[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 12, Chapter 29 (Sections 1-34), Volume 13, Chapter 29 (Sections 35-end, plus index)]
[Chapter 29. Consideration and Debate]
[H. Duration of Debate in the House]
[Â§ 70. Five-minute Debate in the House as in Committee of the Whole]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 10982-10990]
 
                               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.