,(12) the Committee of the Whole agreed
to a motion closing debate on a pending title and on amendments thereto
at 3:35 p.m. Chairman Francis E. Walter, of Pennsylvania, answered
parliamentary inquiries on the effect of the limitation on the offering
of further amendments to the title:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 105 Cong. Rec. 8828-31, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary
inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Taber: Is it not a fact that an amendment may be offered
after debate has concluded? Any one has a right to offer an
amendment even after debate has concluded.
The Chairman: The Member may offer an amendment after time for
debate has expired; and the amendment may be reported and voted on,
but it may not be debated.
[[Page 11244]]
Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Halleck: Suppose a Member has an amendment which might or
might not be offered depending on the action taken on the pending
amendment and he had informed the Chair of the situation, could not
his time be allotted to him after the pending amendment is disposed
of?
The Chairman: If debate goes beyond 3:35, then, of course, he
could not be recognized for debate.
Mr. Halleck: I understand, but if he was standing and was one
of those who would be entitled to part of the time allotted, could
not the Chair, under the circumstances, refrain from recognizing
him until such time as the pending amendment were disposed of?
The Chairman: The Chair has no way of telling for what purpose
a Member rises, certainly not until he stated the purpose for which
he sought recognition.
Sec. 79.96 Where time for debate on an amendment and amendments thereto
has expired, the Chair may still recognize Members to offer
amendments, but not for further debate.
On Feb. 10, 1964,(13) the Committee of the Whole voted
to close debate on a title of a pending bill and on all amendments
thereto.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 110 Cong. Rec. 2706, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman Eugene J. Keogh, of New York, responded to a later
parliamentary inquiry as follows:
Mr. [Richard H.] Poff [of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, in light of
the limitation on time may I inquire what amendments will be voted
upon when the time expires? I have two amendments at the desk which
I may or may not offer, depending upon developments. I would like
to be advised whether I will be recognized to offer the amendments
and if so when that time will occur.
The Chairman: The Chair will state to the gentleman from
Virginia that up to 1 o'clock the Chair will undertake to recognize
such Members as he can. After 1 o'clock the Chair will recognize
those Members desiring to offer amendments and the question on each
amendment will be put immediately without debate.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Id. at p. 2719. See also 110 Cong. Rec. 18583, 18608, 88th Cong. 2d
Sess., Aug. 7, 1964.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 79.97 After time set under
a limitation on a bill and amendments thereto has expired, further
amendments may be offered but not debated.
On July 18, 1968,(15) Mr. Wayne L. Hays, of Ohio,
offered an amendment after all time had expired, time having been
limited
on the bill and all amendments thereto. In response to his
parliamentary inquiry, Chairman Charles M. Price, of Illinois, stated
that the amendment was not debatable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 114 Cong. Rec. 22110, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 79.98 The expiration of time for debate on a pending
[[Page 11245]]
amendment in the nature of a substitute and all amendments thereto
does not preclude the offering of a substitute and amendments to
the substitute, which are voted upon, after being read, without
debate.
On Apr. 23, 1975,(16) during consideration of the
Vietnam Humanitarian and Evacuation Assistance Act (H.R. 6096) in the
Committee of the Whole, Chairman Otis G. Pike, of New York, responded
to several inquiries relating to the offering and debating of
amendments:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 121 Cong. Rec. 11507, 11508, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a
substitute for the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Eckhardt as a substitute for the
amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Edgar:
strike all after enacting clauses and add:
Sec. 2. There is authorized to be appropriated to the
President for
the fiscal year 1975 not to exceed $150,000,000 to be used,
notwithstanding any other provision of law, on such terms and
conditions as the President may deem appropriate for
humanitarian assistance to an evacuation program from South
Vietnam. . . .
Mr. [Robert W.] Edgar [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make
the point of order that this is a substitute amendment for my
amendment in the nature of a substitute and it would not be in
order at this time.
The Chairman: A substitute for the amendment in the nature of a
substitute would be in order at this time. . . .
Mr. [William J.] Randall [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I make
the point of order that the understanding was the debate on the
substitute and all amendments thereto would end at 4 o'clock and
the hour of 4 o'clock has arrived. What is the parliamentary
situation?
The Chairman: The parliamentary situation is, as the Chair
understands it, as follows:
A substitute amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas for
the amendment in the nature of a substitute can be read but cannot
be debated.
If there are amendments to the substitute offered by the
gentleman from Texas they will be reported by the Clerk but they
will not be debated and they will be disposed of as soon as they
are reported by the Clerk. . . .
Ms. [Elizabeth] Holtzman [of New York]: Would the Chair further
elaborate; is this substitute amendment by the gentleman from Texas
open to further amendment in time?
The Chairman: As each amendment is disposed of, other
amendments would be in order, but they may not be debated. . . .
Mr. [Donald W.] Riegle [Jr., of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, if I
understood our time limit earlier when we set the 4 o'clock time
limit and when Members were standing at the time and were given
time, it was on the
[[Page 11246]]
basis that we would consider the amendment in the nature of a
substitute and all amendments thereto by 4 o'clock.
As I understand it, when we got to 4 o'clock, can the Chair
tell me why the proceedings passed 4 o'clock?
The Chairman: The committee is proceeding past 4 o'clock
because the limitation was on debate. Members wishing to offer
amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute cannot be
cut off from offering their amendments. The debate has ended. . . .
Mr. Riegle: Does that mean that those offering amendments are
restricted to those who were on their feet at the time we set the
time limit, or not?
The Chairman: No. As long as the amendment in the nature of a
substitute is pending, amendments to that amendment in the nature
of a substitute may be offered. . . .
Mr. Riegle: Is the Chairman saying that amendments now can be
offered really indefinitely by any Member of the House who wishes
to so offer them.
The Chairman: As long as the amendments are in order, they may
be offered.
Sec. 79.99 The expiration of a limitation on debate under the five-
minute rule in Committee of the Whole does not prohibit the
offering of further amendments, but such amendments are not subject
to debate if not printed in the Congressional Record.
On June 14, 1979,(17) during consideration of H.R. 4388,
the energy and water appropriation bill for fiscal year 1980, the
following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 125 Cong. Rec. 14993, 14994, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Tom] Bevill [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, as I understand
it, we are scheduled to adjourn at 5:30 this evening.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on these
amendments and all amendments thereto conclude in 2 minutes.
The Chairman: (18) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Alabama?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Philip R. Sharp (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
The Chairman: The question is
on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Johnson) to the amendments offered by
the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd). . . .
[The amendment to the amendments was agreed to.]
Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment as a substitute for the amendment, as amended.
The Chairman: For what purpose does the gentleman from Alabama
(Mr. Bevill) seek recognition?
Mr. Bevill: Mr. Chairman, on the amendment, as amended, I ask
for a rollcall vote.
The Chairman: The Chair has not yet put the question on the
amendment, as amended.
[[Page 11247]]
Mr. Bevill: I ask for a vote then. . . .
The Chairman: The Chair had recognized the gentleman from
Michigan and asked him for what purpose he sought recognition. The
gentleman indicated that he had an amendment.
Mr. [Mike] McCormack [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, a point of
order.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. McCormack: Mr. Chairman, when the gentleman from Alabama,
the chairman of the subcommittee, requested an agreement to end
debate, there was no objection on the amendment and amendments
thereto. At that point the vote was put.
I suggest to the Chair that it is in order now to vote on the
amendment.
Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment I desire to
offer as a substitute at this time.
The Chairman: The Chair will indicate to the gentleman from
Washington that we are operating under a time limit; however, that
does not exclude the possibility of offering an amendment as a
substitute, though no debate will be in order in the absence of a
unanimous-consent request.
Therefore, the Clerk will read the amendment.
Sec. 79.100 Where the Committee of the Whole rises immediately after
having limited debate under the five-minute rule on the pending
bill, the Chair allocates time under the limitation among those
Members present when the Committee of the Whole reconvenes on that
bill, but a Member who has printed an amendment in the Record is
entitled to five minutes notwithstanding the allocation, and may be
recognized to offer the amendment after the limitation has expired.
During consideration of H.R. 3000 (Department of Energy
authorization bill) in the Committee of the Whole on Oct. 24,
1979,(19) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 125 Cong. Rec. 29384, 29385, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration
of the bill, H.R. 3000, with Mr. Studds, Chairman pro tempore, in
the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: (20) When the Committee of
the Whole rose on Tuesday, October 18, title VIII was open to
amendment at any point.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pending was an amendment offered by the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Peyser).
It was also agreed that all time for debate on the bill and all
amendments thereto would be limited to 15 minutes. At this point,
the Chair would like to ascertain those Members wishing to be
recognized in the allocation of the remaining 15 minutes of debate.
Mr. [James A.] Courter [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
[[Page 11248]]
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state the
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. Courter: Mr. Chairman, there are, I believe, two Members,
perhaps even three, who have amendments printed in the Record,
printed I believe last week. Under the rules, are we given 5
minutes despite the fact that we use up the 15 minutes that are
left for debate?
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair will advise the gentleman
that at the conclusion of the allocated time of 15 minutes
remaining those Members with amendments printed in the Record--and
the Chair believes there are three of them--will be entitled to 5
minutes in support of these amendments.
Mr. Courter: I thank the Chairman.
The Chairman Pro Tempore: Members standing at the time the
motion was agreed to, amongst whom the time will be allocated, will
be recognized for approximately 50 seconds each.
Debate on Amendments to Amendments Printed in Record
Sec. 79.101 Where all debate has been limited on an amendment in the
nature of a substitute and all amendments thereto, only amendments
and amendments to amendments which have been printed in the Record
may be debated, and other amendments may be offered and voted upon
without debate.
During consideration of the Federal Employees' Political Activities
Act of 1977 (H.R. 10) in the Committee of the Whole on June 7,
1977,(1) the Chair responded to
inquiries regarding debate on amendments:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 123 Cong. Rec. 17700, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: (2) When the Committee rose on
Wednesday, May 18, 1977, the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute was considered as having been read and open for
amendment at any point. Pursuant to a motion to limit debate in the
Committee of the Whole, all time for debate on the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute and all amendments thereto
had expired. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. James R. Mann (S.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Edward J.] Derwinski [of Illinois]: . . . If there is an
amendment covered by clause 6, rule XXIII, and this is then subject
to an amendment, is an additional 10 minutes debate time granted to
the proponent of that amendment and in opposition thereto?
The Chairman: Proper amendments to an amendment will be in
order. If the amendment to the amendment has been printed in the
Record, there will be 5 minutes allowed to the proponent of the
amendment and 5 minutes to the opponent of the amendment.
Mr. Derwinski: It must have been printed in the Record?
The Chairman: It must have been printed in the Record. However,
proper amendments to the amendment may be offered, even though they
have not been printed in the Record, but there
[[Page 11249]]
will be no debate time allotted to such amendments to the
amendment.
Sec. 79.102 After the expiration
of a limitation on debate un-der the five-minute rule, an amendment
which has been printed in the Record may
be offered and debated, five minutes for and five minutes against,
and an amendment to the amendment may be offered but may not be
debated unless it has also been printed in the Record.
On Apr. 28, 1983,(3) during consideration of House Joint
Resolution 13 (nuclear weapons freeze) in the Committee of the Whole,
the Chair, in response to parliamentary inquiries, indicated the
procedures to be followed in offering and debating amendments pursuant
to the expiration of a debate limitation under the five-minute rule:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 129 Cong. Rec. 10428, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I rise
in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Siljander).
Mr. [James A.] Courter [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: (4) The gentleman will state his
parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Courter: The parliamentary inquiry to the Chair is whether
the gentleman can offer an amendment to the amendment if same has
not been printed in the Record?
The Chairman: The answer to the gentleman is ``Yes.''
Mr. Courter: A further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
What type of time now are we dealing with? I understand the
proponent of the amendment utilized or yielded back his 5 minutes.
Then the gentleman has an amendment to the amendment. Is he given 5
minutes and then an additional 5 minutes to those who oppose the
amendment?
The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman that under
the limitation previously agreed to, the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Siljander) in offering the amendment, since it was printed in
the Record, had 5 minutes to support his amendment for debate
purposes.
The Chair will now recognize the chairman of the committee, the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Zablocki) in opposition for 5
minutes.
If the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) or someone else offers
an amendment to the amendment, which is not printed in the Record,
there is no time available for debate on that amendment.
Amendments Printed in Record
Sec. 79.103 Where all debate in the Committee of the Whole on a bill
and on amendments thereto has been terminated, a Member offering an
amend
[[Page 11250]]
ment which has been printed in the Record on a preceding day may
nevertheless, pursuant to Rule XXIII clause 6, debate that
amendment for five minutes, and another Member opposing the
amendment may then speak for five minutes.
On Aug. 2, 1973,(5) Chairman William H. Natcher, of
Kentucky, answered a parliamentary inquiry on the right of Members with
amendments printed in the Record to debate them for five minutes, after
the Committee had agreed to a unanimous-consent agreement closing all
debate on the pending bill and amendments thereto at a time certain:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 119 Cong. Rec. 27712, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John] Dellenback [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Dellenback: May I ask whether under the rules of the House
for every amendment that has been published in the Record is it not
true the sponsor has 5 minutes?
The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
At the expiration of the time agreed to, the Chair made an
announcement and the following procedure ensued for printed amendments:
(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Id. at p. 27715.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: The Chair desires to announce at this time that
all time under the limitation has expired. This does not apply to
those Members
who had their amendments previously printed in the Record. Those
Members whom the Chair observed standing who have amendments, those
amendments will be reported and voted upon.
Are there amendments from the members of the committee who were
standing at the time the limitation was set? If not, the Chair
recognizes the Members who have had their amendments printed in the
Record.
Mr. [John F.] Seiberling [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows: . . .
Mr. [Sam] Steiger of Arizona: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary
inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. Steiger of Arizona: Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding
that the proponent of the amendment is entitled to be recognized
for 5 minutes.
The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
Mr. Steiger of Arizona: And also any Member opposing the
amendment is entitled to 5 minutes?
The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. See also 118 Cong. Rec. 10771-74, 92d Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 29, 1972
(debate on all amendments to a pending bill having been closed,
the Chair inquired of Members whether amendments then offered
had been printed in the Record, the Members answered in the
affirmative, and the Chair recognized for five minutes against
and in support of the amendments).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 11251]]
Parliamentarian's Note: Rule XXIII clause 6, provides that the
right of five-minute debate is preserved for an amendment printed in
the Record ``at least one day prior to floor consideration of such
amendment.'' The rule has been construed to protect Members printing
amendments in the Record dated the day prior to such consideration,
although such an edition of the Record is not usually available until
the morning of the following day (the day of consideration).
Sec. 79.104 Notwithstanding a limitation of debate on a pending title
of a bill and all amendments thereto to a time certain and the
allocation of the remaining time by the Chair, a Member who had
inserted the text of his amendment in the Record is entitled, under
Rule XXIII clause 6, to be recognized for five minutes upon
offering that amendment during the limitation.
On Apr. 19, 1973,(8) the Committee of the Whole agreed
to a unanimous-consent request, offered by Mr. James C. Wright, Jr., of
Texas, that all debate on the pending title and amendments, being
considered under the five-minute rule, close at a certain time.
Chairman Morris K. Udall, of Arizona, allotted the remaining time to
Members seeking recognition, each Member being entitled to 45 seconds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 119 Cong. Rec. 13253, 13254, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Thomas F. Railsback, of Illinois, was recognized and offered an
amendment. At the conclusion of 45 seconds, the Chairman stated that
his time had expired. Mr. Railsback objected that he had printed his
amendment in the Congressional Record prior to floor consideration
thereof, and was therefore entitled to debate his amendment for five
minutes pursuant to Rule XXIII clause 6. The Chairman, who had not been
aware the amendment was printed in the Record, ruled that Mr. Railsback
was entitled to five minutes.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Rule XXIII clause 6, was amended in the 92d Congress to allow five
minutes, regardless of a limitation, on an amendment printed in
the Record. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 874 (1995).
The Chair, in response to a parliamentary inquiry, has
declined to rule in advance upon the applicability of Rule
XXIII clause 6 (permitting 10 minutes of debate on amendments
printed in the Record notwithstanding a limitation of time
under the five-minute rule) to an amendment not yet offered
from the floor. See 117 Cong. Rec. 39089, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.,
Nov. 3, 1971.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 11252]]
Sec. 79.105 Where all debate in Committee of the Whole on a bill and
all amendments thereto has been terminated, a Member offering an
amendment which has been printed in the Record on a preceding day
may nevertheless, pursuant to Rule XXIII, clause 6, debate that
amendment for five minutes, and another Member opposing the
amendment may then speak for five minutes.
During consideration of the agriculture, environment, and consumer
appropriation bill (10) in the Committee of the Whole on
June 21, 1974,(11) Chairman Sam Gibbons, of Florida,
indicated the procedure for offering amendments after time for all
debate had expired, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. H.R. 15472.
11. 120 Cong. Rec. 20616, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: The Chair will state the parliamentary situation
as it is now. Under a unanimous-consent agreement entered into
earlier, all time for debate on amendments and on this bill has
expired. The Chair will recognize no one to debate on an amendment
or the bill unless that Member has had his amendment published in
the Record in advance.
Is there anyone who falls into that category?
Mr. [Lionel] Van Deerlin [of California]: Mr. Chairman, there
is at least one Member.
The Chairman: Does the gentleman seek recognition?
Mr. Van Deerlin: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: And the gentleman's amendment has been printed in
the Record?
Mr. Van Deerlin: Yes, at page H5504.
Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The portion of the bill to which the amendment relates is as
follows:
Sec. 511: Except as provided in existing law, funds
provided in this Act shall be available only for the purposes
for which they are appropriated.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Van Deerlin: On page 52, after
line 11, insert a new Section 513:
``No funds contained in this appropriation act shall be
available for the promotion or advertising of tobacco or any
tobacco products in foreign nations.''
Sec. 79.106 Where the Committee of the Whole had separately limited
debate on the remaining titles of a committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute which was open to amendment at any point,
the Chair indicated that he would give preference in recognition to
all Members who had amendments to the title being debated, and that
Members who had printed amendments in the Record should offer them
at the con
[[Page 11253]]
clusion of debate under the limitation on that title.
The proceedings of July 24, 1974, relating to H.R. 11500, the
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1974, are discussed in
Sec. 79.131, infra.
Sec. 79.107 Amendments printed in the Record pursuant to Rule XXIII
clause 6 to a pending amendment in the nature of a substitute or to
a substitute therefor may be debated for 10 minutes if offered
following the expiration of all time for debate on the pending
amendment and all amendments thereto.
During consideration of H. Res. 988 (to reform the structure,
jurisdiction, and procedures of House committees) in the Committee of
the Whole on Oct. 7, 1974,(12) the Chair responded to
parliamentary inquiries concerning debate allowed for amendments
printed in the Record. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 120 Cong. Rec. 34170, 34171, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Richard] Bolling [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I move that
all debate on the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered
by the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. Hansen), and all
amendments thereto, conclude in 5 hours.
The Chairman: (13) The question is on the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. Bolling: Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
Mr. [James G.] O'Hara [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry. . . .
Mr. Chairman, if the motion were to be agreed on, what effect
would that have on amendments that have been printed in the Record
under the rule?
The Chairman: The Chair will state that amendments printed in
the Record would be protected.
Mr. O'Hara: A further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman,
Would there be time for debate guaranteed to those amendments?
The Chairman: The Chair will state that the gentleman's
statement is correct; they would be protected. . . .
Mr. [Frank] Thompson [Jr.] of New Jersey: Mr. Chairman, I did
not understand the Chair's answer to the parliamentary inquiry by
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. O'Hara). Is it my understanding
that notwithstanding that 5 hours under the gentleman's motion
would dispose of the Hansen and Martin substitutes in addition
thereto for those amendments which have been printed in the Record
will there be time to debate them allowed?
The Chairman: The Chair would like to advise the gentleman from
New Jersey that the proponents of all amendments printed in the
Record that have not been reached during the 5-hour period will be
recognized under
[[Page 11254]]
the rules of the House for 5 minutes in support of their
amendments. They would be protected.
Mr. Thompson of New Jersey: How about time in opposition?
The Chairman: And 5 minutes in opposition. The gentleman is
correct.
Sec. 79.108 Upon the expiration of time for debate on a bill and all
amendments thereto, only those amendments which have been printed
in the Record pursuant to Rule XXIII clause 6 may be debated, while
other amendments may be offered and voted upon without debate.
On Dec. 11, 1974,(14) during consideration of H.R. 17234
(to amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended) in the
Committee of the Whole, the Chair responded to a parliamentary inquiry,
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 120 Cong. Rec. 39165, 39170, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I now
move that all debate on the bill and all amendments thereto cease
at 7 o'clock.
The motion was agreed to. . . .
The Chairman: (15) All time has expired. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Melvin Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, will those
Members who have amendments at the desk have a minute for time to
present their amendments?
The Chairman: Those Members who have amendments at the desk may
present their amendments. Those who have amendments which were
printed in the Record will be recognized for 5 minutes in support
of their amendments.
Sec. 79.109 Pursuant to Rule XXIII clause 6, a Member may be recognized
for five minutes in opposition to an amendment which had been
printed in the Record and debated by its proponent for five
minutes, notwithstanding a prior allocation of time to that Member
under a limitation on the pending proposition and all amendments
thereto.
On July 25, 1974,(16) during consideration of the
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1974 (H.R. 11500) in the
Committee of the Whole, the Chair overruled a point of order, as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 120 Cong. Rec. 25221, 25222, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: Mr. Chairman, I move to
strike the requisite number of words, and I rise in opposition to
the amendment.
Mr. [Craig] Hosmer [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I have a
point of order.
The Chairman: (17) The gentleman will state his
point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hosmer: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Arizona has spoken
for a minute and 20 seconds already.
[[Page 11255]]
The Chairman: The Chair will state that under the rule, when
the amendment has been printed in the Record, the author of the
amendment gets 5 minutes in support of his amendment and an
opponent gets 5 minutes in opposition to the amendment, regardless
of a time limitation.
The Chair overrules the point of order.
To Qualify for Five Minutes, Form of Offered Amendment Must Be
Identical to That Printed
Sec. 79.110 While Rule XXIII clause 6 permits any Member who has
printed an amendment in the Record five minutes of debate thereon
notwithstanding any limitation imposed by the Committee of the
Whole, the amendment must be offered in the precise form in which
it was printed in the Record to guarantee its proponent time for
debate, and an amendment printed in the Record to be offered to
original text is not protected by the rule when offered in
different form as an amendment to a pending substitute.
On July 25, 1974,(18) during consideration of the
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1974 (H.R. 11500) in the
Committee of the Whole, the principle described above was demonstrated
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 120 Cong. Rec. 25230, 25232, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John F.] Seiberling [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Seiberling to the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute: Section 401, page 250,
line 5 through page 251, line 5, strike subsection (d) and (e),
substitute the following new subsections, and renumber the
remaining subsection accordingly:
(d) All operators of coal mining operations which are
subject to this Act shall, not later than 60 days following the
end of the calendar year 1975 and each calendar year
thereafter, pay a reclamation fee to the Secretary equal in
amount to $2.50 per ton of coal mined by the operator during
the preceding calendar year. . . .
Mr. [Joseph M.] McDade [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment to the amendment offered as a substitute for the
amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute.
Mr. Seiberling: Mr. Chairman, a point of order. . . .
Mr. Chairman, this is a third degree amendment on an amendment.
The Chairman: (19) This is an amendment to the
substitute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Seiberling: It is an amendment to the substitute, which is
an amendment to my amendment.
The Chairman: That is not in the third degree.
[[Page 11256]]
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. McDade to the amendment offered by
Mr. Ruppe as a substitute for the amendment offered by Mr.
Seiberling to the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute: Page 249, strike out lines 15 through 16 and insert
in lieu thereof the following:
(3) appropriations made to the fund, or amounts credited to
the fund, under subsection (d). . . .
Mr. McDade (during the reading): Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with and
that it be printed in the Record.
The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman from
Pennsylvania that the time has been set. The gentleman is not on
the list.
Mr. McDade: Mr. Chairman, may I say that I have this amendment
printed in the Record. It has been printed for about 10 days.
The Chairman: This is an amendment drafted as an amendment to
the Ruppe substitute, whereas the amendment which the gentleman
caused to be printed in the Record was drafted as an amendment to
the committee amendment.
(By unanimous consent Mr. [Edwin D.] Eshleman [of Pennsylvania]
yielded his time to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. McDade.)
Sec. 79.111 To be guaranteed five minutes of debate on an amendment
printed in the Record under clause 6 of Rule XXIII notwithstanding
a limitation of debate, the published amendment must indicate the
portion of the bill or amendment (or both) to which it could be
offered, and debate will not be permitted if the amendment is
offered to a proposition not identified in the Record.
On Sept. 28, 1976,(20) during consideration of H.R. 15
(the Public Disclosure of Lobbying Act of 1976), the Chair responded to
parliamentary inquiries regarding time for debate on amendments
previously printed in the Record, notwithstanding a limitation of
debate. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 122 Cong. Rec. 33081, 33082, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Walter] Flowers [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, I move that
all debate on the amendment in the nature of a substitute and all
amendments thereto be limited to 30 minutes.
The Chairman: (1) The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Flowers). . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
So the motion was agreed to. . . .
Mr. [Abner J.] Mikva [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, if any Member
has had an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute
printed in the Record, that Member, would, of course, be protected
by the rule and
[[Page 11257]]
would be allowed to speak for 5 minutes?
The Chairman: If the amendment had been printed in the proper
form, the gentleman is correct.
Mr. [Thomas N.] Kindness [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Kindness: Mr. Chairman, to clarify the previous
parliamentary inquiry, if an amendment was published in the Record
as an amendment to be offered to H.R. 15 and not as an amendment to
the substitute, I take it that the Member offering the amendment
would not be protected at this stage of the proceedings?
The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
Sec. 79.112 The guarantee of 10 minutes of debate on amendments printed
in the Record inures to an amendment offered as a substitute for
another amendment, rather than as an original amendment as
originally intended, if offered in the precise form printed; thus,
although an amendment printed in the Record to assure debate time
under clause 6 of Rule XXIII was not drafted as a substitute for
another amendment, the Chair indicated that 10 minutes of debate
would be permitted on the amendment if offered as a substitute at
the precise point in the bill as previously stated in the Record.
During consideration of the Defense Production Act Amendments of
1979 (H.R. 3930) in the Committee of the Whole on June 26,
1979,(2) the following proceedings occurred relative to the
offering of an amendment by Mr. Morris K. Udall, of Arizona:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 125 Cong. Rec. 16681, 16682, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment offered by Mr. Udall: Page 8, after line 13 add the
following new subsection and renumber the subsequent sections
accordingly:
(g)(1) The Secretary of Energy is hereby authorized to
designate a proposed synthetic fuel or feedstock facility as a
priority synthetic project. . . .
Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: . . . I wish to make a point
of order, Mr. Chairman, the amendment which I had offered and had
printed in the Record would be an appropriate substitute amendment
for the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Udall). Under the time limitation, if I understand correctly, I
have 5 minutes to offer that amendment.
The Chairman: (3) That is correct if offered in the
proper form.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Brown of Ohio: But if this amendment is not amended by my
amendment and succeeds, then I may be precluded from offering that
amendment; is that correct?
The Chairman: It would be difficult for the Chair to rule on
that without
[[Page 11258]]
having seen the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. Brown of Ohio: The question I would put to the Chair as a
parliamentary inquiry is: Does, then, my amendment become
appropriate to this amendment and give me the right to 5 minutes to
discuss my amendment?
The Chairman: If the gentleman were to offer his amendment as a
substitute for this amendment in the form printed in the Record, he
would, indeed, have the 5 minutes guaranteed to him under the rule.
Sec. 79.113 Where all time for debate on a bill and all amendments
thereto has expired, only those amendments printed in the Record
under the rule may be debated.
On Apr. 23, 1975,(4) during consideration of H.R. 6096
(5) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair made the
following statement regarding debate on amendments:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 121 Cong. Rec. 11544, 11545, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
5. The Vietnam Humanitarian and Evacuation Assistance Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: (6) The Chair would like to state the
parliamentary situation as best he can as follows: There is no
additional time for debate, except in the case of those amendments
which have been printed in the Record as to which the proponents
will have 5 minutes and the opponents will have 5 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Otis G. Pike (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Members seeking recognition for amendments which have not been
printed in the Record will be recognized. Their amendments will be
read and they will be voted on.
Sec. 79.114 A limitation of time for debate abrogates the five-minute
rule and allocation of the time remaining to Members seeking
recognition is within the discretion of the Chair, except that
Members who had caused amendments to be printed in the Record under
Rule XXIII clause 6 would receive the full five minutes.
On June 26, 1975,(7) an illustration of the proposition
described above was demonstrated in the Committee of the Whole, as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 121 Cong. Rec. 20951, 20957, 94th Cong. 1st Sess. Under
consideration was H.R. 8121, the Departments of State, Justice,
and Commerce, the Judiciary and related agencies appropriation
bill for fiscal year 1976.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Neal] Smith of Iowa: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that all debate on the bill and all amendments thereto cease in 60
minutes.
The Chairman: (8) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Iowa?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Charles A. Vanik (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection. . . .
The Chairman: The Chair will further add that all Members who
were standing at the time the limitation of
[[Page 11259]]
debate was made will be recognized for approximately 2 minutes
each. . . .
Mr. [Robert F.] Drinan [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, will
the time be allotted according to the three amendments now pending
at the desk?
The Chairman: All Members who were listed, who were standing at
the time the limitation of time was granted, will be accorded the
same amount of time.
Mr. Drinan: Mr. Chairman, will the time be limited with regard
to the amendments offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Heinz) so that the other Members who have filed amendments will
also have a certain amount of time?
The Chairman: The Chair will state that the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Heinz) will be recognized, and then all other
Members will be allotted 2 minutes, except for such amendments as
were printed in the Congressional Record. Every Member who has an
amendment that was printed in the Congressional Record will be
guaranteed a full 5 minutes.
Sec. 79.115 An amendment printed in the Record at least one day prior
to its consideration in Committee of the Whole may be debated five
minutes for and five minutes against, regardless of a limitation
imposed on five-minute debate by the Committee.
In the Committee of the Whole on Feb. 1, 1978,(9) during
consideration of H.R. 1614 (the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act
Amendments), the following exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 124 Cong. Rec. 1827, 1828, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John M.] Murphy of New York: Mr. Chairman, I will revise
the unanimous-consent request.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that when we convene
tomorrow, all debate on H.R. 1614 and all amendments and
substitutes thereto end after 3 hours of debate. . . .
Mr. [David C.] Treen [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, if the
unanimous-consent request is granted, will all amendments that are
in the Record as of tonight have the protection of the 5-minute
rule, including any amendments that are put in the Record tonight?
The Chairman: (10) The Chair would like to advise
the gentleman that his inquiry is correct. They would be protected;
all amendments placed in the Record tonight would be protected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Treen: And each would have 5 minutes for presentation; is
that correct?
The Chairman: The Chair will state that the gentleman is
correct; 5 minutes would be allotted to each side.
Sec. 79.116 Amendments printed in the Record at least one day prior to
their consideration, including those printed after the debate time
has expired under a limitation but before the Committee of the
Whole resumes consider
[[Page 11260]]
ation of that portion of the bill to which the limitation applies,
are nevertheless debatable for 10 minutes when consideration
resumes on the following day.
On Mar. 15, 1978,(11) during consideration of H.R. 50
(the Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act of 1978) in the Committee
of the Whole, Chairman William H. Natcher, of Kentucky, responded to
parliamentary inquiries as to the effect a limitation on debate would
have to amendments printed in the Record. The proceedings were as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 124 Cong. Rec. 7044, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Augustus F.] Hawkins [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I move
that all debate on title I and all amendments thereto terminate at
5:45 p.m. . . .
So the motion was agreed to. . . .
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state the parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, am I correct in my understanding that
at the conclusion of the 45 minutes of debate that is remaining any
amendments that have been printed in the Record prior to this date
allow the Member to have 5 minutes of discussion today and 5
minutes for the opposition?
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Maryland is
correct.
Mr. Bauman: Further, Mr. Chairman, if a motion were made for
the Committee to rise at that time, those amendments would still be
under the limitation tomorrow?
The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
Mr. Bauman: Further, Mr. Chairman, would amendments printed in
the Record tonight to title I also be in order tomorrow?
The Chairman: The gentleman is again correct.
Pro Forma Amendments Printed in Record
Sec. 79.117 A Member who has printed a ``pro forma'' amendment (to
strike the last three words) in the Record is entitled to five
minutes on the amendment despite the expiration of a limitation on
debate; and the amendment must be voted on unless withdrawn by
unanimous consent.
On Oct. 24, 1979,(12) during consideration of H.R. 3000
(the Department of Energy authorization
[[Page 11261]]
bill) in the Committee of the Whole, the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 125 Cong. Rec. 29389, 29391, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
In recent years, special rules from the Committee on Rules
permitting ``pro forma amendments for the purpose of debate''
have been interpreted as contemplating automatic withdrawal
after debate, thereby avoiding the need to put the question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [James A.] Courter [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Courter: On page 79 at the end of
title VIII: Strike out the last three words.
Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I rise in
opposition to the amendment.
(Mr. Dingell asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
The Chairman Pro Tempore: (13) Without objection,
the pro forma amendment of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Courter) is withdrawn.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
Five Minutes in Support Inures Only to Member Placing Amendment in
Record
Sec. 79.118 Pursuant to clause 6 of Rule XXIII, only the Member causing
an amendment to be printed in the Congressional Record is entitled
to five minutes upon offering the amendment in Committee of the
Whole notwithstanding a limitation on time for debate under the
five-minute rule.
On Nov. 12, 1980,(14) during consideration of the
Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act (S.
885), the Committee of the Whole having limited time for debate under
the five-minute rule on the bill and all amendments thereto to a time
certain, the Chairman stated that he would first recognize Members who
did not have amendments printed in the Record for three minutes each,
and would then recognize Members with amendments printed in the Record
for five minutes (to which they were entitled under clause 6 of Rule
XXIII). The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 126 Cong. Rec. 29255-58, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Manuel] Lujan [Jr., of New Mexico]: Mr. Chairman, I move
that all debate on the bill and the amendment in the nature of a
substitute and all amendments thereto cease at 5:30. . . .
The motion was agreed to. . . .
The Chairman: (15) Members standing at the time the
unanimous-consent request was agreed to will be recognized for 3
minutes each, unless the Member has an amendment printed in the
Record, in which case he or she is protected. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Edward J.] Markey [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I
offer an amendment.
The Chairman: The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Markey: Page 27, line 10, strike
``may'' and insert therefor ``shall''.
[[Page 11262]]
The Chair then initially recognized Mr. Markey for five minutes,
but subsequently stated, having noted that the amendment was printed in
the Record under the name of Mr. James Weaver, of Oregon:
The Chairman: Will the gentleman suspend for just a moment,
please?
The Chair would like to advise the gentleman that the Chair was
incorrect originally, and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Markey) has 3 minutes under the rule in support of his amendment.
Form of Amendment Offered Must Conform to That Printed
Sec. 79.119 To be guaranteed the right to five minutes on an amendment
printed in the Record notwithstanding a limitation on debate under
the five-minute rule in Committee of the Whole, the Member causing
the amendment to be printed must offer the amendment exactly as it
was printed in the Record.
During consideration of S. 885 (Pacific Northwest Electric Power
Planning and Conservation Act of 1980) in the Committee of the Whole on
Nov. 14, 1980,(16) an amendment was offered by Mr. James
Weaver, of Oregon, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 126 Cong. Rec. 29613, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment offered by Mr. Weaver: Page 11, lines 24-25, strike
``appointed'' and insert ``elected'';
Page 12, line 2, after ``Council.'', insert ``All references in
this Act to the appointment of the members of such Council shall be
deemed to mean the election of the members of such Council under
applicable state law.''.
Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: (17) The gentleman will state his
parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, the rule provides that the gentleman
from Oregon (Mr. Weaver) is recognized for 5 minutes if his
amendment has been printed in the Record. Is that correct?
The Chairman: That is correct.
Mr. Dingell: That rule requires, as I understand it, that the
amendment printed in the Record and the amendment which is offered
be identical in every word and particular. Is that correct?
The Chairman: That is correct.
Upon assurance by Mr. Weaver that the amendment was identical to
that appearing in the Record, the Chair recognized Mr. Weaver for five
minutes.
Points of Order After Expiration of Limitation
Sec. 79.120 The Chair may hear argument on a point of or-
[[Page 11263]]
der against an amendment although all debate under the five-minute
rule on the pending paragraph and all amendments thereto has been
closed.
On Mar. 29, 1966,(18) Mr. Elford A. Cederberg, of
Michigan, offered an amendment to a paragraph, after all time for
debate on the paragraph and amendments thereto had expired under a
unanimous-consent limitation of time. Mr. Joseph L. Evins, of
Tennessee, made a point of order against the amendment on the ground
that it constituted legislation in an appropriation bill. Chairman
James G. O'Hara, of Michigan, allowed Mr. Cederberg to be heard briefly
on the point of order despite the expiration of the
limitation.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 112 Cong. Rec. 7118, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
19. Debate on a point of order is always in the Chair's discretion (see
Sec. 67.3, supra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reallocation of Time
Sec. 79.121 Where time for debate under the five-minute rule was, by
unanimous consent, extended beyond that previously fixed, the Chair
reallocated the additional time among those Members who had
requested time under the original limitation but had not been
reached.
On Nov. 15, 1967,(20) the Committee of the Whole agreed
to a motion to close debate under the five-minute rule at 8:05 p.m.
When the time under the limitation was largely consumed by teller votes
and preferential motions, the Committee agreed by unanimous consent to
extend the time to 8:45 p.m. Chairman John J. Rooney, of New York,
stated in response to parliamentary inquiries that he would reallocate
the extended time only among those Members originally on the list to be
recognized under the limitation:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 113 Cong. Rec. 32691-94, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, a point of
order.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. Ashbrook: Under the unanimous-consent request of the
gentleman from Oklahoma, the previous order was vacated. Does that
mean the allocation of time under that was also vacated?
The Chairman: Yes. The Chair then allocated the additional 30
minutes among the Members on the list he had before him.
Mr. Ashbrook: What about Members who were not in that previous
listing?
The Chairman: They may not be recognized. The Chair is
attempting to
[[Page 11264]]
do what he has been trying to do since the first limitation of time
was proposed, and that is to dispose of the amendments at the desk.
Mr. [Albert H.] Quie [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Quie: If a Member has an amendment at the desk but his name
is not on the list, he will not be precluded from offering his
amendment; is that correct?
The Chairman: No. There is no question about that. If a
Member's name is not on the list, he will not have any time, but
his amendment will be voted on.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Where a limitation is vacated, after the Chair has noted the
Members wishing to speak under that first limitation, Members
must again indicate their desire to be heard under a second
limitation in order to be recognized (see Sec. 22, supra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: The Chair in his discretion could have
allocated time under the new limitation to Members who were not listed
under the original allocation.
Sec. 79.122 Where debate under the five-minute rule has been limited to
a time certain and remaining time has been reduced by a rollcall,
the Chair may reallocate the remaining time among the remaining
Members to whom time had been initially allocated and may first
recognize Members on that list who desire to offer amendments.
On Apr. 26, 1978,(2) during consideration of H.R. 8494,
the Public Disclosure of Lobbying Act of 1978, a motion to limit debate
to a time certain was agreed to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 124 Cong. Rec. 11641, 11646, 11648, 11649, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [George E.] Danielson [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I move
that all debate on this bill and all amendments thereto be
terminated at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m. tonight.
[The motion was agreed to.]
Mr. [Thomas N.] Kindness [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Kindness: On page 32, line 5,
strike ``or''.
On page 32, line 16, insert ``or'' after the semicolon. . .
.
The Chairman: (3) The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kindness).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Lloyd Meeds (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr.
Kindness) there were--ayes 16, noes 22. . . .
Mr. Kindness: Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes
207, noes 188, not voting 39, as follows: . . .
So the amendment was agreed to. . . .
[[Page 11265]]
The Chairman: The Chair will state that under the motion
setting a limitation of time previously entered into, all debate
will terminate in 10 minutes.
The parliamentary situation is that there are nine Members
remaining to be recognized, and there are approximately 9 minutes
left. Each Member listed will be recognized for approximately 1
minute.
The Chair will first ask if there are Members on the list who
have amendments to be offered.
If not, the Chair will first recognize the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. McClory).
Sec. 79.123 When no Members stand to indicate their desire to be
recognized under a limitation on five-minute debate when the
limitation is agreed to, the Chair allows debate
to proceed under the five-minute rule; but the Committee of the
Whole may subsequently by unanimous consent allow the time
remaining under the limitation to be divided among Members
indicating a desire to speak.
On May 19, 1978,(4) during consideration of the Alaska
National Interest Conservation Lands Act of 1978 (H.R. 39) in the
Committee of the Whole, the following exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 124 Cong. Rec. 14661, 14670, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: . . . Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that all debate on the pending Udall substitute
and all amendments thereto end at 11:15 a.m. . . .
Mr. Chairman, I change my unanimous-consent request to 12
o'clock noon.
The Chairman: (5) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Arizona?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Paul M. Simon (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection. . . .
Mr. Gary A. Myers [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, at the time
the debate was limited, there was no assigning of time to
individuals. Is that procedure in accordance with normal practice?
The Chairman: The Chair will state that at the time the debate
was limited, no one was standing. Therefore, we proceeded under the
regular 5-minute rule.
Mr. Gary A. Myers: . . . Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that the remaining time be divided by those who are presently
standing and make a request for time to speak during the remaining
period.
The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
Sec. 79.124 Where time has been limited for debate under the five-
minute rule in Committee of the Whole, the Chair may continue to
recognize Members under the five-minute rule and then as the
expiration time approaches
[[Page 11266]]
allocate the remaining time among Members seeking to offer
amendments not printed in the Congressional Record, and Members
opposing such amendments.
On June 27, 1979,(6) it was demonstrated that where a
limitation on debate abrogated the five-minute rule and the ordinary
criteria for priority of recognition, the Chair could extend priority
of recognition under a limitation to Members seeking to offer
amendments not printed in the Record, before recognizing members of the
reporting committee. The proceedings during consideration of H.R. 4389
(the Departments of Labor and Health, Education, and Welfare
appropriations) in the Committee of the Whole were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 125 Cong. Rec. 17018, 17029, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [William H.] Natcher [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that the balance of the bill be considered as
read, open to amendment at any point, and that all debate on the
bill and all amendments thereto close at 8:30 p.m.
The Chairman: (7) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Kentucky?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Don Fuqua (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection. . . .
The Chairman: The Chair would like to make an announcement. We
have less than 45 minutes of the allocated time. The Chair would
like for all those Members who have amendments which are not
printed in the Record--not printed in the Record--to please rise
and remain standing so that the Chair can get the names of the
Members and try to recognize them for the offering of their
amendments.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller)
for approximately 3 minutes.
Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Michel: Mr. Chairman, is it not normal practice to
recognize members of the committee before we recognize other
Members?
The Chairman: Not when a time limitation has been imposed. That
rule does not apply, but the Chair will try to protect all the
Members who do not have amendments printed in the Record.
Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Conte: If some member of the committee opposes one of these
amendments, may that Member rise and speak against an amendment?
The Chairman: Certainly.
Sec. 79.125 Where debate has been limited to a time certain on an
amendment and all amendments thereto, the Chairman may utilize his
dis
[[Page 11267]]
cretion in allocating debate time and continue to recognize Members
under the five-minute rule; but he may choose at a later time to
divide any remaining debate time among those Members standing and
reserve some time for the committee to conclude debate.
The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on
Nov. 2, 1983,(8) during consideration of the Department of
Defense appropriations for fiscal year 1984 (H.R. 4185):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 129 Cong. Rec. 30504, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Joseph P.] Addabbo [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment and all
amendments thereto close at 2 o'clock. . . .
The Chairman Pro Tempore: (9) Is there objection to
the unanimous-consent request of the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Addabbo) . . . ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Abraham Kazen, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I have a
parliamentary inquiry. . . .
Under the unanimous-consent agreement, does that mean only
those who were standing at the time the agreement was entered into
may enter into the debate?
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair will continue to allow time
under the 5-minute rule.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Approximately 90 minutes of time for debate remained at this point.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With about 30 minutes remaining under the limitation, the Chair
(11) stated: (12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).
12. 129 Cong. Rec. 30512, 98th Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 2, 1983.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair recognizes that there are more Members rising that
wish to participate in the debate than time will permit.
The Chair has the discretion of dividing the time among Members
who wish to participate in the debate, and the Chair would also
make a request that those who have already entered into the debate
not seek further time.
Those Members who wish to participate in the debate will please
rise.
The Chair will reserve 2 minutes for the gentleman from Alabama
(Mr. Edwards) to conclude the debate.
Members standing will be recognized for 1\1/2\ minutes each.
Reallocating Controlled Time by Unanimous Consent
Sec. 79.126 Where the House has adopted a special rule limiting debate
on an amendment in Committee of the Whole and equally dividing the
time between the proponent and an opponent, the Committee of the
Whole may, by unanimous consent, allocate some of the opposition
time to the proponent where no Member has claimed time in
opposition.
[[Page 11268]]
The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on
Mar. 3, 1983,(13) during consideration of H.R. 1718
(emergency appropriations for fiscal 1983):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 129 Cong. Rec. 3939, 3943, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: (14) Pursuant to House Resolution 113,
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Howard) will be recognized for
15 minutes, and a Member opposed to the amendment will be
recognized for the other 15 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. David E. Bonior (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is there a Member opposed who wishes to control that time?
No Member has responded, and the Chair recognizes the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Howard) for 15 minutes.
Mr. [M. G. (Gene)] Snyder [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Snyder: The Chairman, since no one has risen in opposition,
would it be permissible to ask unanimous consent to transfer 5
minutes of the opposition time to the gentleman from New Jersey?
The Chairman: Under unanimous consent, yes.
Mr. Snyder: Mr. Chairman, I make that request.
The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Kentucky?
There was no objection.
Parliamentarian's Note: The Committee of the Whole may not by
unanimous consent extend time for debate set by the House, but may
reallocate time where there is no opposition.
Effect of Limitation Where Committee Rises for the Day
Sec. 79.127 The Chair stated in response to a parliamentary
inquiry that where all de-bate on an amendment and
all amendments thereto has been limited to a time certain (i.e., 5
p.m.) and the Committee of the Whole rises before that time without
having completed action on the amendment, no time would be
considered as remaining when the Committee, on a later day, again
resumed consideration of the amendment.
On May 6, 1970,(15) Chairman Daniel D. Rostenkowski, of
Illinois, answered parliamentary inquiries on the effect of a
limitation of debate under the five-minute rule:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 116 Cong. Rec. 14452, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert L.] Leggett [of California]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Leggett: Mr. Chairman, considering the fact that a time
limitation
[[Page 11269]]
has now been set in relation to today at 5 o'clock, does the time
of the debate on the motion that we have already heard, come out of
the time on the amendments?
The Chairman: The time will come out of the time of those who
are participating in debate.
Mr. Leggett: Mr. Chairman, a further parliamentary inquiry. If
we choose to rise right now and come back tomorrow, then would
there be any time limitation on debate?
The Chairman: There would be no further debate.
The time was set at 5 o'clock.
Sec. 79.128 Where the Committee of the Whole has agreed by unanimous
consent that all debate under the five-minute rule on a bill and
amendments thereto close at 4:15 p.m., and the Committee rises
before that time without having completed action on all amendments,
no time is considered as remaining when the House resolves back
into the Committee of the Whole for the further consideration of
the bill on the following day.
On May 10, 1961,(16) the Committee of the Whole had
agreed to a unanimous-consent request that all debate on the pending
bill and amendments thereto close at 4:15 p.m. The Committee rose
before consideration of all amendments to the bill had been completed,
and before 4:15. In the House, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, answered
a parliamentary inquiry on the effect of the limitation:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 107 Cong. Rec. 7725, 7727, 7728, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Halleck: While the Committee of the Whole was considering
the bill H.R. 2010, a unanimous consent request was granted to
limit all debate on the bill and all amendments thereto to 4:15
this afternoon. In the meantime, the Committee has risen. My
parliamentary inquiry is, in view of the fact the time limit was
set at 4:15, which is some 25 minutes from now, does not that mean
that debate tomorrow will be limited to 25 minutes?
The Speaker: It means, unless there is another consent
agreement, that there will not be any more debate.
Mr. Halleck: There will be no more debate?
The Speaker: Not unless there is an agreement to extend the
time.
Parliamentarian's Note: If the limitation had provided for a fixed
period, such as a certain number of minutes of debate, the number of
minutes not consumed would have remained on the following day. On the
day following the precedent discussed above, the House agreed by
unanimous consent, before resolving itself into
[[Page 11270]]
the Committee of the Whole, to allow two minutes in favor of each
amendment to be offered and two minutes in opposition.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 107 Cong. Rec. 7869, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., May 11, 1961.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 79.129 The House agreed to
a unanimous-consent request that further debate on a
bill and amendments thereto close in one hour, half to be consumed
on the present day and half when the Committee resumed its sitting
on the following day.
On June 22, 1960,(18) the Committee of the Whole agreed
to a unanimous-consent request propounded by Mr. Harold D. Cooley, of
North Carolina, to close debate on a bill and amendments thereto:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 106 Cong. Rec. 13874, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
. . . The unanimous consent request was that debate be fixed at
1 hour on the bill, and all amendments thereto, and that we consume
30 minutes of that hour this afternoon and reserve 30 minutes to be
used tomorrow. That means the Committee will rise at approximately
5 minutes after 6.
Sec. 79.130 Prior to rising for the day, the Committee of the Whole
limited debate on a title of a bill and all amendments thereto to
one hour of debate, and the Chair advised that upon again resolving
into the Committee,
Members would be recognized within the time limit
under the five-minute rule.
On Aug. 2, 1966,(19) the Committee of the Whole was
considering for amendment title III of H.R. 14765, the Civil Rights Act
of 1966. Prior to rising for the day, the Committee agreed to a request
by Mr. Peter W. Rodino, Jr., of New Jersey, that all debate on the
title and amendments thereto terminate in one hour. Chairman Richard
Bolling, of Missouri, stated in response to a parliamentary inquiry
that when the Committee again took up the bill on a following day,
Members would be recognized subject to the limitation under the five-
minute rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 112 Cong. Rec. 17856, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 79.131 Where the Committee of the Whole rises prior to completion
of debate which has been limited to a designated number of minutes
rather than by the clock, time for debate remains un-der the
limitation when the Committee resumes consideration at a subsequent
time.
When consideration of the Surface Mining Control and Reclama
[[Page 11271]]
tion Act of 1974 (20) resumed in the Committee of the Whole
on July 24, 1974,(1) Chairman Neal Smith, of Iowa, made an
explanatory statement of the pending situation as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. H.R. 11500.
1. 120 Cong. Rec. 25009, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration
of the bill H.R. 11500, with Mr. Smith of Iowa in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Chairman: The Chair will attempt to explain the situation.
Before the Committee rose on yesterday, it had agreed that the
remainder of the substitute committee amendment titles II through
VIII, inclusive, would be considered as read and open to amendment
at any point.
The Committee further agreed that the time for debate under the
5-minute rule would be limited to not to exceed 3 hours and
allocated time to titles II through VIII as follows: 50 minutes for
title II, 20 minutes for title III, 50 minutes for title IV, 5
minutes for title V, 5 minutes for title VI, 40 minutes for title
VII, and 10 minutes for title VIII.
In an attempt to be consistent with the unanimous-consent
agreement entered into on yesterday, the Chair will endeavor to
recognize all Members who wish to offer or debate amendments to
title II during the 50 minutes of time for debate on that title.
If Members who have printed their amendments to title II in the
Record would agree to offer those amendments during the 50-minute
period and to be recognized for the allotted time, the Chair will
recognize both Committee and non-Committee members for that
purpose.
Members who have caused amendments to title II to be printed in
the Record, however, are protected under clause 6, rule XXIII, and
will be permitted to debate for 5 minutes any such amendment which
they might offer to title II at the conclusion of the 50 minutes of
debate thereon.
The Chair will now compile a list of those Members seeking
recognition to offer or debate amendments to title II and will
allocate 50 minutes for debate accordingly.
The Chair will give preference where possible to those Members
who have amendments to offer to title II.
Members who were standing at the time of the determination of
the time allocation will be recognized for 1 minute and 20 seconds
each.
Transferring Allocated Time
Sec. 79.132 Where time for debate on an amendment and all amendments
thereto has been limited and the time remaining has been allocated
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,(2) during consideration of the
Departments of
[[Page 11272]]
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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 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: (3) The gentleman from Pennsylvania
moves that all debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto
close in 10 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 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.
Transferring Unused Debate Time to Another Amendment
Sec. 79.133 By unanimous consent, remaining debate fixed at a time
certain on an amendment in the nature of a substitute may be
converted to minutes of debate and reserved to follow disposition
of a pending perfecting amendment not covered by the limitation.
On Apr. 13, 1983,(4) during consideration of House Joint
Resolution 13 (nuclear weapons freeze) in the Committee of the Whole,
the following exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 129 Cong. Rec. 8402-04, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Henry J.] Hyde [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, would a
unanimous-consent request be in order that the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Levitas) move his perfecting amendment and a
unanimous-consent request that the same limitation on debate that
prevailed before his motion obtain following it? Could that be done
by unanimous consent?
The Chairman: (5) The Chair is unclear as to the
nature of the gentleman's inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 11273]]
Mr. Hyde: I think what the chairman has said is that if the
gentleman from Georgia's motion is granted or his request is
granted, the limitation that has been set on debate would no longer
prevail; is that correct?
The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman that the
limitation of debate applies only to debate on the amendment in the
nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Levitas) which is now pending.
Mr. Hyde: I am asking the Chair if he made another motion
asking unanimous consent that the same limitation on debate that
has previously been entered apply, would that be in order?
The Chairman: The gentleman could ask unanimous consent for a
limitation on the perfecting amendment. . . .
Mr. [Elliott H.] Levitas [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a
perfecting amendment. . . .
Mr. Chairman, I will seek recognition for debate on the
amendment if I may ask a parliamentary inquiry before I do.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. Levitas: My parliamentary inquiry is this. The perfecting
amendment which I have just offered is now available for debate
under the 5-minute rule without any time constraints?
The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
Mr. Levitas: The time limitation that was originally agreed to
for termination of debate on the pending substitute to end at 3
o'clock, that was the focus of the time limitation.
The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
Mr. Levitas: My parliamentary inquiry is this: Would it be in
order to request unanimous consent to preserve the time of those
Members who had time allocated to them under the original
limitation so that their time would be preserved at the conclusion
of the disposition of the pending amendment?
The Chairman: The gentleman or any other Member could request
unanimous consent for that purpose.
Mr. Levitas: A further parliamentary inquiry: Would it be in
order after this amendment is explained to seek a time limitation
on debate of the pending amendment?
The Chairman: That would be in order.
Mr. Levitas: Well, under the circumstances, Mr. Chairman, I
will make a unanimous-consent request that after the question is
put on the pending amendment, that the time remaining under the
original time limitation on the substitute will be made available
to the Members who have such time allocated to them.
The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Georgia?
Mr. [C. W. Bill] Young of Florida: I make a parliamentary
inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Young of Florida: Those of us who had time under the
original reservation no longer have that time, and would be
precluded by this unanimous-consent request from debating the
perfecting amendment, which is an entirely different issue than the
substitute was. . . .
The Chairman: The Chair would ask the gentleman from Georgia
[[Page 11274]]
whether it is his intent under the unanimous-consent request that
the time allocated to those who have not yet been recognized under
the limitation of time be the time originally allocated to them by
other Members or a pro rata reduction of the time that is now
remaining before 3 o'clock, the time originally set?
Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I would
hope that since the substitute and the so-called perfecting
amendment to House Joint Resolution 13 are practically identical,
certainly in substance, that we could limit the time to 15 minutes
after the gentleman from Georgia's 5-minute allocated time for
explaining his amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that----
The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman that there is
now pending a unanimous-consent request by the gentleman from
Georgia to permit the Members who have not spoken under the
limitation of time their allocated time as originally allocated on
the amendment in the nature of a substitute. . . .
Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Georgia?
There was no objection.
Effect of Debate on Amendment Pending When Limitation Imposed
Sec. 79.134 Where a motion to limit debate has been made and agreed to
following the offering of an amendment but prior to recognition of
its proponent, the Chair may nevertheless allocate five minutes to
the proponent and in his discretion divide the remaining time among
other Members.
A limitation on time for debate, in effect, abrogates the five-
minute rule. On one occasion, a Member who had offered an amendment but
had not been recognized to debate the amendment was recognized, in the
exercise of discretion by the Chair, for five minutes. The proceedings
of Oct. 9, 1975,(6) in the Committee of the Whole, were as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 121 Cong. Rec. 32600, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mrs. [Leonor K.] Sullivan [of Missouri] (during the reading):
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that title IV be considered
as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
The Chairman: (7) Is there objection to the request
of the gentlewoman from Missouri?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
Mrs. Sullivan: Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on the
pending amendment to title IV and all amendments thereto be limited
to 10 minutes.
The Chairman: The Chair would prefer to wait until the
amendment has been offered.
Mr. [Paul N.] McCloskey [Jr., of California]: Mr. Chairman, I
offer an amendment.
[[Page 11275]]
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. McCloskey: On page 77 at line 18
add a new section as follows:
``Sec. 407. The United States hereby consents to the
jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice with respect
to any claim or controversy arising as a result of the
enactment or the implementation of this Act.
The Chairman: Does the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs.
Sullivan) move to limit debate on this title and all amendments
thereto to 10 minutes?
Mrs. Sullivan: I do, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: The question is on the motion offered by the
gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Sullivan).
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. McCloskey: Mr. Chairman, may I ask if I will have 5 minutes
to explain my amendment?
The Chairman: The gentleman from California is correct, he will
have 5 minutes.
Ordering of Amendments Un-der Limitation
Sec. 79.135 Where the Committee of the Whole had limited debate to a
time certain on a motion to strike a portion of pending text, the
Chair requested a Member to withhold offering a perfecting
amendment to the text until the expiration of the limitation since
the limitation
did not apply to perfecting amendments which could be offered,
debated, and voted upon prior to the vote on the motion to strike
and since debate on the perfecting amendment, if offered during the
limitation, would reduce time remaining under the limitation.
On May 24, 1977,(8) during consideration of the
International Security Assistance Act of 1977 (H.R. 6884) in the
Committee of the Whole, the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 123 Cong. Rec. 16172, 16175, 16176, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: (9) When the Committee of the Whole
House rose on Monday, May 2, 1977, the bill had been considered as
having been read and open to amendment at any point, and pending
was an amendment offered by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Ichord).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Don Fuqua (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Without objection, the Clerk will again report the amendment.
There was no objection.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Ichord: Page 8, line 17, strike
out ``$2,214,-700,000'' and insert in lieu thereof
``$12,114,700,000''. . . .
Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: . . . I ask unanimous
consent that all debate on this amendment and all amendments
thereto end at 1:15 p.m. . . .
The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Wisconsin?
[[Page 11276]]
There was no objection. . . .
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I have an
amendment at the desk which has been printed in the Record.
The Chairman: Would the gentleman withhold his amendment until
the limitation of time expires.
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, will the amendment then be in order
and may it be offered prior to the vote on the Ichord amendment?
The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman that the
amendment will be in order as a perfecting amendment prior to the
vote on the Ichord amendment.
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, in that case, I will withhold the
amendment at this time.
Sec. 79.136 Where there was pending an amendment in the
nature of a substitute, a
substitute therefor and an amendment to the substitute, and debate
had been limited on the substitute and all amendments thereto but
not on the original amendment or amendments thereto, the Chair
indicated that: (1) further amendments to the substitute or
modifications of the substitute by unanimous consent must await
disposition of the pending amendment to the substitute; (2)
amendments to the original amendment could be offered and debated
under the five-minute rule and would be voted on before amendments
to the substitute; (3) amendments to the substitute could be
offered and voted upon without debate unless printed in the Record
pursuant to clause 6 of Rule XXIII; and (4) the question would not
be put on the substitute until all perfecting amendments to it and
to the original amendment were disposed of.
During consideration of the Natural Gas Emergency Act of 1976 (H.R.
9464) in the Committee of the Whole on Feb. 5, 1976,(10) the
following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 122 Cong. Rec. 2646-48, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to
strike the requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on the
Smith amendment and all amendments thereto terminate immediately
upon the conclusion of consideration of the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Eckhardt).
The Chairman: (11) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Michigan?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection. . . .
Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, as I understood
it, the unanimous-consent request of the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Dingell)
[[Page 11277]]
was that all debate on the Smith substitute amendment cease after
the disposition of the Eckhardt amendment. The Eckhardt amendment
would be the pending business then, and immediately after the
determination of the Eckhardt amendment, we would vote on the Smith
amendment. Is that not correct? . . .
The Chairman: Let the Chair add this: the Chair has said it
once, and would like to say it again. Before we vote on the Smith
substitute, amendments to the Krueger amendment are debatable if
offered.
Mr. Brown of Ohio: I understand that, Mr. Chairman. My
questions were with reference only to how we get to the Smith
amendment.
The Chairman: The point that the Chair is trying to make,
regardless of what agreements are reached, is that until the
Krueger amendment is finally perfected to the satisfaction of the
Committee, the Chair cannot put the question on the Smith
substitute. . . .
There has been no limitation of debate on the Krueger amendment
or amendments thereto. The basic parliamentary situation is that we
have a substitute amendment for the amendment in the nature of a
substitute, the Krueger amendment. Both of those are subject to
amendment, but both must be perfected before the Chair can put the
question on the substitute for the amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
Mr. Brown of Ohio: With respect to the unanimous-consent
request of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the Eckhardt
amendment is still to be voted upon, and then there are to be no
other amendments to the Smith amendment?
The Chairman: There is to be no further debate on such
amendments. . . .
Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, if my time still applies, I
would like to ask the Chair to state the circumstances. If I may,
before the Chair does that, I would like to ask the question this
way: As the situation stands at this moment, the Krueger amendment
is still perfectable by amendments under the normal course of time,
and there is no limitation on the Krueger amendment.
The Smith amendment, however, can be perfected only by the vote
on the Eckhardt amendment, and then if there are other amendments
to the Smith amendment there is no debate time remaining on those
amendments.
Is that correct?
The Chairman: Unless they are printed in the Record.
Mr. Brown of Ohio: And if they are printed in the Record, the
debate time is 5 minutes per side pro and con. Is that correct?
The Chairman: That is correct.
Mr. Brown of Ohio: And they must be printed as amendments to
the Smith amendment. Is that correct?
The Chairman: That is correct. . . .
Mr. [Robert] Krueger [of Texas]: . . . Mr. Chairman, my
question is this: We will vote first on the Eckhardt amendment to
the Smith substitute?
The Chairman: That is right.
Mr. Krueger: Following that, there will then be a vote without
further debate on the Smith substitute, or no?
The Chairman: The Chair cannot say, because if there were
amendments printed in the Record, there can be both an amendment
offered and debate
[[Page 11278]]
on the amendment. If there were no amendments that were qualified
for debate by being printed in the Record, they could not be
offered and voted on without debate.
But if they are offered to the Krueger amendment in the nature
of a substitute, they would both be considered and would be
debatable under the 5-minute rule.
Mr. Krueger: Mr. Chairman, does the 5-minute rule apply also to
any possible amendments to the Smith substitute?
The Chairman: The 5-minute rule applies only to amendments to
the Smith amendment which has been printed in the Record. Other
amendments to the Smith amendment do not have debate time; they are
just voted on.
Sec. 79.137 Where debate has been limited on a pending section and all
amendments thereto and time allocated among those Members desiring
to offer amendments to that section, the Chair may decline to
recognize a Member to offer an amendment adding a new section and
therefore not covered by the limitation, until perfecting
amendments to the pending section have been disposed of under the
limitation.
On June 26, 1979,(12) during consideration of H.R. 3930,
the Defense Production Act Amendments of 1979, the Committee of the
Whole was proceeding under a limitation on debate on section 3 and
amendments thereto, when an amendment was offered by Mr. Morris K.
Udall, of Arizona:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 125 Cong. Rec. 16679, 16680, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment offered by Mr. Udall: Page 8, after line 13 add the
following new section and renumber the subsequent sections
accordingly.
Sec. 4. The Secretary of Energy is hereby authorized to
designate a proposed synthetic fuel or feedstock facility as a
priority synthetic project. . . .
Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, is this
amendment to section 3 or section 4? . . .
The copy I have indicates that it is to section 4, Mr.
Chairman. Is that correct?
Mr. Udall: I had modified it to apply to section 3.
The Chairman: (13) The Clerk will cease reading the
amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair will advise the gentleman from Arizona that this
amendment currently being read adds a new section 4, and is not
covered by the limitation on time, and should not be offered at
this time. . . .
Mr. Udall: I had intended--I had so instructed the Clerk to
change this to an amendment to section 3, not section 4. . . .
The Chairman: . . . The Chair will advise the gentleman from
Arizona that he is within his rights to redraft the amendment as an
amendment to section 3, but the Chair understood that is not the
amendment currently being read.
[[Page 11279]]
Mr. Udall: I so offer it as an amendment to section 3.
The Chairman: The Clerk will report the amendment.
Where Debate Limitation Is on Motion To Strike
Sec. 79.138 Where the Committee of the Whole had limited debate to a
time certain on a motion to strike a portion of pending text, the
Chair requested a Member to withhold offering a perfecting
amendment to the text until the expiration of the limitation since
the limitation did not apply to perfecting amendments which could
be offered, debated, and voted upon prior to the vote on the motion
to strike and since debate on the perfecting amendment, if offered
during the limitation, would reduce time remaining under the
limitation.
On May 24, 1977,(14) the Committee of the Whole having
under consideration the International Security Assistance Act of 1977
(H.R. 6884), the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 123 Cong. Rec. 16172, 16175, 16176, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: (15) When the Committee of the Whole
House rose on Monday, May 2, 1977, the bill had been considered as
having been read and open to amendment at any point, and pending
was an amendment offered by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Ichord).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Don Fuqua (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Without objection, the Clerk will again report the amendment.
There was no objection.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Ichord: Page 8, line 17, strike
out ``$2,214,-700,000'' and insert in lieu thereof
``$12,114,700,000''; on page 9, line 17, strike out
``sections'' and insert in lieu thereof ``section''; strike out
line 18 on page 9 and all that follows through line 2 on page
11; and in line 3 on page 11, strike out ``534'' and insert in
lieu thereof ``533''. . . .
Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I
wonder if
we could determine how many more speakers we have.
I ask unanimous consent that all
debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto end at 1:15
p.m. . . .
The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection. . . .
The Chairman: The time of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Bauman) has expired.
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I have an
amendment at the desk which has been printed in the Record.
The Chairman: Would the gentleman withhold his amendment until
the limitation of time expires.
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, will the amendment then be in order
and may it be offered prior to the vote on the Ichord amendment?
[[Page 11280]]
The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman that the
amendment will be in order as a perfecting amendment prior to the
vote on the Ichord amendment.
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, in that case, I will withhold the
amendment at this time.
Protected Amendment Offered During Allocated Time
Sec. 79.139 While under clause 6 of Rule XXIII, five minutes of debate
in favor of an amendment and five minutes in
opposition is permitted notwithstanding a limitation on debate
where the amendment has been printed in the Record, if the
proponent of the amendment offers it during his allocated time
under the limitation and does not claim a separate five-minute
recognition under the rule, then a Member opposing the amendment to
whom time has been allocated under the limitation must consume that
time and cannot claim a separate five minutes under the rule.
On Mar. 2, 1976,(16) the Chair ruled that, pursuant to
Rule XXIII, clause 6, a separate ten minutes of debate on an amendment
printed in the Record is in order only where the proponent of the
amendment claims that time notwithstanding an imposed limitation; and
where the amendment is offered and debated within the time allocated
under the limitation, a separate five minutes in opposition is not
available:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 122 Cong. Rec. 4994, 4995, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Philip H.] Hayes of Indiana: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Hayes of Indiana: Page 39,
immediately after line 12, insert the following new subsection:
``(c) Section 402(d) of the Act (30 U.S.C. 902(d)) is
amended by inserting immediately before the period at the end
thereof the following: `, including any individual who is or
was employed in any aboveground mining operation'.'' . . .
Mr. [John N.] Erlenborn [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: (17) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Sam Gibbons (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Erlenborn: Mr. Chairman, since this amendment was one of
the published amendments, 5 minutes in opposition to the amendment
is available not counting against the limit?
The Chairman: The gentleman would be correct if debate on the
amendment were outside of the limitation. . . .
Mr. Erlenborn: Mr. Chairman, may I have the 5 minutes, under
the rule?
The Chairman: It will be counted against the gentleman's time
if the gentleman takes it at this time.
[[Page 11281]]
Mr. Erlenborn: Mr. Chairman, I understand there are 5 minutes
in opposition that are available, under the rule; and I claim those
5 minutes.
The Chairman: It is the Chair's understanding that at this
point debate on the amendment is under the limitation. The
gentleman could claim his 5 minutes under the rule if the amendment
were offered, notwithstanding the limitation, but not at this time.
. . .
Mr. Erlenborn: Mr. Chairman, I have 5 minutes, under the time
limitation?
The Chairman: That is correct.
Mr. Erlenborn: Without using that, am I not entitled to 5
minutes to oppose a published or printed amendment?
The Chairman: No, because the proponent of the amendment did
not take his time under the rule. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Hayes) had 5 minutes reserved under the limitation of time. The
Chair understands the gentleman from Indiana took his time under
the limitation and not under the rule.
CHAPTER 29
Consideration and Debate
J. READING PAPERS AND DISPLAYING EXHIBITS
Sec. 80. In General
Until it was rewritten in the 103d Congress,(18) Rule
XXX required the consent of the House or the Committee of the Whole for
the reading of papers if objection was made:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See H. Res. 5, 103d Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 5, 1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When the reading of a paper other than one upon which the House
is called to give a final vote is demanded, and the same is
objected to by any Member, it shall be determined without debate by
a vote of the House.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. House Rules and Manual Sec. 915 (1991). For parliamentary law on
reading papers, see Jefferson's Manual, House Rules and Manual
Sec. Sec. 432-436 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule XXX now states: (20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. House Rules and Manual Sec. 915 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When the use of any exhibit in debate is objected to by any
Member, it shall be determined without debate by a vote of the
House.
Under the former rule, the consent of the House was only required
for the reading of papers on which a Member was not called to vote. The
reading of messages, and bills and resolutions which had been called up
for consideration, were governed by other rules and practices which are
not discussed in this division. Committee reports which were not to be
voted upon could be read in debate, but the consent of the House was
required if objection was made.(1) If a report presented
facts
[[Page 11282]]
and conclusions without accompanying a legislative proposition, it was
read to the House if acted upon.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. See 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 5292, 5293. Similarly, the
statement accompanying a report may be read only with leave of
the House. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 5261, 5262; and 8
Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2606.
2. See 2 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 1364 and 4 Hinds' Precedents
Sec. 4663.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The requirement of unanimous consent applied to all documents not
subject to a vote, including a Member's own written
speech.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. See Sec. 80.5, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where a Member sought to challenge the reading of a paper by
another, the proper procedure was to object to the reading rather than
to raise a point of order. The House and not the Chair decided whether
the reading was proper,(4) if the contents of the document
were otherwise in order under the rules of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. See Sec. 80.1, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, a point of order could and may be made against disorderly
language contained in a document being read.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. See Sec. 83.5, infra. As to relevancy, specific consent of the
House to read a paper waived that particular objection; see
Sec. 80.2, infra.
Certain papers cannot be read at all and are subject to a
point of order in the first instance, such as reports of Senate
proceedings (see Sec. 83.3, infra) and reports of executive
sessions of House committees (see Sec. 83.4, infra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross References
Publications of the House in general, see Ch. 5, supra.
Reading of bills, resolutions, petitions, and memorials generally, see
Ch. 24, supra.
Reading communications from the executive branch, see Ch. 35, infra.
Reading conference reports, see Ch. 33, infra.
Reading of evidence in impeachment proceedings, see Ch. 14, supra.
Reading the Journal, see Ch. 5, supra.
Reading messages from the Senate, see Ch. 32, infra.
Reading propositions for amendment, see Ch. 27, supra.
Reading unreported proceedings of House committees is not in order, see
Sec. 55, supra.
Senate practice as to reading House proceedings, see Sec. 46,
supra. -------------------
Procedures Under Former Rule XXX: Objections to Reading
Sec. 80.1 The proper procedure for challenging the reading of a paper
under Rule XXX was not by a point of order but by voicing objection
thereto, and calling for a vote on the reading by the House.
On Feb. 27, 1946,(6) Mr. Vito Marcantonio, of New York,
made a point of order against the read
[[Page 11283]]
ing in debate of a document by Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi.
Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, stated that the proper procedure under
Rule XXX of the House rules was a vote by the House on permission to
read, after objection had been made to the reading:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 92 Cong. Rec. 1729, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Marcantonio: The gentleman from Mississippi is reading from
a document and pamphlet. It is out of order and cannot be done
except by obtaining the consent of the House. . . .
I [ask] for a ruling on my point of order.
The Speaker: If the gentleman from Mississippi is reading from
something that the House does not want to hear, it is entirely
within the power of the House to decide the question, not the
gentleman from New York.
Mr. Marcantonio: Does he not have to have consent to read a
document?
The Speaker: The gentleman from Mississippi is speaking to his
motion, and that gives him a rather wide latitude. If the gentleman
is reading something the House does not want to hear, then the
House has its remedy.
Mr. [Adolph J.] Sabath [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Sabath: Mr. Speaker, is it not the duty of the Speaker to
pass on the point of order or to pass on whether the gentleman is
speaking in order or not? I think it is up to the Speaker. The
gentleman here has been reading from Foster or Thomas, or whatever
the man's name is, something he has written or said some years ago,
today or yesterday, trying to make the House believe that I have
had something to do with the articles that Foster has written.
The Speaker: The Chair did not have the specific rule before
him when he answered the inquiry of the gentleman from New York
[Mr. Marcantonio].
Rule XXX states:
When the reading of a paper other than one upon which the
House is called to give a final vote is demanded, and the same
is objected to by any Member, it shall be determined without
debate by a vote of the House.
Mr. Marcantonio: Mr. Speaker, that bears out my contention and
I definitely object.
The Speaker: Does the gentleman object?
Mr. Marcantonio: I do, Mr. Speaker. I object to the dragging of
an irrelevant red herring into this discussion.
The Speaker: The question is: Shall the gentleman be permitted
to proceed to read the paper from which he is now reading?
The question was taken; and the House decided that Mr. Rankin
be permitted to proceed with the reading.
The Speaker: The gentleman from Mississippi will proceed in
order.
Relevancy Not Required Where Permission To Read Is Given
Sec. 80.2 Where unanimous consent is granted for the reading of a
letter in debate, and no reservation of objection is made as to the
contents of
[[Page 11284]]
the letter, a subsequent objection may not be made that the letter
is irrelevant to the pending subject.
On July 28, 1939,(7) Chairman Virgil M. Chapman, of
Kentucky, ruled that where unanimous consent was granted for the
reading of a letter, a subsequent point of order that the letter was
not pertinent to the pending subject came too late:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 84 Cong. Rec. 10368, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Abe] Murdock of Utah (interrupting the reading of the
letter): Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the gentleman
from Michigan [Mr. Hoffman] did not get consent to proceed out of
order, and when he asked that the letter be read, I assumed it was
pertinent to the debate here on the pending bill. I now make the
point of order that it is not.
The Chairman: The gentleman from Michigan obtained unanimous
consent that the letter be read, and stated the name of the person
who wrote the letter. The point of order is overruled.
Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, he did not
state the purport or intent of the letter.
The Chairman: All the gentleman from Michigan said was that it
was a letter written by a former Member from New York, Mr.
O'Conner, and asked unanimous consent that it be read by the Clerk.
That unanimous consent was granted.
Mr. Murdock of Utah: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Murdock of Utah: Does not a Member have the right to assume
that when a unanimous-consent request is made to have a letter
read, that the letter is pertinent to the debate being carried on
at the time on the floor?
The Chairman: Any member of the Committee had the right, when
the request was made, to reserve the right to object and to
interrogate the gentleman from Michigan as to the contents of the
letter.
Reading Parliamentary Rules
Sec. 80.3 It is in order in debate on a point of order to read a
parliamentary rule relevant thereto without obtaining the consent
of the House.
On July 16, 1935,(8) Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, in
debating a point of order read one of the standing rules of the United
States Senate. Mr. Vito Marcantonio, of New York, objected to the
reading of the rule on the grounds that Mr. Blanton could not read from
any document or from any other papers. Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of
Tennessee, overruled the objection and stated that the reading of the
rule was for the ``information of the Chair.'' (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 79 Cong. Rec. 11262, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
9. See also 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 2507, 2508.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 11285]]
Reading Letters
Sec. 80.4 There is no rule requiring a Member to give the name of the
person who signed the letter he is reading under permission to
address the House.
On Oct. 15, 1942,(10) Speaker Pro Tempore Schuyler Otis
Bland, of Virginia, ruled in response to a point of order that no House
rule required a Member who reads a letter during debate to name the
writer thereof:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 88 Cong. Rec. 8236, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Herman P.] Eberharter [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I
make the point of order that these quotations cannot be inserted in
the Record over an objection when they do not contain the names of
the persons alleged to have written them.
Mr. [Earl] Wilson [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, I would like to be
heard on the point of order. Every letter from which I am quoting
is signed by the Government employee writing the letter.
Mr. Eberharter: Is it the intention of the gentleman to put the
name of the person writing the letter in the Record?
Mr. Wilson: It is not.
Mr. Eberharter: Then I object, unless the gentleman is willing
to put the names of the authors of the letters in the Record.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair does not understand that
there is a unanimous-consent request pending. There was a request
made a short time ago for the insertion of certain papers in the
Record. The Chair asked if there was objection, or stated ``Without
objection, it is so ordered'' and there was no objection. There is
no unanimous-consent request now pending.
Mr. Eberharter: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the
gentleman is out of order when he reads a purported letter without
naming the person who is supposed to have written the letter.
Mr. Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I want to be heard on the point of
order.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair does not know of any such
rule requiring a Member who is reading to state by whom the letter
was written.
Mr. Eberharter: Mr. Speaker, on that point of order, if the
Chair has not finally ruled, my understanding is that it is a
violation of the rules of the House to read anything which is
purported to come from another source without indicating the
particular source from which it came.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair does not know of any such
rule.
Reading Speeches
Sec. 80.5 If objection was made to the reading of a paper, even though
it be the Member's own speech, the question was put to the House
for determination.
On May 23, 1935,(11) Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of
Tennessee,
[[Page 11286]]
ruled that if an objection were made a Member could not even read his
own remarks to the House without permission of the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 79 Cong. Rec. 8094, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: Is there objection to the resolution being read in
the time of the gentleman from Minnesota?
Mr. [John J.] O'Connor [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I object to
the reading of the resolution.
Mr. [Harold] Knutson [of Minnesota]: Then I shall read it
myself.
Mr. O'Connor: The gentleman cannot do that except by unanimous
consent.
Mr. Knutson: I can certainly read it myself, I submit to the
Speaker.
The Speaker: The gentleman cannot read the resolution without
the consent of the House.
Mr. Knutson: I am going to read it as a part of my remarks. It
would be an extraordinary ruling----
Mr. [Hamilton] Fish [Jr., of New York]: Mr. Speaker, this is
the gentleman's own writing.
The Speaker: The gentleman cannot even read his own speech if
anyone objects, according to the precedents.
Mr. [Joseph W.] Martin [Jr.] of Massachusetts: Is that going to
be the ruling of the Chair?
The Speaker: The Chair will not seek to enforce the rule unless
the demand is made. When demand is made, the Chair must enforce the
rules of the House.
On July 18, 1935,(12) Chairman William M. Whittington,
of Mississippi, ruled that where a Member objected to another Member's
reading his own speech, the question must be put to the Committee of
the Whole for a vote:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Id. at p. 11423.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [William D.] McFarlane [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I raise
the further point of order. The gentleman is reading his speech,
and I want the House to pass on whether we have got to listen to
such remarks.
Mr. [Bertrand H.] Snell [of New York]: I make the point of
order that that question was raised several days ago, and the House
made the decision itself.
The Chairman: The gentleman from Texas objects to the gentleman
from New York reading his speech. The gentleman from New York [Mr.
Snell] makes the point that the House passed on this very question.
The Chair is of the opinion that the House, on the occasion
referred to, passed on a specific case and not generally. The
question is, Will the Committee permit the gentleman from New York
to continue reading his speech?
The question was taken; and the Committee decided to allow the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Reed] to proceed.
Thereupon Mr. Reed completed his speech, and was given
permission to revise and extend his remarks.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See Jefferson's Manual, House Rules and Manual Sec. 434 (1995): ``A
Member has not a right even to read his own speech, committed
to writing, without leave. This also is to prevent an abuse of
time, and therefore is not refused but where that is
intended.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 11287]]
Yielding Time to Member To Read Paper
Sec. 80.6 A Member with the floor who yields time to another to read a
paper does not necessarily lose his right to the floor.
On Apr. 25, 1947, Chairman Earl C. Michener, of Michigan, ruled
that the Member with the floor could yield to another for the reading
of a paper, not to be voted upon, without losing his right to the
floor: (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 93 Cong. Rec. 4086, 4087, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mrs. [Helen Gahagan] Douglas [of California]: Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. [John J.] Rooney [of New York]: I yield to the gentlewoman
from California.
Mrs. Douglas: Mr. Chairman, I would like to read from a
statement made by the Secretary of the Interior.
Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, a point of
order.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Hoffman: The gentleman from New York has yielded the floor.
The Chairman: The gentleman from New York still has the floor.
He is standing at attention, with the gentlewoman beside him.
Mrs. Douglas: Mr. Chairman, I wish to quote a statement made by
the Secretary of the Interior which clearly states what has been
done in this bill.
--Permission To Read Paper Does Not Extend Time
Sec. 80.7 Where any Member objected to the reading in debate of a paper
on which the House was not called to vote (and no point of order
lay against the reading of the paper because of its content under
other rules or precedents), the Chair put the question pursuant to
Rule XXX whether the paper might be read; but the consent of the
House for the Member to read the paper, once granted, only
permitted the Member seeking such permission to read as much of the
paper as possible in the time yielded or allotted to that Member,
and did not necessarily grant permission to read or insert the
entire document.
On Mar. 1, 1979,(15) during consideration of House
Resolution 142 (to expel Charles C. Diggs, Jr.) in the House, the
following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 125 Cong. Rec. 3746-48, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Newt] Gingrich [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a
question of the privileges of the House, and I offer a privileged
resolution (H. Res. 142) and ask for its immediate consideration.
[[Page 11288]]
The Clerk read the resolution as follows:
H. Res. 142
Resolved, That Charles C. Diggs, Jr., a Representative from
the Thirteenth District of Michigan, is hereby expelled from
the House of Representatives. . . .
Mr. [M. Caldwell] Butler [of Virginia]: . . . I will tell you .
. . that I have read the testimony of Charles Diggs under oath
before the court and in my opinion he affirmatively stated and
admitted sufficient acts to constitute grounds for his expulsion
to-day. . . .
Bear in mind, I have not read the entire record. I make no
representation about that. I only deal with what the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Diggs) had to say on the charges against him. There
are 29. My time is limited. I will only deal with samples, but I
represent that these are fair samples. . . .
Mr. [Parren J.] Mitchell of Maryland: Mr. Speaker, the Member
in the well is going to attempt to read from
a transcript in a trial. Ordinarily, I would have no objection to
that if this body had constituted itself as a body to try Mr.
Diggs. It has not done so. I have strenuous objections to reading
any portion of that transcript when this body is not so constituted
to receive that information. . . .
The Speaker: (16) The gentleman objects to the
reading?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Mitchell of Maryland: Yes, I do, Mr. Speaker; any portion
of the transcript, whether it is printed in the Record or not, I do
not care. I object to its being read before this body as presently
constituted.
The Speaker: The gentleman from Virginia can continue to
debate, but he cannot continue to read without the permission of
the House.
Mr. Butler: Mr. Speaker, may I have the permission of the House
to read from the transcript?
Mr. Mitchell of Maryland: Mr. Speaker, I object to granting
permission for the reading of the transcript.
The Speaker: The question is: Shall the gentleman from Virginia
be permitted to read the document? The question is on that matter.
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, on that I
demand the yeas and nays.
The Speaker: The gentleman from Maryland demands the yeas and
nays.
Those in favor of taking this by the yeas and nays will arise.
In the opinion of the Chair, a sufficient number have arisen.
The yeas and nays will be ordered. . . .
Mr. [John J.] Rhodes [of Arizona]: Mr. Speaker, I am confused
as to what an ``aye'' vote and a ``no'' vote would mean. Would the
Chair explain it to the Members?
The Speaker: The Chair will state that an ``aye'' vote would
permit the document to be read, and a ``no'' vote would not permit
the document to be read. . . .
The question comes now--and a sufficient number of Members have
risen for the ordering of the yeas and nays--as to whether or not
the gentleman from Virginia shall be allowed to read that document
from the Court at this time in this proceeding. Under normal
[[Page 11289]]
circumstances, the Chair rules that the objection was in order, so
the question comes to a vote without debate. . . .
Mr. [Lester L.] Wolff [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, does the
motion mean that the entire proceedings must be read, or is it
confined to selected portions the gentleman wants to read?
The Speaker: The Chair will state that the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Butler) has a prepared document, and he has been
allotted 8 minutes by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Wright). He
could read as much of the document as he has within those 8
minutes.
Use of Video in Floor Debate
Sec. 80.8 A Member having been denied permission to utilize a Betamax
video telecasting machine on the floor of the House during a
special order to communicate statements made by non-Members of the
House, informed the House of the Speaker's denial of his request
(which was based upon precedents prohibiting non-Members from
participating in debate).
On Feb. 11, 1980,(17) Guy Vander Jagt, of Michigan, was
recognized in the House and made a statement as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 126 Cong. Rec. 2596, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Under a previous order of the House,
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Vander Jagt) is recognized for 60
minutes.
(Mr. Vander Jagt asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. Vander Jagt: . . . The National Republican Congressional
Committee, of which I am chairman, and the National Republican
Committee have prepared a nationwide television advertising
campaign which addresses these three issues and presents Republican
solutions to these problems which the people feel so acutely.
Madam Speaker, I have taken this special order and requested of
the Speaker permission to bring a Betamax onto the floor so that
our colleagues would be able to see exactly what these commercials
are saying. The Speaker did not see fit to grant that request but
scripts of the commercials are at the desk. . . .
CHAPTER 29
Consideration and Debate
J. READING PAPERS AND DISPLAYING EXHIBITS
Sec. 81. Voting on Permission To Read Papers
Rule XXX, which formerly required unanimous consent for the reading
of papers if objection was made, has been rewritten to apply to the use
of exhibits rather than the reading of papers.(18)
Procedures under the former rule were as follows: where objection was
made to the reading of a paper in debate, the question was put on the
reading by the Speaker or Chairman.(19) The question was
[[Page 11290]]
put without debate,(20) and could be determined in the same
manner as any other proposition before the House or Committee of the
Whole.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See the discussion in Sec. 80, supra.
19. See Sec. 81.1, infra.
20. See Sec. 81.3, infra.
1. See Sec. 81.4, infra (voice vote and division).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time consumed on the objection and on the vote to permit reading
was not taken out of the time of the Member attempting to
read,(2) but permission to read did not entitle the Member
to more time than originally allotted.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. See Sec. 81.5, infra.
3. See Sec. 81.6, infra. -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Procedures Under Former Rule XXX
--Putting the Question
Sec. 81.1 Where objection was made to the reading of a paper other than
one on which the House or the Committee of the Whole was to vote,
the Chair put the question to the House or Committee for
determination.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. See, for example, 94 Cong. Rec. 3436, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 24,
1948; 91 Cong. Rec. 10031, 79th Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 24, 1945;
83 Cong. Rec. 4874, 75th Cong. 3d Sess., Apr. 6, 1938; 80 Cong.
Rec. 3143, 74th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 3, 1936; 79 Cong. Rec.
10418, 10419, 74th Cong. 1st Sess., June 29, 1935; and 75 Cong.
Rec. 3281, 72d Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 2, 1932.
Objections to the reading of papers not to be voted upon
were determined by the House pursuant to Rule XXX, House Rules
and Manual Sec. 915 (1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Voting; Debate
Sec. 81.2 Where objection was made to the reading of a paper, the House
decided the question by majority vote and not by unanimous consent.
On Oct. 24, 1945,(5) Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi,
made a point of order against the reading of papers in debate by Mr.
Hugh De Lacy, of Washington, and asserted that ``A Member who has the
floor has to get unanimous consent to read.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 91 Cong. Rec. 10031, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Tex-as, ruled that a vote of the House was
required on an objection to such reading, and put the question to the
House for a majority vote.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. See also 94 Cong. Rec. 2479, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 10, 1948.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 81.3 Under the former practice, when objection was made to the
reading of a paper, it would be deter
[[Page 11291]]
mined without debate by a vote of the House.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. See, for example, 98 Cong. Rec. 8175, 8176, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.,
June 26, 1952 (in Committee of the Whole); 92 Cong. Rec. 1729,
79th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 27, 1946; and 88 Cong. Rec. 8237,
77th Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 15, 1942.
Rule XXX, House Rules and Manual Sec. 915 (1991) provided
that the vote on permission to read would be taken without
debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 81.4 The House could by voice or division vote permit a Member to
continue reading a paper after objection had been made.
On Feb. 27, 1946, objection was made to the reading by Mr. John E.
Rankin, of Mississippi, of a document expressing the political doctrine
of William Z. Foster.(8) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas,
ruled that whether the paper could be read was for the House to decide,
and put the question to the House, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 92 Cong. Rec. 1729, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question is: Shall the gentleman be permitted to proceed to
read the paper from which he is now reading?
The question was taken; and the House decided that Mr. Rankin
be permitted to proceed with the reading.
The Speaker: The gentleman from Mississippi will proceed in
order.
On Jan. 25, 1939,(9) Speaker Pro Tempore Stephen Pace,
of Georgia, ruled that where objection was made to a Member's reading
his own address from a manuscript, the question must be put to the
House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 84 Cong. Rec. 796, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John C.] Schafer of Wisconsin: Regular order, Mr. Speaker.
The gentleman is out of order. Under the rules of the House, the
gentleman is not supposed to read from a manuscript. . . .
Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the gentleman is
out of order under the rules of the House and is not supposed to
read his remarks in the well of the House. I ask for a ruling.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair has been provided with a
copy of the rules of the House and refers to rule XXX, which reads:
When the reading of a paper other than one upon which the
House is called to give a final vote is demanded, and the same
is objected to by any Member, it shall be determined without
debate by a vote of the House. . . .
The Chair is of the opinion that under this rule the question
of whether or not the gentleman from Washington shall be permitted
to proceed to read his own remarks must be submitted to the House.
The question is on permitting the gentleman from Washington to
proceed to read his own remarks.
The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr.
Schafer of Wisconsin) there were--ayes 15, noes 3.
--Charging of Time on Vote
Sec. 81.5 Where objection was made to the reading of a
[[Page 11292]]
paper, the time consumed in voting on the question was not taken
out of the time of the Member attempting to read.
On Jan. 25, 1939,(10) objection was made by Mr. John C.
Schafer, of Wisconsin, to the reading in debate of a manuscript by Mr.
Knute Hill, of Washington. Speaker Pro Tempore Stephen Pace, of
Georgia, ruled that the question must be put to the House. Mr. Hill
inquired whether time consumed on the objection and on the vote was to
be taken out of his time and the Speaker Pro Tempore responded that it
would not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 84 Cong. Rec. 796, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Mar. 25, 1937,(11) Speaker William B. Bankhead, of
Alabama, ruled that unanimous consent granted to Mr. Ralph E. Church,
of Illinois, to revise and extend his remarks did not include
permission to read such extraneous matter in debate. During debate on
the point of order, Mr. Church stated, ``Mr. Speaker, I do not want
this taken out of my time.'' The Speaker responded, ``This will not be
taken out of the gentleman's time.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 82 Cong. Rec. 2784-88, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Permission To Read Did Not Affect Allotted Time
Sec. 81.6 Where a Member was permitted by vote of the Committee of the
Whole to read a letter, he could read it only within the five
minutes allotted him and did not necessarily have the right to read
the entire letter.
On June 26, 1952,(12) while the Committee of the Whole
was considering amendments, under the five-minute rule, to the pending
bill, Mr. Clinton D. McKinnon, of California, moved to strike out the
last word. He then began reading a statement by Governor Arnall, of
Georgia, on the subject of price control ceilings, a subject covered by
the pending bill, H.R. 8210, the Defense Production Act Amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 98 Cong. Rec. 8175, 8176, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Jesse P. Wolcott, of Michigan, objected to the reading of the
statement, and the House by teller vote permitted Mr. McKinnon to
proceed with the reading of the letter in question. Mr. McKinnon
commenced reading the letter, and Chairman Wilbur D. Mills, of
Arkansas, ruled that he could read only for five minutes.
Mr. [Herman P.] Eberharter [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, a
point of order.
[[Page 11293]]
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Eberharter: Mr. Chairman, the House decided by a teller
vote to permit the reading of this letter. I submit that the letter
should be read in its entirety; that is the point of order I make.
The Chairman: That is not the decision made by the Committee.
The Committee made the decision that the gentleman could read the
letter within the time allotted to the gentleman of 5 minutes.
Mr. Eberharter: I did not hear it so stated when the motion was
put, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: The question put to the Committee had nothing
whatsoever to do with the time to be consumed by the gentleman from
California. The Chair recognized the gentleman from California for
5 minutes; the question arose as to whether or not he could within
that 5 minutes time read extraneous papers.
The point of order is overruled.
Sec. 81.7 Formerly under Rule XXX, a Member could read a paper upon
which the House would not vote only by permission of the House, if
any Member objected to that reading; and where a Member objected to
another Member's reading of her own written speech, the Chair put
the question to the House for a determination without debate.
On Dec. 19, 1974,(13) the principle stated above was
demonstrated in the House, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 120 Cong. Rec. 41425, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [David T.] Martin of Nebraska: Mr. Speaker, a point of
order. I object to the gentlewoman in the well reading her remarks
because she did not ask unanimous consent before she started to
read her remarks, and that is according to Jefferson's Manual.
The Speaker: (14) The question is: May the
gentlewoman from New York read her remarks?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
The Speaker: The gentlewoman from New York may proceed.
CHAPTER 29
Consideration and Debate
J. READING PAPERS AND DISPLAYING EXHIBITS
Sec. 82. Motions; Unanimous-consent Procedures
Rule XXX, which formerly required unanimous consent for the reading
of papers if objection was made, has been rewritten to apply to the use
of exhibits rather than the reading of papers.(15)
Procedures under the former rule were as follows: where objection was
made to a reading, the Speaker on his own initiative ordinarily put the
vote on the question of whether the reading should be permitted (see
Sec. 81, supra). Alter
[[Page 11294]]
natively, a Member could make the privileged motion that the Member
with the floor be permitted to read or to continue
reading.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See the discussion in Sec. 80, supra.
16. See Sec. 82.1, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unanimous consent could be granted for the reading of papers
(17) and if granted precluded a further point of order that
the paper was irrelevant.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. See Sec. Sec. 82.3-82.5, infra.
18. See Sec. 82.5, infra. -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Procedures Under Former Rule XXX: Motions
Sec. 82.1 Where objection was made to the reading of a paper it was in
order to move that the Member be permitted to read it, either in
the House or in the Committee of the Whole.
On Feb. 10, 1931,(19) while the Committee of the Whole
was considering H.R. 16969, the Navy appropriation bill, Mr. Thomas L.
Blanton, of Texas, asked unanimous consent to read in debate various
resolutions submitted by the American Legion. Mr. Elliott W. Sproul, of
Illinois, objected to such reading and Chairman Frederick R. Lehlbach,
of New Jersey, stated that such objection could be made in the
Committee of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 74 Cong. Rec. 4544, 71st Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To read a paper in the House or in the Committee when the House
is in the Committee of the Whole . . . he must obtain the consent
of either the House or the Committee.
Mr. William P. Connery, Jr., of Massachusetts, then moved that Mr.
Blanton be permitted to read the paper: ``Mr. Chairman, I move that the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Blanton] be allowed to read the resolutions
to which he referred.'' Mr. Connery made the motion to ``see what the
sentiment of the House is on not reading American Legion resolutions.''
The Chairman put the question on the motion and it was rejected.
On July 15, 1932,(20) Mr. Allen T. Treadway, of
Massachusetts, asked unanimous consent to read in debate from a
statement made to the Senate conferees on the pending conference report
on H.R. 9642, a relief bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 75 Cong. Rec. 15490, 15491, 72d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Edgar Howard, of Nebraska, objected to the reading of the
statement on the grounds that ``under the rules of the House the
gentleman may not read an outside statement if there is objection to
it.'' Mr. Treadway then stated that he would therefore read the
[[Page 11295]]
statement as his own statement. Mr. Howard also objected to that
procedure, and Speaker John N. Garner, of Texas, ruled that Mr. Howard
was not entitled to read the document over objection.
Mr. William H. Stafford, of Wisconsin, then made the following
motion:
Mr. Speaker, I move that the gentleman from Massachusetts be
permitted to read the paper.
The Speaker put the question, and the House agreed to the motion to
permit Mr. Treadway to read the statement in debate.
Reading of Documents by Clerk
Sec. 82.2 A Member may by unanimous consent during time yielded him in
the Committee of the Whole have a letter read by the Clerk.
On July 28, 1939,(1) Mr. Ulysses S. Guyer, of Kansas,
who had the floor in the Committee of the Whole, yielded five minutes'
debate to Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan. Mr. Hoffman immediately
made a unanimous-consent request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 84 Cong. Rec. 10368, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent, before I proceed, that
the Clerk may read a letter written by the former chairman of the
Rules Committee, Mr. John J. O'Connor, to the Vice President of the
United States.
The request was granted.
Sec. 82.3 The House granted unanimous consent that the Clerk read the
remarks of a Member suffering from poor eyesight.
On Apr. 16, 1942,(2) the House granted the following
unanimous-consent request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 88 Cong. Rec. 3510, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Joseph B.] Shannon [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that the Clerk be permitted to read my address,
as I cannot see very well. First, I just want to say that this is
an address on the subject of war by a real peace man. I have never
been for war in my life and I am not for war now if it could be
avoided. I refer in this speech to two men who served in this
House, a Benton and a Benton. Both Bentons to whom I refer served
in the House, and one of them served for 30 years in the Senate.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Without objection, the Clerk will read
the address of the gentleman from Missouri.
Sec. 82.4 The Speaker took the floor during debate in Committee of the
Whole to obtain unanimous consent for the reading by the Clerk of a
personal letter from the President expressing views
[[Page 11296]]
as to a bill then under consideration.
On Nov. 20, 1969,(3) while the Committee of the Whole
was considering H.R. 14580, the Foreign Assistance Act of 1969, Speaker
John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, moved to strike the last word and
then submitted a unanimous-consent request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 115 Cong. Rec. 35192, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Chairman, I have just received a letter from President
Nixon. I understand the minority leader also received a letter. I
received it a few minutes ago. It relates to the bill pending
before the House. I would like to have the contents of the letter
read to the House so that the Members will have in mind the views
expressed by the President in his letter to me.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the Clerk be
authorized to read the letter of the President of the United
States.
There was no objection to the request, and the letter was read.
Sec. 82.5 Where unanimous consent is granted for the reading of a
letter in debate, and no reservation of objection is made with
respect to the contents of the letter, a point of order may not
subsequently be made that the letter is irrelevant to the pending
subject.
On July 28, 1939,(4) Chairman Virgil M. Chapman, of
Kentucky, ruled that where unanimous consent was granted for the
reading of a letter, a subsequent point of order that the letter was
not pertinent to the pending subject came too late:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 84 Cong. Rec. 10368, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Abe] Murdock of Utah (interrupting the reading of the
letter): Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the gentleman
from Michigan [Mr. Hoffman] did not get consent to proceed out of
order, and when he asked that the letter be read, I assumed it was
pertinent to the debate here on the pending bill. I now make the
point of order that it is not.
The Chairman: The gentleman from Michigan obtained unanimous
consent that the letter be read, and stated the name of the person
who wrote the letter. The point of order is overruled.
Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, he did not
state the purport or intent of the letter.
The Chairman: All the gentleman from Michigan said was that it
was a letter written by a former Member from New York, Mr.
O'Connor, and asked unanimous consent that it be read by the Clerk.
That unanimous consent was granted.
Mr. Murdock of Utah: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Murdock of Utah: Does not a Member have the right to assume
that when a unanimous-consent request is
[[Page 11297]]
made to have a letter read, that the letter is pertinent to the
debate being carried on at the time on the floor?
The Chairman: Any member of the Committee had the right, when
the request was made, to reserve the right to object and to
interrogate the gentleman from Michigan as to the contents of the
letter.
Effect of Permission To Revise and Extend
Sec. 82.6 Permission to a Member to extend his remarks and include
therein extraneous matter did not authorize him to read the
extraneous matter in debate without the consent of the House.
On Mar. 25, 1937,(5) Mr. Ralph E. Church, of Illinois,
was granted unanimous consent to revise and extend his remarks and ``to
include therein excerpts from a certain letter of six paragraphs,
extracts from court proceedings and press comments thereon.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 81 Cong. Rec. 2784-88, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When Mr. Church began to read a newspaper editorial in debate, Mr.
Scott W. Lucas, of Illinois, made a point of order against the reading
and Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, ruled that the unanimous-
consent permission to revise and extend did not include permission to
read extraneous matter in debate:
The Chair is of the opinion the gentleman would probably have a
right to extend his own remarks, but he would not have a right to
read them now without the special permission of the House. [The
Speaker also cited Rule XXX of the House rules, requiring a vote of
the House where objection is raised to the reading of a paper.]
Unanimous Consent To Read in Committee
Sec. 82.7 Under the former practice, a Member yielded time for debate
in the Committee of the Whole could read certain letters and
telegrams with the consent of the Committee.
On Apr. 18, 1944,(6) Chairman Warren G. Magnuson, of
Washington, stated in response to a parliamentary inquiry that the
Committee of the Whole could grant permission to read certain papers:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 90 Cong. Rec. 3558, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I desire to
revise and extend my own remarks at this point in the Record. I
suppose permission to include letters, telegrams, and so forth,
including a couple of letters from Drew Pearson, I would have to
obtain in the House. . . .
If I did not extend my remarks, I suppose I could read those
letters, could I not?
The Chairman: If time were yielded to the gentleman from
Michigan, he
[[Page 11298]]
could read them with the consent of the Committee.
CHAPTER 29
Consideration and Debate
J. READING PAPERS AND DISPLAYING EXHIBITS
Sec. 83. Certain Readings Prohibited
Rulings under the former version of Rule XXX,(7) which
required a vote by the House on the reading of papers where objection
was made, indicated that the rule did not apply to papers containing
language subject to a point of order in the House. For example, a
Member could not refer to Senators or to Senate proceedings and
therefore could not read letters from Senators or reports of Senate
proceedings.(8) Some rulings based on former Rule XXX are
still valid under other lines of precedents. Thus a Member may not read
documents impugning the integrity of other Members,(9) or
reports of House committee executive proceedings not formally reported
to the House.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Rule XXX, which formerly required unanimous consent for the reading
of papers if objection was made, has been rewritten to apply to
the display of exhibits rather than the reading of papers. See
the discussion in Sec. 80, supra.
8. See Sec. Sec. 83.2, 83.3, infra.
9. See Sec. 83.5, infra.
10. See Sec. 83.4, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Papers containing prohibited references or disorderly language are
not challenged by an objection but by a point of order or demand that
they be taken down. The Speaker then rules whether the words in
question are in order.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See Sec. Sec. 48-52,
supra. -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discharge Petition Signatures
Sec. 83.1 Under the version of the Discharge Rule which was applicable
before the 103d Congress, while a Member had the right to look at a
discharge petition, he did not have the right to read to the House
the names signed on such petition.
On Mar. 15, 1946,(12) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas,
ruled that while a Member had a right to examine a discharge petition
on the floor of the House, he did not have the right to read the names
contained thereon in debate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 92 Cong. Rec. 2329, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John J.] Cochran [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, a point of
order.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Cochran: As I understand the rules of the House, it is not
permissible to give out anything contained in a petition on the
Clerk's desk until the petition has the required number of signers.
Then it automatically is printed in the Record with the signatures
thereon.
[[Page 11299]]
The Speaker: It is certainly a violation of the rules to do
that.
Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: I have not given out
anything. Do not get excited. I merely asked for the petition. I
have a right to look at it, as a Member of the House.
The Speaker: The gentleman has the right to look at it but he
does not have the right to read any of the names on the petition.
Communications from Senators
Sec. 83.2 It is not in order in debate for a Member to read a letter
from a member of the Senate.
On May 25, 1937,(13) while the Committee of the Whole
was considering House Joint Resolution 361, for relief appropriations,
Mr. Alfred F. Beiter, of New York, stated his intention to read from
letters he had from members of the Senate, stating their sympathy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 81 Cong. Rec. 5013, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman John J. O'Connor, of New York, made a point of order, on
his own responsibility, against ``the reading of a letter from a member
of another body.''
Reference to Senate Proceedings
Sec. 83.3 It has been held not in order to read the proceedings of the
Senate or the remarks of a Senator, whether printed in the
Congressional Record or reported elsewhere.
On May 11, 1932,(14) Mr. Fred A. Britten, of Illinois,
called the attention of the House to an extract from the Congressional
Record of Senate proceedings. Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, made the
point of order that it was a violation of the rules of the House to
refer to any proceedings of the Senate or any speeches made in the
Senate in House debate. Mr. Charles L. Underhill, of Massachusetts,
objected that ``there is no rule that prevents a Member from reading
from the Record any matter published therein.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 75 Cong. Rec. 10019, 72d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman Gordon Browning, of Tennessee, ruled that a Member of the
House could not in any way in debate on the floor of the House comment
on the actions, speeches, or proceedings of a Senator or of the Senate
itself. In response to a question by Mr. Underhill, the Chairman stated
that the rules also prohibited a Member from reading from the Record
matter published therein by the Senate.
Mr. Britten then attempted to quote from newspaper reports of
[[Page 11300]]
the Senate speech to which he had referred, and the Chairman ruled that
Mr. Britten could not refer to newspaper reports of Senate proceedings.
Additional debate on the subject occurred, and the Chairman
reiterated his ruling that under the rules a Member of the House could
not read extracts from the Congressional Record of Senate proceedings.
Mr. Britten entered an appeal from the decision of the Chair, but then
withdrew his appeal after the then Speaker of the House, Mr. William B.
Bankhead, of Alabama, took the floor to support the correctness of the
ruling of the Chair.
On Feb. 20, 1933,(15) Mr. Henry T. Rainey, of Illinois,
indicated his intention to quote from a speech made by a Senator in the
Senate and printed in the Congressional Record. Mr. John E. Rankin, of
Mississippi, made the point of order that Mr. Rainey could not so refer
to a member of the Senate. Speaker John N. Garner, of Texas, sustained
the point of or-der and ruled that ``A Member of the House could not
refer to a Senator and quote what he said.'' (16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 76 Cong. Rec. 4508, 72d Cong. 2d Sess.
16. For more detailed discussion of the prohibition against referring
in debate to the Senate or to individual Senators, see Sec. 44,
supra.
For Senate references to House proceedings, see Sec. 46,
supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Executive Session Committee Proceedings
Sec. 83.4 If a committee has not voted to make the proceedings of an
executive session public, it is not in order in debate to read or
quote from the minutes thereof.
On Apr. 5, 1967,(17) during debate on a resolution
funding the Committee on Science and Astronautics, Mr. Joe D.
Waggonner, Jr., of Louisiana, a member of the committee, began
referring to proceedings of the committee and quoting dialogue from a
session thereof. Mr. John W. Wydler, of New York, whose words were
being quoted, stated a point of order that quotation in debate of
minutes of an executive committee session was improper.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 113 Cong. Rec. 8411, 8412, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, ruled as follows:
The Chair would like to inquire of either the gentleman from
Louisiana or the gentleman from Texas whether the gentleman from
Louisiana is reading from the executive session record? . . .
Mr. [Olin E.] Teague of Texas: Mr. Speaker, it is my
remembrance that what he is quoting was what took place at an
executive session.
[[Page 11301]]
The Speaker: The Chair would like to make the further inquiry
as to whether or not the members in the executive session voted to
make public what took place in the executive session?
Mr. Teague of Texas: It is my memory that we did not vote on
that and it was not discussed.
The Speaker: The Chair would suggest to the gentleman from
Louisiana that he refrain from referring to what took place in the
executive session.
Papers Impugning Members
Sec. 83.5 It is not in order in debate to read papers impugning the
motives or attacking the personality of other Members.
On June 16, 1947,(18) Mr. Chet Holifield, of California,
read in the House a telegram from the Southern Conference on Human
Welfare. Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, made a point of order
against certain words in the telegram and demanded that they be taken
down: ``We completely repudiate the lies and half-truths of the report
that was issued and consider it un-American.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 93 Cong. Rec. 7065, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, ruled that the
words objected to, referring to the Committee on Un-American
Activities, were unparliamentary, since they ``reflect upon the
character and integrity of the membership of a committee.'' The words
were stricken by motion from the Congressional Record.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. For detailed discussion of improper references to other Members in
debate, see Sec. Sec. 53 et seq., supra.
Where a Member reads a paper by consent of the House, he is
not thereby entitled to read language which is in itself
disorderly. Such a reference is subject to the demand that
words in debate be taken down and is subject to a ruling by the
Speaker (see Sec. Sec. 61-66, supra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 83.6 Clause 1 of Rule XIV, requiring Members to ``avoid
personality'' during debate, prohibits references in debate to
newspaper accounts used in support of a Member's personal criticism
of a sitting Member in a way which would be unparliamentary if
uttered on the floor as the Member's own words; and the prohibition
against reading in debate of press accounts which are personally
critical of a sitting Member does not constitute ``censorship'' of
the press by the House, but rather is consistent with House rules
which preclude debate or insertions in the Record which engage in
``personality.''
[[Page 11302]]
On Feb. 25, 1985,(20) the following proceedings occurred
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 131 Cong. Rec. 3344-46, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (1) Un-der a previous order
of the House, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich) is
recognized for 60 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Sam B. Hall, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Newt] Gingrich [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, I am going to
insert in the Record today and read into the Record several
editorials, one from the Atlanta Journal and Constitution
yesterday, Sunday, February 24, and one this morning from the Wall
Street Journal, both of them talking about the tragic situation in
which the Democratic leadership has blocked Mr. McIntyre of Indiana
from being seated. . . .
Yet twice the House has voted to deny McIntyre the seat
while it investigates. . . .
The technicalities aside, the case is interesting for what
it says about the Congress. . . . In the second vote only five
Democrats dared abandon O'Neill and the leadership.
Georgia's Democrats went right along with the herd, in
defiance of basic decency. . . . A few Republicans near each
election try to remind voters that the Democrats' first vote
will be for O'Neill and that vote signals bondage. This year it
meant the abandonment of fairness. . . .
Ms. [Mary Rose] Oakar [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, parliamentary
inquiry. . . .
Mr. Gingrich: Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman has not asked me to
yield, and I was in fact making an inquiry myself to the Chair. I
was asking the Chair to rule in this sort of setting if one is
reporting to the House on the written opinion of a columnist in
which the columnist has said very strong things, is it appropriate
for the House to be informed of this and, if so, what is the
correct procedure?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The ruling of the Chair is that the
gentleman should not read into the Record things which would
clearly be outside the rules of this House. . . .
Mr. Gingrich: Let me continue to ask the Chair, because I am a
little confused, in other words, if a columnist writing in the
largest newspaper in the State of Georgia says very strong things
about his concern about the House's behavior, would the House in
effect censor a report of that concern?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: No; the House does not censor any
report of that kind. The gentleman does take the responsibility,
however, for words uttered on the floor, and he is certainly
capable of leaving out those items which he knows would be outside
the rules of this House. . . .
Mr. Gingrich: If I may continue a moment to ask the gentleman,
if we are in a situation where in the view of some people, such as
Mr. Williams of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, very strong
things are legitimately being said, and this is obviously his
viewpoint, what is the appropriate manner in which to report his
language to the House?
That is not me saying these things; he is saying these things.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman knows the rules of the
House, I am certain, and he can take
[[Page 11303]]
out or delete any thing that he knows would violate the rules of
this House if spoken from the floor.
Mr. Gingrich: Under the Rules of the House . . . if one were to
only utter the words on the floor that were appropriate, but were
to then insert the item in the Record, is the Record then edited by
the House? That is, if it was put in as an extension of remarks or
put in under general leave?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: As the gentleman knows, there are
precedents where a question of privilege can be raised about
certain things inserted in the Record, and those could be raised if
the gentleman attempts to insert them into the Record, or not. . .
.
As the gentleman knows, words spoken on the floor of the House
can be objected to.
The following exchange took place on Feb. 27, 1985: (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 131 Cong. Rec. 3902, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Thomas S.] Foley [of Washington]: . . . I came to the
floor [to] suggest that it is important that we have a balanced
opportunity to discuss these issues. . . . I simply think it is
important that we observe the rules of the House in the course of
debate, and I think the two gentlemen, Mr. Walker and Mr. Gingrich,
know that it is not permissible under long-standing rules of the
House and interpretations of the Parliamentarians . . . to read
into the Record statements that would be inappropriate if made by a
Member directly. . . .
I just wanted to make the point that these gentlemen in the
well and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Walker) know the
rules very well. They are very skilled at them and they know that
it is inappropriate to use a newspaper article, however widely
published, to violate the rules of the House.
Sec. 83.7 In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Chair indicated
that a question of the privileges of the House could be raised
against the insertion in the Record of a press account using
language personally offensive against a sitting Member, whether
uttered by a former Member or anyone else.
The proceedings of Feb. 25, 1985, relating to newspaper articles
sought to be inserted in the Record by Mr. Newton L. Gingrich, of
Georgia, are discussed in Sec. 83.6, supra.
CHAPTER 29
Consideration and Debate
J. READING PAPERS AND DISPLAYING EXHIBITS
Sec. 84. Use of Exhibits
Rule XXX, as amended in the 103d Congress,(3) states:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. House Rules and Manual Sec. 915 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When the use of any exhibit in debate is objected to by any
Member, it shall be determined without debate by a vote of the
House.
The use of exhibits in debate requires the consent of the House if
[[Page 11304]]
objection is made.(4) However, where Members supporting
certain legislation use relevant exhibits in debate for the information
of other Members, objection is rarely made to the
display.(5) But a Member may not have distributed on the
floor copies of a bill marked with his own interpretations of its
effect and support.(6) The Chair controls the positioning of
an exhibit in the well or along the side aisles, in order that his view
of the floor or the Members' view of the rostrum is not obstructed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. See Sec. Sec. 84.1, 84.2, infra; 8 Cannon's Precedents
Sec. Sec. 2452, 2453.
See also 118 Cong. Rec. 36133-38, 92d Cong. 2d Sess., Oct.
13, 1972 (Member exhibited several types of military bombs
during a ``special-order speech'' on the legality of the
Vietnam War).
5. See Sec. Sec. 84.4, 84.5, infra.
6. See Sec. 84.7, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In one instance, the Speaker ordered removed from the lobby a
placard posted by a Member which impugned the motives of
Members.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. See Sec. 84.6, infra. Since the placard contained language subject
to a point of order if stated in debate, the placard could not
have been read in debate by consent of the
House. -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Permission To Display Exhibit
Sec. 84.1 Where objection is raised against the use of exhibits in
debate, the question is put to a vote in the House or the Committee
of the Whole.
On June 21, 1937,(8) Mr. Maury Maverick, of Texas, made
a point of order against the display on the floor of the House of an
object by Mr. Robert F. Rich, of Pennsylvania. Speaker William B.
Bankhead, of Alabama, put the question on the display to the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 81 Cong. Rec. 6104, 6105, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Maverick: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the
gentleman has no right to display a liquor bottle in the House of
Representatives.
Mr. Rich: Mr. Speaker, this is Government rum, presented to me
by Secretary Ickes.
The Speaker: The gentleman will suspend. The gentleman from
Texas makes the point of order that the gentleman from Pennsylvania
has no right to exhibit the bottle without permission of the House.
The point of order is well taken. . . .
As many as are in favor of granting the gentleman from
Pennsylvania the right to exhibit the bottle which he now holds in
his hand will say ``aye'' and those opposed will say ``no.''
The vote was taken and the Speaker announced that the ayes have
it, and the permission is granted.
On Aug. 5, 1949,(9) the Chairman of the Committee of the
[[Page 11305]]
Whole, Howard W. Smith, of Virginia, put the question as to the display
of a chart to the Committee for a decision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 95 Cong. Rec. 10859, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Oren] Harris [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike
out the last word, and ask unanimous consent to proceed for five
additional minutes. . . .
Mr. [Eugene D.] O'Sullivan [of Nebraska]: Mr. Chairman, a point
of order.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. O'Sullivan: Mr. Chairman, is it in order for an exhibit to
be presented to the Committee of the Whole or to the House of
Representatives? As I read the rules it is not in order to do so,
unless the permission of the Committee of the Whole or of the House
is first obtained.
The Chairman: If the gentleman from Nebraska objects to the use
of the exhibit, the Chair will put the question to the Committee of
the Whole. Does the gentleman object?
Mr. O'Sullivan: I object, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: The question is: Shall the use of the exhibit be
permitted?
The question was agreed to.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See also 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 2452, 2453.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 84.2 A Member used an exhibit while engaged in debate in the
Committee of the Whole without objection.
On June 8, 1966,(11) while the Committee of the Whole
was considering H.R. 15202, to temporarily increase the public debt
limit, Mr. Wright Patman, of Texas, was characterizing the actions of
the banking industry in raising interest rates as ``a loaded dice
game.'' During his remarks, he displayed, without objection, a pair of
oversized dice. The following exchange occurred between Mr. Patman and
Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 112 Cong. Rec. 12574, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Gross: Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Patman: Yes, I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. Gross: Mr. Chairman, I just walked in. Is the gentleman
trying to convert the House Chamber into a gambling establishment
with those dice here?
Mr. Patman: No, I am trying to convert them against a gambling
establishment, that is, the Federal Reserve establishment. These
are Federal Reserve dice. If you roll them, they will roll 7 or 11
every time. Try them.
Use of Exhibits To Explain Legislation
Sec. 84.3 After objection was made, the Committee of the Whole voted to
permit a Member to display a chart in explanation of a legislative
proposition.
On Aug. 5, 1949,(12) when objection was made to a
request by a
[[Page 11306]]
Member to display a chart explaining the provisions of H.R. 1758,
amending the Natural Gas Act, the Committee of the Whole voted to
permit the exhibit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 95 Cong. Rec. 10859, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 84.4 The House by unanimous consent permitted the Committee on
Science and Astronautics to use models and exhibits in the
Committee of the Whole during debate on a bill.
On Aug. 1, 1963,(13) a unanimous-consent request was
granted for the Committee on Science and Astronautics to use exhibits
and models on the floor:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 109 Cong. Rec. 13853, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Olin E.] Teague of Texas: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that the committee may be permitted to use certain models
and exhibits on the floor this afternoon to better present the
information that we will try to present to the House.
There was no objection to the request.
During debate on the pending bill, H.R. 7500, to authorize
appropriations to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
members of the committee referred to the models and
exhibits.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See for example id. at p. 13876.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 84.5 In debating a bill or a special rule providing for its
consideration, Members may display charts without requesting
permission, where no objection is made to the display.
On Mar. 12, 1974,(15) the House was considering House
Resolution 963, providing for the consideration of H.R. 69, the
Elementary and Secondary Education Amendments of 1974. Mr. Peter A.
Peyser, of New York, referred to a chart which was being displayed
before the House and which continued to be displayed and referred to
after the resolution had been adopted and the Committee of the Whole
was conducting general debate on the bill. (The bill contained complex
funding formulas suited to graphic description.) (16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 120 Cong. Rec. 6269, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
16. Id. at p. 6279 (see the remarks of Mr. Carl D. Perkins [Ky.]).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Displays Impugning Members
Sec. 84.6 Under authority grant-ed him by House rule, the Speaker
ordered removed from the Speaker's lobby a placard posted by a
Member containing language which might have been ruled disorderly
had it been uttered on the House floor.
[[Page 11307]]
On June 5, 1930, the House discussed the action of the Speaker in
ordering removed from the Speaker's lobby placards posted by a Member
criticizing the action of House conferees on a particular bill (H.R.
2667, a tariff bill).(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 72 Cong. Rec. 10122, 10123, 71st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaker Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, stated that he ordered removed
the placard under his authority granted by Rule I clause 3, empowering
him to exercise control over the corridors and passages and
unappropriated rooms in the House side of the Capitol. The Speaker also
stated that ``the Chair was of the opinion that at least two of the
sentences in that document were sentences which, if pronounced on the
floor of the House, would have been subject to being taken down, and
were not in order, and, by analogy, the Chair thinks it is even more
improper to have such publications posted where no one can criticize
them.''
The Speaker read the following objectionable language of the
placard:
3. The House conferees, in violation of the gentleman's
agreement and in disregard of the positive mandate of the House,
voted lumber used by the farmers on the dutiable list and polls and
ties used by the public utilities on the free list.
4. The conferees are the servants of the House, not its
masters. Will the Members by their votes condone the violation of
the gentleman's agreement and the disregard of the positive mandate
of the House on the part of its conferees.
The Speaker stated that the truth or falsity of the document was
not material; he added that whether the document cast doubt upon the
worthiness of the motives of the conferees was relevant to his
decision.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Rule I clause 3, House Rules and Manual Sec. 623 (1995) provides:
``He [the Speaker] shall have general control, except as
provided by rule or law, of the Hall of the House, and of the
corridors and passages and the disposal of the unappropriated
rooms in that part of the Capitol assigned to the use of the
House, until further order.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distribution of Bills Edited With Interpretation
Sec. 84.7 It is not in order for a Member to have distributed on the
floor of the House copies of a bill marked with his own
interpretations of its provisions.
On Aug. 16, 1935,(19) Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of
Tennessee, ruled that a Member could not distribute in the Chamber
copies
[[Page 11308]]
of a bill marked with his own interpretation thereof, and instructed
the House pages not to distribute any such documents:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 79 Cong. Rec. 13433, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Claude A.] Fuller [of Arkansas]: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a
parliamentary inquiry. I just sent a page for the bill under
consideration, H.R. 9100, and received the copy which I have in my
hand. At the top of the bill, pasted onto it is a pink slip, and on
that pink slip in typewriting are the words:
Bituminous-coal bill as amended and reprinted--
controversial phases largely eliminated. Two-thirds of tonnage
output operators favor bill and more than 95 percent of labor.
My inquiry is to know whether it is proper for anybody to paste
such a thing as that on a document of the House and whether it is
proper for it to be circulated in the House. This is the first time
in my experience that I have ever seen any advertisement on an
official document or bill pending in the House. I rise for the
purpose of ascertaining how it came there and whether or not it is
proper to be on this bill.
The Speaker: The Chair has no information on the subject. Where
did the gentleman get his copy of the bill?
Mr. Fuller: From a page. I send this copy to the desk so that
the Speaker may examine it.
Mr. [J. Buell] Snyder [of Pennsylvania]: I can tell the
gentleman how that came there.
The Speaker: The gentleman may state.
Mr. Snyder: Mr. Speaker, I had so many of these bills sent to
my office, and with my secretarial help we wrote those words on
that pink slip and pasted the slip on the bill. That is how that
happens to be there. I sent copies of these bills with the slip on
them to those interested and sent some of them to the desk back
here, to be handed out upon request. It is altogether fitting and
proper that I should do so. . . .
The Speaker: The Chair knows of no rule or authority for
inserting a statement like that to which the gentleman has called
attention on a bill, and the Chair instructs the pages of the House
not to distribute any more bills carrying this sort of inscription
to Members on the floor of the House.
Proper Time To Use Displays
Sec. 84.8 The Member having the floor in Committee of the Whole may
display charts or exhibits by permission of the Committee, but if
objection is made, the question is put, without debate, as to
whether such Member should be permitted to use displays; but
exhibits are only to be displayed during the debate, and the Chair
can direct their removal when they are not being utilized.
On Sept. 20, 1977,(20) the following proceedings
occurred in the Committee of the Whole during consideration of H.R.
6796 (the
[[Page 11309]]
Energy Research and Development appropriations):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 123 Cong. Rec. 29927, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Olin E.] Teague [of Texas]: Madam Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: (1) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Barbara Jordan (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Teague: Madam Chairman, I am not going to have a lot to
say, but I do not care to have what I do have to say distracted by
a bunch of charts here. I think the gentleman from California
should not bring those in. I ask the Chair if that is not proper.
The Chairman: The Chair would advise the gentleman from Texas
that if he does object to the demonstrations or displays before the
committee, he may do so. If he does object, the Chair would then
put the question as to whether the Member having the floor should
be permitted to use displays.
Mr. Teague: Madam Chairman, I object to them until the
gentleman is ready to speak. Then, I will ask unanimous consent
that he be permitted to bring them in.
Mr. [George E.] Brown [Jr.] of California: Madam Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. Teague: I yield.
Mr. Brown of California: Madam Chairman, I want to do whatever
the chairman thinks is fair. I want to point out that these charts
were prepared for the purpose of assisting a number of speakers. We
would be happy to put them all together and have them brought out
one by one as the speakers prefer. I will not be able to use them,
but others will.
Mr. Teague: I think it is proper, as they come to the charts,
to use them. I will not object to that, but I do think that if
other people are making speeches, the charts should not be there.
Mr. Brown of California: I will be happy to accede to the
gentleman's objection.
The Chairman: That, the Chair thinks, resolves the question.
Sec. 84.9 While Members are permitted to use exhibits such as charts
during debate (subject to the permission of the House under Rule
XXX), the Speaker may under Rule I direct the removal of a chart
from the well if not being utilized during debate.
The following proceedings occurred in the House on Apr. 1, 1982:
(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 128 Cong. Rec. 6303, 6304, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Mr. Gregg asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute, and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. [Judd] Gregg [of New Hampshire]: Mr. Speaker, with the
Congress having allegedly been in session now for approximately 4
months and about to go on recess for the month of April, I felt
that we should review the ``report card'' of the liberal leadership
of this Congress. So it has been prepared here on this chart. . . .
The Speaker: (3) If there are no other Members who
will use the chart in the well at this time during 1-minute
speeches, it will be removed until such time as it is needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair recognized the Republican leader, the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Michel).
[[Page 11310]]
Sec. 84.10 The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may direct the
removal from the well of charts and other displays if not currently
being utilized in debate.
During consideration of the first concurrent resolution on the
budget for fiscal year 1983 (H. Con. Res. 345) in Committee of the
Whole on May 25, 1982,(4) the following proceedings
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 128 Cong. Rec. 11752, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Leon E.] Panetta [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I move to
strike the requisite number of words.
The Chairman: (5) The gentleman from California (Mr.
Panetta) is recognized, but first the charts will be removed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Panetta: Please, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Perhaps from the laughter, it might be worth
having the Chair remind the Members that charts are always brought
forward for a particular speaker. They are present entirely at the
sufferance of the Committee.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. See Sec. 84.9, supra, where the Speaker pursuant to his general
authority under Rule I, directed the removal from the well of a
chart that was not being utilized at the time. Under Rule XXX,
the House or Committee of the Whole controls the use of
displays during debate, upon the objection of any Member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Displays Should Not Detract From Good Order and Decorum
Sec. 84.11 Recognition is within the discretion of the Chair, who may
deny a Member recognition to speak under the ``one-minute rule'' in
order to uphold order and decorum in the House as required under
clause 2 of Rule I; thus, the Speaker inquired of a Member in the
well seeking recognition, as to his purpose in utilizing an object
for demonstration in debate, and then denied that Member
recognition pursuant to his authority under clause 2 of Rule XIV,
when he determined that the object might subject the House to
ridicule.
On Aug. 27, 1980,(7) the following proceedings occurred
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 126 Cong. Rec. 23456, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: (8) The Chair would ask the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) what he intends to do with the
doll. The Chair is not going to allow the Congress to be held up to
ridicule and will object to any such exhibit being used in debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [E. G.] Shuster [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, if I may
respond, I simply want to introduce this duck as
[[Page 11311]]
a symbol of the lameduck session that I want to speak to.
The Speaker: The Chair is of the opinion the Member would be
holding the House up to ridicule and would ask the gentleman to
make the speech without utilizing the apparatus or the doll or
anything of that nature.
Mr. Shuster: Mr. Speaker, this is certainly not the intention.
The Speaker: That is the way the Chair feels about it and the
Chair so rules.
(Mr. Shuster asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Parliamentarian's Note: The original transcript shows that the
Speaker first inquired as to Mr. Shuster's purpose and then denied him
recognition, and that Mr. Shuster was then recognized for one minute.
Thus, the Speaker was exercising his power of recognition, and was not
unilaterally preventing the use of a demonstration during debate, which
would be a matter to be determined by a vote of the House, under Rule
XXX.
Sec. 84.12 Where the Speaker, pursuant to his authority and
responsibility to preserve decorum in debate un-der clause 2 of
Rule I, had informally requested a Member not to wear a mask in
debate, that Member utilized the mask as a display while mentioning
the Speaker's admonition.
On Oct. 6, 1983,(9) during consideration of H.R. 3958
(water resources development appropriations for fiscal 1984) in the
House, the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 129 Cong. Rec. 27629, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike the requisite number of words.
(Mr. Conte asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. Conte: Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. I
was going to start out this debate today by wearing this pig mask
because I think it is the only way we can properly describe this
bill.
But I was asked by my dear friend the Speaker not to wear it,
and I am not going to put it on. But I wish I could wear it.
Because all this amendment would do is trim a little of the
fat. If this amendment is adopted it will not keep anyone from
bringing the bacon back home.
Parliamentarian's Note: The Speaker may deny recognition or
continued recognition when an improper display is utilized. A different
question would be raised by a Member's use of a politically provocative
display which is not inherently disruptive or demeaning. In such a case
the House, on objection of a Member, would decide the issue.
[[Page 11312]]
Sec. 84.13 The Speaker's responsibility under clause 2 of Rule I to
preserve decorum during debate in the House requires that he not
permit exhibits to be utilized in debate which would be demeaning
to the House, and the Chair may inquire as to the Member's
intentions before conferring recognition.
The following proceedings occurred in the House on Mar. 21, 1984:
(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 130 Cong. Rec. 6187, 6188, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: I ask unanimous
consent to proceed for 1 minute, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: (11) What has the gentleman got in his
hand?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, this is a demonstration of what I
have. I am not certain I am going to be able to use it under the
rules.
The Speaker: If the gentleman does not think so, why is he
trying?
Mr. Walker: I will explain that in my speech, but I certainly
would not want to violate the rules.
The Speaker: Without objection, the Speaker recognizes the
gentleman and will be watching carefully.
Mr. Walker: I thank the Speaker, and I know that the Speaker
always watches very carefully everything that I do. . . .
Mr. Speaker, we have to be amused by an article in this
morning's Washington Post, but I am pleased to see that two of my
distinguished colleagues have gone on record supporting one of the
major industries in my congressional district.
If we take everything they had to say, fold it between two
pieces of bread, slap on a little mustard, we have the biggest
bologna sandwich in history. The Lebanon bologna industry in my
district is going to be forever grateful.
Mr. Speaker, what I have here is a real live Lebanon bologna,
and I noticed in the rules, in reading the rules, that I probably
would not be able to show that. What we are allowed to show on this
floor is ``verbal bologna'' but not real bologna.
. . . Mr. Speaker, I did not violate the rules. I kept it in
the bag.
Parliamentarian's Note: Reference to certain debate in the House as
``baloney'' has never been ruled unparliamentary, but to characterize
all House debate as such might be ruled out as demeaning to the House.
Sec. 84.14 Prior to a special-order speech in which several Members
intended to use photographic exhibits of missing children, the
Chair reminded all Members to address the Chair and to avoid direct
references to the television audience.
On Apr. 2, 1985,(12) the Speaker Pro Tempore made an
announcement, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 131 Cong. Rec. 7221, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 11313]]
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (13) The Chair will ask
that all Members who wish to exhibit pictures to address the Chair
and avoid direct references to the television audience.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Kenneth J. Gray (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Edwards) is recognized for 60 minutes.
Mr. [Mickey] Edwards of Oklahoma: Mr. Speaker, last summer I
began a project to use the televised proceedings of the House of
Representatives to help find some of the 160,000 children who each
year are reported kidnaped either by strangers or by a parent who
does not have custody.
Sec. 84.15 During a special-order speech, a Member on one occasion
utilized cartoon caricatures as an exhibit to ridicule the
Administration, particularly statements made by the Secretary of
the Interior.
The following proceedings occurred in the House on June 2,
1987,(14) during the period designated for special-order
speeches:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 133 Cong. Rec. 14255, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (15) Under a previous order
of the House,
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Scheuer] is recognized for 60
minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. James A. Hayes (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mrs. [Patricia] Schroeder [of Colorado]: Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. [James H.] Scheuer [of New York]: Of course, I would be
happy to yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado.
Mrs. Schroeder: Mr. Speaker, I would like the gentleman to
explain some of the [exhibits] that the gentleman has down there. I
can tell the gentleman from New York has worked very hard on this.
I take it that right beside the gentleman he has these [figures
of] cats wearing hats and glasses and then the fish. The gentleman
does not have a hat on the fish, but my understanding is that it is
just as dangerous to the fish.
Mr. Scheuer: There is a hat on the fish, but it is a plastic
hat and it sticks very close to its scales.
Mrs. Schroeder: Oh, I see. So the gentleman is pointing out
that the first thing we would have to do is start catching all
these animals. . . .
Parliamentarian's Note: The display of exhibits in debate is always
subject to the will of the House and any Member may object by
requesting the Chair to put the question of propriety to the House. In
particular instances, a question may arise as to whether the Chair
should take the initiative and deny recognition for breaches of
decorum.(16) The exhibit here consisted of large photographs
of animals dressed up in sunglasses, straw hats, and the like, and was
intended to ridicule a statement by the Secretary of the Interior that
depletion of the
[[Page 11314]]
ozone layer could be countered by such protective devices. Especially
since it was probably aimed at the television audience during special
orders, it was arguably such breach of decorum as the Chair has the
authority under Rule I, clause 2, to prevent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2452.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 84.16 In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Chair rendered
an anticipatory ruling that he would utilize his authority under
Rule I, clause 2, to prevent the display of exhibits in the Chamber
during debate which might disrupt order or impair decorum in the
Chamber, without ruling that the exhibits were necessarily obscene
or offensive.
On Sept. 13, 1989,(17) it was demonstrated that the
Chair may in his discretion make an anticipatory ruling that the
exhibition of certain materials during debate should be precluded as
disruptive of decorum. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 135 Cong. Rec. 20362, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (18) The gentleman will
state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, we are
in the process of discussing certain artworks which have been paid
for by taxpayers' money. What would be the ruling of the Chair
should those particular artworks be brought on the floor for
display as a part of the debate? Can the Chair tell me that?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would respond that it would
be the intention of the Chair under rule I to prevent any activity
which would disrupt the decorum of the Chamber and he would rule
such action to be a disruption of the proper decorum of the
Chamber.
Mr. Walker: I have a further parliamentary inquiry, Mr.
Speaker.
So, in other words, the material that we are talking about is
so bad that it would disrupt the decorum of the House if this were
displayed and so, therefore, the Chair would have to rule against
that display, is that correct?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would rule as the Chair has
already stated.
Various Types of Displays
Sec. 84.17 On one occasion, a Member utilized dismantled weapons as an
exhibit during debate.
The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on
Apr. 23, 1985,(19) during consideration of House Joint
Resolution 239 (appropriations for aid to Nicaragua):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 131 Cong. Rec. 9024, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Newt] Gingrich [of Georgia]: . . . I want to specifically
pick up on
[[Page 11315]]
the arguments of an earlier speaker, the gentleman from Arkansas,
who in a sense was asking what are these votes in Nicaragua really
all about.
There are a number of ostrich Democrats who would have us
believe
that there is no danger from Nicaragua. . . .
Let me offer the physical proof of the Soviet-Cuban-Nicaraguan
Communist offensive in El Salvador and Honduras. Let me say in
advance to my colleagues, these exhibits are all harmless but they
have been harmful. These
exhibits are authenticated captured weapons from El Salvador. They
are on loan from the El Salvadoran Government to the U.S. Defense
Department. They have been dismantled. They meet every kind of rule
of safety.
Parliamentarian's Note: Under Rule XXX, the Committee of the Whole
or the House may, on demand of any Member, vote to permit a Member to
utilize an exhibit during debate. In this instance, the Speaker had
denied use of the Speaker's Lobby for the exhibition of the dismantled
weapons, in accordance with his consistent policy; the Speaker could
have precluded their display during debate in order to preserve decorum
if he believed the display to pose a problem.
--Badges as Exhibits
Sec. 84.18 Clause 1 of Rule XIV, requiring Members desiring to ``speak
or deliver any matter to the House'' to rise and address the
Speaker to be recognized, proscribes, in effect, the wearing of
badges by Members to communicate messages; thus, the Speaker,
exercising his authority to preserve order and decorum, has advised
Members that the wearing of badges is inappropriate under the rules
of the House.
The following statement was made by the Speaker (20)
during proceedings on Apr. 15, 1986: (1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
1. k132 Cong. Rec. 7525, 99th Cong. 2d
Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Members wearing yellow badges should be advised that they
are inappropriate under the rules of the House.
The badges in question urged support of military assistance to the
Nicaraguan Contras. In recent years, some Members and staff have worn
various badges on the floor to convey political messages to their
colleagues and to the TV audience. Under the definition of decorum and
debate in clause 1 of Rule XIV, a Member must first seek recognition
and then speak his message, or use exhibits as provided in Rule XXX
subject to approval of the House if objection is made.
[[Page 11316]]
CHAPTER 29
Consideration and Debate
K. SECRET SESSIONS
Sec. 85. In General
Secret sessions of the House, while authorized by Rule XXIX, are
rarely invoked in current practice. Such sessions have been utilized
where Members wished to refer to or utilize classified national
security information or intelligence-related information in debate.
Rule XXIX permits a motion that the House hold a secret session.
The motion is in order if
the Speaker determines that the Member making it qualifies--that the
Member has information of a secret nature which he wishes to impart to
his colleagues in the House.
The motion is not debatable, is not in order in Committee of the
Whole, and if agreed to, requires the House to undertake certain
procedures--the clearing of the galleries, closing down the televised
and broadcast coverage of the proceedings, insuring the secrecy of the
proceedings--before commencing the debate. The vote on the motion for a
secret session is subject to a rollcall vote but is not required by the
rule.
Standing committees of the House are permitted to hold executive
sessions pursuant to Rule XI, clauses 2(g) and 2(k) where national
security matter is under discussion or where evidence or testimony is
being elicited which is potentially incriminating or defamatory. The
Select Committee on Intelligence has specific procedures for closing
sessions, which are set forth in Rule XLVIII. Conference committees may
meet behind closed doors pursuant to Rule XXVIII, but a vote of the
House is required to permit House managers at a conference to invoke or
agree to this procedure. A motion that a conference committee meeting
be closed to the public, privileged under Rule XXVIII, clause 6(a), is
debatable under the hour
rule. -------------------
Recognition To Move for Secret Session
Sec. 85.1 The Speaker has declined to recognize a Member to move
pursuant to Rule XXIX that the House resolve itself into a secret
session where the motion had not been reduced to writing; and a
Member who has been recognized for five minutes where the House is
proceeding in the House as in the Committee of the Whole, and who
is declined recogni
[[Page 11317]]
tion to offer a motion during such five minutes, is entitled to use
or to yield the remainder of his time.
On Mar. 30, 1977,(2) the following proceedings occurred
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 123 Cong. Rec. 9576, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I move to
strike the last word. . . .
Mr. Speaker, I would move, under the terms of rule XXIX of the
House of Representatives, that we resolve ourselves into a secret
session, that we exclude the press and the people in the galleries,
and that we be permitted, as Members of the House who have to vote
on this, to know what this secret information is that they will not
reveal to us here in public on the floor today. . . .
The Speaker: (3) Is the gentleman's motion in
writing?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Bauman: The gentleman would be glad to reduce it to
writing.
The Speaker: In the meantime the Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Stokes).
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman from Maryland still
have time?
The Speaker: Yes.
Mr. Bauman: That being the case, the gentleman from Maryland,
Mr. Speaker, would like to say----
The Speaker: The Chair has recognized the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. Bauman: Does the gentleman from Maryland still have time
remaining in his 5 minutes? . . .
The Speaker: The answer is in the affirmative. The gentleman
has time in which to write out his motion.
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I asked whether I had time to speak.
The Speaker: The Chair begs the gentleman's pardon. The
gentleman has time remaining.
Mr. Bauman: The gentleman is going to use his time, Mr.
Speaker, with the sufferance of the Speaker of the House.
The Speaker: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. Bauman).
Secret Session Requires Preparation
Sec. 85.2 Pending a vote on a
motion that the House resolve itself into secret session pursuant
to Rule XXIX, the Speaker announced that should the motion be
adopted, a motion to adjourn would be entertained due to the
announced schedule and due to the elaborate precautions and
arrangements necessary for a secret session.
The proceedings of the House on Mar. 30, 1977,(4)
relating to the motion described above were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 123 Cong. Rec. 9576, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: I renew my motion.
[[Page 11318]]
The Speaker: (5) The Chair hears the gentleman from
Maryland and the Clerk will read the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
motion offered by mr. bauman
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Bauman moves under rule XXIX that the House resolve
itself into secret session.
The Speaker: The Chair would like to make the following
statement:
There has been a motion made by the gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. Bauman). If the motion would prevail, in view of the fact that
the Chair has said at an earlier date yesterday that we would be
through at 5:30 this afternoon, and in view of the precautions that
must be taken, the clearing of the galleries, the clearing of the
Press Galleries, the proper placement of officers and employees
that are necessary in order to protect the House of
Representatives, that should the motion prevail that then a motion
would be entertained to adjourn the House until 11 o'clock a.m.
tomorrow.
The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Bauman).
The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr.
Bauman) there were--ayes 76, noes 97.
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered. . . .
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas
185, nays 226, not voting 21. . . .
Motion for Secret Session Rejected
Sec. 85.3 On one occasion, the Speaker entertained a motion under Rule
XXIX that the House resolve itself into secret session, although
made by a Member who did not assert that he had a secret
communication to make to the House, where no point of order was
raised that the Member making the motion was merely soliciting such
information from the chairman of the Select Committee on
Intelligence, who did not himself wish to communicate it to the
House; the House rejected the motion that the House resolve itself
into a secret session.
During the proceedings of the House on Mar. 30, 1977,(6)
the situation described above developed as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 123 Cong. Rec. 9575, 9576, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I move to
strike the last word. . . .
If, indeed, Mr. Speaker, the members of this committee have
this information which they feel would warrant the continuation,
they have the duty to reveal that to the House now.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would move, under the terms of rule
XXIX of
[[Page 11319]]
the House of Representatives, that we resolve ourselves into a
secret session, that we exclude the press and the people in the
galleries, and that we be permitted, as Members of the House who
have to vote on this, to know what this secret information is that
they will not reveal to us here in public on the floor today. . . .
The Speaker: (7) The Chair [asks] the gentleman from
Maryland whether he will yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Stokes), the chairman of the committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Bauman: Yes, I will yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. [Louis] Stokes [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I thank the
gentleman for yielding.
In reply to the Speaker's question, this committee did consider
undertaking a secret, private briefing of the House.
After a great deal of deliberation as to the unwieldy aspects
of being able to contain highly sensitive materials and
communications, this committee decided that it would be too
unwieldy a procedure and would, in all probability redound against
the committee, and we decided against such action at that time.
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, let me say that this Member was not
invited to any secret briefing. There was a secret meeting held
with the select committee and the Committee on Rules with no notice
at all given in an effort to get them to get this resolution to the
floor. But if there are secrets, we all should be told. . . .
I renew my motion. . . .
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Bauman moves under rule XXIX that the House resolve
itself into secret session.
The Speaker:. . .The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman).
The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr.
Bauman) there were--ayes 76, noes 97.
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered. . . .
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas
185, nays 226, not voting 21. . . .
Motion Must Be Made in House Not in Committee of the Whole
Sec. 85.4 The House and not the Committee of the Whole decides whether
the Committee may sit in executive session; and a parliamentary
inquiry concerning the procedures whereby the House may act on a
request for such a session should be addressed to the Speaker and
not the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole.
On May 9, 1950,(8) Chairman Michael J. Mansfield, of
Montana, responded to a parliamentary inquiry relating to the procedure
for
[[Page 11320]]
holding an executive session as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 96 Cong. Rec. 6746, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Errett P.] Scrivner [of Kansas]: Mr. Chairman, I move to
strike out the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I would submit a parliamentary inquiry as to
whether or not an executive session could be held and, if so, what
procedure would be necessary to bring that to pass before we are
asked to vote upon the $350,000,000 additional.
The Chairman: The Chair will state to the gentleman from Kansas
that the Committee of the Whole would have no control over that.
That would be a matter for the House itself to decide.
Mr. Scrivner: I understand that, of course, and raised the
question for information of the Members. Since it is a matter for
the House to determine, as a further parliamentary inquiry, what
would be the method followed to take that action?
The Chairman: The Chair will say to the gentleman from Kansas
that a parliamentary inquiry of that sort should be addressed to
the Speaker rather than the chairman.
Parliamentarian's Note: Where a Member in Committee of the Whole
raises a question as to whether the House might sit in executive
session, the Chair will entertain a motion that the Committee rise. A
resolution would then be offered in the House providing that ``during
further consideration of the bill, the Committee would be cleared of
all persons except Members and authorized officers and employees and
all proceedings of the Committee would be kept secret until otherwise
ordered by the House. After a determination as to those employees
deemed essential to the proceedings, the Speaker at the appropriate
time would issue a statement for purposes of clearing the galleries and
locking the doors.
Sec. 85.5 Under Rule XXIX, providing for secret sessions of the House,
a motion to go into secret session may be made only in the House
and not in the Committee of the Whole, and the Member making the
motion must qualify by asserting that he himself has a secret
communication to make to the House.
During the proceedings of the House on June 6, 1978,(9)
Speaker Pro Tempore Abner J. Mikva, of Illinois, responded to a
parliamentary inquiry as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 124 Cong. Rec. 16376, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Fortney H.] Stark [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Stark: Mr. Speaker, is a motion for the House to go into
executive session in order at any time?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: It is not in order in the Committee of
the
[[Page 11321]]
Whole, the Chair will inform the gentleman.
Mr. Stark: It is in order in the full House, is it?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will read the rule. It reads
as follows:
Rule XXIX
secret session
Whenever confidential communications are received from the
President of the United States, or whenever the Speaker or any
Member shall inform the House that he has communications which
he believes ought to be kept secret for the present, the House
shall be cleared of all persons except the Members and officers
thereof, and so continue during the reading of such
communications, the debates and proceedings thereon, unless
otherwise ordered by the House.
The Chair will emphasize that the rule requires that a Member
assert that he himself has a secret communication to make for his
motion to be in order.
Parliamentarian's Note: Pending was a special rule providing for
consideration of H.R. 12240, the intelligence authorizations bill. H.R.
12240 authorized appropriations for intelligence activities of the
United States government, not in a specified amount but rather by
incorporating figures contained in a classified annex to the committee
report. The report on the bill contained no cost estimate as to the
authorization but referred to the figures contained in the classified
annex available only to Members as designated. No waiver of the cost-
estimate rule was necessary to allow consideration of the bill, since
Rule XLVIII authorizes and directs the Select Committee on Intelligence
to keep secret classified information obtained from the executive
branch unless otherwise authorized by the House. (Rule XLVIII, being a
more specific and more recently adopted rule, renders Rule XIII clause
7 inapplicable.) The Committee on Armed Services, in Part II of the
report, merely incorporated by reference the Intelligence Committee
estimate contained in the secret annex.
H.R. 12240 stated in part: (10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 124 Cong. Rec. 16386, 95th Cong. 2d Sess., June 6, 1978.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may
be cited as the ``Intelligence and Intelligence-Related Program
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1979''.
TITLE I--INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES
Sec. 101. (a) Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated
for fiscal year 1979 for the conduct of the intelligence and
intelligence-related activities of the following departments,
agencies, and other elements of the United States Government:
(1) The Central Intelligence Agency and the Director of Central
Intelligence.
[[Page 11322]]
(2) The Department of Defense. . . .
(b) A classified annex to the report prepared by the Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives to
accompany this Act shall be deemed to reflect the final action of
the Congress with respect to the authorization of funds for fiscal
year 1979 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of
the United States Government, including specific amounts for
activities specified in subsection (a).
Sec. 85.6 Upon the conclusion of general debate on a bill in Committee
of the Whole, a Member offered a pro forma amendment to announce
that he would at the conclusion of his remarks move that the
Committee rise, and then offer in the House a motion, pursuant to
Rule XXIX, that the House resolve itself into secret session to
discuss confidential communications related to the bill under
consideration in Committee of the Whole.
On June 20, 1979,(11) during consideration of the Panama
Canal Act of 1979 (H.R. 111) in the Committee of the Whole, Mr. Robert
E. Bauman, of Maryland, after being recognized for a motion to strike
the last word, made an announcement as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 125 Cong. Rec. 15710, 15711, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration
of the bill (H.R. 111) to provide for the operation and maintenance
of the Panama Canal and to provide for the exercise of the rights
and performance of the duties of the United States provided in the
Panama Canal Treaty of 1977, with Mr. Foley in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Chairman: (12) When the Committee rose on
Monday, May 21, 1979, all time for general debate had expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Thomas S. Foley (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a
substitute recommended by the Committee on Merchant Marine and
Fisheries now printed in the reported bill shall be considered by
title as an original bill for the purpose of amendment, and each
title shall be considered as having been read. . . .
The Clerk will designate section 1.
Section 1 reads as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
Section 1. Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the
``Panama Canal Act of 1979''.
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I take this time to inform the Committee of the
Whole House that it will be my intention at the conclusion of the
brief time that I
[[Page 11323]]
will take here, to move that the Committee rise, and, assuming that
is agreed to, I will move, under rule XXIX of the House, that the
House meet in secret session.
I understand from the Parliamentarian that passage of the
motion would allow us 1 hour of debate to be divided between the
gentleman from New York and myself, during which time all of us,
and I have discussed this with the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Murphy), as well as with the chairman of the subcommittee, the
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Hubbard), would be able to present to
the House certain facts which we are not able to communicate to the
House in public because of the classified nature and the source of
the information.
Motion for Secret Session Not Debatable
Sec. 85.7 A motion that the House resolve itself into secret session
must be made in the House and not in Committee of the Whole and is
not debatable; in the 96th Congress, the House adopted by voice
vote a motion that the House resolve itself into secret session
pursuant to Rule XXIX (the first such occasion since 1830) where
the Member offering the motion had ensured the Speaker that he had
confidential communications to make to the House as required by
that rule.
On June 20, 1979,(13) Mr.
Robert E. Bauman, of Maryland, having informed the Committee of the
Whole of his intention to make a motion under Rule XXIX in the House,
made the motion as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 125 Cong. Rec. 15711, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Bauman moves that, pursuant to rule XXIX, the House
resolve itself into secret session. That the galleries of the
House Chamber be cleared of all persons and that the House
Chamber be cleared of all persons except the Members of the
House and those officers and employees specified by the Speaker
whose attendance on the floor is essential to the functioning
of the House and who subscribe to the notarized oath of
confidentiality.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (14) The Chair will state
that the motion is not debatable. Absent unanimous consent to
debate the motion, the question will be put upon the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Bauman).
The motion was agreed to.
Clearing Galleries and Limiting Floor Access
Sec. 85.8 The Speaker Pro Tempore announced, after the House had
adopted a motion
[[Page 11324]]
to resolve itself into secret session and before the secret session
commenced, that the galleries would be cleared of all persons, that
the Chamber would be cleared of all persons except Members and
those officers and employees specified by the Speaker whose
attendance on the floor was essential to the functioning of the
secret session, and that all proceedings in the secret session must
be kept secret until otherwise ordered by the House.
On June 20, 1979,(15) the House adopted by voice vote a
motion that the House resolve itself into secret session pursuant to
Rule XXIX (the first such occasion since 1830) where the Member
offering the motion had ensured the Speaker that he had confidential
communications to make to the House as required by that rule. The
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 125 Cong. Rec. 15711-13, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Bauman moves that, pursuant to rule XXIX, the House
resolve itself into secret session. . . .
The motion was agreed to.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (16) The Chair will make a
statement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair desires to read to the Members the contents of rule
XXIX of the rules of the House of Representatives.
Rule XXIX reads as follows:
Rule XXIX
secret session
Whenever confidential communications are received from the
President of the United States, or whenever the Speaker or any
Member shall inform the House that he has communications which
he believes ought to be kept secret for the present, the House
shall be cleared of all persons except the Members and officers
thereof, and so continue during the reading of such
communications, the debates and proceedings thereon,
unless otherwise ordered by the House. . . .
According to the rule of the House, the Chair is now going to
order that the galleries of the House Chamber shall be cleared of
all persons and the House Chamber shall be cleared of all persons
except the Members of the House and those officers and employees
specified by the Speaker whose attendance on the floor is essential
to the functioning of the secret session of the House. All
proceedings in the House during such consideration shall be kept
secret until otherwise ordered by the House.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. For further discussion of the Speaker's directions to officers and
employees on this date, see Sec. 85.12, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair is going to declare a recess long enough for this
order to be carried out.
Parliamentarian's Note: A list of the employees signing the oath of
[[Page 11325]]
secrecy and present in the secret session was compiled and retained by
the Journal Clerk.
It would have been appropriate to require a rollcall vote on
resolving into secret session (since executive sessions of committees
require a rollcall vote).
Guidelines for Conducting Secret Session
Sec. 85.9 After a motion that the House resolve itself into secret
session has been agreed to, the Chair may explain the operation of
the rule and respond to parliamentary inquiries before the secret
session commences; on one such occasion, before declaring a recess
in order to clear the Chamber and galleries for a secret session of
the House, the Speaker Pro Tempore stated in response to
parliamentary inquiries that (1) the proceedings of the House in
secret session would not be recorded by the television system; (2)
after the presentation of the material considered confidential in
secret session, the House could vote in secret session to remove
the injunction of secrecy from the proceedings; (3) the material to
be presented in the secret session was not required by Rule XXIX or
the precedents relating thereto to be relevant to any particular
legislation; (4) the Speaker had afforded the officers of the House
with guidelines as to which employees were to be considered
essential to the functioning of the secret session, but that during
the session only those employees so designated and sworn could
enter the Chamber; (5) Members could come and go at will during the
session; (6) Members would be prohibited from divulging information
presented in the secret session without the consent of the House;
(7) a record
of attendance of Members would not be kept, except through a call
of the House, since Members were expected to be trusted with honor
and integrity; (8) members of committees which might be meeting
(having
received permission to sit under the five-minute rule and perhaps
under the impression that the House was proceeding in Committee of
the Whole) would be sufficiently notified of the secret session by
the bells and lights indicating a recess
[[Page 11326]]
and the reconvening of the House; (9) the admitted House employees
(but not Members) must sign an oath to preserve inviolable secrecy
(similar to the Senate oath for secret sessions), violation of
which was punishable by the House, but that statutes applying
exclusively to the executive branch, requiring appropriate
clearances to receive information classified by the executive
branch, did not apply to Members of Congress and only to employees
of the legislative branch where such statutes were generally
applicable beyond the executive branch; and (10) no rule of the
House required clearance of House Members or employees under
procedures applied by the executive branch for access to classified
information, but that Members and employees of the House were
subject to standards of conduct and disciplinary procedures under
House rules.
On June 20, 1979,(18) during consideration of the Panama
Canal Act of 1979 (H.R. 111), the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 125 Cong. Rec. 15711-13, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Bauman moves that, pursuant to rule XXIX, the House
resolve itself into secret session. . . .
The motion was agreed to. . . .
Mr. [Jack] Hightower [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (19) The gentleman will
state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hightower: What will be the action of the Chair in regard
to the television proceedings?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The television will not be recording
the proceedings of the House during the time of the secret session.
Ms. [Elizabeth] Holtzman [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentlewoman will state it.
Ms. Holtzman: In the Chair's reading of his order and reading
the rule he mentioned that the House can order otherwise with
respect to the secrecy of the proceedings. Is it my understanding
then that should, during the debate or after the debate, the
Members of the House determine that the material was not, in fact,
confidential, is it then in order, or when is it in order, assuming
that to be the case, for the proceedings to be then made public or
the Journal kept of the debate then made public?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The precedents which the Chair has
read
[[Page 11327]]
this morning indicate that following the presentation of that
material considered secret or confidential or of such nature that
it ought to be heard in secret session, the House may at that time,
by its own motion, in secret session decide that there is no reason
to observe further secrecy with respect to the material involved.
Having heard the material and determined the nature thereof, it
will be up to the Members of the House as to whether they would
observe additional and future secrecy with respect thereto.
Ms. Holtzman: I thank the Speaker.
Mr. [Edward J.] Derwinski [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Derwinski: The Chair did not address himself to the
question of the relevancy of the material to the legislation before
the House. What is the determination or the precedents involved
regarding the relevancy of presumed secret testimony to the
legislative matter before us?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that there is no
requirement whatsoever in the precedents of the House, such
materials having been received, that the material be relevant to
any legislation, since the rule would include messages from the
President of the United States that bear upon no pending
legislation. It is not the opinion of the Chair that the material
to be revealed in this session necessarily has any bearing whatever
upon the legislation which otherwise would have been under
consideration in the Committee of the Whole. It simply is a
recognition of the right of the gentleman from Maryland and other
Members present at the secret session to divulge such information
as they desire to our colleagues, the Members of the House. The
Members have voted to grant them that privilege. It does not
necessarily bear in any way tangentially or otherwise upon the
legislation previously before the House or any other legislation.
Mr. Derwinski: I thank the Speaker.
Mr. [Frank] Horton [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Horton: The Chair announced that Members of the House are
permitted to be present and also officers to be designated by the
Speaker. Will the Speaker specifically designate those employees to
remain on the floor?
The second inquiry is with regard to access to the floor. What
about going and coming on the floor, will the doors be manned in
order to prevent unauthorized persons from entering the Chamber?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will attempt to answer both
questions.
First, with respect to those official staff persons whose
presence on the floor of the House is essential to the operation of
the House, the Chair already has, pursuant to authority conferred
upon him in the motion, delivered to the officers of the House
sufficient guidelines with regard to that question.
On the second question, with respect to the rights of Members
to go and
[[Page 11328]]
come, that question should be answered in the affirmative. Members
may go and come at will.
Mr. Horton: What about others? They would have to be cleared
before they could come in, other than Members?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct. Others would
have to be designated and sworn before they could enter the
Chamber.
Mr. [Paul N.] McCloskey [Jr., of California]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. McCloskey: Mr. Speaker, I understand that we will receive
in this Chamber information that will be labeled either
``confidential'' or ``secret'' or ``top secret'' under any
Executive order which applies only to members of the executive
branch. Therefore, it would not be a crime, for example, for a
Member of this body to reveal information classified in the
executive branch unless it came under the statute.
I am wondering what would be the rules of the House with
respect to a Member of this body who might, after hearing in this
secret session information perhaps classified ``secret'' or ``top
secret'' if that Member should, following this session, divulge
that information to the press or to third persons not authorized to
receive that information. It seems to me that under the rules of
the House we would violate those rules as individual Members should
we reveal classified information.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair feels that the same rule
should prevail which prevails in executive sessions of committees
of the House. The Chair does not wish to prejudge the nature or the
import of the information to be revealed because the Chair is not
privy to that knowledge.
The Chair believes that the Members of the House possess
sufficient honor that they will do the right thing in determining,
after having heard the information, whether or not its sanctity
should be preserved or it should be revealed at the will of the
Members. The Chair trusts the Members of the House to make the
right decision.
Mr. McCloskey: I thank the Chair.
Mr. [Robert N.] Giaimo [of Connecticut]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Giaimo: Mr. Speaker, under those circumstances should not
attendance be kept as to whether or not a Member actually is in the
Chamber or not, because there are some of us--and I feel very
strongly about this kind of session because I have found out in the
past through experience that I usually learn just as much outside a
secret session as I do in it, and the information, if I find out
the information outside of this session--I do not want to be gagged
by the fact that I may or may not have been in this session at the
time. It seems to me that the Chair ought to have attendance of
Members.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would observe that the
gentleman from Connecticut or any other Member might have the
privilege, if he or she so desires, to move a call of the House,
and thereby could ascertain the presence of Members. Beyond that,
the
[[Page 11329]]
Chair is not of the disposition to impose upon the Members of the
House any rule beyond those rules which are expressly written in
the rules of the House. The Chair is of the disposition to trust
implicitly the honor and the integrity of the Members of the U.S.
House of Representatives.
Mr. [Carroll] Campbell [Jr., of South Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that a number of
the committees have received permission to sit under the 5-minute
rule, I wonder if the Chair is taking steps to notify these
committees of the pending proceedings.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will respond, as the
gentleman would understand, of course, that we are not now under
the 5-minute rule and will not be proceeding under the 5-minute
rule after we resume following the recess which the Chair will very
presently declare.
The Chair would presume that the bells signaling the recess and
the bells signaling the resumption of the convening of the House
would be sufficient notice to warrant knowledge on the part of
those who might be in committee sessions or elsewhere on Capitol
Hill.
Mr. Campbell: I thank the Chair.
Mr. [Bill D.] Burlison [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Burlison: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding from the
conversation I have heard thus far that there will be classified
information presented to the body; confidential, secret, top
secret. Is that a fair statement?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: In response to the gentleman's
question, the Chair is not in a position to characterize the
nature, the character, the quality, or the veracity of the
information which will be divulged. The Chair is not privy to that
knowledge.
Mr. Burlison: A further parliamentary inquiry: Do the rules of
the House not require that in those instances where classified
material is to be received, that the reporters and the staff
members and the officers of the House who may be present other than
Members of the House be cleared for that classified information?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is going to read to the
gentleman an oath which employees and officers of the House are
required to sign:
I do solemnly swear that I will preserve inviolable secrecy
on all confidential business of the House of Representatives
that may come to my knowledge until especially absolved
therefrom, so help me God.
Every employee and officer of the House will be expected to
sign this oath if permitted to be privy to the session. Members of
the House will not be requested nor required to sign such an oath.
Mr. Burlison: Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary inquiry is whether
the rules of the House require, in such a session, that the
reporters and the staff members and others have the requisite
clearances to be present and to conduct the business.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will respond to the
gentleman's
[[Page 11330]]
request in the following manner: Members of the U.S. House of
Representatives are not members of the executive branch of
Government, who may be bound by laws exclusively applicable to
members of the executive branch of Government.
The Chair will state again that Members of the House, after
hearing the nature of this information, whatever it may be, must
judge on their own or as ordered by the House as to whether it is
of sufficient import or secret in character to require continued
silence. On previous occasions, the Chair discovers on reading the
precedents, Members of the House, having heard information thus
divulged, usually have voted to allow that information to become
known publicly.
Mr. Burlison: Is the Speaker saying that the rules of the House
do not require that the staff, House officers, and others be
cleared to receive the information? My parliamentary inquiry is
whether there is such a House rule.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: There is no such House rule, the Chair
will respond.
Mr. [Thomas J.] Downey [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Downey: Mr. Speaker, if I understand the ruling of the
Chair then, the employees of the House of Representatives coming
into the session will be privy to receive information secret, top
secret, classified, that is so designated by U.S. statute. What
concerns me, Mr. Speaker, is that we have no rule governing
classification of House employees with respect to the receiving of
secret information. That is not a rule just of the executive
branch; that is United States statutory law with respect to who can
receive and under what circumstances classified, secret, and top
secret information.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The employees of the House, the Chair
will advise the gentleman, are subject to applicable provisions of
law and to the disciplinary action of the House, and the special
rule for them requires that secrecy of the proceedings be
maintained until absolved from that responsibility by the House.
The Members of the House, in context, are also subject to the
disciplinary rules of the House with respect to the Standards of
Official Conduct Committee and under the Constitution.
Transcript of Proceedings Remains Secret Until Otherwise Ordered
Sec. 85.10 The Speaker declared a recess in order to make preparations
for a secret session of the House and at the conclusion of the
recess the House resolved itself into secret session (the
proceedings of which were not printed in the Congressional Record
of this date, since the House refused in secret session to
remove the injunction of secrecy); when the House had concluded the
secret session, having voted not to release the transcripts of that
session, the Speaker declared
[[Page 11331]]
that the injunction of secrecy remained and that he would refer the
transcripts to the appropriate committees for their evaluation and
ask them to report to the House as to the ultimate disposition
thereof to be made.
On June 20, 1979,(20) the following proceedings occurred
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 125 Cong. Rec. 15713, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (1) The Chair declares a
recess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly (at 12 o'clock and 20 minutes p.m.), the House
stood in recess subject to the call of the Chair.
secret session of the house
At 12 o'clock and 38 minutes, the House proceeded to meet in
secret session.
(House proceedings held in secret session.)
At 2 o'clock and 11 minutes, the House dissolved its proceeding
being held in secret session.
after recess
The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the
Speaker at 2 o'clock and 30 minutes p.m.
The Speaker: (2) The Chair will make the following
statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair would remind the Members that the House has not at
this point voted to remove the injunction of secrecy and that
Members are bound not to release or to make public any of the
transcript of the closed session until further order of the House.
To enable the House to evaluate the transcript of the secret
session, the Chair will refer the transcript to the Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence and to the Committee on Merchant
Marine and Fisheries for their report thereon as soon as possible.
The committees' report will remain executive session record of
those committees for examination by the Members and ultimate
disposition by the House.
The Chair further would state that he would believe that the
item could go to the Committee on Rules and the House could go back
into a secret session for a time allotted before making the
transcript public record.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. The proceedings, with omissions, were printed in the Congressional
Record of a subsequent date. See Sec. 85.11, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 85.11 By unanimous consent, the transcript of the proceedings of
the House on a previous day in executive session was printed in the
Congressional Record, with revisions and deletions made by Members
who participated in the debate, which revisions and deletions were
mutually agreeable to the chairmen of the committees to which the
Speaker had on that previous day referred the transcript of the
secret
[[Page 11332]]
session for a report to the House on needed secrecy.
In the July 17, 1979, edition
of the Congressional Record (4) by unanimous consent, the
transcript of proceedings of the secret session of the House on June
20, 1979, with certain omissions, was printed:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 125 Cong. Rec. 19049 et seq., 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Edward P.] Boland [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that the transcript of the proceedings of the
House and the secret session held on June 20, 1979, be printed in
today's edition of the Congressional Record, with the revisions and
deletions made in that transcript by Members who participated in
that debate, and which are mutually agreeable to the chairmen of
the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries and the Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (5) Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
secret session of the house
The secret session of the House met at 12:38 p.m. and was
called to order by the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Wright).
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Members will take their seats.
Officers and employees of the House designated to remain will come
to the pages' desk and sign the oath of secrecy.
The procedures for review of the transcript prior to its
publication were outlined as follows: (6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 125 Cong. Rec. 19059, 96th Cong. 1st Sess., July 17, 1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Boland: Mr. Speaker, the procedures followed by the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in considering the
transcript of the secret session of the House on June 20 are as
follows:
Upon receipt of the transcript from the Speaker, the committee
identified areas which involved classified intelligence sources and
methods and other classified material. The committee then consulted
with representatives from the Department of Defense, Central
Intelligence Agency, Department of State and the Department of
Justice and noted each item suggested by any of the above as
involving classified matter. The committee then made
recommendations concerning each item so noted to the Speaker.
Thereafter, the committee was called in to resolve the
differences between its approach and the Committee on Merchant
Marine and Fisheries to which the transcript had also been
referred. The committee did this and prepared a revised transcript
embodying the recommendations of both committees and reflective of
such other revisions and extensions as were suggested by individual
Members involved in the debate.
It is my understanding that the completed transcript which is
provided to the House today represents a careful, yet critical
revision of the transcript to exclude only that material which was
genuinely sensitive. I believe that the
[[Page 11333]]
resulting document fairly represents the debate that occurred
during the closed session of the House while protecting essential
national security information. I want to thank the Committee on
Merchant Marine and Fisheries, chaired by the distinguished
gentleman from New York (Mr. Murphy) and for all the Members who
participated in the debate and whose perusal and agreement was
necessary to resolve the matters associated with this transcript
and the charge given to the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence by the House.
Oath of Secrecy
Sec. 85.12 At the convening of a secret session of the House, the
Speaker directed all officers and employees designated by him as
essential to the proceedings to come to the pages' desk and sign an
oath of secrecy.
In the transcript of the proceedings of the June 20, 1979, secret
session of the House, inserted in the Congressional Record on July 17,
1979,(7) it is shown that the Speaker Pro Tempore
(8) made the following announcement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 125 Cong. Rec. 19049, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
8. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The secret session of the House met at 12:38 p.m. and was
called to order by the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Wright).
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Members will take their seats.
Officers and employees of the House designated to remain will come
to the pages' desk and sign the oath of secrecy. That includes any
committee staff designated by the chairman of the committee in
writing who are to remain in the Chamber.
Hour Rule of Debate Applies
Sec. 85.13 At the convening of a secret session of the House, the
Speaker recognized the Member who had offered the motion for a
secret session for one hour of debate, and advised that Member that
the normal rules of the House would apply during such debate and
that no motions would be in order unless he yielded for such
purpose.
On June 20, 1979,(9) Speaker Pro Tempore James C.
Wright, Jr., of Texas, responded to several inquiries regarding
procedures in a secret session of the House, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 125 Cong. Rec. 19049, 96th Cong. 1st Sess., July 17, 1979
(transcript of secret session of June 20, 1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The secret session of the House met at 12:38 p.m. and was
called to order by the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Wright).
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Members will take their seats. . . .
The Chair is going to recognize the gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. Bau
[[Page 11334]]
man) for 1 hour, during which time
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman) may yield to such others
as he deems desirable.
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, are motions
in order during the 1 hour in the sense that motions are in order
in the Committee of the Whole? Are any motions in order?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will respond to the
gentleman that the House is in the House. This is not the Committee
of the Whole House. The House is prepared to take such action as
under the rules it might otherwise take.
Mr. Bauman: If the gentleman does not yield for any motions,
however, then they would not be in order?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: That is correct.
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I would yield 30 minutes to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Murphy) for the purposes of debate
only.
Speaker Judges Whether Proponent Qualifies To Move for Secret Session
Sec. 85.14 Where the House has resolved itself into secret session
pursuant to a motion under Rule XXIX, upon a finding by the Speaker
that the Member making the motion has confidential communications
to make as required by the rule, it is not in order to make a point
of order in the secret session that the material in question must
be produced to the Members in advance to determine whether secret
or confidential communications are involved.
On June 20, 1979,(10) during proceedings in a secret
session in the House, the Speaker ruled that a certain point of order
would not be in order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 125 Cong. Rec. 19049, 96th Cong. 1st Sess., July 17, 1979
(transcript of secret session of June 20, 1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The secret session of the House met at 12:38 p.m. and was
called to order by the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Wright).
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (11) Members will take
their seats. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair is going to recognize the gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. Bauman) for 1 hour, during which time
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman) may yield to such others
as he deems desirable. . . .
Ms. [Elizabeth] Holtzman [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
point of order.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentlewoman will state her point
of order.
Ms. Holtzman: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the nature of this
secret session is to receive material claimed to be secret or
confidential. In order for us to determine such for the materials
that we receive, it would seem to me to be in order to require the
person presenting the material claimed to be se
[[Page 11335]]
cret or confidential to identify the material claimed to be secret
or confidential when it is being presented for purposes ultimately
for the House to make a decision as to whether in fact these are
confidential or secret materials.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would respond that the
commentary of the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Holtzman) is not
truly in the nature of a point of order and that a point of order
will not lie in that regard.
Speaker Determines Which Employees Are Essential
Sec. 85.15 During a secret session of the House the Chair overruled a
point of order that employees of the House who were not elected
officers
or Members were present, where the Chair had designated essential
employees whose presence was essential pursuant to the motion for
a secret session, which included the provision that the Chamber be
cleared of all persons except Members and those officers and
employees specified by the Speaker whose attendance was essential
to the functioning of the House, and who had subscribed to the oath
of secrecy.
During a secret session of the House on June 20,
1979,(12) the Chair responded to a point of order, as
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 125 Cong. Rec. 19050, 96th Cong. 1st Sess., July 17, 1979
(transcript of June 20, 1979, secret session).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (13) The Chair recognizes
the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Burlison). The gentleman will
state the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Bill D.] Burlison [of Missouri]: I will state my point of
order that the House is not in compliance with rule XXIX, the
secret session section under which we are now convened. That is a
very brief section with two sentences, I think. Let me read that
and specify my point of order.
Whenever confidential communications are received from the
President of the United States, or whenever the Speaker or any
Member shall inform the House that he has communications which
he believes ought to be kept secret for the present, the House
shall be cleared of all persons except the Members and officers
thereof, and so continue during the reading of such
communications, the debates and proceedings thereon, unless
otherwise ordered by the House.
Mr. Speaker, my point of order is that from my observation
there are a number of people on the floor who are not Members or
officers of the House.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will respond to the
gentleman's point of order. The motion made by the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Bauman) and agreed to by a vote of the Members of the
House, included the provision that the galleries of the
[[Page 11336]]
House Chamber be cleared of all persons except the Members of the
House and those officers and employees specified by the Speaker
whose attendance on the floor is essential to the functioning of
the House, and who have subscribed to the notarized oath of
confidentiality. The Chair has taken steps to assure that this
requirement be observed and that that restriction apply.
The Chair believes that any persons so designated by the Chair
fulfill the broad and generic description of officers as specified
in rule XXIX and as required in the motion.
Making Proceedings Public
Sec. 85.16 The Member recognized to control one hour of debate during a
secret session of the House offered a privileged motion to make
public the proceedings of the secret session, which motion was,
after separate debate, withdrawn; such motion, as noted by the
Speaker, is debatable for one hour, within narrow limits.
During the secret session of the House on June 20,
1979,(14) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 125 Cong. Rec. 19049, 19057, 19058, 96th Cong. 1st Sess., July 17,
1979 (transcript of June 20, 1979, secret session).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The secret session of the House met at 12:38 p.m. and was
called to order by the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Wright).
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (15) Members will take
their seats. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair is going to recognize the gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. Bauman) for 1 hour, during which time
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman) may yield to such others
as he deems desirable. . . .
After debate, Mr. Bauman made the following motion:
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Bauman moves that the proceedings of this Secret
Session be made public.
The Speaker: The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman) is
recognized for 1 hour. The motion is debatable within narrow
limits. . . .
Mr. [Thomas P.] O'Neill [Jr., of Massachusetts]: . . . We are
in a very, very sensitive position. Most of this conversation today
on this debate was extremely interesting. I would not say it was
classified. Certainly the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Wright's
beautiful speech was not classified. But I do think that we ought
to table this matter, send it to the Committee on Intelligence, let
them look it over, and let the proper authorities from downtown
look over what was classified. . . .
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, frankly, I made this motion simply
because I understood somebody on the other side was going to make
it. I do not feel strongly attached to it. Nothing new was said
here but now we are told it must remain secret. Does the gentleman
from Maryland require unanimous consent to withdraw the motion?
[[Page 11337]]
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman can withdraw the motion.
Mr. Bauman: The gentleman withdraws the motion.
Hour Rule Applies
Sec. 85.17 The Speaker took the floor pending a motion, made in a
secret session of the House to make public the proceedings of the
secret session, to speak in opposition to the motion on the grounds
that the transcript should be reviewed by the Select Committee on
Intelligence to determine whether the transcript could be made
public with appropriate deletions, and that the House could
determine to reveal the transcript if necessary in another secret
session based on such review and on review by other Members who
would have access thereto; the Speaker declared his intention to
offer a motion to table the motion at the conclusion of debate
thereon.
On June 20, 1979,(16) during a secret session of the
House, the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 125 Cong. Rec. 19049, 19057, 19058, 96th Cong. 1st Sess., July 17,
1979 (transcript of June 20, 1979, secret session).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The secret session of the House met at 12:38 p.m. and was
called to order by the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Wright).
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (17) Members will take
their seats. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair is going to recognize the gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. Bauman) for 1 hour, during which time the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Bauman) may yield to such others as he deems
desirable. . . .
After debate, Mr. Bauman made the following motion:
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Bauman moves that the proceedings of this Secret
Session be made public.
The Speaker: The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman) is
recognized for 1 hour. The motion is debatable within narrow
limits.
Mr. [Thomas P.] O'Neill [Jr., of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Bauman: For purposes of debate only, I yield 5 minutes to
the Speaker.
Mr. O'Neill: Mr. Speaker, we could very well be setting a
precedent here today. When was it--1830--the last time that the
House went into a secret session like this? I have seen rules of
this House not used for many, many years, and suddenly some bright
young luminary discovers one, and it becomes a common practice. I
do not say that in criticism. I respect the ability of the
gentleman. But it becomes a common practice.
There are those of us who would like to reveal everything that
was said or
[[Page 11338]]
everything that is known about the Panamanian Government. . . .
We are in a very, very sensitive position. . . . I do think
that we ought to table this matter, send it to the Committee on
Intelligence, let them look it over, and let the proper authorities
from downtown look over what was classified. Let them strike or
delete what is classified. Then let us report to this body, and let
us again, if necessary in secret session go in and accept it and
reveal to the American public that which we know does not hurt the
U.S. Government or hurt the individual who may have said it on
the floor. I think we are doing something in fairness to our own
Government. . . .
Mr. [John J.] Rhodes [of Arizona]: . . . I agree with the
Speaker. . . . It would be my hope that a committee of the House,
the Intelligence Committee if the Speaker so says, would look at
the transcript and expunge whatever matters might be that sensitive
or classified, and then at the appropriate time a motion be made
for the remainder of the debate to be published and made public to
the American people.
Mr. O'Neill: . . . The document would be ready in print for the
Members of the House, for the committee for their evaluation, for
the evaluation of the members of the committee. I think we could
very well protect everybody. If there are things that have to be
deleted, they would be deleted, and then bring it back to the House
and, if necessary, have a secret session, or if not necessary, if
they want to debate something that was stricken from the record, we
could go into secret session. If they do not want to go into secret
session at that time, we could release it on the floor of the
House. . . .
Mr. Speaker, I hope the Chair will take cognizance of the fact
that when the gentleman's time has expired at the end of the hour,
or when he yields his time, I would move to table this motion and
would hope to be recognized for that motion.
Motion To Dissolve Secret Session
Sec. 85.18 At the conclusion of debate in a secret session of the
House, the Member who had controlled the debate therein offered a
motion that the
secret session be dissolved, which was agreed to.
On June 20, 1979,(18) a secret session of the House was
terminated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 125 Cong. Rec. 19049, 19059, 96th Cong. 1st Sess., July 17, 1979
(transcript of June 20, 1979, secret session).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The secret session of the House met at 12:38 p.m. and was
called to order by the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Wright).
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (19) Members will take
their seats. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair is going to recognize the gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. Bauman) for 1 hour, during which time
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman) may yield to such others
as he deems desirable. . . .
After debate, Mr. Bauman offered a motion, as follows:
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: . . . Mr. Speaker, I
offer a motion.
[[Page 11339]]
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Bauman moves that the Secret Session be dissolved.
The motion was agreed to.
Where Motion for Secret Session Was Challenged by Point of Order
Sec. 85.19 A Member who asserts to the Speaker that he is properly in
possession of confidential communications which he believes should
be shared with the House qualifies to make a privileged motion for
a secret session of the House pursuant to Rule XXIX; thus, a point
of order against a motion that the House resolve itself into secret
session to consider confidential information which four Members had
advised the Speaker Pro Tempore they wished to communicate to the
House, on the grounds that the material in question was in fact in
the possession of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
and not in the possession of the Members, was overruled, since the
Speaker must rely on the assurance of a Member that he has
confidential communications to make to the House, and since the
Speaker Pro Tempore was aware that the Permanent Select Committee
on Intelligence had authorized the material in question to be used
in a secret session of the House if ordered.
On Feb. 25, 1980,(20) during consideration of a motion
that the House resolve itself into secret session pursuant to Rule
XXIX, Mr. Thomas R. Harkin, of Iowa, raised the point of order that the
proponent of the motion had not qualified to offer the motion under the
rule, in that he had not shown that he had a secret communication to
make to the House, independently of secret information in the
possession of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 126 Cong. Rec. 3618-20, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Edward J.] Derwinski [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I move
that, pursuant to rule XXIX, the House resolve itself into secret
session. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (1) The Clerk will report
the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Derwinski moves that, pursuant to rule XXIX, the House
resolve itself into secret session, that the galleries of the
House Chambers be cleared of all persons and that the House
Chamber be cleared of all persons except the members of the
House and those officers and employees specified by the Speaker
whose attendance on the floor is essential to the functioning
of the House and
[[Page 11340]]
who subscribe to the notarized oath of confidentiality. . . .
Mr. Harkin: Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against the
motion by the gentleman from Illinois that the House resolve itself
into secret session. I base my point of order on the reading of
rule 29 and subsequent interpretations thereof. The rule clearly
states that--
Whenever the Speaker or any Member shall inform the House
that he has communications which he believes ought to be kept
secret for the present, the House shall be cleared of all
persons, except the officers and Members thereof, and so
continue during the reading of such communications, the debates
and proceedings thereof, unless otherwise ordered by the House.
A correct reading of this rule clearly indicates that the
Member making the motion for a secret session must inform the House
that ``he has communications'' and that this means that the Member
shall assert that he has certain material which he believes ought
to be kept secret.
On June 6, 1978, the Speaker pro tem, in response to a question
raised by a Member in the House, declared:
A Member seeking to offer the motion that the House resolve
itself into secret session must qualify, as provided by the
rule, by asserting that he himself has a secret communication
to make to the House.
Clearly, the gentleman from Illinois making the motion now put
to the Chair does not in fact have such communications, but is in
fact asserting that such communications are held by a duly
authorized committee of the House of Representatives. Last year
when a similar motion was made that the House resolve itself into
secret session, a point of order would not have lain against the
maker of the motion because at that time the maker of the motion
asserted that he did in fact have communications in his possession
of a secret nature which he decided to communicate to the House. No
such assertion is now being made by the gentleman from Illinois who
is making the present motion. In this case, the appropriate body to
make such a request would be a motion from the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives which
does in fact have such communications and not the gentleman from
Illinois. . . .
In further support of my point of order, I was pointing out
that under this rule, under rule XXIX, which clearly states that
the Member must in fact assert that he has those communications, it
is clear that the reasons therefor are because the House is not as
equipped to deal with these types of secret documents as are the
proper intelligence communities of the Government or the duly
authorized committees of the House of Representatives.
Secret intelligence must be evaluated by those in the
intelligence community, with other factors taken into account, and
with the proper analytical tools which they uniquely [possess]. On
the other hand, the House is not so equipped. Future debates on
foreign aid, on military preparedness, or on a host of other
matters could be jeopardized if this motion is carried or deemed
worthy of a secret session, so that one factor of intelligence
favoring one point of view or another could be brought to the
floor. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is prepared to rule.
[[Page 11341]]
The gentleman from Iowa makes a point of order against the
motion on the ground that any Member moving to resolve the House
into a secret session must needs qualify as provided by the rule by
asserting that he has a secret communication to make to the House.
Now, the Chair is in receipt of a letter signed by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Derwinski), and in addition, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Lagomarsino); the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Young); and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman);
all asserting that they have communications to make to the House
which they believe ought to be kept secret for the present.
Now, the gentleman therefore qualifies, and particularly with
regard to the statement he has just made to the Chair and to the
House to make a motion for a secret session under rule XXIX.
The Chair is not in a position to evaluate the accuracy of the
information which the gentleman seeks to communicate, but the Chair
will rely; and I think this is a central, unwritten but
nevertheless cardinally important rule stated from time to time by
Speakers, at least beginning with Speaker Rayburn and probably
before, on the integrity of any Member and his or her verbal or
written assurances.
As the Speaker, Mr. Rayburn, once said on an occasion when a
Member's integrity was questioned, the Chair always takes the word
of a Member. . . .
Mr. Harkin: . . . Mr. Speaker, would it be appropriate for the
Speaker to inquire of the maker whether or not such communications
are now held by the person moving that we now resolve into secret
session?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would respond to the
gentleman from Iowa that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Derwinski) has in writing and just now and very publicly given
those assurances to the Speaker.
The Chair does not feel that it is necessary under the rule for
the gentleman to carry in his possession at the moment copies of
secret documents in order to qualify.
The Chair is also aware in this instance that the Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence has determined that confidential
materials within its control may be considered during a secret
session, if indeed such a session were to be ordered by the House.
Under all those circumstances, the Chair believes that the
gentleman from Illinois qualifies to make the motion which he has
made, and overrules the point of order by the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. [Theodore S.] Weiss [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry. . . .
Is the Speaker stating that even though the confidential
communication is a communication which is in the possession of the
Committee on Intelligence of this House that that qualifies as a
confidential communication personally held by the Member making the
motion?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will respond that the
gentleman from Illinois, along with other Members already has
asserted that he possesses knowledge of what is contained in those
documents and perhaps addi
[[Page 11342]]
tional knowledge independent of those specific documents which he
considers of such a nature that it should be heard in secret by the
House.
Now, the House is not legally obliged to adopt the motion
offered by the gentleman from Illinois, but the Chair believes
under all the precedents that exist, and admittedly they are rare,
that the gentleman from Illinois fully qualifies to make the motion
that he has made, and the Chair will entertain the motion. . . .
The gentleman from New York has presented a hypothetical
instance on which the Chair does not have to rule. . . .
The Chair will respond to the gentleman from New York by saying
that if the gentleman from New York were to state to the Chair that
he was properly in possession of secret information, which he
thought should be shared with the House in a secret session, the
Chair would respect the gentleman's integrity and would entertain
the motion to resolve into a secret session if made by the
gentleman from New York under those circumstances.
Mr. Weiss: Mr. Speaker, I have a further parliamentary inquiry.
If it then turned out, upon further presentation, that the only
document or information that I had was nothing independently gained
or transmitted, but simply the document which I had received from
the Committee on Intelligence, would I have violated the
requirements of rule XXIX?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is not going to rule on that
hypothetical question at this time.
The Chair would simply observe that under the rules any Member
of the House who asserts that he is properly in possession of such
information and desires to share it with the House in a secret
session, believing that it may have a direct bearing upon
legislation pending in the House, would have the right to offer
that motion.
Committee Authorization for Member To Move for Secret Session
Sec. 85.20 The House adopted a privileged motion, pursuant to Rule
XXIX, that the House resolve itself into secret session to receive
confidential communications (consisting of classified information
in the possession of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, which those committees
had authorized to be used in a secret session of the House if
ordered).
On Feb. 25, 1980,(2) the following proceedings occurred
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 126 Cong. Rec. 3618-22, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Edward J.] Derwinski [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I move
that, pursuant to rule XXIX, the House resolve itself into secret
session. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (3) The Clerk will report
the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
[[Page 11343]]
Mr. Derwinski moves that, pursuant to rule XXIX, the House
resolve itself into secret session, that the galleries of the
House Chambers be cleared of all persons and that the House
Chamber be cleared of all persons except the members of the
House and those officers and employees specified by the Speaker
whose attendance on the floor is essential to the functioning
of the House and who subscribe to the notarized oath of
confidentiality. . . .
Mr. Derwinski: . . . I would point out to the Speaker that the
information contained that would be presented to the House in the
appropriate documents . . . [has] been cleared, it is my
understanding, by the appropriate committee.
I myself sat through a session of the House Committee on
Foreign Affairs, which the same basic information was provided to
that committee.
I have subsequently studied the secret documents to verify my
recollection of the practicality of that information and the need
for further secrecy.
Therefore, it is from that practical point of view in spirit
that I made the motion. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the motion that the
House resolve itself into secret session offered by the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Derwinski).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced
that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. [Bill D.] Burlison [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, on that I
demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas
290, nays 74, not voting 69, as follows: . . .
So the motion was agreed to.
Special Circumstances Surrounding Disclosure of Intelligence-related
Materials
Sec. 85.21 The Speaker Pro Tempore stated in response to a
parliamentary inquiry, pending a motion that the House resolve
itself into secret session to consider confidential material within
the possession of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
(which that committee had authorized to be used in such secret
session), that clause 7(b) of Rule XLVIII, requiring special
procedures to be followed by that committee with regard to the
public disclosure of materials within the committee's possession
which the executive branch desires be kept secret, did not prohibit
the House from determining in secret session that the material in
question should be released; the Speaker Pro Tempore suggested,
however, that it would be inappropriate for the House to remove the
injunction of secrecy before the Permanent Select Committee and the
Committee on Foreign Affairs, with concurrent jurisdiction over
some
[[Page 11344]]
of the materials, had the opportunity to review the transcript of
the secret session and to make appropriate recommendations to the
House.
On Feb. 25, 1980,(4) proceedings in the House relative
to a motion that the House resolve itself into secret session were as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 126 Cong. Rec. 3618-22, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Edward J.] Derwinski [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I move
that, pursuant to rule XXIX, the House resolve itself into secret
session. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (5) The Clerk will report
the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Derwinski moves that, pursuant to rule XXIX, the House
resolve itself into secret session, that the galleries of the
House Chambers be cleared of all persons and that the House
Chamber be cleared of all persons except the members of the
House and those officers and employees specified by the Speaker
whose attendance on the floor is essential to the functioning
of the House and who subscribe to the notarized oath of
confidentiality. . . .
Mr. [Bill D.] Burlison [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry. . . .
Mr. Speaker, with respect to the secret session motion, at the
time of the secret session of the House on June 20 of last year, a
Member inquired of the Chair the manner in which confidential
material heard in secret session under the provisions of rule XXIX
might be released publicly.
The Chair responded, and I quote:
Following the presentation of that material considered
secret or confidential or of such nature that it ought to be
heard in secret session, the House may at that time on its own
motion in secret session decide that there is no reason to
observe further secrecy with respect to the material involved.
Mr. Speaker, would not such procedure if employed here be in
violation of clause 7(b) of rule XLVIII of the House, which
provides for disclosure of intelligence information in the
possession of the Select Committee on Intelligence under very
specific procedures, including recommendations by the committee,
notification of the President and procedures for further action by
the House?
And I might add, Mr. Speaker, that the information that we are
considering did get here pursuant to rule XLVIII of the House
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Burlison) has inquired whether any action of the House to release
publicly the transcript of the secret session would violate clause
7(b) of rule XLVIII, since classified materials within the
possession of the Select Committee on Intelligence may have been
discussed, and since that rule requires certain procedures to be
followed by the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence relative
to the public disclosure of such materials. Rule XLVIII places
restrictions on the Select Committee on Intelligence and only with
respect to the public disclosure of classified information in the
possession of that committee, and it does not prevent the
[[Page 11345]]
House from determining to release any matter properly presented to
it in secret session pursuant to rule XXIX.
Clause 7(c)(2) acknowledges the existence of other House
procedures for release of information, since prohibiting any Member
gaining access to classified materials within the Select
Committee's control from disclosing such information, except in a
secret session of the House. The Chair would further point out that
the Select Committee on Intelligence, by a proper vote, with a
quorum present, determined to allow executive session materials of
the committee to be used in the secret session.
The Chair does not feel, however, that if the motion is agreed
to it would be appropriate for the House at this time to remove the
injunction of secrecy from these proceedings until the Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence and the Committee on Foreign
Affairs has had the opportunity to review the transcript and make
appropriate recommendations as to which, if any, of the materials
presented should be released. It would be within the spirit of rule
XLVIII for prior consultation with the executive branch to take
place before any House decision on public release.
Recent Example of Procedures Used in Conducting Secret Session
Sec. 85.22 The House having adopted a motion to resolve into secret
session, the Speaker Pro Tempore announced (1) that the galleries
would be cleared of all persons and the Chamber would be cleared of
all persons except Members and those employees and officers
specified by the Speaker whose attendance was essential to the
functioning of the House; (2) that those employees and officers
would be required to sign an oath of secrecy; (3) that all
proceedings in the secret session would be kept secret until
otherwise ordered by the House; and (4) that the Speaker would
declare a recess, of approximately 15 minutes duration (without the
ringing of bells to indicate the termination of the recess) in
order to carry out the Chair's order.
Prior to holding a secret session of the House on Feb. 25, 1980,
the Speaker Pro Tempore made a statement regarding the procedures to be
followed for conducting such a session: (6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 126 Cong. Rec. 3618-22, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Edward J.] Derwinski [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I move
that, pursuant to rule XXIX, the House resolve itself into secret
session. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (7) The Clerk will report
the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
[[Page 11346]]
Mr. Derwinski moves that, pursuant to rule XXIX, the House
resolve itself into secret session, that the galleries of the
House Chambers be cleared of all persons and that the House
Chamber be cleared of all persons except the members of the
House and those officers and employees specified by the Speaker
whose attendance on the floor is essential to the functioning
of the House and who subscribe to the notarized oath of
confidentiality. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the motion that the
House resolve itself into secret session offered by the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Derwinski). . . .
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas
290, nays 74, not voting 69, as follows: . . .
So the motion was agreed to. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair desires to make a statement.
The Chair desires to read to the Members the contents of rule
XXIX of the Rules of the House of Representatives. Rule XXIX reads
as follows:
Whenever confidential communications are received from the
President of the United States, or whenever the Speaker or any
Member shall inform the House that he has communications which
he believes ought to be kept secret for the present, the House
shall be cleared of all persons except the Members and officers
thereof, and so continue during the reading of such
communications, the debates, and proceedings thereon, unless
otherwise ordered by the House.
According to the rule of the House, the Chair is going to order
that the galleries and the House Chamber shall be cleared of all
persons except the Members of the House and those officers and
employees specified by the Speaker whose attendance on the floor is
essential to the functioning of the secret session of the House.
Every employee and officer present in the Chamber during the
secret session, pursuant to the Speaker's order, will sign an oath
of secrecy which is at the page's desk to the Chair's right.
All proceedings in the House during such consideration shall be
kept secret until otherwise ordered by the House.
Very presently the Chair is going to declare a recess long
enough for this order to be carried out. The Chair will observe at
this time that on the last occasion when this procedure was
followed the recess consumed approximately 15 minutes. Bells will
ring declaring the recess. No bells will ring in announcing the
resumption, and the Chair would advise the Members that it probably
will be approximately 15 minutes after the recess.
Sec. 85.23 The House having adopted a motion to resolve into secret
session, the Speaker Pro Tempore stated in response to
parliamentary inquiries that: (1) the television cameras would be
turned off during the secret session; (2) that any Member releasing
any contents of the secret session if the House had not removed the
injunction of secrecy would be subject to the discipline of the
House; and (3) that the House would have to determine whether
disciplinary
[[Page 11347]]
action should be taken against Members releasing information in the
secret session which had theretofore been made public; following
the secret session, the Speaker Pro Tempore reminded Members that
the House had not yet voted to remove the injunction of secrecy
from proceedings in the secret session and that Members were bound
not to release or make public any of the transcript thereof until
further order of the House, which had referred the transcript to
the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence for their expeditious report, such
report to remain executive session material for examination by the
Members and ultimate disposition by the House.
On Feb. 25, 1980,(8) the following proceedings occurred
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 126 Cong. Rec. 3618-22, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Edward J.] Derwinski [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I move
that, pursuant to rule XXIX, the House resolve itself into secret
session. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (9) The Clerk will report
the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Derwinski moves that, pursuant to rule XXIX, the House
resolve itself into secret session, that the galleries of the
House Chambers be cleared of all persons and that the House
Chamber be cleared of all persons except the members of the
House and those officers and employees specified by the Speaker
whose attendance on the floor is essential to the functioning
of the House and who subscribe to the notarized oath of
confidentiality. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the motion that the
House resolve itself into secret session offered by the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Derwinski). . . .
So the motion was agreed to. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: . . . According to the rule of the
House, the Chair is going to order that the galleries and the House
Chamber shall be cleared of all persons except the Members of the
House and those officers and employees specified by the Speaker
whose attendance on the floor is essential to the functioning of
the secret session of the House. . . .
All proceedings in the House during such consideration shall be
kept secret until otherwise ordered by the House. . . .
Mr. [Richard H.] Ichord [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. Ichord: Would the Chair advise the membership as to how his
ruling will affect the television cameras? Will the television
cameras remain on in secret session or not?
[[Page 11348]]
The Speaker Pro Tempore: As was the case on the last occasion
when this procedure was followed, the television cameras will be
turned off.
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, at the last occasion when a secret
session was voted by the House, the chair issued a similar
admonition to the Members regarding the secrecy of the proceedings.
In this case, there are very specific documents to be read, names
mentioned in those documents.
The gentleman from Maryland recalls that certain Members of the
House went outside of the last secret session and very specifically
referred to information that was covered in the session and
characterized that information in a number of different ways.
Mr. Speaker, what censure or other action would be available
against a Member who revealed the contents of the session without
permission of the House?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would just have to respond
that any Member violating the rule would be subject to the
discipline of the House. The Chair cannot anticipate what might
occur. . . .
Mr. [Dante B.] Fascell [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, would it be
correct to say that if the information which is published or made
available in the secret session has heretofore been made public and
is in the public domain, that that would have some bearing on what
the restrictions of the House might be against the Member who
speaks on that information?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would just have to respond
that that question would be up to the House to determine at the
appropriate time. . . .
The Chair will declare a recess.
Accordingly (at 2 o'clock and 10 minutes p.m.) the House stood
in recess subject to the call of the Chair.
The secret session began at 2 o'clock and 36 minutes p.m.
The secret session was dissolved at 4 o'clock and 12 minutes
p.m.
The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the
Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Brademas) at 4 o'clock and 12 minutes p.m.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (10) The Chair will make
the following statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. John Brademas (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair would remind the Members that the House has not at
this point voted to remove the injunction of secrecy and that
Members are bound not to release or to make public any of the
transcript of the closed session until further order of the House.
To enable the House to evaluate the transcript of the secret
session, the House has referred the transcript to the Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence and to the Committee on Foreign
Affairs for their report thereon as soon as possible. The
committees' report will remain executive session record of those
committees for examination by the Members and ultimate disposition
by the House.
[[Page 11349]]
Members' Responsibility for Maintaining Injunction of Secrecy
Sec. 85.24 The Speaker Pro Tempore stated in response to a
parliamentary inquiry, following a secret session of
the House, that the question whether the characterization of the
type of testimony and information presented in the secret session,
as opposed to the substance of such material, could be divulged or
released without violating the injunction of secrecy, was a
judgment which each Member of the House, and not the Chair, must
make.
The proceedings of Feb. 25, 1980,(11) relating to the
adoption by the House of a motion to receive confidential
communications in secret session, are discussed
in detail in Sec. Sec. 85.19-85.23, supra. After the secret session, a
parliamentary inquiry was raised concerning the application of the
injunction of secrecy:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 126 Cong. Rec. 3621, 3622, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The secret session began at 2 o'clock and 36 minutes p.m.
The secret session was dissolved at 4 o'clock and 12 minutes
p.m. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (12) The Chair will make
the following statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. John Brademas (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair would remind the Members that the House has not at
this point voted to remove the injunction of secrecy and that
Members are bound not to release or to make public any of the
transcript of the closed session until further order of the House.
. . .
Mr. [Theodore S.] Weiss [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Weiss: Earlier today there was some indication or an
objection to a characterization of the kind of testimony and
presentation that was made today. Does the injunction apply to
characterizations as distinguished from a report of what the
substance was of the matter presented here today?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will advise the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Weiss) that the question as put to the Chair is
a judgment which each Member of the House must make.
Miscellaneous
Sec. 85.25 A Member who had previously announced to the House his
intention to offer a motion for a secret session of the House
pursuant to Rule XXIX in order to discuss confidential information
concerning an amendment to be offered to the Defense authorization
bill (relating to binary nerve gas weapons), subsequently stated in
debate on the bill that he could
[[Page 11350]]
adequately discuss information available to him in debate on the
bill without moving for a secret session.
The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole
during consideration of H.R. 2969 (Department of Defense authorization
for fiscal year 1984) on June 15, 1983: (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 129 Cong. Rec. 15781, 15802, 15803, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Ed] Bethune [of Arkansas]: Mr. Speaker, soon this House
will begin the debate on the Armed Services bill and an amendment
which will be offered by myself and the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Zablocki) concerning the question of whether this country
should commence the production of a new age of chemical weapons,
known as the binary nerve gas weapon.
In spite of the fact that there is more evidence this year that
this House was right when it voted overwhelmingly to stop the
production of these weapons last year, the Department of Defense is
pushing to commence production of the nerve gas weapons. They are
pushing and they are telling Members that it is essential that we
begin, because we do not have the artillery shells and they are
telling Members that the Big Eye bomb is working.
Mr. Speaker, I say first of all, the artillery shells that we
have are adequate. They are efficient and we have a sufficient
quantity of those shells.
Second, the Big Eye bomb is not working. The Big Eye bomb is
blowing up on us, not them.
Members cannot intelligently resolve this important issue based
on the kinds of information that could be discussed in public.
Therefore, at the appropriate time today or tomorrow, whenever this
issue is before the House, I will move the House, pursuant to rule
XXIX, to go into secret session, at which time I intend to bring
out the kind of factual information which Members must have in
order to make an intelligent judgment toward the resolution of this
issue. . . .
Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: . . . The gentleman
from New York (Mr. Stratton), has stated that the classified
information could not be shared on the floor. The gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Montgomery) has apparently said otherwise.
Now, what will be the policy of the Committee on Armed
Services? Will it share its classified information and
its confidential information with other Members? . . .
Mr. [Melvin] Price [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, the policy of
the Committee on Armed Services is that any information that our
committee has is available to any Member of Congress. All Members
have to do is to come to the committee and ask for the information,
and it will be shown to them.
Mr. Zablocki: But do I understand that it cannot be discussed?
Mr. Price: It cannot be discussed. Otherwise it would not be
considered classified.
Mr. Bethune: Mr. Chairman, I think the numbers are important.
That was not the main point that I wanted to develop in the closed
session. The main point I wanted to develop in the closed session
that I think is critical to
[[Page 11351]]
the debate here is the details concerning the Big Eye bomb--what
happened to it, why it is not working, and what the ideas are for
getting it to the point where we can be satisfied that it might
work someday.
I am satisfied, based on the colloquy that we have had here,
that I am not going to be locked up by the FBI or somebody else if
I now engage in a full discourse here on the floor about what I
know about the Big Eye bomb, and that is exactly what I intend to
do because I think it is relevant.
With respect to the numbers, it would seem to me that it would
help Members who are going to be wandering in and out if there were
readily available a set of numbers on the stockpile, because that
will be mentioned, too, and we could place one at the desk.
If the Committee on Armed Services is so intractably disposed
to make it difficult for Members that they have to send staff over
to the committee room or wherever else to get these numbers, then I
will just announce to the Members that I have the numbers. They are
right here, and I will share them with the Members. . . . I am now
satisfied, based on the letter from the Secretary dated today in
response to my announcement that I intended to call a secret
session, that I can discuss the details concerning the Big Eye
bomb. I intend to do that whether the gentleman wishes to have me
do that or not.
Senate Use of Closed Session in Impeachment
Sec. 85.26 A closed session of the Senate was ordered to deliberate as
a court of impeachment in the trial of Judge Walter L. Nixon, Jr.
On Nov. 2, 1989,(14) President Pro Tempore Robert C.
Byrd, of West Virginia, made the following statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 135 Cong. Rec. 26989, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The President Pro Tempore: Un-der the order, the Senate will
now go into closed session, and the Chair, pursuant to rule XXI,
now directs the Sergeant at Arms to clear all galleries, close all
doors to the Senate Chamber, and exclude from the Chamber and its
immediate corridors all employees and officials of the Senate who,
under the rule, are not eligible to attend a closed session and who
are not sworn to secrecy.
(At 2:03 p.m., the doors of the Chamber were closed. The
proceedings of the Senate were held in closed session until 8 p.m.,
at which time, the following occurred.)
Mr. [George J.] Mitchell [of Maine]: Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the Senate return to open session.
The President Pro Tempore: Without objection, it is so ordered.
[[Page 11353]]
CHAPTER 29
Consideration and Debate
DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS
INDEX TO PRECEDENTS
Addressing remarks in the House or Committee of the Whole, form of
Chair, addressing, generally, Sec. Sec. 42.1, 42.2
chair, female occupant of, addressing, Sec. 42.4
Chair, Members must rise and address, Sec. 41.3
colleague, addressing, Sec. Sec. 42.5, 42.6, 42.24, 56.1 et seq.
``colleague,'' use of term, Sec. 56.7
female occupant of chair, addressing, Sec. 42.4
galleries, addressing remarks to, Sec. 42.7
``guy,'' another, reference to, Sec. 56.6
interrupting Member who has the floor, see Interruption of Member
who has floor
``Jewish gentleman from New York,'' reference to, Sec. 56.5
Member, another, addressing, Sec. Sec. 42.5, 42.6, 42.24, 56.1 et
seq.
name, references to Members by, Sec. Sec. 56.1, 56.3, 56.4, 56.8-
56.11
President, addressing, Sec. 42.3
``press,'' addressing remarks to, Sec. 42.7
Speaker, addressing, generally, Sec. Sec. 42.1, 42.2
television audience, addressing, Sec. Sec. 42.15-42.23
third person, reference to Members in, Sec. Sec. 56.1 et seq.
``you,'' addressing Member by use of, Sec. 56.2
Adjourn, motion to
after House votes to consider bill, see Question of consideration
recognition as between Members with competing motions to, Sec. 9.68
recognition for motion to, generally, Sec. Sec. 23.63-23.68
Allocation of debate time, see, e.g., Special rules, effect of, on
control or distribution of time for debate; Unanimous-consent
agreement, effect of, on debate time or allocation of time;
Limitation on five-minute debate, effect of, on allocation of
remaining time; Third, one, of debate time controlled by one
opposed
Amendments
debate on, see Five-minute rule; Hour rule
offered after expiration of debate time, see Expiration of debate
time, amendments offered after
recognition to offer or debate, see, e.g., Priorities in
recognition; Recognition
Applause and demonstrations not part of reported proceedings, Sec. 1.11
Attire
badges, Sec. 8.7
guidelines announced by Speaker, Sec. 41.12
hats, Sec. 41.14
overcoats, Sec. 41.13
relaxation of standards, Chair under some circumstances might
recognize for resolution concerning, Sec. 41.12
Speaker, role of, in enforcing standards, Sec. 41.12
Badges communicating messages, wearing of, prohibited, Sec. 8.7
Budget
conference report on budget resolution, debate on, Sec. 17.14
debate on economic goals and policies in Committee of the Whole
prescribed by Budget Act, Sec. 67.16
debate under Congressional Budget Act, requirement of relevancy of,
Sec. 39.4
[[Page 11354]]
hour rule, Budget Act exception to, Sec. 31.38
new entitlement authority effective before new fiscal year,
consideration of, prohibited, Sec. Sec. 2.36, 2.37
points of order against consideration, Sec. Sec. 2.36, 2.37
privilege of concurrent resolution destroyed by reconciliation
instructions affecting future fiscal years, Sec. 2.35
rescission, amendment striking out, as causing outlays to exceed
limit, Sec. 2.40
special rule for consideration of concurrent resolution, Sec. 2.35
special rule waiving points of order against bill authorizing new
budget authority, Sec. 2.38
special rule waiving points of order against conference report,
Sec. 2.38
special rule waiving points of order against consideration of new
budget outlays exceeding ceiling, Sec. 2.38
unanimous-consent agreement waiving points of order against
consideration of Senate amendment containing new budget
authority in excess of ceiling, Sec. 2.39
Calendar Wednesday
debate on bills considered in Committee of the Whole on, Sec. 25.21
question of consideration raised against bills on, see Question of
consideration
recognition to call bills on, Sec. Sec. 16.17-16.21
Call of House
recognition for, after previous question, Sec. 20.22
recognition for, when question has not been put on pending
proposition, Sec. 20.21
Speaker may recognize any Member to move, Sec. 9.41
Speaker may recognize for motion for, at any time, Sec. 20.20
Candidates for office, references to, see Presidential or Vice-
presidential candidates, references to
Chair, discretion and power of, with regard to recognition (see also,
e.g., Limitation on five-minute debate, effect of, on allocation of
remaining time; Recognition)
generally, Sec. Sec. 9.1 et seq., 12.1
adjourn, Chair may not refuse to recognize Member having floor for
motion to, Sec. 11.12
adjourn, recognition as between Members with competing motions to,
Sec. 9.68
allocation of time by Member in control of debate on motion to
suspend rules is not province of Chair, Sec. 25.23
alternation between majority and minority is subject to discretion
of Chair, Sec. Sec. 9.16, 9.18, 9.23, 13.7, 13.10, 25.5 et
seq., 25.19
amendments, preferential voting status of, as factor in exercise of
discretion, Sec. Sec. 9.17, 9.23, 19.9
amendments, recognition for purpose of offering, is within
discretion of Chair, Sec. Sec. 9.6, 9.15, 9.16, 19.7 et seq.
announce in advance who will be recognized, Chair may refuse to,
Sec. Sec. 9.11, 9.12
appeal from decision on recognition does not lie, Sec. Sec. 9.5,
9.6, 9.7
appeal from Speaker's refusal to allow one-minute speeches,
instance where Speaker entertained, Sec. 9.61
apportionment of time between those favoring and those opposing
proposition, discretion of Chair where special rule provides
for, Sec. 9.21
[[Page 11355]]
call of House, recognition for, when question has not been put on
pending proposition, Sec. 20.21
call of House, Speaker may recognize any Member to move, Sec. 9.41
committee amendments and other amendments, Chair's discretion in
recognizing for, under modified closed rule, Sec. 9.19
committee reporting bill, Chair may exercise discretion as to
recognizing members of, Sec. 9.2
compel Chair's recognition, motion to, Sec. 9.3
denial of recognition, basis for, generally, Sec. Sec. 11.1 et seq.
dilatory, Chair exercises discretion in determining motions to be,
Sec. Sec. 9.43-9.45
discharge, Speaker's discretion in recognizing for motion to,
Sec. 9.51
division vote, Chair recognized Member for demand for, after
announcement of voice vote, Sec. 9.40
exhibits, offensive, denial of recognition where Member intends to
use, see Exhibits
expiration of debate time, Member may not proceed after, Sec. 11.19
filibuster, Chair exercises discretion in terminating, Sec. 9.43
five-minute rule, Chair's discretion in apportioning time after
limitation on debate under, Sec. Sec. 9.24-9.32, 13.37, 22.6 et
seq., 24.29
five-minute rule, recognition under, Sec. Sec. 21.1 et seq.
gallery occupants, Chair does not recognize for reference to,
Sec. 11.10
hour, Chair recognized five Members successively for total debate
of one, Sec. 9.10
hour rule, recognition under, Sec. 9.9
hypothetical questions, Chair does not recognize for,
Sec. Sec. 9.1, 9.50
inquiry by Chair into purpose in seeking recognition where members
rise at same time, Sec. 23.4
limitation on debate, Chair's allocation of time under,
Sec. Sec. 22.6 et seq., 79.43-79.52, 79.64-79.81
limitations on power of recognition generally, Sec. Sec. 11.1 et
seq.
limiting debate, Chair's discretion in, Sec. Sec. 78.77, 78.78
meeting of Members in Chamber, informal, Speaker did not recognize
Member for request for, Sec. 11.14
one-minute speeches, recognition for, see One-minute speeches
opposition to amendment, recognition to control time in, Sec. 12.16
order of consideration of amendments allowed by special rule as
determined by Chair, Sec. 2.31
parliamentary inquiries, recognition for, see Recognition
point of order, Chair's recognition to offer amendments may not be
challenged on, Sec. Sec. 9.6, 9.16
points of order, debate on, Sec. Sec. 6.11, 9.47, 9.48, 20.38,
20.39
policy, Speaker has announced, concerning recognition for specified
purposes, Sec. Sec. 9.13, 9.14, 9.37
prayer in House, daily, Chair will not recognize for point of no
quorum before offering of, Sec. 11.5
[[Page 11356]]
preferential voting status of amendments as factor in exercise of
discretion, Sec. Sec. 9.17, 9.23
Presidential messages, recognition during reading of, Sec. 11.3
priority of business, effect of Rule XXV on Chair's discretion as
to, Sec. 9.3
Private Calendar, Chair does not recognize for requests to make
statements during consideration of, Sec. 11.16
privilege, Chair does not recognize for question of, while another
pending, Sec. 11.2
privileged or assertedly privileged questions, recognition for,
Sec. Sec. 9.54-9.58
privileged, resolution calling on Office of Price Administration to
furnish information was not, Sec. 9.57
privilege, equal, recognition where two pending propositions are
of, Sec. Sec. 11.4, 23.5
privileges of the House, question of, may not be raised to impinge
on Chair's power of recognition, Sec. 9.8
pro forma amendments, Chair may recognize for, between perfecting
amendments, Sec. 9.22
quorum, Chair declined to entertain point of no, Sec. Sec. 9.41,
9.44
quorum, Chair does not recognize for demand for teller vote while
counting for, Sec. 11.8
quorum, Chair may not recognize Member for parliamentary inquiry
pending point of order of no, unless relating thereto,
Sec. 11.7
quorum, point of no, not allowed before prayer, Sec. 11.5
quorum, recognition where absence of, has been announced, Sec. 11.6
quorum, Speaker declined to recognize for motion that Sergeant at
Arms take action to ensure presence of, Sec. 9.42
reading of engrossed copy of bill, Chair recognized Member for
demand for (under former rules), after bill had been ordered
engrossed and read a third time, Sec. 9.46
recommit, Speaker's discretion in recognizing for motion to,
Sec. 9.67
request for off-the-record meeting, recognition for, denied,
Sec. 11.14
reservation of objection, recognition for debate under,
Sec. Sec. 9.49, 67.6
reservation of point of order, Chair may permit debate on merits
before debate under, Sec. 9.48
rules of House may limit, Sec. 11.1
Senate, Chair declines to recognize Member proposing to refer to,
Sec. 11.11
Senate, recognition to refer to, denied, Sec. 11.11
seniority of committee members as factor in exercise of discretion,
Sec. Sec. 9.17, 9.24, 12.3-12.5, 12.7, 13.18, 13.25, 13.30-
13.33
special-order speeches, recognition for, see Special-order speeches
sponsorship of amendment as factor in exercise of discretion,
Sec. 9.24
statutory provisions as affecting control of debate time,
Sec. 11.17
suspend the rules, Speaker's discretion in recognizing for motion
to, Sec. Sec. 9.52, 9.53
[[Page 11357]]
suspension of rules, allocation of time by Member controlling
debate on, is not within province of Chair, Sec. 25.23
tellers, Chair recognized Member for demand for, after announcement
of division vote, Sec. 9.39
third, one, of debate time allotted under Rule XXVIII to one
opposed to certain propositions, see Third, one, of debate time
controlled by one opposed
time remaining to opposing sides as factor in Chair's exercise of
discretion in recognition, Sec. 9.18
unanimous-consent agreement permitting Member to speak at certain
time is not necessarily an infringement of Chair's power,
Sec. 10.1
unanimous-consent request by Member to proceed for additional
minute during debate on omnibus private bill, Sec. 11.13
unanimous-consent requests, Chair may decline recognition for,
Sec. Sec. 9.33-9.37
unanimous-consent requests to extend debate on omnibus private
bill, Chair declined to recognize for, Sec. 71.12
unfinished business, Chair as determining what is, Sec. 9.1
visitors, recognition to refer to, denied, Sec. 11.10
words, taking down the, Chair does not recognize for debate pending
demand for, Sec. 11.9
yeas and nays, Chair declined to recognize Member to demand, during
count on division vote, Sec. 9.38
yielding back time in opposition, objection to, Sec. 11.18
Chair's initiative in enforcing rules (see also, e.g., Relevancy in
debate; Words, taking down)
blasphemous words stricken from Record, Sec. 43.9
cautioning Member instead of entertaining demand that words be
taken down, Sec. 48.6
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, Member's discussion of
matter pending before, Sec. Sec. 48.9, 48.10
conversing with Member who is addressing House, Chair admonished
Member for, Sec. 48.8
gallery, reference to visitors in, prohibition on, Sec. 45.7
language in debate ruled out of order on Speaker's initiative,
Sec. 48.2
language, striking, from Record, Sec. 43.9
order, calling Members to, by name, Sec. 48.4
personal, Chair intervenes when debate is becoming, Sec. Sec. 48.1,
48.5, 48.7, 48.9, 48.10
relevancy in debate, Sec. Sec. 35.6, 35.7, 35.12
relevancy in five-minute debate, Sec. 38.2
Senate, references to, see Senate or Senators, references to
Charts in debate, see Exhibits
Clocks in the House Chamber, discrepancy in, Sec. 74.2
Close debate, right to (see also, e.g., Closing of debate in House)
amendment, closing debate on, Sec. Sec. 7.18-7.42, 14.16
[[Page 11358]]
amendment, proponent of, as not entitled to close debate,
Sec. Sec. 7.18-7.22, 7.25-7.27, 7.29, 7.30
amendment, proponent of, may close debate where no representative
from reporting committee opposes, Sec. 7.38
amendment, proponent of, permitted to close if manager does not
oppose amendment, Sec. Sec. 7.39-7.41
amendments, proponents of, permitted to close where there is no
``manager'', Sec. 7.37
amendments, right to close debate on, may be determined by
unanimous consent, Sec. 7.42
committee, member of, may close debate on amendment,
Sec. Sec. 7.20-7.23, 7.30-7.36
conferee opposing motion to reject portion of conference report,
Sec. 7.16
conferees, proponent of motion to instruct, Sec. 7.17
general debate, who may move to close, Sec. Sec. 7.3, 7.4, 14.20
general debate, reserving time to close, Sec. 26.32
limitation on debate time, effect of, Sec. 22.50
manager of bill closes, Sec. 24.31
manager of bill may move to close debate on amendment,
Sec. Sec. 7.18-7.26, 14.16
multi-jurisdictional bill, proponent of amendment to, Sec. 7.38
previous question considered as ordered by terms of special rule,
Sec. 7.9
previous question, Member controlling debate may move,
Sec. Sec. 7.7, 7.8
previous question, ordering of, as closing debate, Sec. 7.6
previous question, ordering of, vacated to permit further debate,
Sec. 7.10
proponent of amendment in nature of substitute could close debate
where there was no manager of joint resolution, Sec. 26.45
proponents of bill close debate, Sec. 7.5
reserving time to close general debate, Sec. 26.32
special rule dividing debate between proponent and opponent of
amendment in nature of substitute, Sec. 28.6
suspend the rules, Member making motion to, may close debate,
Sec. Sec. 7.13-7.15
suspend the rules, recognition alternates evenly between majority
and minority on motion to, Sec. 7.15
Closed sessions, see Secret sessions
Closing five-minute debate in Committee of the Whole (see also Limiting
five-minute debate in Committee of the Whole; Close debate, right
to)
generally, Sec. Sec. 78.1 et seq.
allocation of time under motion to close or limit debate,
Sec. Sec. 78.61-78.66
amendments offered after expiration of debate time, see Expiration
of debate time, amendments offered after
debatable, motion as not, Sec. Sec. 78.16-78.18
debate, motion is in order after, Sec. Sec. 78.21-78.25
``debate,'' what qualifies as, to permit motion to close debate,
Sec. 78.25
dispensing with further reading of bill, motion to close or limit
debate after, Sec. Sec. 78.30, 78.36
expiration of debate time, amendments offered after, see Expiration
of debate time, amendments offered after
[[Page 11359]]
``instantly,'' motion to close debate, Sec. 78.39
interruption of Member with floor by motion to close debate,
Sec. 78.13
prior recognition to manager for motion over Member who seeks to
debate or amend, Sec. 78.9
privilege of motion to close debate, Sec. Sec. 78.5, 78.8, 78.9
read, closing debate on sections not, Sec. 78.29
reading, completion of, required before motion permitted,
Sec. Sec. 78.26 et seq.
reconsider motion to close or limit debate, motion to,
Sec. Sec. 78.79, 78.80
reserving time not allowed under motion, Sec. 78.71
strike enacting clause, motion to, is preferential to motion to
close debate, Sec. 23.32
time, stated, motion to close debate at, Sec. Sec. 78.39, 78.40
when in order, Sec. Sec. 78.21 et seq.
Closing of debate in House
generally, Sec. Sec. 72.1 et seq.
previous question, by ordering of, Sec. Sec. 7.6, 7.9, 72.1 et seq.
previous question, use of, where debate limited by unanimous
consent, Sec. 72.3
previous question vacated, Sec. 7.10
special rule, effect of, Sec. 72.6
table, motion to, effect of, Sec. 72.5
table, motion to lay resolution on, adoption of, Sec. 7.11
Closing of general debate (see also Close debate, right to)
appropriation bill, debate on, Sec. Sec. 76.3, 76.6, 76.8
Committee of the Whole, managers of bill in, may agree to terminate
debate, Sec. Sec. 76.1, 76.2
House, by motion in, Sec. Sec. 76.3-76.5
House, unanimous-consent agreements made in, affecting general
debate in Committee of the Whole, Sec. Sec. 76.6-76.8
House, unanimous-consent request to dispense with general debate on
appropriation bill in Committee of the Whole was agreed to by,
Sec. 76.6
manager of bill may close, Sec. Sec. 7.3, 7.4
managers of bill in Committee of the Whole may agree to terminate
debate, Sec. Sec. 76.1, 76.2
motion in House, by, Sec. Sec. 76.3-76.5
motion to close general debate in Committee of the Whole where
special rule has been adopted, Sec. 76.9
rise, motion that the Committee of the Whole, see Rise, motion that
the Committee of the Whole
special rule, motion to close debate where time has been prescribed
by, Sec. 74.11
Colloquialisms, objectionable use of
generally, Sec. Sec. 61.1 et seq.
``crybaby,'' Sec. 61.8
dictionary definitions of expressions given weight, Sec. 50.4
``guts,'' Members described as lacking, Sec. 61.14
``guy,'' Sec. 61.5
``horning in,'' Sec. 61.5
``mouthpiece'' for association, Member described as, Sec. 61.7
personal privilege, Member raised point of, Sec. 61.5
``pinko,'' Sec. 61.9
``skin us,'' opposition accused of attempting to, Sec. 61.10
[[Page 11360]]
``snooper,'' Sec. 61.11
``stool pigeon,'' Sec. 61.12
``yapping,'' Sec. 61.13
Comity, see, e.g., Senate or Senators, references to; Senate,
references made in, to House
Committee of the Whole, resolving into
automatically resolving into Committee of the Whole after
affirmative vote on question of consideration, Sec. 5.9
automatic resolution into Committee on Calendar Wednesday where
question of consideration decided in affirmative, Sec. 3.14
by declaration of Speaker where rule has been adopted, Sec. 3
Introduction, Sec. 23.26
consideration, question of, automatically resolving into Committee
of the Whole after affirmative vote on, Sec. 5.9
consideration, question of, not applicable to motion to resolve
into Committee of Whole, Sec. Sec. 5.5, 5.6
disapproval resolution, motion to resolve into Committee for
consideration of, may be offered before third day on which
report available, Sec. 2.44
discharge committee to which bill referred, adoption of motion to,
followed by motion to resolve into Committee of Whole,
Sec. 3.15
discharged, motion that Committee of Whole be, as not preferential,
Sec. 3.8
House, general rules of, unanimous consent to consider bill in
Committee of Whole under, Sec. 3.4
motion, by, Sec. Sec. 3.5, 3.6, 23.26
motion, by, for consideration of disapproval resolution,
Sec. Sec. 3.6, 3.7
motions, equal privilege of, to resolve into Committee of Whole
pursuant to separate special rules, Sec. 3.9
motion to resolve, effect of rejection of, Sec. Sec. 3.12, 3.13
postpone, motion to, not applicable to motion to resolve into
Committee unless allowed by statute, Sec. 3.11
question of consideration, automatically resolving into Committee
of the Whole after affirmative vote on, Sec. 5.9
question of consideration not applicable to motion to resolve into
Committee of the Whole, Sec. Sec. 5.5, 5.6
rejection of motion to resolve, effect of, Sec. Sec. 3.12, 3.13
special rule providing for consideration of House Calendar
resolution in Committee of the Whole, Sec. 3.1
special rule, resolving into Committee without motion after
adoption of, Sec. Sec. 3.2, 23.26; see also Sec. 3 Introduction
unanimous consent, by, Sec. Sec. 3.3-3.5
unanimous consent to consider bill in Committee of Whole under
general rules of House, Sec. Sec. 3.4, 74.5
Committee proceedings, unreported, objectionable references to
generally, Sec. Sec. 55.1 et seq.
ethics committee deliberations, Sec. Sec. 55.8, 55.9
executive session, references to, Sec. Sec. 55.2, 55.3, 55.5
paraphrase of minutes of executive proceedings, Sec. 55.3
point of order, necessity of, Sec. 55.4
privilege of the House, reference to committee action permitted
where issue relates to possible question of, Sec. Sec. 55.6,
55.7
prohibited, references as, Sec. Sec. 55.1-55.3
Standards of Official Conduct, references to matters pending before
Committee on, Sec. Sec. 55.8, 55.9
[[Page 11361]]
unanimous consent to divulge unreported matters, Sec. 55.4
Committees, criticism of, as objectionable
generally, Sec. Sec. 54.1 et seq.
abuse of powers, Sec. 54.1
badgering of witness in hearing, allegation concerning, Sec. 54.13
``defame,'' purpose of subcommittee was to, Sec. 54.1
dereliction of duty, Sec. 54.8
fascist influence on committee, allegation of, Sec. 66.7
Hitler, query as to whether committee found agents of, on
congressional payroll, Sec. 54.12
inaction, charge of, Sec. 54.6
influence, fascist organizations said to exert, Sec. 54.3
integrity, charges reflecting on, Sec. Sec. 54.4, 54.5
``lies,'' committee report said to contain, Sec. 54.4
motives of committee, statement impugning, Sec. Sec. 54.1, 54.3,
54.11
``packing'' the Rules Committee, Sec. 54.10
``pusillanimous,'' charge that committee was, Sec. 54.7
report, committee, telegram read in House referring to ``lies and
half-truths'' of, Sec. 63.5
``sincerity,'' attack on, Sec. 54.5
``Un-American Committee,'' references to Committee on Un-American
Activities as, Sec. 66.12
unlawful activity, allegation of, Sec. Sec. 54.1, 54.2
Committees formerly prohibited from sitting during proceedings under
five-minute rule, Sec. 9.14
Committee structure, control of debate on resolution relating to,
Sec. 28.32
Concur, motion to, see Senate amendments
Conferees
debate on motion to instruct, Sec. Sec. 17.2, 17.17, 17.21, 17.22,
24.40, 68.28-68.30
debate on motion to instruct, extended by unanimous consent after
previous question ordered, Sec. 17.2
motion to instruct, one-third of debate time allotted to Member
opposed to, Sec. 17.21
Conference, motion to send bill to
as privileged, Sec. 17.1
debatable under hour rule, Sec. 68.26
Conference report deemed adopted by special rule, Sec. 17.4
Conference reports
absence of manager, called up by another in, Sec. 26.11
budget resolution, conference report on, see Budget
chairman of committee is opposed to bill, calling up conference
report where, Sec. Sec. 17.6, 17.7, 24.4
debate, additional, permitted by unanimous consent under ``special
order'' procedure, Sec. 17.13
debate controlled by conferees appointed from two committees,
Sec. 17.12
debate on conference report after section containing nongermane
Senate matter is agreed to, Sec. 17.11
debate on conference reports considered en bloc, special rule
providing for, Sec. 17.3
debate on, control of, generally, Sec. Sec. 17.9, 24.41, 25.26 et
seq., 69.12, 69.23-69.26
debate, one hour of, equally divided and controlled by majority and
minority parties, Sec. 24.41
[[Page 11362]]
debate on motion to reject nongermane portion of conference report,
Sec. Sec. 17.10, 69.12, 69.23-69.26
debate time allocated after report called up, Sec. 26.55
debate time, one third of, allotted to Member opposed, see Third,
one, of debate time controlled by one opposed
debate time re-allocated by unanimous consent, Sec. 26.56
debate, unanimous consent to permit debate to appear in Record
where conference report was adopted without, Sec. 71.26
discretion of Chair, recognition for calling up conference report
as within, Sec. 27.6
division of debate time on, Sec. 17.21
en bloc, five conference reports considered, division of debate on,
Sec. 28.34
hour rule, consideration formerly under, Sec. Sec. 24.41, 68.22 et
seq.
interrupting consideration of bill, conference report as,
Sec. 32.18
jurisdiction of two committees, control of debate where conference
report is within, Sec. 17.8
minority Member recognized where conferees appointed from two
committees, Sec. 25.26
nongermane Senate language, control of debate on motion to strike
after separate vote demanded on, Sec. 25.27
nongermane Senate language, debate on conference report after House
agreed in separate vote to retain, Sec. 25.27
part of conference report, recognition to move adoption of, denied,
Sec. 17.15
privilege of, Sec. 17.5
recognition during consideration of, generally, Sec. Sec. 17.1 et
seq.
recognition, effect where Member calling up conference report did
not seek, to offer motion to dispose of matter in disagreement,
Sec. 17.24
recommit, recognition for motion to, Sec. 17.62
rejection of nongermane matter, recognition for motion to recede
and concur with amendment after, Sec. 17.16
rejection of, recognition after, Sec. Sec. 17.50-17.52, 24.42,
34.9, 34.10
senior conferee, Speaker recognized junior member of conference
committee to manage report in absence of, Sec. 27.6
special orders permitted by unanimous consent to debate conference
report prior to actual consideration, Sec. 71.27
special rule providing for more than one hour of debate, Sec. 71.18
unanimous consent, debate extended by, Sec. 71.19
Consideration, initiating, see, e.g., Initiating consideration or
debate; Special rules
Consideration, motion to postpone, as in order before manager
recognized, Sec. 2.41
Consideration, points of order against
Budget Act, amendment providing new entitlement authority effective
before new fiscal year not in order under, Sec. Sec. 2.36, 2.37
budget authority, Senate amendment containing new, points of order
waived against consideration of, Sec. 2.39
printed, point of order that report has not been, does not lie
where consideration granted, Sec. 2.26
quorum, committee reported bill in absence of Sec. Sec. 2.6-2.8,
2.16
[[Page 11363]]
special rule providing for consideration, effect of, on points of
order, Sec. Sec. 2.13-2.16
special rule waiving points of order against consideration of joint
resolution making continuing appropriations, Sec. 2.11
unanimous consent for consideration of bill, effect of, on points
of order, Sec. 2.6
unanimous consent for consideration of measure, point of order of
lack of quorum in committee reporting bill is to be made
immediately after House has given, Sec. 2.6
Consideration, question of, see Question of consideration
Criticism of Members, Speaker, House, etc., see, e.g., Speaker,
criticism of, as objectionable; Motives of other Members,
statements impugning; Falsehoods, statements accusing Members of
uttering; Words, taking down the
Debatable and nondebatable matters
adjournment sine die, resolution providing for, Sec. Sec. 6.55-
6.58, 67.4, 67.5
adjourn, motion or resolution to, Sec. Sec. 6.52-6.58
amendments offered after expiration of debate time, see Expiration
of debate time, amendments offered after
appeal on ruling of Chair, Sec. 21.36
call of the House, motion to dispense with further proceedings
under, Sec. 6.14
close five-minute debate, motion to, Sec. Sec. 6.19-6.21
committee chairman, resignation of, Sec. 6.2
consideration, question of, Sec. 6.3
disapproval resolution, motion to limit debate on, Sec. 6.34
discharge of privileged resolution of inquiry, Sec. 6.7
discharge of Rules Committee resolution, Sec. 6.6
discharged, resolution, from Committee on Rules, Sec. 6.6
enacting clause, motion to strike, see Enacting clause, motion to
rise and recommend striking
inquiry, resolution of, Sec. 6.8
Journal, motion for reading of, Sec. 6.38
Journal, motion to approve, Sec. 6.37
lay on the table, motion to, Sec. 6.9
limit debate, motion to, Sec. Sec. 6.31-6.34
limit debate, motion to, on disapproval resolution, Sec. Sec. 6.34,
75.13
Member-elect, no debate on right of, to be sworn, Sec. 6.1
objection to unanimous-consent request, debate under reservation
of, Sec. 67.6
point of order, debate on, is within discretion of Chair, Sec. 6.11
previous question, motion for, Sec. 6.35
previous question, points of order and inquiries after demand for,
Sec. 6.36
quorum, absence of, Sec. 6.13
quorum, point of order of no, Sec. 6.12
reading of amendment, motion to dispense with, Sec. 6.10
reading papers, consent for, after objection made, Sec. 6.18
recommit, motion to, Sec. Sec. 6.39-6.42, 23.50, 23.52, 23.53
reconsider, motion to, Sec. Sec. 6.48, 6.49
reconsider, question to be reconsidered after adoption of motion
to, Sec. Sec. 6.50, 6.51
refer, motion to, as debatable, Sec. Sec. 23.58, 23.60, 23.61
refer, motion to, resolution offered as question of privileges of
House, Sec. Sec. 6.43, 6.44
[[Page 11364]]
rereference of bill to committee, Sec. Sec. 6.4, 6.5
resignation of committee chairman, Sec. 6.2
rise, motion that Committee of the Whole, Sec. Sec. 6.29, 6.30,
14.20, 76.12
Rules Committee, discharge of resolution from, Sec. 6.6
secret session, motion for, not debatable, Sec. 85.7
Senate, debate not in order in, in absence of quorum, Sec. 6.65
Senate, nondebatable questions in, Sec. Sec. 6.61-6.65
Senate, request for return of bill to, Sec. Sec. 6.59, 6.60
sworn, right of Member-elect to be, Sec. 6.1
table, motion to lay on the, Sec. 6.9
table, motion to lay resolution on, not debatable, Sec. 7.11
title of bill, amendment to committee amendment to, Sec. 6.46
title of bill, amendments to, offered after bill is passed,
Sec. Sec. 6.45, 6.47
words, objectionable, debate not in order pending unanimous-consent
request to withdraw, Sec. 6.16
words taken down, question of propriety of, Sec. Sec. 6.15-6.17
Decorum (see also, e.g., Words, taking down the; Attire)
generally, Sec. Sec. 40.1 et seq., 60.1 et seq.
acts of Members as disorderly, generally, Sec. Sec. 41.1 et seq.
altercations between Members, Sec. 41.6
anticipated disorder, announcement concerning, Sec. 41.7
applause, Sec. Sec. 41.8, 41.9
approval, expression of, called for by Member other than Chair,
Sec. Sec. 41.10, 41.11
attire, appropriate, Sec. 41.12
badges, wearing of, on floor, Sec. 84.18
comportment as breach of, Sec. 41.2
demeanor as breach, Sec. 51.29
demonstrations of approval or disapproval during debate are not
part of Record, Sec. 41.8
exhibits as offensive, see Exhibits
foreign language, addressing Committee of the Whole in, Sec. 40.8
gallery, references to occupants of, see Gallery, occupants of,
references to
hands, call by Member for show of, Sec. Sec. 41.10, 41.11
hats, wearing of, precluded, Sec. 41.14
Hope, Bob, proceedings during tributes to, Sec. 40.7
ignoring gavel, Sec. 40.11
interrupting Member's remarks, Sec. 41.3
interrupting Member who has the floor, see Interruption of Member
who has floor
mace as symbol of order, Sec. 48.21
microphones turned off in response to disorderly behavior,
Sec. Sec. 40.5, 40.6, 40.10
microphones, turning off, as giving rise to question of privilege
of the House, Sec. 40.10
microphones, turning off, where Member not properly recognized
engages in disorderly behavior, Sec. 48.20
personal privilege, question of, does not arise from words spoken
in debate, Sec. 40.9
poll on question called for by Member other than Chair,
Sec. Sec. 41.10, 41.11
privilege of the House, question of, alleged violation of rule as
giving rise to, Sec. 40.10
recess, speaking from well during, Sec. 41.17
[[Page 11365]]
smoking, Sec. Sec. 41.15, 41.16
walking about or standing by Member who has floor, Sec. 41.1
well of the House, clearing, Sec. Sec. 41.4, 41.5
well, removing Member from, Sec. 48.21
Demonstrations and applause not part of reported proceedings, Sec. 1.11
Demonstrations in debate, see Exhibits
Designation of managers (see also Manager of bill or resolution)
absence of manager, effect of, Sec. 14.12
Calendar Wednesday, committee designates Member to call up bill on,
Sec. 14.10
call up bill, only the Member designated by committee is authorized
to, Sec. Sec. 14.9, 14.10
committee, designated by, Sec. Sec. 14.9, 14.10
death of manager, effect of, Sec. 14.13
Dilatory motions
generally, Sec. Sec. 23.7-23.12
recognition for, see Chair, discretion and power of, with regard to
recognition
Disapproving agency action, three-day layover requirement not
applicable to report on concurrent resolution, Sec. 2.44
Discharge, debate on motion to, Sec. Sec. 18.9, 68.64
Disciplinary resolutions
hour rule as applicable to, Sec. Sec. 68.52-68.54
scope of debate on, Sec. Sec. 35.1 et seq.
Discretion of Speaker or Chair, see Chair, discretion and power of,
with regard to recognition; Chair's initiative in enforcing rules
Disloyalty, statements accusing Member of, as objectionable, see
Loyalty, statements questioning Member's
Disorder in debate, see, e.g., Words, taking down; Senate or Senators,
references to; Gallery, occupants of, references to
Division of debate time, see, e.g., Special rules, effect of, on
control or distribution of time for debate; Unanimous-consent
agreement, effect of, on debate time or allocation of time;
Limitation on five-minute debate, effect of, on allocation of
remaining time; Third, one, of debate time controlled by one
opposed
Dress, manner of, see Attire
Duration of debate, see, e.g., Hour rule in House; Five-minute debate
in Committee of the Whole; Limitation on five-minute debate, effect
of, on allocation of remaining time
Enacting clause, debate on motion to strike, during consideration of
omnibus private bills in House as in Committee of the Whole,
Sec. 70.11
Enacting clause, motion to rise and recommend striking
close debate, motion to, motion to strike enacting clause is
preferential to, Sec. 23.32
debatability of, Sec. Sec. 6.26-6.28, 21.31-21.35, 22.48, 22.49,
23.35, 23.38, 23.39
debate in opposition, recognition for, Sec. Sec. 14.22, 14.23,
23.40-23.43
debate on, as affected by limitation, Sec. Sec. 23.36, 23.37,
79.17-79.28, 79.87-79.91
debate on, effect of limiting, on offering of perfecting
amendments, Sec. 79.138
debate on, recognition for, Sec. Sec. 21.31-21.35
[[Page 11366]]
debate, scope of, Sec. Sec. 37.5-37.11
expiration of debate time, not debatable after, Sec. Sec. 6.26-6.28
extend time, Member opposed to motion may not, by using yielded
time, Sec. 31.33
five-minute debate in Committee of
the Whole, motion made during, Sec. Sec. 77.11-77.18
offered during time limitation, Sec. Sec. 22.38, 22.49, 79.17-
79.28, 79.87-79.91
offered while motion to limit debate was pending, Sec. 23.31
offeror of motion as opposed to bill, Sec. 23.33
opposition to, recognition for debate in, Sec. Sec. 14.22, 14.23,
23.40-23.43
preferential to motion to close debate, Sec. 23.32
pro forma amendments, recognition not extended for, on motion to
strike enacting clause, Sec. 21.31
pro forma amendments, special rule prohibiting, as not prohibiting
motion, Sec. 74.19
recognition for debate on, Sec. Sec. 21.31-21.35
recognition for motion where another Member had been recognized to
offer amendment, Sec. 12.13
relevancy in debate, requirement of, as applied to motion,
Sec. Sec. 37.5-37.11
special rule prohibiting pro forma amendments as not prohibiting
motion, Sec. 74.19
withdrawal of motion, Sec. 77.17
yielded time, Member opposed to motion may not extend time by
using, Sec. 31.33
yield, offeror of motion may, a portion of time, Sec. 31.32
Executive or governmental officials, references to
agency, referred to as communist experiment, Sec. 47.4
conduct of executive officials, arraignment of, Sec. 47.3
government, general criticism of, Sec. Sec. 47.5, 47.6
impeachment charges against judge, debate on, Sec. Sec. 47.7, 47.8
President, see President or Vice President, references to
Executive session, see Secret sessions
Exhibits
anticipatory ruling that Chair would prevent displays disruptive of
order, Sec. 84.16
badges, wearing of, to communicate messages, Sec. 84.18
bills marked with Member's interpretive comments could not be
distributed, Sec. 84.7
cartoon caricatures, Sec. 84.15
charts, Sec. Sec. 84.3, 84.5
debate, display not being utilized in, Sec. Sec. 84.8-84.10
debate, vote on permission taken without, Sec. Sec. 84.1, 84.8
decorum, displays should not detract from good order and,
Sec. Sec. 84.11-84.13
dice, oversized and loaded, used without objection, Sec. 84.2
disorderly language, placard containing, Sec. 84.6
duck as symbol of ``lame duck'' session, Sec. 84.11
impugning Members, display, Sec. 84.6
legislation, exhibits used to explain, Sec. Sec. 84.3 et seq.
mask, use of, Sec. 84.12
objection to use of exhibits, House votes following, Sec. 84.1
[[Page 11367]]
permission to display, Sec. Sec. 84.1 et seq.
photographic exhibits of missing children, Sec. 84.14
recognition for one-minute speech denied where exhibit was
offensive, Sec. 84.11
recognition, Speaker may inquire as to Member's intentions before
conferring, Sec. 84.13
Speaker's Lobby, posters and charts in, Speaker ordered removal of,
Sec. 58.11
television audience, role of Chair where exhibit is aimed at,
Sec. Sec. 84.14, 84.15
time, proper, for using displays, Sec. Sec. 84.8-84.10
video, use of, Sec. 80.8
weapons, dismantled, Sec. 84.17
Expiration of debate time, amendments offered after
amendment to amendment on which debate time expired was debatable
under special rule, Sec. 19.35
debated, may not be, Sec. Sec. 6.22-6.25, 78.50, 79.94 et seq.
pro forma amendments printed in Record, Sec. 79.117
Record, amendments not printed in, Sec. 19.36
Record, amendments printed in, Sec. Sec. 19.33, 79.100 et seq.
special rule limiting debate on amendments, debate on amendment to
amendment under, Sec. 28.22
Expiration of debate time, Member may not proceed after, Sec. 11.19
Falsehoods, statements accusing Members of uttering
generally, Sec. Sec. 63.1 et seq.
``believe,'' statement by Member that he does not, another Member,
Sec. 63.3
``canard'' as denoting falsehood, Sec. 63.1
committee, allegation of falsehoods by, see Committees, criticism
of, as objectionable
committee report, telegram read in House referred to ``lies and
half-truths'' of, Sec. 63.5
defending lies of ``slime-monger,'' Member accused of, Sec. 63.2
``hypocrisy'' alleged to add ``malice'' to falsehood, Sec. 63.6
sincerity, Member questioned, of another, Sec. 63.7
``slanderous'' and ``false,'' characterization of remarks as,
Sec. 63.4
sponsorship of measure by certain Member was said to ensure it
would ``receive 1 or 2 votes'' in House, Sec. 58.2
Filibuster, Chair exercises discretion in terminating, Sec. 9.43
Five-minute debate in Committee of the Whole
generally, Sec. Sec. 77.1 et seq.
alternation in recognition, see Recognition
amendment to amendment, offeror of primary amendment may speak on,
Sec. 77.2
appeals, debate on, Sec. 77.32
divisible amendment, debate on, Sec. 77.38
en bloc amendments, debate on, Sec. Sec. 77.23-77.25
extending debate time for Member recognized under five-minute rule
requires unanimous consent, Sec. 21.13
interruption of Member who has floor, see Interruption of Member
who has floor
length of debate, minimum, motion requiring, Sec. 78.101
[[Page 11368]]
letter, Member granted permission to read, is limited to five
minutes, Sec. 21.19
letters or papers, reading, time for, Sec. 77.31
limitation on, effect of, see, e.g., Limitation on five-minute
debate, effect of, on allocation of remaining time
limiting or closing, see Limiting five-minute debate in Committee
of the Whole; Closing five-minute debate in Committee of the
Whole
minimum amount of debate, motion to require, Sec. 78.101
pro forma amendment, Member previously recognized may speak in
opposition to, Sec. 19.48
pro forma amendment, Member who had spoken in opposition to pending
amendment as subsequently offering, Sec. 19.47
pro forma amendment offered by proponent of pending amendment,
Sec. 19.45
pro forma amendments, generally, Sec. Sec. 77.4-77.10, 77.35, 77.39
proponent of amendment may speak again on subsequent day by
unanimous consent, Sec. 19.46
recognition, priorities in, see Priorities in recognition;
Recognition
reintroduced amendment, debate on, Sec. 77.26
relevancy, requirement of, see Relevancy in debate
requiring certain amount of debate, Sec. 78.101
reservation of objection, extension of debate by proceeding under,
Sec. 77.36
rise, motion to, as interrupting debate, Sec. 7.12
special rules, effect of, see, e.g., Special rules, effect of, on
control or distribution of time for debate
strike enacting clause, motion to, Sec. Sec. 77.11-77.18
strike enacting clause, withdrawal of motion to, Sec. 77.17
substitute, debate after adoption of, Sec. 77.39
twice, Member speaking, on same amendment, Sec. Sec. 77.4-77.10,
77.28
vacated, proceedings by which amendment was adopted were,
Sec. 77.33
yielding for debate or amendment, see Yielding time for debate;
Yielding time for offering amendments
Five-minute debate in House as in Committee of the Whole
generally, Sec. Sec. 70.1 et seq.
close debate on amendment, motion to, Sec. 72.8
closing debate by ordering previous question, Sec. 7.6
motion to strike enacting clause, debate on, during consideration
of omnibus private bills, Sec. 70.11
nonamendable propositions, consideration of, Sec. Sec. 70.12, 70.13
previous question, ordering of, as closing debate, Sec. 7.6
Private Calendar measures, Sec. Sec. 70.7-70.11
pro forma amendment, recognition by unanimous consent of Member who
had spoken on another pro forma amendment, Sec. 70.2
recognition of Member previously recognized for five minutes is by
unanimous consent, Sec. 21.12
unanimous consent, consideration by, of nonamendable proposition,
Sec. 70.12
Union Calendar bills, Sec. Sec. 70.3-70.6
Foreign language, addressing Committee of the Whole in, Sec. 40.8
[[Page 11369]]
Forty-minute debate in House
generally, Sec. Sec. 69.12 et seq.
allocation of time by Member controlling debate is not within
province of Chair, Sec. 25.23
alternation of recognition, Sec. 25.22
conference reports, nongermane portion of, see Conference reports
extend debate, unanimous consent to, Sec. 69.18
opposition to motion to suspend rules, control of debate time in,
Sec. 26.36
previous question ordered on debatable motion without debate,
demanding right to debate where, Sec. 25.15
previous question ordered on debatable proposition on which there
has been no debate, Sec. Sec. 69.19-69.22
rules, prior to adoption of, where previous question was moved
without debate, Sec. 69.22
Senate amendments, see Senate amendments
suspend the rules, motion to, Sec. Sec. 69.13-69.18
transferred to another Member, debate time was, Sec. 25.24
Gallery, occupants of, references to
acknowledging visitor without reference to his presence, Sec. 45.9
Chair, announcement by, Sec. 45.8
Chair's initiative, enforcement of rule on, Sec. 45.7
constituents, Sec. 45.2
federal officials, Sec. 45.3
guest, honored, reference to, Sec. 45.1
Hope, Bob, tribute to, Sec. 40.7
legislation, persons interested in, Sec. Sec. 45.3-45.5
press gallery, Sec. 45.6
unanimous consent to speak out of order, Sec. 45.9
General debate (see also Closing of general debate)
appropriation bill, unanimous consent to provide two hours of
general debate on each chapter of, Sec. 74.3
Budget Act, debate on economic goals and policies in Committee of
the Whole prescribed by, Sec. 67.16
Committee of the Whole, duration of debate in, Sec. Sec. 74.1 et
seq., 75.1 et seq.
Committee of the Whole, in, generally, Sec. Sec. 75.1 et seq.
dispense with, unanimous-consent request to, on appropriation bill
in Committee of the Whole, agreed to by House, Sec. 76.6
hour rule used in Committee of the Whole in absence of agreement,
Sec. Sec. 75.1 et seq.
House rules, general, effect of, Sec. 74.4
limiting debate in Committee of the Whole under statute prescribing
procedures for disapproval of Federal Trade Commission
regulations, Sec. 75.13
relevancy of general debate in Committee of the Whole, see
Relevancy in debate
Senate concurrent resolution on House Calendar in Committee of the
Whole, unanimous consent to consider, limiting general debate
to one hour, Sec. 74.6
special rule giving Member control of more than one hour, Sec. 74.4
special rule, may not change terms of, by unanimous consent in
Committee of the Whole, Sec. 74.16
statutory provisions, motion limiting debate time where debate time
prescribed by, Sec. 67.15
time, additional, requests for, under hour rule in Committee of the
Whole, Sec. Sec. 75.5-75.7
time, additional, unanimous-consent request for, by Member yielded
to, where special rule has divided control of, Sec. 75.8
[[Page 11370]]
unanimous-consent agreements affecting general debate in Committee
of the Whole Sec. Sec. 75.9, 75.10, 76.6-76.8
unanimous consent in Committee of the Whole may not change terms of
special rule, Sec. 74.16
unanimous-consent request for additional time by Member yielded to,
where special rule has divided control of general debate,
Sec. 75.8
unanimous-consent requests for additional time under hour rule in
Committee of the Whole, Sec. Sec. 75.5-75.7
unanimous-consent request to dispense with general debate on
appropriation bill in Committee of the Whole was agreed to by
House, Sec. 76.6
unanimous consent to consider Senate concurrent resolution on House
Calendar in Committee of the Whole, limiting general debate to
one hour, Sec. 74.6
unanimous consent to consider Union Calendar bill, limiting debate
in Committee of the Whole to one hour, Sec. 74.5
unanimous consent to provide two hours of general debate on each
chapter of general appropriation bill, Sec. 74.3
Union Calendar bill, unanimous consent to consider, limiting debate
in Committee of the Whole to one hour, Sec. 74.5
yielding portions of time, Member recognized for an hour as, in
Committee of the Whole, Sec. 75.4
Governmental officials, references to, see Executive or governmental
officials, references to
Hope, Bob, tributes to, Sec. 40.7
Hour rule in House
adoption of rules, prior to, Sec. Sec. 68.1, 68.2
amendment in nature of substitute, amendment to, not in order
unless manager yields for amendment, Sec. 19.39
amendment, proponent of, prior to adoption of rules, Sec. 68.2
amendments to bill in order if Member in control yields, Sec. 30.2
appeal from Chair's ruling, Sec. 68.71
bills and resolutions generally, Sec. Sec. 68.3-68.5, 68.11
Budget Act exception to hour rule, Sec. 31.38
committee amendments, time for debate on, Sec. 68.45
committee funding resolution, Sec. 68.32
Committee of the Whole, House agreed by unanimous consent to
consider bill in, under general rules of House, Sec. 3.4
committee, resignation from, motion to accept, Sec. 68.62
committee, resolution electing Member to, Sec. 68.63
conferees, amendment to motion to instruct, Sec. 68.30
conferees, motions to instruct, Sec. Sec. 68.28-68.30
conference meetings, motion to close, Sec. 68.27
conference, motion to send bill to, Sec. 68.26
conference reports, see Conference reports
discharged measure, debate on, Sec. Sec. 68.65, 68.66
discharge, motion to, Sec. 68.64
disciplinary resolution, extension and allocation of time on,
Sec. 26.33
disciplinary resolutions, Sec. Sec. 68.52-68.54
District of Columbia bill, Sec. 68.5
impeachment charges, Sec. 68.47
[[Page 11371]]
inquiry, resolutions of, Sec. Sec. 68.33-68.35
motion to correct Record or to expunge, Sec. Sec. 68.60, 68.61
motion to discharge, Sec. 68.64
motion to postpone further consideration, Sec. 68.58
motion to recommit with instructions, Sec. 68.57
motion to reconsider, Sec. 68.59
personal privilege, Member recognized for one hour on question of,
Sec. 8.34
postpone, motion to, Sec. 68.58
postpone, motion to, disciplinary resolution, Sec. 68.53
private bill, Sec. 68.9
privileged resolution, Member calling up, has control of time,
Sec. Sec. 18.1, 18.2
privileged resolutions, Sec. Sec. 68.31 et seq.
privileges of the House, resolutions concerning, Sec. Sec. 68.46 et
seq.
recommit with instructions, motion to, Sec. 68.57
reconsider, motion to, Sec. 68.59
Record, motion to correct or to expunge, Sec. Sec. 68.60, 68.61
refer, motion to, Sec. Sec. 68.50, 68.51
reserving portion of yielded time is not permitted, Sec. 68.7
resignation from committee, motion to accept, Sec. 68.62
resolution, privileged, which is the subject of motion to
discharge, Sec. 68.34
Rules, resolutions from Committee on, Sec. Sec. 68.36 et seq.
seating of Member-elect, Sec. 68.1
Senate amendments, Sec. Sec. 68.12 et seq.
Senate bill considered in House under special rule, Sec. 68.10
special-order speeches, see Special-order speeches
statutory allocation of time, effect of, on hour rule,
Sec. Sec. 68.69, 68.70
unanimous consent, bill called up by, Sec. Sec. 68.4, 68.9
vetoed bills, debate on passage of, Sec. 68.55
vetoed bills, motion to postpone or refer, Sec. 68.56
yielding for amendment, effect of, Sec. 68.8
House as in Committee of the Whole, debate in, see Five-minute debate
in House as in Committee of the Whole
House as in Committee of the Whole, initiating consideration in (see
also Five-minute debate in House as in Committee of the Whole)
District of Columbia bill on Union Calendar, Sec. 4.12
immediate consideration of Union Calendar bill, effect of
unanimous-consent agreement for, Sec. Sec. 4.7, 4.8
motion as not in order, Sec. 4.11
Private Calendar bills, omnibus, considered in House as in
Committee of the Whole, Sec. 4.13
special rules providing for consideration, Sec. Sec. 4.1, 4.2
unanimous consent granted for consideration of bill after special
rule adopted for consideration of same bill, Sec. 4.10
unanimous-consent request for consideration, Sec. Sec. 4.3-4.8,
4.11, 4.12
House, criticism of, as objectionable
campaign expenses allegedly paid by certain interests, statement
concerning, did not reflect on any individual Member, Sec. 53.1
individual Member, remarks permissible if not reflecting on,
Sec. 53.1
remarks in Senate, Sec. Sec. 46.1 et seq.
Hypothetical questions, Chair does not respond to, Sec. Sec. 9.1, 9.50
[[Page 11372]]
Initiating consideration or debate (see also, e.g., Consideration,
points of order against; Question of consideration; Special rules;
Unanimous-consent requests)
after consideration permitted, request that Private Calendar bill
be passed over comes too late, Sec. 1.16
any day thereafter, unanimous-consent request for consideration in
House of bill on following day or, Sec. 2.10
Committee of the Whole, House may resolve into, by motion,
Sec. Sec. 3.5, 3.6
Committee of the Whole, House may resolve into, by unanimous
consent, Sec. Sec. 3.3-3.5
Committee of the Whole, House resolved into, without motion,
Sec. 3.2
Committee of the Whole, motion to resolve into, for consideration
of resolution disapproving executive action, Sec. Sec. 3.6, 3.7
Committee of the Whole, resolution into, see Committee of the
Whole, resolving into
Committee of the Whole, unanimous consent for consideration of bill
in, under general rules of House, Sec. 3.4
death or absence of Member designated to call up bill as not
affecting question of consideration by House, Sec. 9.4
discharge, adoption of motion to, followed by motion to resolve
into Committee of Whole, Sec. 3.15
House as in Committee of the Whole, consideration in, see House as
in Committee of the Whole, initiating consideration in; Five-
minute debate in House as in Committee of the Whole
impeaching government official, resolution, as question of
privilege, Sec. 1.15
Precedents of House, joint resolution concerning, considered by
unanimous consent, Sec. 1.14
privileged, consideration of matter not, as requiring special rule
or unanimous consent, Sec. Sec. 2.1, 2.2
privileged, resolution directing select committee chairman to
request special rule held not to be, Sec. 2.17
Senate bill, Sec. 1.13
Speaker's declaration, resolving into Committee of Whole, see
Sec. 3 Introduction, Sec. 23.26
special rule, consideration of, on same day reported, see Special
rules
statute providing for consideration or postponement of
consideration of specified matters, Sec. Sec. 2.42, 2.43
three-day layover requirement not applicable to report in
disapproval resolution, Sec. 3.7
unanimous consent for consideration of bill, effect of, on points
of order against consideration, Sec. 2.6
unanimous-consent request for consideration of bill, Chair declines
to recognize for, unless assured of clearances from leadership,
Sec. 2.5
unanimous-consent requests for initial consideration of bills and
resolutions, Chair has declined to recognize for, Sec. 9.37
unanimous consent to consider measure while another pending,
Sec. 2.9
unanimous consent to consider private Senate bill with nongermane
amendment, Sec. 2.12
Inquiry, resolutions of, hour rule as applicable to, Sec. Sec. 68.33-
68.35
Intelligence, statements impugning Member's, as objectionable
generally, Sec. Sec. 64.1 et seq.
[[Page 11373]]
``dumb interpretation,'' Member's view of amendment's effect
characterized as, Sec. 64.4
``English,'' questioning whether Member can understand, Sec. 64.1
forged document, charge that Member could never detect a, Sec. 64.4
incapable of ascertaining whether document forged, Member alleged
to be, Sec. 64.4
``one syllable,'' asking that bill be reprinted in words of, so
opposition could undertand it, Sec. 64.2
Interruption of Member who has floor
call of the House, special order interrupted by, Sec. 32.12
Chair, must rise and address, Sec. Sec. 42.10, 42.14
conference report, interruption by, Sec. 32.18
consent of Member who has floor required, Sec. Sec. 42.8, 42.9,
42.12
decorum, as breach of, Sec. Sec. 42.8, 42.10, 42.11, 42.14
message from Senate, interruption by, Sec. 32.18
microphone at majority or minority table should be used for
questions to Member speaking from well of the House, Sec. 29.3
motion to adjourn, interruption by, Sec. 32.6
motion to close debate, interruption by, Sec. 32.4
motion to rise, interruption by, Sec. 32.5
objection to unanimous-consent request, charging time consumed by
Member who has reserved, Sec. 32.16
parliamentary inquiry, interruption by, Sec. Sec. 32.7-32.10, 42.12
perfecting amendment, seeking to offer, where motion to strike is
under debate, Sec. 32.17
permission to interrupt, seeking, Sec. Sec. 32.1, 32.2
point of order, interruption by, Sec. Sec. 32.10, 32.11
privilege, question of personal, interruption by, Sec. Sec. 32.14,
32.15
quorum, point of no, interruption by, Sec. 32.13
Record, treatment of interruption in, Sec. Sec. 42.13, 42.14
resuming unfinished business, debate recommences at point where
interrupted upon, Sec. 67.14
stricken, remarks of Member interrupting may be, Sec. 32.3
time, charging, where Member with floor has been interrupted,
Sec. Sec. 32.3, 67.7
yield, asking Member to, see, e.g., Yielding time for debate
Yield, Member declines to, Sec. 42.14
Legislative actions or proposals, criticism of, as objectionable (see
also, e.g., Tactics in debate, objectionable references to)
amendments, criticism of, Sec. Sec. 58.3-58.6, 58.12
bills, criticism of, Sec. Sec. 58.1, 58.2
``blind,'' ``slavish,'' and ``shameful'' opposition to measure,
Sec. 58.7
conferees, criticizing actions of, Sec. 58.11
filibuster, allegation of ``sinister'' influences on those
conducting, Sec. 58.9
``Legislative day,'' debate fixed at ``one day'' as meaning, Sec. 67.9
Limitation on five-minute debate, effect of, on allocation of remaining
time (see also Chair, discretion and power of; Recognition)
generally, Sec. Sec. 13.32, 13.35-13.40, 22.1 et seq., 25.8 et
seq., 79.1 et seq.
[[Page 11374]]
abrogated, five-minute rule was not, where debate fixed at hour and
a half, Sec. 22.8
abrogating five-minute rule, limitation as, generally,
Sec. Sec. 22.30, 79.45, 79.49, 79.54
abrogating five-minute rule, limitation to time certain as,
Sec. Sec. 9.26-9.28, 13.37, 22.22
allocate time, Chair may, between proponent and opponent of
amendment, Sec. 24.29
allocation of time under, between proponents of two amendments,
Sec. 24.31
allocation of time under limitation on debate, Sec. Sec. 78.61-
78.66
amendment offered before motion to limit debate agreed to,
proponent of, recognized for five minutes, Sec. 22.3
amendment offered for which time was not allocated, Sec. 24.33
amendment, pending, must be disposed of before second amendment
offered, Sec. 79.30
amendment printed in Record, proponent offered, under allocated
time rather than claiming separate time, Sec. 79.139
amendments not covered by limitation, Sec. Sec. 22.46, 22.47,
79.135-79.137
amendments not yet pending, reserving time to debate, Sec. 79.62
amendments offered after debate time expires, Sec. Sec. 79.94 et
seq.
amendments, order of, under limitation, Sec. Sec. 79.135-79.137
amendments printed in Record, debate on, after expiration of debate
time, Sec. Sec. 79.99 et seq., 79.139
amendments printed in Record, form of, Sec. Sec. 79.110-79.112,
79.119
amendments printed in Record, form of amendment offered must
conform to, Sec. 79.119
amendments, pro forma, printed in Record, Sec. 79.117
amendments which are affected by motion to close or limit debate,
Sec. Sec. 79.37-79.42
amendment to amendment, time allocated for debate on, Sec. 22.28
amendment, transferring unused debate time to another, Sec. 79.133
Chair's distribution of time, Sec. Sec. 79.43-79.52, 79.64-79.81
close debate, recognition to, Sec. 22.50
committee members, allocating time to, on amendments to amendment
in nature of substitute, Sec. 26.23
desk, amendments at the, as affected by limitation,
Sec. Sec. 79.32, 79.37
discretion of Chair, allocation of time is within, Sec. Sec. 9.24-
9.32, 13.37, 22.6 et seq., 24.29
extending allocated time not permitted, Sec. 79.50
extension of time after limitation is by unanimous consent,
Sec. 22.2
extension of time, effect of, Sec. Sec. 22.21, 79.121
five-minute rule, when Chair allows debate to continue under,
Sec. Sec. 79.123-79.125
guidelines for recognition after limitation, generally,
Sec. Sec. 22.12-22.14
instantly, debate closed, by motion, Sec. 79.1
[[Page 11375]]
Members not in Chamber when limitation agreed to, recognition of,
Sec. 22.4
motion allocating debate time permitted by special rule, Sec. 79.86
motion allocating debate time ruled out, Sec. Sec. 22.39, 22.40,
78.68, 79.85
notice in advance by Members who wish to speak, Sec. Sec. 22.5,
22.7
open to amendment at any point, effect of motion to limit debate
where text is, Sec. 79.34
opposing sides, Chair allocated time between two Members on, to be
yielded by them, Sec. 9.27
opposition to amendment, Member recognized for, notwithstanding
prior recognition under limitation, Sec. 19.56
opposition to amendment, priority of recognition for, Sec. 22.30
order of amendments under limitation, Sec. Sec. 79.135-79.137
parliamentary inquiry, time for, was not deducted from allocated
time, Sec. 79.73
point of order, argument on, after expiration of debate time,
Sec. 79.120
pro forma amendments after closing of debate on bill,
Sec. Sec. 79.35, 79.36
pro forma amendments during allocated time, Sec. 79.33
pro forma amendments, effect of limitation on, Sec. 78.60
proponent of amendment recognized before committee chairman in
opposition, Sec. 22.26
reallocated time unused at expiration of time, Sec. 79.8
reallocation of time, Sec. Sec. 9.30, 9.32, 22.43, 79.121 et seq.
recognition after limitation, guidelines for, generally,
Sec. Sec. 22.12-22.14
recognition, time allocated equally among Members seeking, at time
limitation agreed to, Sec. Sec. 22.10, 22.16
Record, amendment printed in, was offered under allocated time
rather than time allowed under rule, Sec. 79.139
Record, debate on amendments previously printed in, after
limitation on debate, Sec. Sec. 22.18, 22.19, 22.32-22.38,
79.62, 79.99 et seq.
Record, pro forma amendments printed in, Sec. 79.117
Record, recognition of Members whose amendments have been printed
in, may be deferred, Sec. 9.26
Record, when to offer amendments printed in, Sec. 22.11
repeated recognition of Member who has spoken, Sec. Sec. 9.28,
22.9, 22.17, 22.22-22.25, 77.40
reserving time, Sec. Sec. 22.27, 22.41, 78.67, 78.69, 78.74, 79.54-
79.62, 79.67
rising of Committee of the Whole, effect of, Sec. Sec. 22.45,
79.127-79.131
section of bill and amendments thereto, closing of debate on, does
not apply to amendment offered as new section, Sec. Sec. 79.29,
79.31
special rule permitting allocation of debate time in motion,
Sec. 79.86
sponsorship of amendment as factor in recognition by Chair,
Sec. 9.24
standing at time limitation agreed to, division of time among
Members, Sec. 79.53
strike, effect of limiting debate on motion to, on offering of
perfecting amendments, Sec. 79.138
[[Page 11376]]
strike enacting clause, debate on motion to, as affected by
limitation, Sec. Sec. 23.36, 23.37, 79.17-79.28, 79.87-79.91
strike enacting clause, motion to, offered during time limitation,
Sec. Sec. 22.48, 22.49, 79.17-79.28, 79.87-79.91
substitute amendment in nature of, time for making motion to limit
debate on amendments to, Sec. Sec. 78.97, 78.98
time allocated between proponents of two amendments, Sec. 24.31
time, allocating, under limitation on debate, Sec. Sec. 78.61-78.66
time, certain, running of time where debate is to end at,
Sec. Sec. 79.2-79.9
time, Chair may allocate, between proponent and opponent of
amendment, Sec. 24.29
time, charging, under limitation on debate, Sec. 78.51
time remaining, length of, as affecting Chair's allocation of
debate time, Sec. 9.29
time, running of, under fixed period limitation, Sec. Sec. 79.10-
79.16
unanimous-consent agreement to limit and divide control of time for
debate on amendments to certain paragraphs, Sec. 78.99
unanimous consent, allocating time by, Sec. Sec. 79.82-79.85
unanimous-consent request to close debate before Members to whom
time was allocated have spoken, Chair refused to entertain,
Sec. 78.92
unused time under an allocation, Sec. 22.43, 79.8, 79.92, 79.93,
79.133
use of time allotted under limitation for various amendments,
Sec. Sec. 22.15, 22.42
vacated, effect where limitation was, Sec. 22.44
voting, Chair's reallocation of time where time has been partly
consumed by, Sec. 9.30
yielding time allotted under limitation, Sec. Sec. 22.14, 22.29,
22.30, 22.41, 29.31, 79.132
Limiting five-minute debate in Committee of the Whole (see also Closing
five-minute debate in Committee of the Whole)
generally, Sec. Sec. 78.1 et seq.
abrogated, five-minute rule is, after limitation, Sec. Sec. 19.49,
25.9
allocating time under limitation, Sec. Sec. 78.61-78.66, 78.97
amendment pending, motion to limit debate is in order where,
Sec. 78.6
amendments not yet offered, limiting debate on, Sec. Sec. 78.37,
78.38
amendments offered after expiration of debate time, see Expiration
of debate time, amendments offered after
any Member may make motion, Sec. Sec. 14.17, 14.18
Chair's discretion in limiting debate, Sec. Sec. 78.77, 78.78
debatable, motion is not, Sec. Sec. 78.19, 78.20
dispensing with further reading of bill as part of unanimous-
consent request to limit debate, Sec. 78.93
dispensing with further reading of bill, motion to limit or close
debate after, Sec. 78.30
[[Page 11377]]
enacting clause, motion to strike, made while motion to limit
debate was pending, Sec. 23.31
expiration of debate time, amendments offered after, see Expiration
of debate time, amendments offered after
extending debate beyond limitation, Sec. Sec. 78.41-78.49
extension of time is by unanimous consent, Sec. 22.2
further limitation where limitation already agreed to, Sec. 78.100
interpreting language of limitation, Sec. Sec. 78.89-78.91
interruption of Member with floor by motion to limit debate,
Sec. Sec. 78.13, 78.14
manager of bill customarily recognized for motion although any
Member may move, Sec. Sec. 14.17, 14.18
manager of bill recognized for request to limit debate before
Member recognized to offer amendment, Sec. 19.40
motion allocating debate time, see Limitation on five-minute
debate, effect of, on allocation of remaining time
motion to require certain amount of debate, Sec. 78.101
pending motion disposed of before further recognition by Chair,
Sec. 22.1
prior recognition to manager over Member who seeks to debate or
amend, Sec. Sec. 78.11, 78.12
pro forma amendment, manager of bill entitled to prior recognition
to move to limit debate over Member seeking to offer,
Sec. 14.19
reading, completion of, required before request to limit debate
permitted, Sec. 78.33
reading, unanimous-consent request to limit debate before
conclusion of, Sec. Sec. 78.94, 78.95
recognition after limitation of Member who had previously spoken on
amendment, Sec. 19.49
reconsider, motion to, limitation on debate, Sec. Sec. 78.79, 78.80
rescinding or vacating limitation, Sec. Sec. 78.81-78.87
reserving time not allowed under motion, Sec. Sec. 78.72, 78.73
resuming debate where Committee rose before time expired,
Sec. 78.57
rise, motion to, made while motion to limit debate was pending,
Sec. 23.30
rising of Committee before allotted time expires, Sec. 78.57
special rules limiting debate, Sec. 74.12
strike enacting clause, motion to, takes precedence over motion to
limit debate, Sec. 78.58
time certain, limitation to, converted to minutes of debate,
Sec. 79.133
time, charging, under limitation on debate, Sec. 78.51
time consumed in disposing of requests or motions to limit debate,
charging of, Sec. 78.15
time, stated, motion to close debate at, Sec. Sec. 78.39, 78.40
titles, allocation of time to designated, where committee amendment
considered as read and open to amendment at any point,
Sec. 78.70
unanimous-consent request limiting five-minute debate to certain
number of minutes on each of seven remaining titles of bill,
Sec. 74.13
unanimous-consent request that debate end ten minutes after
subsequent amendment offered was not entertained, Sec. 10.42
[[Page 11378]]
unanimous-consent request to limit debate not entertained during
reading of amendment, Sec. 10.41
unanimous-consent request to limit debate not entertained until
resolution read or considered as read, Sec. 10.40
unanimous-consent request to limit debate on amendments as
including statement that remainder of bill considered as read
and open to amendment, Sec. 78.93
unanimous-consent request to limit debate prior to conclusion of
reading of bill, Sec. Sec. 78.94, 78.95
unanimous consent required to further limit debate where limitation
previously agreed to, Sec. 78.100
unanimous consent to extend debate beyond limitation,
Sec. Sec. 78.41-78.49
vacating or rescinding limitation, Sec. Sec. 78.81-78.87
voting, setting time certain for, setting time by clock is
preferred to, Sec. Sec. 78.75, 78.76
when in order, Sec. 19.52
who may move, Sec. Sec. 78.3, 78.10-78.12
writing, motion must be reduced to, upon demand, Sec. 78.52
Losing or surrendering control of debate time
amendment, yielding for, see Yielding time for offering amendments
conferees, motion to instruct, rejection of previous question on,
Sec. 26.47
conference report, rejection of, see Conference reports
essential motion, recognition of opposition after rejection of,
generally, Sec. Sec. 15.1 et seq., 34.1 et seq.
hour rule, Member in charge of measure under, yielding for
amendment, Sec. 68.8
inquiry, defeat of motion to table resolution of, Sec. 18.7
motion, essential, recognition of opposition after rejection of,
Sec. Sec. 15.1 et seq., 17.55-17.61, 34.1 et seq.
motion to table resolution, effect of defeat of, Sec. 34.2
``opposed,'' Member qualified as, recognized to make motion to
table after rejection of previous question, Sec. 15.14
opposed to bill, chairman of committee surrendered control where he
was, Sec. Sec. 33.10, 33.11
opposition, control passing to, generally, Sec. Sec. 34.1 et seq.
postpone to day certain, motion to, not ``essential'', Sec. 15.2
preferential motion, Member offering, does not gain control of
time, Sec. Sec. 33.12-33.16
previous question, effect of intervening business and adjournment
after rejection of, Sec. 15.22
previous question, effect of rejection of, Sec. Sec. 12.20, 15.11-
15.17, 15.19-15.21, 17.55, 18.3-18.6, 26.47, 34.3-34.8
previous question, effect of rejection of, prior to adoption of the
rules, Sec. 34.8
previous question on motion to instruct conferees, effect of,
Sec. 33.21
previous question, priorities in recognition after rejection of,
Sec. 12.20
relevancy in debate, after repeated points of order that Member is
violating rule of, Sec. 33.2
reserving portion of time, Member to whom time was yielded as,
Sec. 33.19
Senate amendment, effect of rejection of motion to dispose of,
Sec. Sec. 15.6-15.10, 17.55, 17.58-17.61, 34.11-34.15
sit, Member permitted by unanimous consent to, after yielding for
purposes of debate, Sec. 8.32
[[Page 11379]]
standing, effect of requirement that Member in control remain,
Sec. 33.22
statute, where time has been allotted by, Sec. 33.20
statutory provisions as guaranteeing time in opposition under Trade
Act, Sec. 11.17
table, motion to, effect of rejection of, Sec. Sec. 15.3, 15.4,
15.20
unfinished business, chairman of committee recognized to call up
bill as, even though previous question on bill was rejected on
prior legislative day, Sec. 15.22
unused time as reverting to Member in control, Sec. 33.19
withdrawal of resolution, Sec. 33.3
words, unparliamentary, Member called to order for, see, e.g.,
Words, taking down
yielded back, effect where time is, Sec. Sec. 33.17, 33.18
yielded time, effect on, where manager who has yielded time loses
floor, Sec. 24.13
yielding for amendment, see Yielding time for offering amendments
yielding remainder of time without moving previous question,
Sec. Sec. 67.12, 67.13
Loyalty, statements questioning Member's
generally, Sec. Sec. 66.1 et seq.
aid and comfort to enemies, Members or others accused of giving,
Sec. Sec. 55.30, 66.3, 66.4
Committee of the Whole characterized as ``agency of the U.S.S.R.,''
Sec. 66.11
``communistic'' or communist leanings, allegations concerning,
Sec. Sec. 66.1, 66.2
fascist or Nazi elements as influencing Members, allegations
concerning, Sec. Sec. 66.6, 66.7
flag, American, reference to those who would rip down, Sec. 66.5
government, accusing Member of trying to undermine, Sec. 66.9
government, Member allegedly associated with newspaper dedicated to
destruction of, Sec. 66.10
Nazi or fascist elements as influencing Members, allegations
concerning, Sec. Sec. 66.6, 66.7
subversive, characterizing remarks in debate as, Sec. 66.8
``un-American Committee,'' Committee on Un-American Activities
referred to as, Sec. 66.12
``undermine'' the government, accusing Member of trying to,
Sec. 66.9
Manager of bill or resolution
absence of, effect of, Sec. 14.12
absence of, Member authorized to control time during, Sec. 28.9
amendment, manager may be recognized to offer more than one,
Sec. 14.7
amendment, manager recognized more than once to speak on, Sec. 14.8
amendments, right to offer or debate, generally, Sec. Sec. 14.6,
14.7, 24.9, 24.10
appropriaton bill, control of debate on where time not fixed,
Sec. 24.35
appropriation bills, control of debate on, generally,
Sec. Sec. 24.35-24.39
Calendar Wednesday, debate on bills considered on, control of,
Sec. 26.40
Calendar Wednesday, Member authorized to call up bill on,
Sec. 26.39
close debate at certain hour, manager given recognition for
unanimous consent request to, over minority Member seeking to
offer amendment, Sec. 14.2
close debate on amendment, manager entitled to recognition for
motion to, over others wishing to debate amendment or offer
amendments thereto, Sec. 14.16
[[Page 11380]]
close debate, proponents of bill have right to, Sec. 24.17
close debate, right to, generally, Sec. Sec. 24.17-24.20
closes debate, manager of bill, Sec. 24.31
committee amendments acted on before manager recognized for debate,
Sec. 26.15
conferees, motion to instruct, consideration of, Sec. 24.40
conference reports, see Conference reports; Senate amendments
death of, effect of, Sec. 14.13
debate time, control of, generally, Sec. Sec. 24.1 et seq.
delegation of authority by designated manager, Sec. 28.9
designated and authorized, Member who has been, calls up bill or
resolution, Sec. Sec. 27.1, 27.2
designation by committee, Sec. Sec. 27.1, 27.2
designation by unanimous consent, Sec. Sec. 27.3, 27.4
discharged bill, manager of, Sec. 27.5
discharged, debate on privileged resolution after committee has
been, Sec. 14.24
disciplinary resolution, division of time on, Sec. 24.34
enacting clause, manager recognized in opposition to motion to
strike, Sec. Sec. 14.22, 14.23
extension of time for general debate, Sec. 24.11
limitation on debate, manager recognized again after, Sec. 14.8
limit debate, manager entitled to prior recognition for motion to,
over Member seeking to offer pro forma amendment, Sec. 14.19
limit debate, recognition for motion to, in committee of the Whole,
Sec. Sec. 14.17, 14.18
minority member of subcommittee, ranking, controlled debate in
favor of resolution where chairman controlled time in
opposition, Sec. 14.21
minority Member seeking to offer amendment, Chair overruled point
of order made by, against recognition of manager for unanimous-
consent request to close debate, Sec. 14.2
opposition, chairman of committee recognized in, to amendment,
Sec. 26.44
opposition, chairman who reported resolution controlled time in,
Sec. 14.21
opposition to amendment, manager of bill recognized in,
Sec. Sec. 28.25-28.27
opposition to bill as amended, manager relinquished control and
offered motion to strike after stating, Sec. 26.8
opposition to conference report, control of time where manager
states, Sec. 24.4
opposition to motion that enacting clause be stricken, recognition
for, Sec. Sec. 14.22, 14.23
previous question as terminating debate time previously yielded,
Sec. 24.23
previous question, motion for, generally, Sec. Sec. 24.21, 24.22
previous question on privileged resolution, Member in control may
move, notwithstanding his prior allocation of debate time to
another, Sec. 14.25
priority of recognition, generally, Sec. Sec. 14.1-14.3, 24.1 et
seq.
Private Calendar bill called up by unanimous consent, control of
debate time on, Sec. 14.15
privileged resolution, Member recognized to call up, has control of
time under hour rule, Sec. Sec. 14.11, 18.10
privileged resolution offered prior to adoption of rules,
Sec. 24.28
privileged resolution, proponent of, has priority of recognition
after committee discharged, Sec. 14.24
[[Page 11381]]
recognition, priority of, generally, Sec. Sec. 14.1-14.4
rise, motion that Committee, Sec. Sec. 14.20, 14.21, 24.15
rise, motion to, recognition for, Sec. Sec. 14.20, 14.21
special rule not specifying manager, effect of, Sec. Sec. 28.5,
28.6
special rules dividing debate on amendments between proponent and
opponent, Sec. Sec. 26.44-26.46
special rules, effect of, on control or distribution of debate
time, generally, see Special rules, effect of, on control or
distribution of time for debate
suspension of rules, management of House bill with Senate
amendments under, Sec. Sec. 26.34, 26.35
time not fixed, recognition for debate on appropriation bill where,
Sec. 24.35
unanimous consent, bill called up by, generally, Sec. Sec. 24.24,
24.25
unanimous consent, Member calling up bill for consideration by, is
recognized to control time, Sec. Sec. 14.14, 14.15
veto, control of debate on overriding, Sec. Sec. 26.41, 26.42
withdrawal of special rule from consideraton, Sec. Sec. 24.7, 24.8
yielding for amendment, effect of, Sec. 14.14
yielding repeatedly to same Member, Sec. 28.29
``yielding'' to himself, manager barred from, Sec. 14.5
Member-elect, participation in debate by, is by unanimous consent,
Sec. 8.33
Morning-hour debates, Sec. Sec. 10.64, 73.24
Motions, debate on, under hour rule, see Hour rule in House
Motions, generally, see specific motions, e. g., Recommit, motion to
Motions, recognition for particular, see Recognition
Motions, rejection of certain, as affecting control of debate, see
Losing or surrendering control of debate time
Motives of other Members, statements impugning
generally, Sec. Sec. 49.35, 49.36, 62.1 et seq.
Armed Forces, Member accused of depriving members of, of right to
vote, Sec. Sec. 62.3, 62.4
conferees, motives of, Sec. 58.11
``consistency is a virtue of small minds,'' as not impugning
motives, Sec. 62.2
``deceptive'' and ``hypocritical,'' Sec. 58.12
deceptive and hypocritical motives, Sec. 62.9
``defense of our country,'' opposition to, Sec. 62.5
``demagogic or racist'' motivation for amendment, Sec. 58.6
fascist influence on committee, Sec. 66.7
``hypocritical'' and ``deceptive,'' Sec. 58.12
hypocritical and deceptive motives, Sec. 62.9
legislation, position on, attributed to improper motives,
Sec. Sec. 62.3 et seq.
``opportunism,'' allegation of, Sec. 62.7
party, motivation of, Sec. Sec. 62.10, 62.12
personal gain as motive, allegation concerning, Sec. 62.8
``petty politics,'' opposition motivated by, Sec. 49.35
political motivations for legislative positions, accusations
concerning, Sec. 62.6
``racist'' or ``demagogic'' motivation for amendment, Sec. 58.6
timely, demand that words be taken down was not, Sec. 49.35
One-minute speeches
generally, Sec. Sec. 73.1 et seq.
[[Page 11382]]
appeal from Speaker's refusal to allow one-minute speeches,
instance where Speaker entertained, Sec. 9.61
business, recognition for one-minute speeches after completion of,
Sec. 73.6
Calendar Wednesday, on, Sec. 10.62
custom of House, as, Sec. 73.1
discharge, recognition for one-minute speeches refused where motion
to, was in order, Sec. 73.4
discretion of Speaker, recognition as within, Sec. Sec. 9.8, 9.59-
9.62, 10.51-10.57, 73.2 et seq.
extension of one-minute speeches, Sec. Sec. 73.10, 73.11
Journal, recognition during reading of, Sec. 10.63
legislative business, Chair may recognize for one-minute speeches
after, Sec. Sec. 10.58-10.60
legislative business, effect of, Sec. Sec. 73.5-73.8
nonpartisan, Chair endeavors to be, Sec. 10.50
once, Member may not address the House more than, before business
of the day, Sec. Sec. 10.61, 73.9
point of order does not lie against Speaker's refusal to allow one-
minute speeches, Sec. 9.61
policy, Speaker announced, for recognition for, Sec. 10.48
procedure, Chair announced, Sec. 10.49
quorum, point of no, effect of, Sec. 73.8
recognition for, is within discretion of Speaker, Sec. Sec. 9.8,
9.59-9.62
Record, appendix of, when speeches are to appear in, Sec. 73.7
requests for, refusal of, Sec. Sec. 73.1, 73.4, 73.5
second request not entertained, Sec. Sec. 10.61, 73.9
Speaker's discretion in recognizing for, Sec. Sec. 9.8, 9.59-9.62
timekeeping during, Sec. 67.2
when in order, Sec. 73.6
Opening debate
committee chairman or ranking committee member as opening general
debate, Sec. 7.2
general debate, special rule designating Member to control,
Sec. 7.2
motion, Member making, Sec. 7.1
proponent of amendment in nature of substitute could open debate
where there was no manager of joint resolution, Sec. 26.45
special rule designating Member to control general debate, Sec. 7.2
special rule dividing debate between proponent and opponent of
amendment in nature of substitute, Sec. 28.6
Opposition, control of debate time passing to, see Losing or
surrendering control of debate time
Opposition, when one third of debate time may be controlled by, see
Third, one, of debate time controlled by one opposed
``Oxford-style'' debates, Sec. Sec. 10.64, 73.24
Papers, permission to read, in debate (see also Reading matter that is
prohibited)
charging of time consumed by vote on permission, Sec. 81.5
Clerk, having documents read by, Sec. Sec. 82.2-82.4
extend time, permission to read paper does not, Sec. Sec. 80.7,
81.6
former rule, procedures under, Sec. Sec. 80.1, 80.5, 81.1-81.7,
82.1 et seq.
letter, name of signer of, not required to be given, Sec. 80.4
objections to reading, under former rule, Sec. Sec. 80.1, 80.5,
81.1-81.7, 82.1 et seq.
[[Page 11383]]
point of order based on relevancy may not be raised where
permission granted, Sec. 82.5
relevancy not required where permission given, Sec. 80.2
relevancy, point of order based on, may not be raised where
permission granted, Sec. 82.5
remarks of Member read by Clerk, Sec. 82.3
revise and extend, effect of permission to, Sec. 82.6
rule, reading of, does not require consent, Sec. 80.3
video, use of, Member informed House of Speaker's denial of request
for, Sec. 80.8
voting on permission, Sec. Sec. 81.1-81.7
yielded, documents read in time that is, Sec. 82.7
yielding time to Member to read paper, effect of, Sec. 80.6
yielding to another to read paper, Sec. 29.17
Parliamentary inquiry is not ``intervening business,'' Sec. 20.8
Parliamentary inquiry, recognition for, see Recognition
Participate in debate, who may or may not
contestees in election contest, Sec. 1.4
delegates, Sec. 1.2
former Members of House, Sec. 1.6
Member-elect before oath, Sec. 1.3
Parliamentarian, Sec. 1.7
Resident Commissioner, Sec. 1.2
Senators may not address House, Sec. 1.5
Speaker, Sec. 1.1
Permission to explain or proceed after demand that words be taken down
generally, Sec. 52.1 et seq.
debate on motion to proceed in order, Sec. Sec. 6.17, 52.11-52.13
House, consent of, to proceed in order, Sec. Sec. 52.4-52.8
motion, Member may be allowed to proceed by, Sec. Sec. 52.7, 52.9-
52.13, 52.17
motion to proceed in order as privileged, Sec. Sec. 52.9, 52.10
motion to proceed in order, debate on, Sec. Sec. 52.11-52.13
motion to proceed in order may be laid on table, Sec. Sec. 52.12,
52.13
sufficient sanction, Speaker's ruling and expungement of words
usually considered, Sec. 51.29
unanimous consent, Sec. 51.29
unanimous consent to proceed in order, Sec. Sec. 52.2, 52.4-52.8,
52.14, 52.17, 52.18
withdrawal of words ruled out of order as conferring permission,
Sec. 52.3
Points of order
amendment, debate on merits of, before debate under reservation of
point of order, Sec. Sec. 9.48, 19.53
amendments, committee members have priority in making points of
order against, Sec. 19.16
amendments, consideration of, point of order against portion of
bill ruled on before, Sec. 20.37
bill open to amendment at any point, points of order where,
Sec. 19.17
committee members have priority in making, against amendments,
Sec. 19.16
debate, interruption of, Chair must permit, Sec. 29.26
debate on amendment, point of order after, Sec. 20.31
debate on, Chair's discretion as to duration of, Sec. 67.3
[[Page 11384]]
debate on merits of amendment permitted before debate under
reservation of point of order, Sec. Sec. 9.48, 19.53
debate on paragraph, point of order against paragraph is too late
after, Sec. 20.30
debate on point of order, running of time on, under time
limitation, Sec. 79.9
debate, scope of, on point of order, Sec. 37.12
debate time, expiration of, argument on point of order after,
Sec. 79.120
debate time, separate, for points of order, Sec. 9.47
diligence, due, in seeking recognition to make, Sec. Sec. 20.32-
20.34
expiration of debate time, argument on point of order after,
Sec. 79.120
germaneness, point of order based on, too late after debate on
amendment, Sec. 20.31
interruption of debate, Chair must permit, to rule on point of
order, Sec. 29.26
interrupt, point of order may, question of privilege, Sec. 20.27
open to amendment at any point, points of order where bill is,
Sec. 19.17
portion of bill, point of order against, ruled on before amendment
considered, Sec. 20.37
privilege, point of order may interrupt question of, Sec. 20.27
recognition for debate on amendment does not preclude, where Member
has not begun remarks, Sec. 19.42
recognition for points of order against amendments, committee
members have priority of, Sec. 19.16
recognition of Member for, where Speaker had not observed Member
seeking recognition before House resolved into Committee,
Sec. 20.28
recognition to make, seeking, Sec. Sec. 13.16, 20.23 et seq.,
20.32-20.34
reservation of point of order, debate under, debate on merits of
amendment permitted before, Sec. Sec. 9.48, 19.53
ruling on point of order against provision before amendment is
offered, Sec. 19.18
timeliness of, Sec. Sec. 19.42, 20.28, 20.30-20.34
yield for point of order, not necessary that Member, Sec. 20.26
yield, Member recognized on point of order may not,
Sec. Sec. 20.38, 20.39
Political party, criticism of, as objectionable
election, ``stealing,'' allegation concerning Members as, Sec. 53.7
individual Member, remarks permissible if not reflecting on,
Sec. Sec. 53.2, 53.6
opportunism, statement that Member was leading opposition party in
policy of, Sec. 53.5
simple form, request that bill be printed in, so opposition party
could understand it, Sec. 53.4
``stealing'' election, allegation concerning Member as, Sec. 53.7
syllable, one, request that bill be printed in words of, Sec. 53.4
Postpone consideration, motion to, in order before manager recognized,
Sec. 2.41
Postpone consideration, debate on motion to, controlled by Member
offering motion, Sec. 24.14
Postpone, debate on motion to, under hour rule, see Hour rule in House
Postpone indefinitely motion to resolve into Committee of Whole, motion
to, allowed as to disapproval resolution, Sec. Sec. 2.42, 2.43
[[Page 11385]]
Presidential or Vice Presidential candidates, references to
``hypocrisy,'' characterization of acts and words as, Sec. 49.17
Senator who is candidate, reference to, Sec. 47.10
President or Vice President, references to (see also Presidential or
Vice Presidential candidates, references to)
abusive language, Sec. Sec. 47.12, 47.15-47.18
addressing President in second person in debate, Sec. Sec. 47.13,
47.14
``aid and comfort to the enemy,'' charge that President had given,
Sec. 47.17
contemptuous reference to President, Sec. 47.1
family, references to President's, Sec. 47.18
floor or House, remarks not made on, Sec. 47.11
``intellectually dishonest,'' charge that President was, Sec. 47.15
press, remarks made in, Sec. 47.12
Record, inserting remarks in, Sec. 47.12
sexual misconduct, allegations of, Sec. 47.16
Speaker's remarks in press conference, Sec. 47.11
surname, referring to President by, Sec. 47.1
Vice President, reference to, held in order, Sec. 47.2
Vice President, rule prohibiting reference to Senators as not
applicable to references to, Sec. 47.9
Previous question, effect of rejection of, on recognition, see Losing
or surrendering control of debate time
Previous question, vacating of, by unanimous consent (see also, e.g.,
Closing of debate in House), Sec. 72.4
Priorities in recognition (see also Recognition)
generally, Sec. 12.1 et seq.
absence of chairman and ranking minority member of committee,
effect of, on recognition, Sec. 13.15
agreement as to control of time, in absence of, Sec. 12.11
alternation between majority and minority, Sec. Sec. 12.6-12.9,
12.16, 13.9, 13.11, 21.9
alternation of recognition, principle of, as affected by
recognition for parliamentary inquiry, Sec. 12.9
amendment, perfecting, offered while motion to strike is pending,
Sec. 19.29
amendment, proponent of, controlled debate by unanimous consent,
Sec. 27.4
amendment, proponent of, may control time in opposition to
substitute therefor although committee members would have
preference, Sec. 13.4
amendments, offering, Sec. Sec. 13.10, 13.19, 13.34, 14.6
amendments, preferential voting status of, as factor,
Sec. Sec. 9.17, 9.23
appropriation bill, debate on, generally, Sec. Sec. 24.35-24.39
appropriation bill, general, amendments offered to, Sec. 12.14
appropriation bill, recognition for amendments to, as affected by
motion to rise, Sec. 12.14
Calendar Wednesday, preference in recognition for opposition to
motion to dispense with, goes to committee member, Sec. 13.24
Calendar Wednesday, preference in recognition to control time in
opposition to bill on, Sec. 13.25
chairman of committee, duty of, to report bill, Sec. 16.21
chairman of committee reporting bill, Sec. Sec. 12.2, 21.2
[[Page 11386]]
closed rule permitting only committee amendments, recognition of
committee members for debate under, Sec. Sec. 13.51, 13.52
committee amendment, Member in favor of, recognized before one
opposed, Sec. 19.55
committee amendments acted on before manager recognized for debate,
Sec. 26.15
committee amendments, Chair recognized for, before recognizing for
other amendments under modified closed rule, Sec. 9.19
committee amendments, debate under special rule permitting only,
Sec. Sec. 13.51, 13.52
committee chairman has priority of recognition to offer amendment,
Sec. 14.6
committee, member of, has priority in making points of order
against amendments, Sec. 19.16
committee, member of, recognized to offer substitute even though
previously recognized to debate original amendment, Sec. 13.20
committee, members of, generally, Sec. Sec. 9.2, 9.16, 12.1, 12.10,
12.12, 12.17, 12.18, 13.1 et seq., 16.1 et seq., 19.10 et seq.,
21.1, 26.1 et seq.
committee, members of, given preference to control time in
opposition to substitute amendment over proponent of original
amendment, Sec. 13.4
committee, members of, given priority in recognition where titles
considered open to amendment, Sec. 13.19
committee, members of, may lose priority of recognition, Sec. 13.13
committee, members of, not necessarily given priority in
recognition under limitation on debate, Sec. 13.36
committee, members of, recognition among, in absence of chairman
and ranking minority member, Sec. 13.15
committee, members of, recognized before Member who introduced
bill, Sec. 13.3
committee, members of, where bill contains subjects beyond
jurisdiction, Sec. 13.12
committee member standing but not actively seeking recognition,
recognition of another where, Sec. 13.14
committee or subcommittee, members of, priorities as among,
Sec. Sec. 13.5-13.7
conference, committee chairman recognized to request, Sec. 13.21
conference reports, during consideration of, see, e.g., Conference
reports; Senate amendments
conference report, Speaker recognized for resolutions disapproving
Presidential reorganization plans before recognizing Member to
call up, Sec. 9.54
discharged bill, proponents of motion to discharge have prior
recognition in debate on, Sec. 27.5
discharge, recognition for debate in opposition to motion to, goes
to committee members in order of rank, Sec. 13.18
District of Columbia business, general debate on, Sec. 12.11
enacting clause, recognition for motion to strike, where another
Member had been recognized to offer amendment, Sec. 12.13
five-minute rule, after limitation of debate under, Sec. Sec. 12.5,
13.35, 13.38-13.40, 14.8, 22.3 et seq.
five-minute rule, under, generally, Sec. Sec. 12.4, 12.8, 12.10,
12.12, 14.4, 21.1 et seq., 26.18 et seq.
[[Page 11387]]
jurisdiction of reporting committee, recognition of members where
bill contains subjects beyond, Sec. 13.12
limitation on debate, effect of, on recognition and allocation of
time, see Limitation on five-minute debate, effect of, on
allocation of remaining time
limit debate, motion to, see, e.g., Limiting five-minute debate in
Committee of the Whole
manager of bill or resolution, see Manager of bill or resolution
Minority Leader asserted ``preemptory right'' to offer motion to
recommit resolution imposing discipline on Member, Sec. 13.46
motions, recognition for, Sec. Sec. 8.21, 23.1 et seq.
motion to discharge bill, proponents of, manage bill after motion
agreed to, Sec. 27.5
opposition, control of time in, where special rule divides time
between proponent of amendment and Member opposed,
Sec. Sec. 12.16, 12.17, 28.24
opposition, rights of, after rejection of essential motion, see
Losing or surrendering control of debate time
opposition to amendment, recognition to control time in, as within
discretion of Chair, Sec. 12.16
opposition to amendments, recognition for, Sec. Sec. 13.4, 13.23,
13.53
points of order, member of committee has priority of recognition in
making against amendments, Sec. 20.29
points of order, members of committee have priority of recognition
to make, against amendment to bill, Sec. 13.16
preferential voting status of amendments as factor, Sec. Sec. 9.17,
9.22, 13.34
Presidential reorganization plans, Speaker recognized for motions
disapproving, before recognizing Member to call up conference
report, Sec. 9.54
previous question, after rejection of, Sec. Sec. 12.20, 34.3-34.8
Private Calendar bill, preference in recognition for debate in
opposition to amendment to, goes to member of committee,
Sec. 13.23
Private Calendar, opposition to amendment to bill on, Sec. 19.57
privileged questions, Chair's discretion in recognizing for,
Sec. Sec. 9.54-9.57
pro forma amendments, for, Sec. 12.18
pro forma amendments, under special rule permitting only,
Sec. 13.17
recommit, for motion to, generally, Sec. Sec. 12.21-12.23, 13.42-
13.44
recommit, Minority Leader asserted ``preemptory right'' to offer
motion to, in case of resolution imposing discipline on member,
Sec. 13.46
recommit, motion to, priority given to minority members of
committee in order of rank to offer, Sec. Sec. 13.42, 13.43
recommit, recognition to offer motion to, does not preclude
recognition for another motion to recommit if first motion has
not been read, Sec. 8.21
refer, motion to, for, Sec. 12.23, 23.59-23.61
second on motion to suspend rules, recognition of Member to demand
(under former rule), Sec. Sec. 13.27-13.29
seniority of committee members as factor, Sec. Sec. 9.17, 9.24,
12.3-12.5, 12.7, 13.18, 13.25, 13.30-13.33
seniority of committee members rather than party affiliation as
basis for recognition in opposition to amendment printed in
Record and offered after limitation on debate, Sec. 13.32
[[Page 11388]]
simultaneously, where Members seek recognition, Sec. 12.10
special-order speeches, see Special-order speeches
special rule permitting only committee amendments, debate under,
Sec. Sec. 13.51, 13.52
special rule permitting only pro forma amendments, under Sec. 13.17
special rule permitting simultaneous pendency of three amendments
in nature of substitute, then pro forma amendments and
perfecting amendments in specified order, Sec. 12.19
sponsor or Member who introduced bill, members of committee
recognized before, Sec. 13.3
sponsorship of amendment, Chair may disregard seniority and base
recognition on, Sec. 12.5
strike enacting clause, preference in recognition for opposition to
recommendation to, Sec. Sec. 13.47-13.50
subcommittee or full committee, members of, priority as among,
Sec. Sec. 13.5-13.7
suspend rules, motion to, is of equal privilege to District of
Columbia business, Sec. 16.24
suspend the rules, alternation of recognition not followed on
motion to, Sec. 12.24
suspend the rules, challenging qualification of ranking minority
member to be recognized in opposition to motion to, Sec. 26.36
suspend the rules, minority Member opposed to motion has priority
over majority Member opposed in controlling twenty minutes
debate in opposition, Sec. Sec. 12.15, 12.26
suspend the rules, recognition (under former rule) as between
majority and minority to demand second on motion to,
Sec. Sec. 12.25, 12.26
suspension of rules, preference in recognition to demand second on
motion for (under former rule), given to committee member
opposed to bill, Sec. Sec. 13.27-13.29
Trade Act provisions, control of debate under, Sec. 13.54
two or more committees reported bill, where, Sec. 12.22
Private Calendar bill called up by unanimous consent, control of debate
time on, Sec. 14.15
Private Calendar bill, request that bill be passed over not allowed
after consideration of, Sec. 1.16
Privileged or assertedly privileged questions, recognition for,
Sec. Sec. 9.54-9.58
Privileged question, resolution directing select committee chairman to
request special rule held not to be, Sec. 2.17
Privileged resolutions, hour rule as applicable to, Sec. Sec. 68.31 et
seq.
Privilege of the House, alleged violation of rules as giving rise to
question of, Sec. 40.10
Privilege, scope of debate on questions of, see Relevancy in debate
Privileges of the House, resolutions concerning, hour rule as
applicable to, Sec. Sec. 68.46 et seq.
Proceed in order, motion to, see Permission to explain or proceed after
demand that words be taken down
Pro forma amendments, see, e.g., Five-minute debate in Committee of the
Whole; Recognition
Question of consideration (see also, e.g., Consideration, points of
order against)
adjourn, motion to, as not in order after vote to consider bill
before House has resolved into Committee of the Whole,
Sec. 5.11
[[Page 11389]]
Calendar Wednesday, question is raised against bill called up on,
before House resolves into Committee of the Whole, Sec. 5.3
Calendar Wednesday, question of consideration against bills on,
Sec. Sec. 5.3, 5.9-5.11
Committee of the Whole, House automatically resolved into, after
affirmative vote, Sec. 5.9
Committee of the Whole, motion to resolve into, question of
consideration not applicable to Sec. Sec. 5.5, 5.6
Committee of the Whole, question raised before House resolves into,
during Calendar Wednesday procedure, Sec. 5.3
debatable, not, Sec. Sec. 5.4, 6.3
existing law, question may not be raised against bill on ground
provisions are contrary to, Sec. 2.13
House, whether to consider matter is determined by, Sec. 2.19
inquiry, resolution of, as subject to, Sec. 5.2
points of order against conference report, question of
consideration raised before, Sec. 5.12
read, question raised after bill or resolution is, Sec. Sec. 5.1,
5.3
refusal to consider bill as not precluding special rule, Sec. 2.27
second question of consideration on same bill on Calendar
Wednesday, Sec. 5.10
special rule, consideration of, on same day reported, see Special
rules
special rule, effect of, on points of order against consideration,
Sec. Sec. 2.13-2.15
when question of consideration cannot be raised, Sec. Sec. 2.13,
5.5, 5.6, 5.11
when question of consideration may be raised, Sec. Sec. 5.1, 5.2
Quorum call, business intervening after, before putting demand for
recorded vote on pending amendment, Sec. 20.19
Quorum call, effect of, on time where debate has been limited,
Sec. 67.8
Quorum in committee reporting bill, lack of
as basis of point of order, Sec. Sec. 2.6-2.8, 2.16
when to make point of order based on, Sec. Sec. 2.6, 2.16
Quorum, point of no
dilatory, may be held, after quorum disclosed, Sec. 20.17
not in order when Speaker has not put pending question, Sec. 9.41
not in order where Speaker has ordered Committee to resume sitting,
Sec. 49.41
one-minute speeches, effect on, see One-minute speeches
pending question must first be put to vote, Sec. Sec. 23.13-23.15
recognition for, seeking, Sec. 20.12
when in order, Sec. Sec. 20.13-20.16, 20.20, 20.22
Race, references to, as objectionable
generally, Sec. Sec. 65.1 et seq.
association with one's own race or another race, remarks
concerning, Sec. 65.1
Jewish ``race,'' references to, Sec. 65.4
``Negroes,'' use of term, questioned in 1949, Sec. 65.2
Racism or prejudice, statements accusing Member of, as objectionable
generally, Sec. Sec. 65.3, 65.5, 65.6
[[Page 11390]]
``bigoted,'' opinions of Member characterized as, Sec. 65.5
motivation for amendment characterized as ``racist'' and
``demagogic,'' Sec. 65.6
prejudice, Member accused of arousing, Sec. 65.7
Ramseyer rule, point of order against consideration based on
noncompliance with, precluded by special rule, Sec. 2.15
Reading matter that is prohibited (see also Papers, permission to read
in debate)
discharge petition, names signed on, reading of, Sec. 83.1
executive session committee proceedings, Sec. 83.4
impugning Members, papers, Sec. Sec. 83.5, 83.6
press accounts critical of Member, Sec. Sec. 83.6, 83.7
privileges of House, question of, may be raised against insertion
in Record of offensive press account, Sec. 83.7
Senate proceedings, reports of, Sec. 83.3
Senators, communications from, Sec. 83.2
unparliamentary language, matter containing, Sec. Sec. 83.5, 83.6
Reading of notes of reporters of debates, request for, not in order,
Sec. 1.10
Reading papers, see Papers, permission to read, in debate
Recede and concur, motion to, see Senate amendments
Recess, Member may not speak from well during, Sec. 41.17
Recognition (see also Priorities in recognition)
actively seeking recognition, Sec. Sec. 8.15, 8.19, 8.20, 8.23,
13.2, 13.14
adjourn, motion to, Sec. Sec. 9.68, 23.63-23.68
alternation between majority and minority members of committee
reporting bill, Sec. Sec. 9.16, 9.18, 9.23, 12.6-12.8, 12.12,
13.7, 13.11
alternation between those favoring and those opposed to
proposition, Sec. Sec. 25.1, 25.2, 25.14 et seq., 25.22
alternation in recognition, generally, Sec. Sec. 25.1 et seq.
alternation in recognition in absence of agreement as to control of
time, Sec. 12.11
alternation of recognition as not including parliamentary inquiry,
Sec. 12.9
alternation of recognition not followed during debate on motion to
suspend rules, Sec. 12.24
amendment and amendment thereto, Member speaking on both,
Sec. 21.18
amendment, control of time in opposition to substitute for,
Sec. 26.43
amendment, may not offer, in time yielded for debate, Sec. 19.28
amendment, may not offer, when recognized for parliamentary
inquiry, Sec. 19.30
amendment, Member wishing to offer, must seek, Sec. Sec. 8.15, 8.16
amendment, modification of, by proponent, Sec. 19.15
amendment not yet offered, may not debate, Sec. 19.41
amendments left with Reading Clerk, Member must seek recognition at
appropriate time to offer, Sec. 8.17
amendments, offering or debating, generally, Sec. Sec. 13.10,
13.19, 13.34, 19.1 et seq., 21.1 et seq.
amendments, order of recognition on, where amendment tree is full,
Sec. Sec. 19.50-19.52
[[Page 11391]]
amendments printed in Record, recognition to offer, Sec. 19.33
amendments proposing limitations on appropriation bills, Sec. 19.38
amendments, seeking recognition to offer, Sec. Sec. 19.2-19.6
amendments to general appropriation bill, order of, Sec. 23.29
amendment, substitute, recognition to speak in support of
perfecting amendment before another recognized to offer,
Sec. 19.54
amendment, time in opposition to, controlled by chairman of
committee or floor manager, Sec. Sec. 26.44, 26.46
amendment to motion in House, Sec. 30.1
appeal from decision on recognition does not lie, Sec. Sec. 9.5,
9.6
appeal from Speaker's refusal to allow one-minute speeches,
instance where Speaker entertained, Sec. 9.61
appropriation bills, control of time on, generally,
Sec. Sec. 24.35-24.39
badges, rule on seeking recognition as barring wearing of, to
communicate messages, Sec. 8.7
bills, for calling up or controlling debate on, generally,
Sec. 16.1 et seq.
Calendar Wednesday bills, Sec. Sec. 16.17-16.21
committee amendments considered before floor amendments, Sec. 19.19
committee amendments, debate under special rule permitting only,
Sec. Sec. 13.51, 13.52
committee amendments to title I of bill, Chair recognized Member to
offer, where bill open to amendment at any point, Sec. 2.32
committee chairman opposed to reported bill, Sec. 26.44
committee member, same, recognized in opposition to several
amendments, Sec. 13.53
committee reporting bill, members of, see Priorities in recognition
conferees, recognition for motion to instruct, Sec. 23.62
conference, committee chairman recognized to request, Sec. 13.21
conference reports, matters pertaining to, generally, see, e.g.,
Conference reports; Senate amendments
conferred, recognition is not, by inquiry, ``for what purpose does
gentleman rise'', Sec. 23.1
conferred, recognition was not, where Member made motion without
being formally recognized, Sec. 23.2
denial of recognition, basis for, see Chair, discretion and power
of, with regard to recognition
desk, amendments left at, must still be ``offered'' after proponent
obtains recognition, Sec. 8.17
diligence in seeking, Sec. Sec. 9.39, 9.40, 9.46, 23.2
discharged bill, Sec. Sec. 16.13-16.15
discharge, recognition for motion to, Sec. 23.23
discretion of Chair, see Chair, discretion and power of, with
regard to recognition
District of Columbia bills, Sec. Sec. 16.22-16.24
duty of committee chairman to report bill, Sec. 16.21
enacting clause, motion to strike, recognition for debate on,
Sec. Sec. 21.31-21.35
en bloc amendments, time allotted on, Sec. 21.21
[[Page 11392]]
executive session, motion to resolve into, see Secret sessions
five-minute rule, under, generally, Sec. 21.1 et seq.
floor, Member does not have, until recognized, Sec. Sec. 8.1, 8.2,
8.10
floor, Member may not be taken from, by parliamentary inquiry,
Sec. 29.23
``for what purpose does the gentleman rise?'' does not confer,
Sec. 8.14
hypothetical questions, Chair does not recognize for,
Sec. Sec. 9.1, 9.50
limitation amendments on appropriation bills, Sec. 19.38
limitation on debate, effect of, on recognition and allocation of
time, see Limitation on five-minute debate, effect of, on
allocation of remaining time
limitations on power of recognition, see Chair, discretion and
power of, with regard to recognition
limit debate, motion to, see, e.g., Limiting five-minute debate in
Committee of the Whole
managers of bill, priority of, generally, see Manager of bill or
resolution
Member-elect may participate in debate on question of right to be
sworn by unanimous consent only, Sec. 8.33
messages, rule on seeking recognition as barring wearing of badges
to communicate, Sec. 8.7
Minority Leader who called up bill was recognized in opposition to
motion to recommit offered by ranking minority member of
reporting committee, Sec. 8.22
motion not pending until Chair has recognized Member to offer,
Sec. 8.11
motion, recognition to offer amendment to, in House, Sec. 30.1
motion relating to enacting clause may be offered while motion to
limit debate is pending, Sec. 23.31
motions or debate on motions, generally, Sec. Sec. 23.1 et seq.
motion that Committee of the Whole rise may be offered while motion
to limit debate is pending, Sec. 23.30
motion to adjourn, Sec. Sec. 9.45, 9.68, 23.63-23.68
motion to commit concurrent resolution, Sec. 23.54
motion to commit resolution adopting rules, Sec. 23.56
motion to commit resolution electing minority members to
committees, Sec. 23.55
motion to discharge, recognition for, Sec. 23.23
motion to instruct conferees, Sec. 23.62
motion to postpone, recognition for, Sec. 23.24
motion to recommit, see Motion to recommit
motion to reconsider, recognition for, Sec. 23.25
motion to refer, Sec. Sec. 23.57-23.61
motion to resolve into Committee of the Whole, Sec. Sec. 23.26,
23.27
motion to strike enacting clause is preferential to motion to close
debate, Sec. 23.32
motion to strike enacting clause, opposition to, recognition for
Sec. Sec. 23.40-23.43
motion to suspend rules, opposition to, recognition for,
Sec. Sec. 23.20, 23.21
motion to suspend rules, recognition for, Sec. Sec. 23.16-23.18
motion to suspend rules ``with amendments,'' Sec. 19.37
[[Page 11393]]
objection to request for withdrawal of motion, recognition for,
does not extend recognition to speak in opposition to motion,
Sec. 23.3
one-minute speeches, for, see One-minute speeches
opposition, Member recognized in, yielded back time, Sec. 28.28
opposition, rights of, after rejection of essential motion, see
Losing or surrendering control of debate time
opposition to amendment, chairman of committee or manager
controlled time in, Sec. Sec. 26.44, 26.46
opposition to more than one amendment, seeking recognition in,
Sec. 13.40, 13.53
opposition to substitute amendment, control of time in, Sec. 26.43
order of recognition where amendment tree is full, Sec. Sec. 19.50-
19.52
parliamentary inquiries, recognition for, is within discretion of
Chair, Sec. Sec. 20.1, 20.7
parliamentary inquiry, Chair will not recognize for, if Member who
has floor refuses to yield, Sec. 29.24
parliamentary inquiry during call of roll, Sec. 20.2
parliamentary inquiry during reading of Journal, Sec. 20.3
parliamentary inquiry during time yielded for debate, Sec. 29.22
parliamentary inquiry, interruption of Member with floor by,
Sec. Sec. 32.7-32.10
parliamentary inquiry, Member having floor need not yield for,
Sec. 20.5
parliamentary inquiry, Member may not be taken from floor by,
Sec. 29.23
parliamentary inquiry, Member recognized for, may not offer
amendment, Sec. 20.6
parliamentary inquiry, Member recognized for, may not yield floor,
Sec. 20.7
parliamentary inquiry moot where Speaker recognized another to
withdraw resolution, Sec. 20.4
parliamentary inquiry not entertained in absence of quorum,
Sec. 20.11
parliamentary inquiry, recognition for, denied after automatic roll
call ordered, Sec. 20.10
parliamentary inquiry, recognition for, denied when point of no
quorum made, Sec. 20.9
personal privilege, Member must state basis of, before recognition,
Sec. 8.34
personal privilege, recognition for one hour on question of,
Sec. 8.34
point of order, Chair must recognize for, Sec. 20.26
point of order may interrupt question of privilege, Sec. 20.27
point of order, Member recognized after debate had begun where he
had shown due diligence in seeking recognition to make,
Sec. Sec. 20.32-20.34
point of order relating to pending call of House, Sec. 20.11
point of order that Member has not properly sought recognition
comes too late after Member has begun debate, Sec. 8.8
points of order, recognition to make or debate, Sec. Sec. 13.16,
20.23-20.39
postpone, recogniton for motion to, Sec. 23.24
preferential status of amendment offered as affecting,
Sec. Sec. 9.17, 9.23, 13.34
previously recognized, where Member seeking recognition has been,
Sec. Sec. 13.20, 13.53
priorities in, see Priorities in recogni
tion
[[Page 11394]]
Private Calendar bills, during consideration of, Sec. Sec. 16.25-
16.30
privileged or assertedly privileged questions, recognition for,
Sec. Sec. 9.54-9.58
privileged resolution, Member calling up, has control of time,
Sec. Sec. 18.1, 18.2
privilege, question of, recognition for, Sec. Sec. 18.11, 18.12
pro forma amendments, recognition not extended for, on motion to
strike enacting clause, Sec. 21.31
pro forma amendments, under special rule permitting only,
Sec. 13.17
purpose for seeking recognition, Chair may inquire as to,
Sec. Sec. 8.12, 8.13
purpose for seeking recognition, Chair's inquiry as to, does not
confer recognition, Sec. 8.14
purpose, recognition for specified, as not conferring recognition
for other purposes, Sec. Sec. 8.9-8.11, 23.3
purposes, Speaker announced policies concerning recognition for
specified, Sec. 9.13
quorum, recognition after announcement of absence of, Sec. 20.18
quorum, seeking recognition for point of no, see Quorum, point of
no
reading of appropriation bills by heading and amount stated in each
paragraph, Member seeking recognition to amend paragraph
during, Sec. 8.18
recommit, recognition for motion to see Recommit, motion to
reconsider, recognition for motion to, Sec. 23.25
recorded vote, Member desiring to ask for, must seek recognition in
timely fashion, Sec. Sec. 8.20, 8.23, 8.24
Record, remarks may be stricken from, if Member has not been
recognized, Sec. Sec. 8.3, 51.29
refer, recognition to offer motion to, not dependent on party
affiliation or opposition to resolution, Sec. 23.57
reorganization plan, resolution disapproving, Member opposed
recognized to move consideration of, Sec. 18.8
resolution of inquiry, after defeat of motion to table, Sec. 18.7
resolutions, simple or concurrent, recognition for, Sec. Sec. 18.1
et seq.
rise, Member desiring to speak must, Sec. Sec. 8.5, 8.6
seating of Member-elect, amendment to resolution relating to,
Sec. Sec. 18.3, 18.4
secret session, motion to resolve into, see Secret sessions
seeking, Sec. Sec. 8.1, 8.4-8.6, 8.15, 8.19, 8.20, 8.23
seeking recognition in timely manner, necessity of, Sec. Sec. 13.2,
13.13, 13.14
sit, member permitted by unanimous consent to, after yielding for
purposes of debate, Sec. 8.32
special-order speeches, for, see Special-order speeches
special rule, calling up, Sec. Sec. 18.13-18.15, 18.18, 18.19,
18.22
special rule permitting only committee amendments, debate under,
Sec. Sec. 13.51, 13.52
special rule permitting only pro forma amendments, under,
Sec. 13.17
special rule permitting three pending amendments in nature of
substitute, order of recognition under, for debate and offering
perfecting amendments, Sec. 12.19
special rule prohibiting pro forma amendments, Speaker and Minority
Leader permitted by unanimous consent to speak during
consideration under, Sec. 28.23
[[Page 11395]]
special rule, recognition for debate not in order after House
agreed to motion to discharge committee from consideration of,
Sec. 18.23
special rule, recognition of Member calling up, where rule had been
temporarily withdrawn, Sec. 18.17
special rule, where bill is considered under, Sec. Sec. 16.1-16.6
standing at time vote announced not sufficient as request for
recognition to demand recorded vote, Sec. Sec. 8.20, 8.23
standing not sufficient as request for recognition to offer motion,
Sec. 8.19
stand, Member desiring to speak must, Sec. Sec. 8.5, 8.6
statutory provisions affecting control of debate, Sec. 13.54
strike enacting clause, debate on, not available where all time has
expired, Sec. Sec. 23.38, 23.39
strike enacting clause, member seeking to offer motion to, as
opposed to bill, Sec. 23.33
strike enacting clause, recognition for motion to, where another
was recognized to offer amendment, Sec. 12.13
strike enacting clause, ten minutes of debate on motion to,
Sec. 23.35
substitute amendment, recognition to speak in support of perfecting
amendment before another recognized to offer, Sec. 19.54
suspend rules, motion to, ``with amendments,'' Sec. 19.37
suspend the rules, alternation of recognition during debate on
motion to, Sec. 12.24, 25.25
suspend the rules, challenging qualification of ranking minority
member to be recognized in opposition to motion to, Sec. 26.36
suspend the rules, control of time in opposition to motion to,
Sec. Sec. 12.15, 23.20, 23.21
suspend the rules, recognition for motion to, Sec. Sec. 23.16-23.18
suspend the rules, recognition (under former rule) to demand a
second on motion to, Sec. Sec. 12.25, 12.26
time in opposition to amendment normally controlled by bill
manager, Sec. Sec. 26.44, 26.46
timely manner, seeking recognition in, necessity of,
Sec. Sec. 13.2, 13.13, 13.14
time, Members seeking allocation of, should stand when limitation
on debate agreed to, Sec. 8.26
Trade Act provisions, control of debate under, Sec. 13.54
unanimous-consent agreement permitting Member to speak at certain
time is not necessarily an infringement of Chair's power,
Sec. 10.1
unanimous consent, consideration of bills by, permitted only if
cleared by leadership, Sec. Sec. 2.3, 2.4
unanimous consent, control of time where private bill was called up
by, in House, Sec. 16.11
unanimous consent, recognition where House has agreed to consider
bill by, Sec. 16.12
unanimous-consent request for consideration, Sec. Sec. 16.7-16.10
unanimous-consent requests or objections thereto, Sec. Sec. 20.40
et seq.
votes or roll calls, recognition during, Sec. 9.38
yeas and nays, Member desiring to ask for, must seek recognition in
timely fashion, Sec. 8.25
yielding time, see, e.g., Yielding time for offering amendments;
Yielding time for debate
[[Page 11396]]
Recommit, motion to
amendment in nature of substitute, motion to recommit House
resolution with instructions as not in order after adoption of,
Sec. 19.39
amendments to, yielding for, Sec. 30.6
Chair's discretion in recognizing for, Sec. 9.67
conference report, recognition for motion to recommit, Sec. 17.62
debatable, motion as, Sec. Sec. 6.39-6.42, 23.50, 23.52, 23.53
debate on, Sec. Sec. 6.39-6.42, 24.30, 68.57
discipline of Member, resolution imposing, Minority Leader asserted
``preemptory right'' to offer motion to recommit, Sec. 13.46
instructions containing direct amendment may not be offered where
resolution amended in entirety, Sec. 23.51
minority Member not on committee has priority of recognition over
majority Member on committee, Sec. 12.21
minority members of committee in order of rank, priority of, to
offer, Sec. Sec. 13.42, 13.43, 23.45 et seq.
opposition, Member subsequently voted for bill after stating his,
Sec. 23.49
opposition, offered by Member who has stated his, Sec. Sec. 23.49,
23.50
read, offeror has floor after motion has been, Sec. 23.48
recognition to offer, does not preclude recognition for another
motion to recommit if first motion has not been read, Sec. 8.21
recognition to offer, priority of, generally, Sec. Sec. 12.21-
12.23, 13.42-13.44, 23.45 et seq.
refer, principles of recognition to offer motion to, distinguished,
Sec. 12.23
reservation of debate time not allowed, Sec. 24.30
resolution, simple, motion to recommit with or without instructions
is in order on, Sec. 23.50
resolution, simple, 10 minutes debate not applicable to motion to
recommit, Sec. 23.52
timeliness of, Sec. 8.21
Recommit or recommit with instructions, debate on motion to,
Sec. Sec. 6.39-6.42, 24.30, 68.57
Reconsider, motion to, as debatable, Sec. Sec. 6.48, 6.49
Reconsider, original question after adoption of motion to, as not
debatable, Sec. Sec. 6.50, 6.51
Record
debate on amendments previously printed in, after limitation on
debate, Sec. Sec. 22.18, 22.19, 22.32-22.38, 79.99 et seq.
recognition of Members whose amendments have been printed in, may
be deferred, Sec. 9.26
recognition to offer amendments printed in, see Expiration of
debate time, amendments offered after; Recognition
Recorded vote, seeking recognition to ask for, see Recognition
Refer, motion to, hour rule as applicable to, Sec. Sec. 68.50, 68.51
Refer, recognition to offer motion to, not dependent on party
affiliation or opposition to resolution, Sec. 12.23
Refer, scope of debate on motion to, resolution relating to seating of
Member, Sec. 36.7
Rejection of essential motion, effect of, on recognition, see Losing or
surrendering control of debate time
Rejection of previous question, effect of, on recognition, see Losing
[[Page 11397]]
or surrendering control of debate time
Relevancy in debate
advance, Chair does not rule in, Sec. 35.17
amendment, pending, confining remarks to, Sec. Sec. 38.5-38.7,
38.13
amend, motion to, debate on, Sec. Sec. 35.21, 38.1 et seq.
anticipate, Chair does not, ruling as to relevancy, Sec. 38.3
appeal on ruling of Chair, Sec. 21.36
appeals from decisions of the Chair, debate on, Sec. 38.15
Chair, role of, in enforcing relevancy, Sec. Sec. 35.6, 35.7, 35.12
committee, election of Member to, debate on, Sec. 35.11
Committee of the Whole, debate in, generally, Sec. Sec. 37.1 et
seq.
committee, resignation of Member from, debate concerning,
Sec. 35.12
committees, morning hour call of, during, Sec. 35.8
disciplinary resolution, Chair does not rule on admissibility of
evidence related to, Sec. 35.14
disciplinary resolution, debate on, Sec. Sec. 35.13-35.15
disciplinary resolution, motion to postpone debate on, Sec. 35.16
five-minute rule, debate under, generally, Sec. Sec. 38.1 et seq.
five-minute rule, unanimous consent required for Member to raise
question of personal privilege under guise of pro forma
amendment during, Sec. 38.16
floor, losing, after repeated points of order that Member's remarks
are not relevant, Sec. 33.2
general debate in Committee of the Whole, Sec. Sec. 39.1 et seq.,
75.12
general debate in Committee of the Whole, effect of special rule on
scope of, Sec. Sec. 39.1, 39.2, 39.5
general debate in House, during, Sec. 35.1
general debate on District of Columbia Day, Sec. 39.3
general debate under Congressional Budget Act, Sec. 39.4
impeachment, articles of, scope of debate on, Sec. 35.10
impeachment charges, argumentative statements permitted in
presenting, Sec. 35.9
legislative history, point of order that debate was improper
attempt to establish, Sec. 35.19
morning hour call of committees, during, Sec. 35.8
omnibus appropriation bill, scope of debate on, Sec. 37.2
personalities, engaging in, as violation of rule of relevancy,
Sec. 38.4
point of order, debate on, Sec. 37.12
point of order, requirement of, for enforcement of rule as applied
to five-minute debate, Sec. Sec. 38.2, 38.13
postpone, motion to, debate on, Sec. Sec. 35.16, 35.18
privilege of House, debate on question of, Sec. Sec. 36.5, 36.7
privilege, personal, discussion of pending legislation was not
relevant to discussion of question of, Sec. 36.3
privilege, personal, scope of remarks on question of,
Sec. Sec. 36.1-36.4, 36.6
privilege, personal, scope of response to editorials questioning
motives for seeking impeachment where presented as question of,
Sec. 36.4
pro forma amendment, additional time on, Sec. 35.7
pro forma amendment, debate under, Sec. Sec. 38.8-38.12
refer, debate on motion to, resolution relating to seating of
Member, Sec. 36.7
[[Page 11398]]
special-order requests specifying subject matter, effect of,
Sec. 35.20
special-order speeches, principle applicable to, Sec. 10.77
special rule, debate on, Sec. Sec. 35.2-35.5
special rule permitting only designated amendments, unanimous
consent to speak out of order during debate under, Sec. 38.17
special rule providing for control of general debate, debate under,
confined to bill as whole, Sec. 28.10
special rule requiring that debate be confined to bill,
Sec. Sec. 37.1, 37.3, 37.4
strike enacting clause, scope of debate on motion that Committee of
the Whole rise with recommendation to, Sec. Sec. 37.5-37.11
unanimous consent to speak out of order, Sec. Sec. 35.7, 37.3,
37.4, 38.14, 38.16, 38.17
Relinquishing control of debate time, see Losing or surrendering
control of debate time
Reporters of debates
not to insert indications of applause or demonstrations, Sec. 1.11
request for reading of notes of, not in order, Sec. 1.10
Reservation of point of order, Chair may permit debate on merits before
debate under, Sec. 9.48
Rise and recommend striking enacting clause, motion to, see Enacting
clause, motion to rise and recommend striking
Rise and report, motion that Committee of the Whole
minority Member in control because committee chairman opposed to
resolution, motion was made by, Sec. 14.21
privilege of motion, Sec. 78.56
Rise, motion that Committee of the Whole
debatable, motion as not, Sec. Sec. 6.29, 6.30, 14.20, 76.12,
78.54, 78.55
manager of bill, within discretion of, Sec. 76.12, 78.55
not necessary when House has limited general debate to time
certain, Sec. 76.11
privilege of motion, Sec. 78.53
who may make motion, Sec. Sec. 76.12, 76.13, 78.53, 78.55
yielded time, making motion in, Sec. 76.13
Rules, resolutions from Committee on, hour rule as applicable to,
Sec. Sec. 68.36 et seq.
Secret sessions
attendance, record of, not kept, Sec. 85.9
``clearance'' not required, Sec. 85.9
committee authorization for Member to move for secret session,
Sec. 85.20
committee presenting facts to Members in meeting after adjournment,
Sec. 1.8
confidential communication, absence of assertion by Member that he
wished to make, to House, Sec. 85.3
confidential communication, Member making motion must qualify by
asserting he has, to make to House, Sec. Sec. 85.5, 85.14
confidential communication related to bill under consideration in
Committee of the Whole, Sec. 85.6
defense bill, motion for secret session to discuss amendment to,
deemed not necessary, Sec. 85.25
discipline of Member who releases information, Sec. 85.23
disclosure of intelligence-related materials, procedures for,
Sec. 85.21
dissolving secret session, Sec. 85.18
employees, essential, admitted, Sec. Sec. 85.9, 85.15, 85.22
executive branch, matters deemed secret by, Sec. 85.21
[[Page 11399]]
floor access, limiting, Sec. Sec. 85.8, 85.9, 85.22
galleries, clearing, Sec. Sec. 85.8, 85.9, 85.22
guidelines for conducting secret session, Sec. Sec. 85.9, 85.22,
85.23
hour rule, Sec. Sec. 85.13, 85.16
impeachment, Senate use of closed session in, Sec. 85.26
legislation, relevance to, not required, Sec. 85.9
motion for secret session must be made in House, Sec. Sec. 85.4,
85.5
motion for secret session not debatable, Sec. 85.7
motion for secret session, qualification to make, Sec. 85.5
motion for secret session, recognition for, Sec. 85.1
motion for secret session rejected, Sec. 85.3
motion for secret session to be put in writing, Sec. 85.1
motion to dissolve secret session, Sec. 85.18
motion to make proceedings public, Sec. 85.17
oath of secrecy, Sec. Sec. 85.9, 85.12
parliamentary inquiry concerning procedures is addressed to
Speaker, Sec. 85.4
point of order, challenging motion for secret session, Sec. 85.19
preparation for session, Sec. 85.2
procedures for conducting secret session, generally,
Sec. Sec. 85.9, 85.22
public disclosure of intelligence-related materials, procedures
for, Sec. 85.21
public, motion to make proceedings, Sec. 85.17
purpose of secret session, Sec. Sec. 85.3, 85.5
qualification to make motion, Sec. Sec. 85.5, 85.14
recognition to move for secret session, Sec. 85.1
Senate use of closed session in impeachment, Sec. 85.26
Senate debate on antiballistic missile program, Sec. 1.9
Speaker determines which employees are essential, Sec. 85.15
Speaker judges whether proponent qualifies to move for secret
session, Sec. 85.14
transcript of proceedings remains secret until otherwise ordered,
Sec. Sec. 85.10, 85.11
violation of injunction of secrecy, what constitutes, as matter for
Member's judgment, Sec. 85.24
Senate amendment in disagreement, motion to dispose of, one-third of
debate time allotted to Member opposed to, see Third, one, of
debate time controlled by one opposed
Senate amendments (see also Conference reports)
concur, preferential motion to, does not transfer control of debate
to proponent, Sec. Sec. 17.43, 17.45, 17.46
concur with an amendment, circumstances in which proponent of
preferential motion to, was recognized to control time,
Sec. 17.49
debate, control of, on motion to dispose of amendment in
disagreement following rejection of conference report,
Sec. 24.42
debate, control of, on motion to dispose of amendment in
disagreement, generally, Sec. Sec. 24.42-24.50
debate on motion to dispose of amendment in disagreement,
Sec. Sec. 17.35-17.37, 17.39
debate on nongermane amendments, Sec. 17.34
[[Page 11400]]
forty minutes debate in House on motion to reject nongermane
portion of conference report, Sec. Sec. 69.12, 69.23-69.26
manager of conference report may defer to another to offer motion
to dispose of, Sec. 17.26
manager of conference report recognized to offer motion to dispose
of, Sec. 17.25
motion to dispose of, control of debate on, generally,
Sec. Sec. 24.42-24.50
nongermane amendments, debate on, Sec. 17.34
preferential motion, circumstances in which proponent of, was
recognized to control time, Sec. 17.49
preferential motion, making of, does not transfer control of debate
to proponent, Sec. Sec. 17.38, 17.40, 17.42-17.48
preferential motion to dispose of, time to offer, Sec. 17.27
recede and concur, effect on recognition where motion to, is
divided and portion is rejected, Sec. 17.61
recede and concur, motion to, recognition after rejection of,
Sec. Sec. 17.56-17.59
recede and concur, motion to, was preferential in form only and was
superseded by proper preferential motion, Sec. 17.41
recede and concur, preferential motion to, does not transfer
control of debate to proponent, Sec. Sec. 17.38, 17.40, 17.44,
17.47, 17.48
recede and concur, proponent of motion to, did not seek recognition
even though manager had no motion pending, Sec. 17.40
recede and concur, recognition after defeat of motion to reject
nongermane portion of motion to, Sec. 17.60
recognition, effect where Member calling up conference report did
not seek, to offer motion to dispose of matter in disagreement,
Sec. 17.24
recognition, Member must actively seek, to offer motion to dispose
of, Sec. 17.23
rejection of conference report, control of debate following,
Sec. Sec. 17.52, 24.42
rejection of motion to dispose of amendment, recognition after,
Sec. Sec. 17.53, 17.54, 17.56, 34.11-34.15
rejection of motion to recede and concur, recognition after,
Sec. Sec. 17.56-17.59
rejection of previous question on motion to concur, recognition
after, Sec. 17.55
suspension of rules, motion dealing with Senate amendments under,
recognition for, Sec. Sec. 17.32, 17.33
unanimous-consent requests to dispose of, recognition for,
Sec. Sec. 17.28-17.31
Senate bill, Member calling up, recognized for one hour, Sec. 17.4
Senate, duties of Chair in, in enforcing rules of debate, Sec. 1.12
Senate, motion to comply with request for return of bill to, not
debatable, Sec. 6.60
Senate or Senators, references to
generally, Sec. Sec. 44.1 et seq.
action, speculating on Senate, Sec. Sec. 44.62, 44.63
action taken on House-passed legislation, Sec. Sec. 44.58, 44.59
addressing remarks to Senate, Sec. 44.65
advocating Senate action on nomination, Sec. 44.60
Chair's initiative, rule enforced on, Sec. Sec. 44.5, 44.7, 44.46,
44.48, 44.51, 44.54, 44.57, 44.62-44.64, 48.3
characterization of Senate actions, Sec. 44.14
[[Page 11401]]
character or integrity, attack on, Sec. 44.54
comity, rule of, criticized, Sec. 44.6
comity, rule of, explained, Sec. Sec. 44.1, 44.2
committees, Senate reference to actions of, Sec. 44.46
complimentary remarks, Sec. Sec. 44.1, 44.29-44.31
conference proceedings, comment on, Sec. 44.10
confirmation proceedings, reference to, Sec. 44.60
correspondence between Senator and federal official, reference to,
Sec. 44.36
critical or derogatory references, Sec. Sec. 44.16-44.22, 44.25,
44.26
enforcement of rule, Chair's announced policy, Sec. Sec. 44.5, 44.8
floor, discussion off the, Sec. 44.53
former Member of House, Senator who was, reference to, Sec. 44.61
historical references, Sec. 44.52
House, measure pending in, comment on Senate proceedings related
to, Sec. Sec. 44.11 et seq.
House, Senate proceedings critical of, Sec. 44.9
House, Senator who was former Member of, reference to, Sec. 44.61
identified by name, where Senator is not, Sec. Sec. 44.21, 44.22
inaction of Senate, reference to, Sec. Sec. 44.56, 44.57, 44.59
indirect reference to Senate or Senator, Sec. Sec. 44.21, 44.22,
44.26-44.28
``Jell-o,'' reference to other body as, Sec. 44.18
letter from non-Member, quoting, Sec. 44.19
letter from Senator, reading, Sec. 44.33
motives of Senators, demand that references to, be stricken,
Sec. 49.40
name of Senator, reference by, Sec. 44.4
newpaper account, quoting, Sec. 44.31
non-Member, quoting letter written by, Sec. 44.19
opinions or policy positions of individual Senators, Sec. 44.15
``other body,'' references to, Sec. 44.26
outside the Senate, actions or remarks, reference to,
Sec. Sec. 44.31, 44.32, 44.34, 44.35
pending measure in House, comment on Senate proceedings related to,
Sec. Sec. 44.11 et seq.
Presidential candidate, reference to Senator who is,
Sec. Sec. 44.54, 44.55
purpose of rule prohibiting reference, Sec. 44.2
quotations from Senate debate, Sec. Sec. 44.11 et seq., 44.30
quoting from newspaper or other published account, Sec. Sec. 44.31,
44.37
quoting letter from non-Member, Sec. 44.19
reading letter from Senator, Sec. 44.33
recognition, denial of further, Sec. 44.5
Record Extension of remarks, inserting references to Senate
speeches or proceedings in, Sec. 44.45
Record, inserting Senate remarks on bills pending before the House
in, Sec. Sec. 44.12, 44.24
Record, reading Senate proceedings from, Sec. 44.23
Record, reference stricken from, Sec. 44.4
Record, removing improper remarks from, Sec. Sec. 44.45, 44.47-
44.50
rule, discussion of, generally, Sec. 44 (introduction)
rule prohibiting references criticized, Sec. 44.6
``Senate,'' use of term, Sec. 44.58
[[Page 11402]]
Speaker's initiative, rule may be enforced on, Sec. 44.5
sponsors of legislation, identifying Senators as, Sec. 44.15
unanimous consent to insert Senate debate in Record,
Sec. Sec. 44.12, 44.24
unanimous consent to refer to correspondence between Senator and
federal official, Sec. 44.36
Vice-Presidential candidate, reference to Senator who is,
Sec. 44.55
Vice President, references to, Sec. 47.9
votes, Senate, reference to, Sec. Sec. 44.38-44.44
Senate, references made in, to House
generally, Sec. Sec. 46.1 et seq.
announcement of intention to seek enforcement of rule of comity,
Sec. 46.4
discretion of Presiding Officer, as matter within, Sec. 46.3
discretion of Senators, left to, Sec. 46.2
expunge remarks, resolution to, Sec. 46.10
floor, Senate, reference to presence of Member of House on,
Sec. 46.14
House action on Senate references, Sec. 46.13
integrity or character, reference to, Sec. Sec. 46.5, 46.10
letters from House Member to Speaker and Senate Majority Leader
inserted in Record, Sec. 46.14
``liar,'' reference to House Member as, Sec. 46.12
motives, reference to, Sec. 46.11
name, reference to House Member by, Sec. 46.9
proceedings in House, reference to, Sec. Sec. 46.5, 46.6
rules, change in, was proposed, Sec. Sec. 46.1
Speaker of the House, reference to, Sec. Sec. 46.7, 46.8
unanimous consent to refer to proceedings of House, Sec. 46.6
Smoking on the Floor, Sec. Sec. 41.15, 41.16
Speaker, criticism of, as objectionable
generally, Sec. Sec. 57.1 et seq.
count, criticizing, Sec. 57.4
designated another Member to preside, Speaker has, when words taken
down affected Speaker, Sec. 48.11
dishonesty, charging, Sec. Sec. 57.2, 57.4
duty, criticism of performance of, Sec. Sec. 57.1, 57.2, 57.4, 57.5
indirect criticisms in course of debate, Sec. 57.5
name, reference to Speaker by nickname or, Sec. 57.3
press conference, criticism of remarks made by Speaker in,
Sec. 57.6
privilege, insult to Speaker as raising question of, Sec. 57.5
privilege of the House, Speaker's impropriety or disregard of rules
as raising question of, Sec. 57.4
rules of House, charge that Speaker ignored, Sec. Sec. 57.2, 57.4
Standards of Official Conduct, Committee on, criticism of Speaker
where report has not been filed by, Sec. 57.5
timeliness of objection to attacks on Speaker, Sec. 57.7
vote, recorded, Member asserting belief that sufficient number was
standing to demand, Sec. 57.4
Speaker's initiative in enforcing rules, see Chair's initiative in
enforcing rules
Special-order speeches
``additional minute,'' request to proceed for, Sec. 73.14
additional time or additional special order, Chair declines to
recognize for, Sec. 73.15
[[Page 11403]]
amendments printed in Record, who may offer, Sec. 21.28
debate, principle of relevancy in, as applicable, Sec. 10.77
discretion of Speaker in recognizing for, Sec. Sec. 9.63-9.66,
10.66, 10.67
duration of, Sec. 73.15 et seq.
extension of time, Sec. Sec. 73.14 et seq.
guidelines for recognition, Sec. 10.65
hour limit, Sec. Sec. 10.76, 68.72, 68.73, 71.20, 73.15
interruption of special-order speech, Sec. 73.19
legislative business, entertaining unanimous-consent request
concerning, during special orders, Sec. Sec. 10.72, 18.25
legislative business, recognition after completion of,
Sec. Sec. 73.12-73.14
legislative business, Speaker may recognize Members for
consideration of, after special-order speeches have begun,
Sec. 9.66
``Oxford'' debates, Sec. 10.64
policy, Speaker announced, for recognition for, Sec. 10.48
postponement of special-order speeches, Sec. Sec. 73.20, 73.21
privileged report, Committee on Rules filing, during, Sec. 10.73
privilege, question of personal, takes precedence, Sec. 10.75
recess, recognition before or after, Sec. 10.74
recognition, guidelines for, Sec. 10.64, 10.65
relevancy in debate, requirement of, as applicable,
Sec. Sec. 10.77, 35.20
time permitted, Sec. Sec. 73.14 et seq.
unanimous consent, time may not be extended by, Sec. 71.20
Veteran's Day speeches, previous order of House permitting,
Sec. 10.68
withdrawn, requests for, were, Sec. 73.21
yielding during, Sec. 10.78
Special rules (see also, e.g., Special rules, effect of, on control or
distribution of time for debate)
agenda, other business on, may be precluded by special rule,
Sec. 2.18
amendments, order of consideration permitted by, as determined by
Chair, Sec. 2.31
budget authority, new, points of order waived against consideration
of bill authorizing, Sec. 2.38
budget, points of order waived against consideration of conference
report on, Sec. 2.38
budget, providing for consideration of concurrent resolution on,
Sec. 2.35
budget, waiving points of order against outlays exceeding budget
ceiling, Sec. 2.38
calling up, Sec. Sec. 18.13-18.15, 18.18, 18.19, 18.22
calling up on same day reported, Sec. 18.20
closed rule, pro forma amendments under, Sec. Sec. 21.23-21.26
committee amendments reported before recognition for debate,
Sec. 18.21
committee amendment to special rule, nonsubstantive, acted upon
before debate on rule, Sec. 19.22
Committee of the Whole, resolving into, without motion after
adoption of special rule, Sec. 3.2
committee structure, control of debate on resolution relating to,
Sec. 28.32
conference reports, rule providing for debate on, see Conference
reports
confirmation, previous question ordered on completion of general
debate on resolution on, of Vice President, Sec. 2.29
[[Page 11404]]
consideration of bill, point of order against, precluded by special
rule, Sec. Sec. 2.13-2.15
consideration of joint resolution continuing appropriations, points
of order against, waived, Sec. 2.11
consideration of outlays in excess of budget ceiling, points of
order against, waived, Sec. 2.38
consideration, points of order against, effect of special rule on,
Sec. Sec. 2.13-2.16
continuing appropriations, consideration of, waiving points of
order against, Sec. 2.11
death of Member designated in special rule to call up bill, Chair's
recognition of another Member after, Sec. 9.4
debate on special rule extended by unanimous consent,
Sec. Sec. 25.18, 71.3
discharged from consideration of rule, recognition in opposition to
bill where Committee on Rules was, Sec. 25.16
discharge, immediate vote on resolution (under former rule) where
House agrees to motion to, Sec. 18.23
enacting clause, motion to recommend striking, not barred by
special rule prohibiting pro forma amendments, Sec. 74.19
floor, amendment made in order by special rule was offered from,
Sec. 2.33
House as in Committee of the Whole, providing for consideration in,
Sec. Sec. 4.1, 4.2
House Calendar resolution, special rule providing for consideration
of, in Committee of the Whole, Sec. 3.1
immediate consideration of unreported bill, Sec. 2.28
modifying, by unanimous consent, Sec. Sec. 10.37, 10.38, 74.14,
74.16, 74.17
motion not required to call up measure where special rule provides
for immediate consideration in House, Sec. 2.30
motions permitted by special rule, Sec. Sec. 28.31, 79.86
motions to limit debate, see, e.g., Limitation on five-minute
debate, effect of, on allocation of remaining time
motion to consider bill, rejection of, as not precluding reporting
of special rule, Sec. 2.27
opening debate pursuant to, see Opening debate
point of order against consideration precluded by special rule,
Sec. Sec. 2.13-2.15
point of order that bill was reported from committee in absence of
quorum is in order unless waived by rule, Sec. 2.16
previous question considered as ordered, further debate or
amendments in House precluded where, Sec. 7.9
printing requirement, point of order that report has not met, does
not lie where consideration granted, Sec. 2.26
privileged, consideration of matter not, as requiring special rule
or unanimous consent, Sec. Sec. 2.1, 2.2
privilege, equal, motions to resolve into Committee of the Whole
pursuant to separate special rules are of, Sec. 2.34
pro forma amendments, special rule permitting, Sec. 21.27
pro forma amendments, special rule prohibiting, as not prohibiting
motion recommending that enacting clause be stricken,
Sec. 74.19
[[Page 11405]]
pro forma amendments under closed rule, Sec. Sec. 21.23-21.26
proponent and opponent, rule dividing debate on amendments between,
Sec. Sec. 26.44-26.46
quorum in committee reporting bill, lack of, as basis for point of
order if not waived by rule, Sec. 2.16
recognition under rule permitting simultaneous pendency of three
amendments in nature of substitute, then pro forma amendments
and perfecting amendments in specified order, Sec. 12.19
Record, who may offer amendment where rule required amendments to
be printed in, Sec. 21.28
rejection of motion to consider bill as not precluding reporting of
special rule, Sec. 2.27
relevancy in debate on, see Relevancy in debate
relevancy in general debate in Committee of the Whole, special rule
may require, Sec. Sec. 37.1, 39.1, 39.2
reported from Committee on Rules, special rule providing for
consideration of resolution, Sec. 3.1
revocation of, Chair declined recognition for unanimous-consent
request for, Sec. 18.24
same day reported, two-thirds vote to consider special rule on,
Sec. Sec. 2.20-2.26
seven legislative days, effect of not calling up rule within,
Sec. Sec. 18.13-18.15
strike enacting clause, motion to, not affected by special rule
prohibiting pro forma amendments, Sec. 23.44
structured amendment process, order of recognition, Sec. 12.19
two-thirds vote to consider rule on same day reported,
Sec. Sec. 2.20, 2.21, 2.25, 2.26
unanimous consent, modifying terms of special rule by,
Sec. Sec. 10.37, 10.38, 74.16
unanimous consent to permit additional debate where special rule
permitted only specified amendments, Sec. Sec. 74.14, 74.17
unanimous consent to permit additional debate where special rule
prohibited pro forma amendments, Sec. 74.14
unfinished business, bill made in order by adoption of special rule
does not necessarily become, Sec. 28.4
Vice President, consideration of resolution on confirmation of,
Sec. 2.29
withdrawal from consideration, Sec. Sec. 18.16, 18.17
Special rules, effect of, on control or distribution of time for debate
generally, Sec. Sec. 28.1 et seq.
accumulation of time under modified closed rule permitting separate
hour of debate on amendment in nature of substitute and
substitute therefor, Sec. 28.20
additional Member not designated in special rule, unanimous consent
that part of time be controlled by, Sec. Sec. 28.11, 28.12
alternation under special rule, Sec. Sec. 25.3-25.6
amendments, special rule limiting, effect of, Sec. Sec. 77.19-
77.22, 77.35
changing allocation of time for general debate by unanimous consent
in Committee of the Whole, Sec. 28.19
changing terms of special rule, Sec. Sec. 28.1, 28.2
[[Page 11406]]
committees, bill within jurisdiction of two or more,
Sec. Sec. 28.13-28.19
designation by committee chairman of Members to control two hours
of general debate, special rule providing for, Sec. 28.10
discharged from consideration of rule where Committee on Rules was,
Sec. 25.16
jurisdiction of two or more committees, bill within,
Sec. Sec. 28.13-28.19
``majority and minority members'' of committee, effect of special
rule dividing debate between, Sec. 28.5
motion to close general debate in Committee of the Whole where
special rule has been adopted, Sec. 76.9
multiple committees, division of time among, Sec. Sec. 25.3-25.5
opposition to amendment, recognition of minority Member in, where
special rule limits debate time on amendments to be controlled
by proponent and opponent, Sec. 28.24
order of recognition of primary and sequential committee members
was not specified, Sec. 28.18
proponent and opponent of amendment in nature of substitute,
special rule dividing debate between, Sec. 28.6
reallocation of time for general debate by unanimous consent in
Committee of the Whole, Sec. 28.19
reservation of objection to unanimous-consent request to offer
amendment, time consumed under, Sec. 28.21
separate hour of debate on amendment in nature of substitute and
substitute therefor, accumulation of time where special rule
provided for, Sec. 28.20
sequential committees, Sec. Sec. 28.13, 28.16, 28.18, 28.19
subcommittee, Chair may recognize chairman of, in opposition to
amendment, Sec. 25.6
suspension of rules, control of debate on motion for, fixed by
resolution, Sec. Sec. 71.15, 71.16
unanimous consent, allocation of time by, where no Member has
claimed time in opposition allocated under special rule,
Sec. 74.18
unanimous-consent requests for additional time, Sec. Sec. 28.1,
28.2, 75.8
unanimous consent, time for general debate reallocated by,
Sec. 28.19
Special rules, effect of, on duration of debate
generally, Sec. Sec. 71.1 et seq.
amendments, special rule limiting effect of, Sec. Sec. 77.19-77.22,
77.35
``days'' or ``one day,'' special rule fixing time for debate on
bill in terms of, Sec. Sec. 74.7-74.9
limiting or closing debate where time has been prescribed by
special rule, Sec. Sec. 74.10, 74.11
motion to close general debate in Committee of the Whole where
special rule has been adopted, Sec. 76.9
previous question considered as ordered, Sec. 72.6
privileged resolutions, Sec. Sec. 71.1, 71.2
Standards of Official Conduct, references to matters considered by
Committee on, see, e.g., Committee proceedings, unreported,
objectionable references to; Words, taking down the; Words or
statements considered to be proper
Statutory provisions, effect of, on control of debate time on par
[[Page 11407]]
ticular matters under Trade Act, Sec. 11.17
Surrendering control of debate time, see Losing or surrendering control
of debate time
Tactics in debate, objectionable references to
``assassinate'' character, charge that remarks tended to, Sec. 59.8
confusing the issue, accusing Member of, Sec. 59.1
``crime,'' reference to Member's remarks as, Sec. 59.2
``demagoguery'' in debate, occasion on which reference to, was held
in order, Sec. 60.5
``disgraceful'' argument or language, charging Member with using,
Sec. Sec. 59.3, 59.4
hyporcitical, characterising amendment as, Sec. 58.12
``intemperate,'' reference to another's statement as,
Sec. Sec. 59.5, 59.6
``lowest thing that I have ever seen,'' Speaker's characterization
of remarks as, Sec. 59.9
``ludicrous'' statements, charge that Member made, Sec. 59.7
Speaker's characterization of remarks as ``lowest thing that I have
ever seen,'' Sec. 59.9
unfair, characterizing debate as, Sec. 59.8
``withholding votes,'' reference to tactic of, held in order,
Sec. 58.10
Ten-minute debate in House
generally, Sec. Sec. 69.4 et seq.
Calendar Wednesday business, motion to dispense with,
Sec. Sec. 69.4, 69.5
recommit with instructions, motion to, Sec. Sec. 23.52, 23.53,
69.6-69.11
Speaker has taken floor in opposition to motion to recommit with
instructions, Sec. 23.53
Third, one, of debate time controlled by one opposed
generally, Sec. 17.17, 26.48 et seq.
additional time, unanimous-consent request for, Sec. 26.59
amendments reported from conference in disagreement,
Sec. Sec. 26.48, 26.61
close, who has right to, Sec. Sec. 26.57, 26.60
conferees, motion to instruct, Sec. 17.21
conference report, Sec. Sec. 17.19, 17.20, 26.49 et seq.
party affiliation, recognition not dependent on, Sec. Sec. 26.49-
26.52, 26.54, 26.62
previous question may be moved after time has been consumed or
yielded back, Sec. 26.58
recognition, priority of, given to conferee, Sec. 26.54
recognition within discretion of Chair, Sec. Sec. 26.49-26.52,
26.54
Senate amendment in disagreement, Sec. 17.18
senior member of reporting committee recognized in opposition,
Sec. 26.62
Time, control of, see, e.g., Losing or surrendering control of debate
time; Manager of bill or resolution; Recognition; Third, one, of
debate time controlled by one opposed; Special rules, effect of, on
control or distribution of time for debate; Limitation on five-
minute debate, effect of, on allocation of remaining time
Time, counting of, by Chair, Sec. Sec. 74.1, 74.2
Timekeeping during debate, Sec. Sec. 67.1, 67.2, 78.51
Title, amendments to, not debatable, Sec. 6.45
Twenty-minute debate in House
generally, Sec. Sec. 69.1 et seq.
discharge, motion to, Sec. Sec. 69.1-69.3
[[Page 11408]]
minority, member of, opposed to bill has priority in controlling
debate over majority member opposed, Sec. 12.15, 12.26
Unanimous-consent agreement, effect of, on debate time or allocation of
time
censure, debate on resolution of, extended, Sec. 71.6
Committee of the Whole, limitation by, where House has fixed time
for debate, Sec. 76.10
disapproval, debate on resolution of, limited, Sec. Sec. 71.7, 71.8
discharge, Speaker does not recognize for requests to extend time
on motion to, Sec. 71.17
general debate in Committee of the Whole as affected by unanimous-
consent agreements in House, Sec. Sec. 76.6-76.8
``general rules of the House,'' bill considered under, Sec. 71.9
House as in Committee of the Whole, bill considered in, Sec. 71.9
impeachment resolutions, Sec. 71.13
omnibus private bills, Chair did not recognize for requests to
extend debate on, Sec. 71.12
previous question, further debate is by unanimous consent after
ordering of, Sec. Sec. 71.22-71.25
privileged resolution, debate on, extended, Sec. Sec. 71.3-71.6
reconsider, debate on motion after House voted to, Sec. 71.25
special-order speeches, Member not permitted additional time on,
Sec. 71.20
statute, debate time prescribed by, may be changed by, Sec. 71.7
suspend rules, extending debate on motions to, Sec. 71.14
termination of debate prior to fixed time, Sec. 71.21
Union Calendar Bills, Sec. Sec. 71.10, 71.11
Unanimous-consent agreement, effect of, on points of order, Sec. 2.6
Unanimous-consent requests and agreements (see also Unanimous-consent
agreement, effect of, on debate time or allocation of time;
Unanimous-consent agreement, effect of, on points of order)
address the House, Member be permitted to, at certain time,
Sec. 10.1
adjourn, permission for Majority Leader to announce legislative
program pending motion to, Sec. 10.28
Chair, discretion of, in recognizing for, Sec. Sec. 10.1, 10.6-
10.8, 10.10-10.25
committees permitted to sit by unanimous consent (under former
practice), Sec. Sec. 10.45, 11.15
conference report, Speaker declined to recognize for requests
pending disposition of, Sec. 10.8
Consent Calendar (under former rule), consideration of bills on,
Sec. 10.15
consideration, agreement waiving points of order against, of Senate
amendment containing new budget authority in excess of ceiling,
Sec. 2.39
consideration of bills by, to be cleared with floor leadership,
Sec. Sec. 2.3, 2.4
consideration of measure, effect of unanimous consent for, on
points of order against consideration, see Consideration,
points of order against
consideration of measure, Speaker may decline recognition for
request for, Sec. Sec. 10.10-10.26
cosponsors of bill, request to add Members as, Sec. 10.39
[[Page 11409]]
debate, general, in Committee of the Whole as affected by
unanimous-consent agreements in House, Sec. Sec. 76.6-76.8
debate on motion to instruct conferees extended by, after previous
question ordered, Sec. 17.2
debate, reallocation of time for, where special rule had allocated
time for general debate to primary committee, Sec. 28.19
debate, request for limitation on, not entertained during reading
of amendment, Sec. 10.41
debate, request for limitation on, not entertained until resolution
read or considered as read, Sec. 10.40
debate, request to close, ten minutes after subsequent amendment
offered, Sec. 10.42
debate time in Committee of the Whole under hour rule, requests for
extension of, Sec. Sec. 75.5-75.7
debate time, request for additional, where special rule has
prescribed control of time, Sec. Sec. 28.1, 28.2
debate time, request for additional, where special rule has
prohibited pro forma amendments, Sec. 74.14
debate time, request for additional, where special rule permits
only specified amendments, Sec. Sec. 74.14, 74.17
debate time, request to extend, not entertained pending demand for
recorded vote, Sec. 10.43
debate time under limitation, allocation of, by unanimous consent,
Sec. Sec. 26.24-26.26
debate under reservation of objection to, Sec. 67.6
discharge, Speaker may recognize for request prior to motion to,
Sec. 10.29
document, House, request that speech made to joint meeting be
printed as, Sec. 10.36
extensions of remarks, Sec. Sec. 10.32-10.35
future date, request to address House on, Sec. 10.30
joint meeting, request that speech made to, be printed as House
document, Sec. 10.36
leadership, consultation with, prior to recognition for request to
consider measure, Sec. Sec. 10.16-10.25
legislative business, request concerning, entertained during
special orders, Sec. 10.72
legislative program, announcement of pending motion to adjourn,
Sec. 10.28
non-Members to address House, request for consideration of
resolution inviting, not entertained, Sec. 10.44
objection, recognition for does not extend recognition for
opposition to motion, Sec. 20.41
objection, reservation of, charging time where debate is under,
Sec. 20.44
objection, reservation of, effect of demand for regular order where
debate is under, Sec. 20.43
objection, reservation of, Speaker may refuse to permit debate
under, Sec. 20.42
objection to, is timely if entered before Chair has entered order
on request, Sec. 20.40
[[Page 11410]]
objection to, Member seeking to make, must stand to be recognized,
Sec. Sec. 8.27-8.31
one-minute speeches, see One-minute speeches
one request pending at a time, Sec. 10.2
parliamentary inquiry entertained to permit explanation of
unanimous-consent order, Sec. 8.31
party conference, Speaker declined to recognize for request for
recess for, Sec. 10.7
Private Calendar, request for restoration of bills to, Sec. 10.27
program, legislative, permission for Majority Leader to announce,
Sec. 10.28
recess for party conference, Speaker declined to recognize for,
Sec. 10.7
recognition for, Chair may decline, Sec. Sec. 9.33-9.37
recognition, Member to be accorded, at certain time, Sec. 10.1
recognition, obtaining, to object or reserve right to object,
Sec. Sec. 10.3-10.5
rereference of bill, Speaker declined to recognize for request for,
Sec. 10.9
reserve right to object, obtaining recognition to, Sec. 10.3
Senate amendments, to dispose of, see Senate amendments
speak, Member to be allowed to, at certain time, Sec. 10.1
special-order speeches, see Special-order speeches
special rule equally dividing time between proponent and opponent,
allocation of time where no Member has claimed time in
opposition under, Sec. 74.18
special rule, request to revoke or modify terms of,
Sec. Sec. 10.37, 10.38, 74.16
stand, member must, when objecting, Sec. 10.4
vacated, proceedings by which amendment was adopted were,
Sec. 77.33
words, demand for taking down another Member's, request to be
allowed to proceed for one minute pending, Sec. 10.47
words, disorderly, request to withdraw, Sec. 10.46
``Under debate,'' motion to postpone consideration in order where
measure is, Sec. 2.41
Unfinished business, bill made in order by adoption of special rule
does not necessarily become, Sec. 28.4
Unfinished business, Chair as determining what is, Sec. 9.1
Veto, control of debate on overriding, Sec. Sec. 26.41, 26.42
Vetoed bill, debate on motion to postpone or refer, under hour rule,
Sec. 68.56
Vetoed bill, debate on, under hour rule, Sec. 68.55
Words or statements considered to be improper (see also, e.g.,
Falsehoods, statements accusing Members of uttering; Motives of
other Members, statements impugning)
``aid and comfort to the enemy,'' President gave, Sec. 51.30
blasphemous words, Sec. 43.9
``canard,'' Member alleged to be guilty of, Sec. 63.1
[[Page 11411]]
``cheap,'' Sec. 49.32
``cheap, sneaky, sly'' way to operate, Sec. 60.8
committee or members, criticism of, see Committees, criticism of,
as objectionable
conduct similar to that alleged in pending complaint against
another Member, Sec. 49.33
``cover-up,'' allegation in Senate concerning, Sec. 61.4
``crybaby,'' Sec. 60.25
``damn,'' Sec. 43.8
debate on whether words are unparliamentary not allowed,
Sec. Sec. 6.15, 6.16, 50.7
``deceptive'' and ``hypocritical,'' Sec. 58.12
``demagogic or racist,'' Sec. 58.6
``demagoguery'' or ``demagogues,'' references to, Sec. Sec. 60.3-
60.6
``disgraceful'' argument or language, charging Member with using,
Sec. Sec. 59.3, 59.4
election, ``stealing,'' Sec. 53.7
ethical ``cloud,'' references to Members or others who are under,
Sec. 60.16
``false and slanderous,'' characterization of remarks as, Sec. 63.4
FBI record of Member, reference to, Sec. 60.24
gain, personal, alleged to be motive, Sec. 62.8
``guts,'' Members described as lacking, Sec. 61.14
honesty and motives, words impugning, objected to without demand
words be taken down, Sec. 49.34
``hypocrisy'' adding ``malice'' to ``falsehood`` or ``cowardice,''
Sec. 63.6
``hypocrisy,'' characterization of Vice-Presidential candidate's
acts and words as, Sec. 49.17
``hypocritical'' and ``deceptive,'' Sec. 58.12
``hypothetical'' reference referred to identifiable Member,
Sec. 60.29
identifiable group of sitting Members, allegation as to
``stealing'' election pertained to, Sec. 53.7
incapable of telling whether document was forged, Member accused of
being, Sec. 64.4
``lies and half-truths'' of committee report, telegram referring
to, read in House, Sec. 63.5
``lowest thing that I have ever seen,'' Speaker's characterization
of remarks as, Sec. 59.9
lynching, allegations as to party's view of, Sec. 53.3
``overbearing'' manner of Member, reference to, Sec. 60.23
party's view of lynching, allegations as to, Sec. 53.3
personal gain alleged to be motive, Sec. 62.8
personal privilege, press accounts of Member's criticisms of
another Member as giving rise to, Sec. 60.27
physical characteristics of Member, comment on, Sec. 60.23, 61.1
``pinko,'' Sec. 61.9
profanity, Sec. Sec. 43.6-43.9
race, reference to, see Race, references to, as objectionable;
Racism or prejudice, statements accusing Member of, as
objectionable
[[Page 11412]]
``racist, demagogic or,'' Sec. 58.6
Record, insertions in, of press accounts critical of Member,
Sec. 60.28
Senate or Senators, references to, see Senate or Senators,
references to
sincerity, attack on Member's, Sec. 63.7
``sly,'' Sec. 49.32
``sneaky,'' Sec. 49.32
``sneaky,'' ``cheap,'' ``sly'' way to operate, Sec. 60.8
``snooper,'' Member described as, Sec. 61.11
Standards of Official Conduct, Committee on, remarks on conduct of
Member where report has not been filed by, Sec. 57.5
Standards of Official Conduct, effect of consideration of
disciplinary matters by Committee on, on propriety of remarks
on floor, Sec. Sec. 60.11 et seq., 60.29
``stealing'' election, Sec. 53.7
``stolen'' a seat, Members had, Sec. 49.30
``stool pigeon,'' Sec. 61.12
tone of voice as offensive, Sec. 60.21
unspecified Members, words questioning, Sec. 49.37
``wild man,'' Member described as acting like, Sec. 61.1
Words or statements considered to be proper (see also, e.g., Words or
statements considered to be improper)
Armed Forces, Member accused of depriving members of, of right to
vote, Sec. Sec. 62.3, 62.4
``assassinate'' character, charge that remarks in debate tended to,
Sec. 59.8
associations or groups, references to, Sec. 43.2
``blind,'' ``slavish,'' and ``shameful'' opposition to legislative
measure, Sec. 58.7
campaign expenses, certain remarks about payment of, Sec. 53.1
committee or members, criticism of, see Committees, criticism of,
as objectionable
communist, reference to Lincoln as, Sec. 43.3
confusing the issue, accusing Member of, Sec. 59.1
congressional payroll, query as to whether committee found agents
of Hitler on, Sec. 54.12
Congress, statements critical of, that are not a personal
reflection on individual Members, Sec. 53.1
``consistency is a virtue of small minds,'' Sec. 62.2
``crime'' proper word in context, Sec. 50.6
``crime,'' reference to Member's remarks as, Sec. 59.2
``damnable,'' Sec. 43.7
debate on whether words are unparliamentary not allowed,
Sec. Sec. 6.15, 6.16
``defense of our country,'' Member accused of opposition to,
Sec. 62.5
``demagoguery'' in debate, occasion on which reference to, was held
in order, Sec. 60.5
demand for taking down the words characterized as ``unfair stealing
of time,'' Sec. 59.10
dictator, charge that Members had praised, Sec. 60.10
dignity and honor, House could proceed with greater, Sec. 53.6
[[Page 11413]]
disciplinary proceedings, reference to, Sec. Sec. 35.13, 60.11 et
seq.
``English,'' questioning whether Member could understand, Sec. 64.1
indictment of Member read into Congressional Record without
objection, Sec. 60.13
intemperate, reference to another's statement as, Sec. Sec. 59.5,
59.6
``irresponsible actions by members of'' party, Sec. 53.2
judgment of unspecified Members, words questioning, Sec. 49.37
legislative position, motives for, Sec. Sec. 62.3, 62.6
loose talk, accusing opponents of measure of, Sec. 58.8
minority groups, references, to members of, Sec. Sec. 43.4, 43.5,
56.5
motivation other than objective concern, reference to, Sec. 53.6
opportunism, reference to Member's leading the opposition party in
policy of, Sec. 53.5
party, ``irresponsible actions by members of,'' Sec. 53.2
political motivations, allegation concerning, Sec. 62.6
race, reference to, see Race, references to, as objectionable;
Racism or prejudice, statements accusing Member of, as
objectionable
reckless with truth, accusing opponents of measure of being,
Sec. 58.8
``represent,'' charge that another Member did not, certain groups
in district, Sec. 60.7
Senate, references to, see Senate or Senators, references to
simple form, request that bill be printed in, so members of
opposing party could understand it, Sec. 53.4
``sinister'' influences on those conducting filibuster, Sec. 58.9
``skin us,'' opposition accused of attempting to, Sec. 61.10
``slavish,'' ``shameful,'' and ``blind'' opposition to legislative
measure, Sec. 58.7
``slippery, snide, and sharp practices'' did not reflect on any
Member, Sec. 58.5
``spurious reasoning'' of American Medical Association, Sec. 43.2
Standards of Official Conduct, reference to matters pending before
Committee on, Sec. 35.13
state or region, references to, Sec. 43.1
syllable, one, request that bill be printed in words of, Sec. 53.4
``unilateral disarmament,'' reference to Members as advocating,
Sec. 60.21
``yapping,'' Sec. 61.13
Words, taking down the (see also, e.g., Words or statements considered
to be improper)
generally, Sec. Sec. 48.12, 48.13, 49.1 et seq.
appeals from rulings, Sec. Sec. 50.8, 50.9, 59.2
appeals from rulings in Senate, Sec. 50.11
Chairman of Committee of the Whole does not make ruling, Sec. 50.9
colloquial expressions, dictionary definition of, given weight,
Sec. 50.4
colloquialisms, see Colloquialisms, objectionable use of
Committee of the Whole, demand for reporting of additional words
uttered in, Sec. 49.39
Committee ordered to resume its sitting, point of order of no
quorum not in order after, Sec. 49.41
[[Page 11414]]
committee proceedings, unreported, references to, see Committee
proceedings, unreported, objectionable references to
Committee resumes sitting automatically after ruling, Sec. 49.42
committees, criticism of, see Committees, criticism of, as
objectionable
consequences of ruling, House determines, Sec. 50.9
context, Speaker ordered clerk to report additional words to
provide, Sec. 50.6
``cover-up,'' allegation in Senate concerning, Sec. 61.4
debate, criticism of tactics in, see Tactics in debate,
objectionable references to
debate, freedom of, Speaker gives weight to, Sec. 50.2
debate on motion to strike, Sec. 51.26
``demagoguery,'' references to, Sec. Sec. 60.3-60.6
dictionary, reliance on, in making ruling, Sec. 50.4
disciplinary action, House decides on, Sec. Sec. 51.27, 51.37
disciplinary proceedings, references to, Sec. Sec. 35.13, 60.11 et
seq.
``dumb interpretation'' of amendment, remarks charging Member with,
withdrawn before ruling, Sec. 64.3
explanation given by Member of usage, Sec. 50.3
explanation of words by Member called to order, Sec. Sec. 52.15,
52.16
expunging remarks from Record, Sec. Sec. 51.18, 51.20 et seq.
falsehoods, see Falsehoods, statements accusing Members of uttering
floor, member called to order as losing, Sec. 33.1
free debate, weight given to preservation of, Sec. 50.2
House decides on disciplinary action, Sec. Sec. 51.27, 51.37
identifying words to be taken down, requirement of, Sec. 49.2
individual Members, objectionable words as reflecting on,
Sec. Sec. 53.1, 53.7, 66.2, 66.3, 66.5, 66.11
integrity, impugning, Sec. Sec. 49.35, 49.36
intelligence, attack on Member's, see Intelligence, statements
impugning Member's, as objectionable
interpreting point of order as demand that words be taken down,
Sec. 49.38
intervening debate, demand not timely if made after,
Sec. Sec. 49.6-49.12
``Jewish gentleman from New York,'' reference to, Sec. 56.5
legislative actions or proposals, criticisms of, see Legislative
actions or proposals, criticism of, as objectionable
loyalty, questioning Member's, see Loyalty, statements questioning
Member's
``ludicrous'' argument, charge that Member made, Sec. 59.7
motion by House may dictate consequences of ruling, Sec. 50.9
motions and requests pending demand, Sec. Sec. 49.14-49.17
motion to proceed in order, see Permission to explain or proceed
after demand that words be taken down
motion to strike, debate on, Sec. 51.26
motion to strike words, amendment proposing to strike words of
another Member not germane to, Sec. 51.32
[[Page 11415]]
motion to strike words from Record, Sec. Sec. 51.18, 51.20 et seq.
motion to table a motion to strike words, Sec. 51.31
motives of Members, statements impugning, see Motives of other
Members, statements impugning
motives of Senators, demand that references to, be stricken,
Sec. 49.40
multiple demands, Sec. 49.13
overuse of practice, Speaker drew attention to, Sec. 49.1
papers read during debate, unparliamentary reference in, Sec. 49.12
pending, motions and requests while demand is, Sec. Sec. 49.14-
49.17
permission to explain or proceed after demand that words be taken
down, see Permission to explain or proceed after demand that
words be taken down
personalities, rule against indulging in, generally, Sec. Sec. 60.1
et seq.
personal privilege, language inserted under leave to revise and
extend remarks as raising question of, Sec. 48.16
personal privilege, language uttered on floor is not basis of
question of, Sec. Sec. 48.14-48.18, 61.5
personal privilege, press accounts of Member's criticisms of
another Member as giving rise to, Sec. 60.27
physical characteristics, reference to, Sec. 61.1
point of order interpreted after inquiry as demand that words be
taken down, Sec. 49.38
precedent, weight given to, in making ruling, Sec. 50.1
privilege of the House, language uttered on floor is not basis of
question of, Sec. Sec. 48.15
privilege of the House, resolution to expunge words as question of,
Sec. Sec. 51.33-51.35
proceed, House determines whether Member may, Sec. 50.9
proceed in order, Chair's request that Member, in absence of demand
that words be taken down, Sec. 49.34
race or racism, references to, see Race, references to, as
objectionable; Racism or prejudice, statements accusing Member
of, as objectionable
reasons for demand, debating, Sec. 49.18
Record, motion to strike words from, Sec. 52.14
Record, motion to strike words from, debate on, Sec. 51.26
Record, striking words from, Sec. Sec. 51.18, 51.20 et seq.
Record, striking words from, as question of privilege of the House,
Sec. Sec. 51.33-51.35
reported, consideration limited to words, Sec. 49.3
reported to House, demand that additional words uttered in
Committee of the Whole be, Sec. 49.39
reported, words, ruling as confined to, Sec. 50.10
resumes sitting, Committee of the Whole, after ruling in House,
Sec. 49.42
revising and extending remarks, Member was granted privilege of,
after proceedings under which words were taken down, Sec. 51.19
ruling by Speaker, generally, Sec. Sec. 50.1 et seq.
seat, Member required to take, after demand, Sec. Sec. 49.19, 49.20
Senate, allegation in, concerning ``cover-up,'' Sec. 61.4
[[Page 11416]]
Senate practice, Sec. 50.11
simultaneous reporting of remarks of two Members in debate,
Sec. 49.13
Speaker, criticism of, see Speaker, criticism of, as objectionable
Speaker rules on propriety of words, Sec. Sec. 50.5, 50.7, 50.9
Speaker's characterization of remarks as ``lowest thing that I have
ever seen,'' Sec. 59.9
specifying words to be taken down, requirement of, Sec. 49.2
stricken, objection was made to unanimous-consent request that
offending language be, Sec. 49.17
striking words from Record, Sec. Sec. 51.18, 51.20 et seq., 52.14
striking words from Record as question of privilege of the House,
Sec. Sec. 51.33-51.35
striking words from Record, debate on, Sec. 51.26
striking words from Record, resolution, where words not taken down,
Sec. 51.17
suspended, business as, pending demand, Sec. Sec. 49.21, 49.22,
49.32
tactics in debate, criticism of, see Tactics in debate,
objectionable references to
time, demand characterized as unfair stealing of, Sec. 59.10
time for making motions, Sec. Sec. 51.21-51.23
timeliness of demand, Sec. Sec. 49.6-49.12, 49.35, 49.38, 62.12
timely, Chair may caution Members even where demand is not,
Sec. Sec. 49.35, 49.36
tone of voice as offensive, Sec. 60.21
unanimous-consent requests or motions pending demand,
Sec. Sec. 49.14-49.17
unanimous consent to withdraw words before ruling, Sec. Sec. 51.1-
51.15, 51.25, 52.1, 52.2
``unilateral disarmament,'' reference to Members as advocating,
Sec. 60.21
unspecified Members, words questioning judgment of, Sec. Sec. 49.37
vote or demand for vote, Member called to order not barred from,
Sec. 49.23
withdrawal of demand that words be taken down, Sec. 51.16
withdrawal of offending words, Sec. Sec. 49.28-49.31
withdrawal of resolution to censure Member for words spoken,
Sec. 51.28
withdrawal of words before ruling, Sec. Sec. 49.28-49.31, 51.1-
51.15, 51.25, 52.1, 52.2, 59.7, 61.7
withdrawal of words to which timely objection had not been made,
Sec. 51.24
withdrawing demand, Sec. Sec. 49.24-49.27, 49.37
Yeas and nays, Chair declined to recognize Member to demand, during
count on division vote, Sec. 9.38
Yeas and nays, seeking recognition to ask for, see Recognition
Yielding back time in opposition where no other Member seeks
recognition in opposition, Sec. 11.18
Yielding time for debate
allocation to others of time yielded, Sec. Sec. 31.19-31.27
amendment, may not offer, in time yielded for debate,
Sec. Sec. 19.28, 29.19, 29.20
amendment, Member recognized to debate, may yield, Sec. Sec. 31.3,
31.4
amendment not allowed without unanimous consent in time yielded for
debate, Sec. 31.6
[[Page 11417]]
amendment to substitute offered during time yielded by opponent of
substitute where debate time allocated under limitation,
Sec. 30.25
block of time, Member yielded time by manager as yielding, by
unanimous consent, Sec. 29.28
Budget Act as permitting Member in control to yield more than one
hour, Sec. 31.38
Chair, Member requesting another to yield should address, Sec. 29.1
Chair, Member yielded to is not entitled to floor until recognized
by, Sec. 29.2
charging time yielded to Member with floor, Sec. Sec. 29.5-29.7
discharge, Member in control of debate on motion to,
Sec. Sec. 31.14-31.16
discharge, Member recognized in opposition to motion to, as
yielding time, Sec. Sec. 31.14, 31.16
disciplinary resolution, division of time on, Sec. 24.34
discretionary, yielding is, with Members having control,
Sec. Sec. 29.12-29.14, 31.1, 31.2
five-minute rule, one recognized under, may yield, Sec. Sec. 31.3,
31.4, 77.27, 77.28
further yielding time, Member to whom time has been yielded as,
Sec. Sec. 29.28-29.31
general debate, yielding control of, Sec. Sec. 26.29-26.31
hour, Member recognized for one, may yield time where time for
debate in Committee of the Whole not fixed, Sec. 31.5
hour rule, exception to, under Budget Act, Sec. 31.38
irrelevant matter, unanimous consent required where Member yielded
to speak on, Sec. 31.12
joint use of yielded time, Sec. 31.13
limited and divided, yielding where control of time under five-
minute rule has been, Sec. Sec. 31.7-31.11
Majority Leader recognized on privileged resolution yielded one
half time to Minority Leader, Sec. 31.37
microphone at majority or minority table should be used for
questions to Member speaking from well of the House, Sec. 29.3
motion that committee rise not in order in time yielded for debate,
Sec. Sec. 29.21, 30.29, 76.13
parliamentary inquiries may be made in time yielded for debate,
Sec. 29.22
parliamentary inquiry, Member recognized for, may not yield time,
Sec. 29.27
previously spoken, yielding to Member who has, Sec. 31.4
previous question, Member may not move, during time yielded for
debate, Sec. 31.18
previous question terminates time yielded, Sec. 31.17
previous question, yielding back time without moving,
Sec. Sec. 29.9, 29.10
question, Member propounding, should speak from microphone at
majority or minority table, Sec. 29.3
reading paper, yielding to another for purpose of, retaining floor
while, Sec. 29.17
recognition, power of, resides in chair and Member may not yield to
himself for debate, Sec. 14.5
reference to another Member, one who has floor not required to
yield because of, Sec. 31.2
relevant, unanimous consent required where Member yielded to speaks
on matters not, Sec. 31.12
repeatedly yielding to same Members, Sec. 29.4
[[Page 11418]]
repeatedly yielding to same Member where special rule provides for
control of time, Sec. 28.29
reservation of objection, Member in control under, may yield,
Sec. 31.34
reserving unused portion of yielded time is by unanimous consent,
Sec. 31.35
reversion of time yielded back to Member in control, Sec. 31.36
reversion of unused time yielded, Sec. 29.16
rise, may not offer motion that Committee of the Whole, in time
yielded for debate, Sec. Sec. 29.21, 30.29, 76.13
``self,'' yielding time to, under five-minute rule, Sec. 77.30
sharing yielded time, Sec. 31.13
special-order speeches, yielding during, Sec. 10.78
special-order speech, Member recognized for, may yield portion of
time to be further yielded, Sec. 31.39
specific amount of time, one yielded to may not yield except by
unanimous consent, Sec. 31.20
standing, Member yielding time should remain, Sec. Sec. 29.8,
31.24, 31.25
standing, Member yielding was not required to remain,
Sec. Sec. 31.23, 31.40
strike enacting clause, Member opposed to motion to, may not extend
time by using yielded time, Sec. 31.33
strike enacting clause, offeror of motion to, may yield portion of
time, Sec. 31.32
time for debate in Committee of the Whole not fixed, Member
recognized for one hour may yield where, Sec. 31.5
time for general debate not fixed, Member first recognized may
yield portions of hour where, Sec. 24.35
unanimous consent, additional time is obtained from Members in
control and not by, Sec. 31.30
unanimous consent, allocating time to third Member by,
Sec. Sec. 31.20-31.27
unanimous-consent request, time consumed under reservation of
objection to, charged to Member yielding for request,
Sec. 29.25
unused portion of yielded time, reservation of, is by unanimous
consent, Sec. 31.35
unused time reverts to Member who yielded, Sec. 29.16
yielded time, may not yield, for purpose other than debate,
Sec. 31.19
Yielding time for offering amendments
balance of time was yielded to Member who then offered amendment,
Sec. 30.27
control of floor, Member yielding loses, Sec. Sec. 30.7-30.13,
67.11
five-minute rule, Member recognized under, may not yield for
amendment, Sec. Sec. 8.16, 9.20, 30.18-30.24, 30.27, 77.29
Floor Member who yields as Losing, Sec. Sec. 33.4-33.9
House, amendment of amendment in nature of substitute in, Sec. 30.3
House, amendment of bill in, Sec. 30.2
House, amendment of pending motion in, Sec. 30.1
House, amendment of privileged resolution in, Sec. 30.5
House, amendment of resolution raising privileges of, Sec. 30.4
limitation, amendment to substitute offered during time yielded by
opponent of substitute where debate time allocated under,
Sec. 30.25
limitation, offering amendments in time yielded by Members in
control under, Sec. 30.26
[[Page 11419]]
recommit, Member speaking in opposition to motion to, may not yield
for amendment, Sec. 30.6
unanimous consent to yield balance of time to Member who thereafter
offers amendment, Sec. 9.20
Yielding time for offering motions
adjourn, yielding for motion to, Sec. Sec. 30.16, 30.17
deferring to another to offer motion to dispose of Senate amendment
in disagreement, Sec. 30.15
one-minute speech, Member recognized for, could not yield for
motion to restore bill to Private Calendar, Sec. 30.30
preferential motion, Member in control does not yield to another to
offer, Sec. 30.28
Private Calendar, motion to restore bill to, Member recognized for
one-minute speech could not yield for, Sec. 30.30
rise, motion that Committee of the Whole, Sec. 30.29