[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 12, Chapter 29 (Sections 1-34), Volume 13, Chapter 29 (Sections 35-end, plus index)]
[Chapter 29. Consideration and Debate]
[I. Duration of Debate in the Committee of the Whole]
[Â§ 74. In General; Effect of Special Rules]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 11036-11051]
 
                               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.