[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 6, Chapter 21]
[Chapter 21. Order of Business; Special Orders]
[B. Motions to Suspend the Rules]
[Â§ 13. Time and Control of Debate]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 3971-3987]
 
                               CHAPTER 21
 
                   Order of Business; Special Orders
 
                    B. MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES
 
Sec. 13. Time and Control of Debate

    Rule XXVII clause 3 (12) provides that when a motion to 
suspend
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. House RuIes and Manual Sec. 907 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3972]]

the rules has been properly submitted to the House,
        it shall be in order, before the final vote is taken thereon, 
        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; and the 
        same right of debate shall be allowed whenever the previous 
        question has been ordered on any proposition on which there has 
        been no debate.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. For a complete discussion of debate and consideration in the House 
        on all matters, including motions to suspend the rules, see Ch. 
        29, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 20 minutes of debate in favor of the motion is controlled by 
the mover of the motion, and the 20 minutes against is controlled by 
the Member who has been recognized to demand a second. No Member may 
speak in debate on the motion unless he is yielded time by one of those 
Members.(14) And the proponent of the motion is entitled to 
open and close debate.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See Sec. 13.7, infra. The allocation of the time is within the 
        discretion of the Members controlling it (see Sec. 13.10, 
        infra) and alternation of recognition ( between Members on both 
        sides of the aisle) is not required (see Sec. 13.9, infra ) .
15. See Sec. Sec. 13.13, 13.14, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The House may by unanimous consent or resolution alter the normal 
procedures for debate on a motion to suspend the rules; time may be 
extended by unanimous consent if the request is timely made (before the 
motion is seconded).(16) On one occasion, the House passed a 
resolution (under suspension of the rules) fixing the time for debate 
on a motion to suspend the rules at four hours and designating the 
Members to control the time.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See Sec. Sec. 13.3-13.5, infra.
17. See Sec. 13.18, infra. In that situation a demand for a second does 
        not exist (to gain control of the time in opposition to the 
        motion). See Sec. 13.12, 
        infra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Time for Debate

Sec. 13.1 On a motion to suspend the rules and pass a bill with 
    amendments there is 40 minutes of debate, 20 minutes on a 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,(18) Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of 
Massachusetts, answered a parliamentary inquiry on the consideration of 
a motion to suspend the rules and pass a bill with amendments:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 94 Cong. Rec. 9185, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Harold H.] Knutson [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, I move to 
    sus

[[Page 3973]]

    pend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6712) to provide for revenue 
    revision, to correct tax inequalities, and for other purposes, with 
    committee amendments.
        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 resort 
    the bill.

Sec. 13.2 If a portion of the time for debate on a motion to suspend 
    the rules is used and the House adjourns before completing debate, 
    the time begins where it left off when the motion comes up as 
    unfinished business.

    On Feb. 8, 1931,(19) a second was ordered on a motion to 
suspend the rules and the House adjourned. Before adjournment, Speaker 
Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, stated, in response to a parliamentary 
inquiry, that the time for debate (20 minutes on a side) would resume 
where it left off at adjournment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 74 Cong. Rec. 6577, 71st Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The debate resumed on the motion on the following day (the House 
was within the last six days of the session, so the following day was 
an eligible day for motions to suspend the rules under Rule XXVII 
clause 1).(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. House Rules and Manual Sec. 902 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Extending Time for Debate

Sec. 13.3 The House, by unanimous consent, and pursuant to a timely 
    request, may extend the time for debate on a motion to suspend the 
    rules and pass a bill.

    On Mar. 3, 1960,(1) the House agreed to a request 
extending time on a motion to suspend the rules and pass an 
authorization bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 106 Cong. Rec. 4388, 4389, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: The legislative 
    program for next week is as follows:
        On Monday there is the Consent Calendar.
        There will be one suspension; that is H.R. 10809, the 
    authorization for the

[[Page 3974]]

    appropriation for NASA for 1961. In the committee it was agreed 
    upon that the request would be made to extend the usual time of 40 
    minutes to 1 hour and 20 minutes. I think I discussed that with my 
    friend from Indiana [Mr. Halleck].
        Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck: Yes; that is agreeable to me.

               National Aeronautics and Space Administration

        Mr. McCormack: Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
    that when the bill H.R. 10809 comes up under suspension, debate may 
    not exceed 1 hour and 20 minutes.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (2) Is there objection to 
    the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts? . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.

Sec. 13.4 The Speaker stated he would object to a unanimous-consent 
    request for an extension of time for debate on a motion to suspend 
    the rules and pass a bill.

    On July 23, 1956,(3) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
declined recognition for a request to extend time for debate on a 
pending motion to suspend the rules:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 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.

Sec. 13.5 After the motion to suspend the rules and pass a bill has 
    been seconded and the Chair has recognized a member of the majority 
    and a member of the minority to control the 20 minutes allotted to 
    each under Rule XXVII clause 3, the Chair has declined to entertain 
    a unanimous-consent request for an additional allotment of time to 
    those opposed to the measure.

    On Oct. 21, 1963,(4) Speaker pro tempore Carl Albert, of 
Oklahoma, refused to entertain a request relating to debate on a mo
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 109 Cong. Rec. 19953, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3975]]

tion to suspend the rules, where Members had been recognized to control 
the 20 minutes of debate on each side:

        Mr. [Ralph R.] Harding [of Idaho]: Mr. Speaker, the rules of 
    the House wisely provide that there shall be 20 minutes allotted to 
    both the pro and con on each piece of legislation under a 
    suspension of the rules of the House.
        Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Alger] 
    has only used 2 minutes in opposing this bill, I would like to ask 
    unanimous consent that those people who are opposed to it be 
    allotted an additional 18 minutes in which to state our case.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair cannot entertain that motion 
    under the rules of the House at this time.

Control of Debate

Sec. 13.6 Debate on a motion to suspend the rules, a second having been 
    ordered, 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,(5) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
answered a parliamentary inquiry on the time and distribution of debate 
on a motion to suspend the rules:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 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 ride.

Sec. 13.7 A Member may not speak on a motion to suspend the rules and 
    pass a bill unless time is yielded to him by the mover or the 
    Member demanding a second.

    On June 15, 1959,(6) Speaker pro tempore Clark W. 
Thompson, of Texas, answered an inquiry on obtaining time for debate on 
a motion to suspend the rules:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 105 Cong. Rec. 10810, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Byron G.] Rogers of Colorado: Mr. Speaker, I move to 
    strike out the enactment clause of H.R. 7650.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: That privilege is not available when a 
    bill is being considered under suspension of the rules.
        Mr. Rogers of Colorado: Mr. Speaker, is there any way that a 
    Member of the House of Representatives can speak on H.R. 7650 
    before the matter is put to a vote?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Only if the gentlewoman from 
    Massachusetts chooses to yield time to the gentleman.

[[Page 3976]]

    On Jan. 20, 1930,(7) the House had under debate a motion 
to suspend the rules, with Mr. Louis C. Cramton, of Michigan, 
controlling the time in favor of the motion and Mr. Schuyler Otis 
Bland, of Virginia, controlling the time in opposition. Mr. Cramton 
yielded 10 minutes to Mr. William H. Stafford, of Wisconsin, who 
attempted to reserve the balance of that time when he had not consumed 
all of it. Mr. Cramton objected that Mr. Stafford did not have control 
of the time, and Speaker Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, affirmed that was 
the case, indicating that where one of the Members in control yielded 
to another Member, that Member could not yield part of that time to a 
third Member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 72 Cong. Rec. 1993, 1994, 71st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 13.8 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,(8) Mr. Adam C. Powell, of New York, 
who had moved to suspend the rules and pass a bill, yielded the 
remainder of his 20 minutes of debate as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 112 Cong. Rec. 22928, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Powell: . . . I yield now the balance of my time to the 
    gentleman from Michigan [Mr. O'Hara].

    Mr. O'Hara not having used all the remainder of the 20 minutes, Mr. 
Powell then yielded the remainder of the time to Mr. John H. Dent, of 
Pennsylvania. Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, overruled a 
point of order and answered a parliamentary inquiry in relation to such 
disposition of the time in favor of the motion:

        Mr. Powell: Mr. Speaker, I should like to compliment the 
    gentleman from Minnesota, who has worked very hard and 
    cooperatively on this legislation, on his remarks.

        Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my 
    distinguished colleague from Pennsylvania [Mr. Dent].
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross: [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of 
    order that the gentleman from New York [Mr. Powell] yielded his 
    remaining time to the gentleman from 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?

[[Page 3977]]

        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.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Id. at pp. 22933, 22934.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 13.9 Alternation of recognition is not required during the 40 
    minutes of debate on a motion to suspend the rules.

    On Sept. 20, 1961,(10) the House had under debate a 
motion to suspend the rules where Mr. William R. Poage, of Texas, was 
controlling the 20 minutes in favor of the motion and Mr. H. R. Gross, 
of Iowa, the 20 minutes in opposition. Speaker pro tempore John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, indicated that alternation of recognition 
was not required:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 107 Cong. Rec. 20491-93, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gross: Apparently they do not want to explain the bill.
        Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
        Mr. Poage: Does the gentleman have any other speaker? We have 
    only one more speaker.
        Mr. Gross: I understand that under the rules it is not 
    necessary to rotate time under a suspension of the rules.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: That is correct.

    Speaker pro tempore Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, answered a similar 
parliamentary inquiry on Apr. 16, 1962:

        Mr. [James] Roosevelt [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I have only 
    one more request for time.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.

[[Page 3978]]

        Mr. Gross: Under suspension of the rules it is not necessary to 
    rotate time. Is that correct?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The proponents of the measure are 
    entitled to close the debate.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 108 Cong. Rec. 6688, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Control of Time in Opposition

Sec. 13.10 Where a Member states that he is opposed to a motion to 
    suspend the rues and is recognized to demand a second thereon, he 
    controls the time in opposition to the motion; the Chair questions 
    neither his motives nor his allocation of the time and a point of 
    order will not lie against the manner in which he allocates the 
    time in opposition.

    On Dec. 15, 1969,(12) Mr. Robert W. Kastenmeier, of 
Wisconsin, moved to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 14646 (granting the 
consent of Congress to the Connecticut New York Railroad Passenger 
Transportation Compact). Mr. Burt L. Talcott, of California, demanded a 
second and assured Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, that he 
was opposed to the bill; he was recognized to demand a second and to 
control time in opposition to the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 115 Cong. Rec. 39029, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When a point of order was made against the method in which Mr. 
Talcott was allocating the time in opposition to the motion, the 
Speaker overruled the point of order.

        The Speaker: Each gentleman in charge of time has 1 minute 
    remaining.
        Mr. [Lester L.] Wolff [of New York]: 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.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Id. at p. 39034.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following exchange then took place:

        The Speaker: The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin has 
    expired.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. 
    Talcott).
        Mr. Talcott: Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the bill.
        I just wish to say that I have tried to allot time to anyone 
    who requested it.
        I now yield the 1 minute remaining to the gentleman from New 
    York (Mr. Smith).(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 13.11 The Member demanding the second on a motion

[[Page 3979]]

    to suspend the rules, and not the Member objecting to the 
    unanimous-consent request that a second be considered as ordered, 
    is entitled to recognition for debate against the motion.

    On Sept. 1, 1959,(15) Mr. Thomas B. Curtis, of Missouri, 
demanded a second on a motion to suspend the rules, and Mr. H.R. Gross, 
of Iowa, objected to the unanimous-consent request that a second be 
considered as ordered. The House having ordered a second, Speaker pro 
tempore Hale Boggs, of Louisiana, answered a parliamentary inquiry on 
who would be recognized to control the 20 minutes of debate in 
opposition to the motion:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 105 Cong. Rec. 17600, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Curtis of Missouri: Under this procedure does the gentleman 
    from Iowa control the time or does the gentleman from Missouri who 
    demanded the second have control of the time?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Missouri demanded a 
    second, and the gentleman from Missouri will control the time.

Sec. 13.12 A demand for a second by a Member opposed to a motion to 
    suspend the rules (to gain control of the time in opposition to the 
    motion) does not exist where the House has previously adopted a 
    resolution fixing the control of debate on such a motion.

    On Sept. 20, 1943,(16) the House adopted a motion to 
suspend the rules and pass a resolution which provided for time and 
control of debate on another motion to suspend the rules:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 89 Cong. Rec. 7646-55, 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.

    When the motion to suspend the rules so provided for was offered, 
Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, indicated that the right to demand a 
second did not exist under the circumstances:

        Mr. [Sol] Bloom [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend 
    the rules and pass House Concurrent Resolution 25 with an 
    amendment, which I send to the Clerk's desk.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the resolution as amended.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
        concurring), That the Congress hereby expresses itself as 
        favoring the creation of ap

[[Page 3980]]

        propriate international machinery with power adequate to 
        establish and to maintain a just and lasting peace, among the 
        nations of the world, and as favoring participation by the 
        United States therein through its constitutional processes.

        Mr. [Charles A.] Eaton [of New Jersey]: 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.
        The Spearer: 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.
        Mr. [John M.] Robsion of Kentucky: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Robsion of Kentucky: Mr. Speaker, I raise the point that 
    the time now provided is in the control entirely of four Members.
        The Speaker: The House decided by a vote of 252 to 23 that that 
    was to be the program.
        Mr. Robsion of Kentucky: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Robsion of Kentucky: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the 
    Speaker ruled that a second is ordered, and then the same persons 
    who control the time controlled the 40 minutes.
        The Speaker: The House ordered that by unanimous consent. The 
    gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Eaton] demanded a second, and a 
    second was ordered by unanimous consent. However, that was a 
    formality, because the time was already controlled by the terms on 
    the resolution under which the House suspended the rules.

Mover Opens and Closes Debate

Sec. 13.13 Under Rule XXVII clause 3, the Member making a motion to 
    suspend the rules and the Member demanding a second are each 
    entitled to 20 minutes of debate, and the Speaker will first 
    recognize the mover of the motion to consume as much of his time as 
    he desires.

    On Dec. 7, 1970,(17) Mr. L. Mendel Rivers, of South 
Carolina, had offered a motion to suspend the rules and Mr. Robert L. 
Leggett, of California, had been recognized by Speaker John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, to demand a second. The Speaker indicated
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 116 Cong. Rec. 40114. 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3981]]

how debate would proceed on the motion:

        The Speaker: The gentleman from South Carolina will be 
    recognized for 20 minutes and the gentleman from California will be 
    recognized for 20 minutes.
        Mr. [William F.] Ryan [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, will the 
    gentleman from South Carolina yield?
        Mr. Rivers: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Rivers: The time is allocated 40 minutes----
        The Speaker: The Chair is unable to hear the gentleman.
        Mr. Rivers: The time is allocated 20 minutes to the committee 
    and 20 minutes to the gentleman from California.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from South Carolina has been 
    recognized for 20 minutes.
        Mr. Rivers: And 20 minutes to the gentleman from California 
    (Mr. Leggett)?
        The Speaker: That is correct.
        Mr. Rivers: Now, what priority will the time be allocated? Does 
    he speak first or I speak first, or who is in charge at this point 
    in time?
        The Speaker: The gentleman from South Carolina presenting the 
    resolution and being the advocate thereof will be recognized first. 
    The gentleman, however, if he does not desire to use his time at 
    this time, then the Chair will recognize the gentleman from 
    California (Mr. Leggett) for 20 minutes.

Sec. 13.14 Where the Member who demands a second on a motion to suspend 
    the rules has been recognized for 20 minutes of debate, it is 
    customary for the Speaker to recognize the Member making the motion 
    to conclude the debate with any time remaining to him.

    On Dec. 30, 1970,(18) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, indicated that the Member offering a motion to suspend 
the rules and recognized to control 20 minutes of debate in favor of 
the motion should be recognized to close debate thereon:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 116 Cong. Rec. 44174, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Wright] Patman [of Texas]: 
        Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman from Iowa use his 4 remaining 
    minutes now, and I will use my 4 remaining minutes after he 
    completes his presentation.
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, am I correct in my impression that this 
    is a motion to suspend the rules?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the gentleman's 
    impression is correct.
        Mr. Gross: Then, the rules are suspended insofar as the 
    conclusion of debate is concerned, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: The Chair would ask the gentleman from Iowa if the 
    gentleman is going to use his remaining time.

[[Page 3982]]

        Mr. Gross: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I intend to use my time.
        The Speaker: Then, the Chair will recognize the gentleman from 
    Iowa. The gentleman from Iowa has 4 minutes remaining and under the 
    custom the gentleman from Texas ( Mr. Patman) should have the final 
    time

    On Apr. 16, 1962, Speaker pro tempore Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
indicated in response to a parliamentary inquiry that the Member 
offering a motion to suspend the rules had the right to close debate 
thereon:

        Mr. [James] Roosevelt [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I have only 
    one more request for time.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Gross: Under suspension of the rules it is not necessary to 
    rotate time. Is that correct?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The proponents of the measure are 
    entitled to close the debate.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 108 Cong. Rec. 6688, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Where Second Not Demanded

Sec. 13.15 Where no Member demands a second on a motion to suspend the 
    rules and pass a bill, the Speaker may immediately put the question 
    on the motion.

    On Aug. 1, 1955,(20) the House (Speaker Sam Rayburn, of 
Texas, presiding) proceeded as follows on a motion to suspend the 
rules:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 101 Cong. Rec. 12663, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John A.] Blatnik [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, I move to 
    suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2552) to authorize the 
    modification of the existing project for the Great Lakes connecting 
    channels above Lake Erie.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Be it enacted, etc., That the project for improvement of 
        the Great Lakes connecting channels above Lake Erie is hereby 
        modified to provide controlling depths of not less than 27 
        feet, the work to be prosecuted under the direction of the 
        Secretary of the Army and the supervision of the Chief of 
        Engineers in accordance with plans approved by the Chief of 
        Engineers, in the report submitted in Senate Document No. 71, 
        84th Congress 1st session.
            Sec. 2. There are authorized to be appropriated such sums 
        as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this act.

        The Speaker: Is a second demanded? [After a pause.] The 
    question is on suspending the rules and passing the bill.
        The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
    thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.

Motion to Adjourn

Sec. 13.16 Only one motion to adjourn is admissible during 
    consideration of a motion to suspend the rules.

    On July 21, 1947,(1) a motion to adjourn was offered by 
Mr. Tom
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 93 Cong. Rec. 9529, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3983]]

Pickett, of Texas, while the House had under consideration a motion to 
suspend the rules and pass H.R. 290, to make unlawful the requirement 
for the payment of a poll tax as a prerequisite to voting in national 
elections. The motion to adjourn was rejected on a yea and nay vote.

    Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, held to be 
dilatory a subsequent point of order that a quorum was not present, and 
then ruled that a second motion to adjourn was not in order:

        Mr. [Thomas J.] Murray of Tennessee: Mr. Speaker, I move that 
    the House do now adjourn.
        The Speaker: That motion is not in order. Under the precedents, 
    a motion to adjourn is not in order until the final vote upon the 
    motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill.

Previous Question

Sec. 13.17 The motion for the previous question is not applicable to a 
    resolution where it is being considered under suspension of the 
    rules.

    On June 18, 1948,(2) Mr. Walter G. Andrews, of New York, 
moved to suspend the rules and pass House Resolution 690, providing 
that the House insist upon its amendment to a Senate bill, ask a 
conference with the Senate, and that the Speaker immediately appoint 
conferees. Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, indicated 
that the motion for the previous question was not in order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 94 Cong. Rec. 8829, 8830, 80th Cong. 2d sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: I wish to say that if 
    the gentleman wishes to do so, as soon as the previous question is 
    ordered it is in order to offer a motion to instruct conferees. 
    That is the rule of the House that has always been followed.
        The Speaker: The Chair will inform the gentleman from 
    Mississippi that there is no previous question to be ordered, that 
    the House is now considering under a suspension of the rules House 
    Resolution 690, which carries the following provision:

            That the House insist upon its amendments to the bill of 
        the Senate, S. 2655, ask for a conference with the Senate on 
        the disagreeing votes of the two Houses, and that the Speaker 
        immediately appoint conferees.

        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: I yield to the gentleman 
    from Mississippi.
        Mr. Rankin: It has always been the rule and it is the rule now.
        The Speaker: But this is under a suspension of the rules and it 
    would not be in order after the adoption of the pending resolution 
    to offer such a motion.
        Mr. Rankin: Then it is changing the rules of the House.

    Parliamentarian's Note: A motion to instruct conferees is only

[[Page 3984]]

in order after the House has requested or agreed to a conference and 
before the Speaker appoints conferees; the resolution pending in this 
instance precluded any intervening motion, i.e., a motion to instruct. 
Whether or not the previous question is in order has no bearing on the 
timeliness of a motion to instruct when a bill is sent to conference; 
the inquiry apparently confused that situation with a motion to 
recommit a conference report with instructions after the previous 
question has been ordered on the adoption of the report (where the 
House acts first on the report).

Special Order Governing Time and Control of Debate

Sec. 13.18 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 pass a concurrent resolution, and fixing 
    control of time.

    On Sept. 20, 1943,(3) Mr. John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, moved to suspend the rules and pass a resolution 
altering the method of consideration of another motion to suspend the 
rules, and explained its provisions:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 89 Cong. Rec. 7646, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. McCormack: Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and 
    pass the resolution (H. Res. 302), which I send to the Clerk's 
    desk.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            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.

        The Speaker: (4) Is a second demanded?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Hamilton] Fish [Jr., of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
    second.
        Mr. McCormack: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that a 
    second be considered as ordered.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Massachusetts [Mr. McCormack]?
        There was no objection.
        Mr. McCormack: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 9 minutes.
        Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this resolution just reported by 
    the Clerk is simply to provide that under suspension of the rules 
    that will take place debate on the Fulbright resolution will be 
    extended to a period of 4 hours. As we all know, under the rules of 
    the House, unless this resolution is adopted, debate would be 
    limited to 40 minutes, 20 minutes on each side.
        The motion to suspend the rules on the Fulbright resolution 
    will be made in accordance with the rules of the House, rules that 
    have existed for many years and which this House,

[[Page 3985]]

    without regard to what party was in power or in control of the 
    House, provided many years ago. The motion to suspend the rules on 
    the Fulbright resolution, therefore, is strictly in accordance with 
    the rules provided for by this body and by many Congresses of the 
    past. Needless to say, I hope the resolution will be adopted as it 
    is proposed to extend the debate for a period of 4 hours.

    The House adopted the motion to suspend the rules and pass the 
resolution.

Unanimous-consent Requests

Sec. 13.19 The Speaker may decline to recognize a request for unanimous 
    consent to insert material in the Record during consideration of a 
    motion to suspend the rules.

    On July 21, 1947,(5) the House had under debate a 
motion, offered by Mr. Ralph A. Gamble, of New York, to suspend the 
rules and pass H.R. 29 (making unlawful the requirement for the payment 
of a poll tax as a prerequisite to voting in national elections). 
Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, refused to entertain 
unanimous-consent requests:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 93 Cong. Rec. 9525, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Tom] Pickett [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent----
        The Speaker: The Chair will refuse to entertain any unanimous-
    consent requests until after the vote on this bill.
        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.

        Mr. Rankin: That is the most unusual ruling that I have ever 
    heard of, to shut us off--
        The Speaker: That is the ruling of the Chair.
        Mr. Rankin: From putting material in the Record.
        The Speaker: The Chair is perfectly willing to have the 
    material put in the Record, and the gentleman should so put the 
    request immediately after the vote.
        The time of the gentleman from Texas has expired.

Sec. 13.20 After a second is ordered on a motion to suspend the rules 
    and pass a bill, it is not in order to change in any particular the 
    language in the bill as called up under suspension (except by 
    unanimous consent).

    On June 9, 1930,(6) a second had been ordered on a 
motion to suspend the rules and pass a bill, and the bill had been 
reread by unanimous consent. A Member objected that the second reading 
did not conform with the first, and proceedings were vacated by 
unanimous consent:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 72 Cong. Rec. 10331 71st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [George] Huddleston [of Alabama]: Mr. Speaker, my point of 
    order

[[Page 3986]]

    is that I insist on the motion as originally made as read by the 
    Clerk, which does not include the word ``solicitor'' as now read in 
    line 14 of the amendment and the word ``general'' instead of 
    ``chief.'' I might suggest that if it is necessary to make the 
    amendment it can be made in the Senate.
        Mr. [Homer] Hoch [of Kansas]: A parliamentary inquiry, Mr. 
    Speaker.
        The Speaker: (7) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Nicholas Longworth (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hoch: I understood the gentleman from New York moved to 
    suspend the rules and pass the bill with an amendment; and this is 
    a part of the amendment that was suggested.
        The Speaker: But the point is made that this amendment was not 
    read by the Clerk at this time.
        Mr. Hoch: It was the Clerk's mistake.
        The Speaker: The Chair is informed by the Clerk that he read 
    what was sent to the desk.
        Mr. [James S.] Parker [of New York]: The Clerk did.
        Mr. [Carl E.] Mapes [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent that the proceedings be vacated.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Michigan asks unanimous consent 
    that the gentleman from New York may be permitted to withdraw his 
    original motion. Is there objection? (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See also 104 Cong. Rec. 8004, 85th Cong. 2d Sess., May 5, 1958, 
        where a motion to suspend the rules and pass a bill was 
        withdrawn by unanimous consent after a second was ordered; a 
        new motion was then made to suspend the rules and pass the same 
        bill with an amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.

Withdrawing Motion Under Consideration

Sec. 13.21 After a second has been ordered on a motion to suspend the 
    rules, the motion may be withdrawn only by unanimous consent.

    On Dec. 5, 1932, Speaker John N. Garner, of Texas, stated in 
response to a parliamentary inquiry that once a motion to suspend the 
rules had been seconded, the motion could not be withdrawn (except by 
unanimous consent).(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 76 Cong. Rec. 7-13, 72d Cong. 2d Sess. See also Sec. 13.20, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Dec. 21, 1970, Mr. Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, moved to suspend 
the rules and pass a resolution (authorizing the Speaker to declare 
recesses for the remainder of the session). Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, 
demanded a second and made the point of order that a quorum was not 
present. Mr. Albert withdrew the resolution and Mr. Gross withdrew his 
point of order.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 116 Cong. Rec. 43069, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 13.22 A motion to suspend the rules, on which a second had been 
    ordered, remained undisposed of at adjournment as the unfinished 
    busi

[[Page 3987]]

    ness and was, on the next day when such motion was again in order, 
    withdrawn by unanimous consent.

    On May 5, 1958,(11) which was a suspension day, the 
unfinished business was a motion to suspend the rules on which a second 
had been ordered on a previous day. The motion was withdrawn by 
unanimous consent:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 104 Cong. Rec. 8004, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Oren] Harris [of Arkansas]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent to vacate proceedings under suspension of the rules held 2 
    weeks ago on the bill (H.R. 11414) to amend section 314(c) of the 
    Public Health Service Act, so as to authorize the Surgeon General 
    to make certain grants-in-aid for the support of public or 
    nonprofit educational institutions which provide training and 
    services in the fields of public health and in the administration 
    of State and local public health programs.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection?
        There was no objection.

Sec. 13.23 A motion to suspend the rules and pass a bill may, by 
    unanimous consent, be withdrawn after there has been debate on the 
    motion and the Speaker has put the question on its adoption.

    On May 6, 1963,(12) Mr. Donald R. Matthews, of Florida, 
had offered a motion to suspend the rules on which a second had been 
demanded and which had been debated. Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, put the question on the motion that the House suspend 
the rules and pass the bill. Mr. Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, then asked 
unanimous consent that the motion to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill be withdrawn; there was no objection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 109 Cong. Rec. 7815, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------