[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