[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§ 77. Five-minute Debate]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 11069-11095]
 
                               CHAPTER 29
 
                        Consideration and Debate
 
          I. DURATION OF DEBATE IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
 
Sec. 77. Five-minute Debate

    Debate under the five-minute rule in the Committee of the Whole is 
provided for by Rule XXIII clause 5:

        When general debate is closed by order of the House, any Member 
    shall be allowed five minutes to explain any amendment he may 
    offer, after which the Member who shall first obtain the floor 
    shall be allowed to speak five minutes in opposition to it, and 
    there shall be no further debate thereon, but the same privilege of 
    debate shall be allowed in favor of and against any amendment that 
    may be offered to an amendment; and neither an amendment nor an 
    amendment to an amendment shall be withdrawn by the mover thereof 
    unless by the unanimous consent of the committee.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. House Rules and Manual Sec. 870 (1995). See also id. at 
        Sec. Sec. 872, 873 for the five-minute rule and pro forma 
        amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A special rule adopted by the House for the consideration of a bill 
may alter the normal effect 
of the five-minute rule. For example, a special rule permitting only 
committee or designated amendments to be offered requires that there be 
only two five-minute speeches on each such amendment without extension 
of time or pro forma amendments.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See Sec. Sec. 77.19-77.22, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The pro forma amendment, such as moving to ``strike the last word'' 
or to strike ``the requisite number of words,'' although technically an 
amendment, is used for purposes of debate or explanation under the 
five-minute rule where it is not intended by the mover 
to offer a substantive amendment. 
A Member who has debated an amendment may offer or speak in opposition 
to a pro forma amendment, and a Member who has offered an amendment may 
speak in opposition to a pro forma amendment thereto, without violating 
the prohibition against speaking twice on the same 
amendment.(15) But a Member may not twice offer pro forma 
amendments to gain extensions of time on the same 
amendment.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See Sec. Sec. 19.27, 19.28, supra.
16. See Sec. Sec. 77.9, 77.10, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another method of gaining time for debate under the five-minute

[[Page 11070]]

rule is the motion to rise and report back to the House with the 
recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken, which motion is 
accorded preference under Rule XXIII clause 7:

        A motion to strike out the enacting clause of a bill shall have 
    precedence of a motion to amend, and, if carried, shall be 
    considered equivalent to its rejection.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. See House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 875, 876 (1995).
            For the relative precedence of the motion to strike the 
        enacting clause and the motion to limit or close debate under 
        the five-minute rule, see Sec. 78, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This motion is not in order until the first section of the bill has 
been read.(18) It has precedence over a pending amendment 
and may be offered again after substantive amendment of the bill; but 
if challenged, the Member making the motion must qualify as being 
opposed to the bill.(19) Only two five-minute speeches are 
permitted by way of debate.(20) The motion is not in order 
after debate on a bill has expired under a limitation.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5327; 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2619.
19. See 88 Cong. Rec. 2439, 77th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 13, 1942; 96 
        Cong. Rec. 6571, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., May 6, 1950.
20. See Sec. Sec. 77.14-77.17, infra.
 1. See Sec. 79, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            Cross References
Consideration of and debate on amendments generally, see Ch. 27, supra.
Consideration under five-minute rule of Senate amendments to 
    appropriation bills, see Ch. 25, supra.
Distribution and alternation of time under the five-minute rule, see 
    Sec. 25, supra.
Effect of special orders on debate under five-minute rule, see Ch. 21, 
    supra.
Five-minute debate in House as in Committee of the Whole, see 
    Sec. Sec. 70, 72, supra.
Five-minute rule on appropriation bills, see Ch. 25, supra.
Recognition generally under the five-minute rule, see Sec. Sec. 12, 14, 
    21, 22, supra.
Relevancy of debate under the five-minute rule, see Sec. Sec. 37, 38, 
    supra.
Yielding time under the five-minute rule, see Sec. Sec. 29-31, 
    supra.                          -------------------

In General

Sec. 77.1 When an amendment is offered in the Committee of the Whole, 
    there may be five minutes of debate in favor of such amendment and 
    five minutes in opposition thereto, but if no Member rises to 
    oppose the amendment, the Chair may recognize Members under the 
    five-minute rule to offer perfecting amendments to the pending 
    amendment.

[[Page 11071]]

    On Mar. 9, 1935,(2) an amendment had been offered and 
debated for five minutes by the offeror. When no Member rose to seek 
recognition for five minutes in opposition to the amendment, Chairman 
Emanuel Celler, of New York, recognized Mr. Jesse P. Wolcott, of 
Michigan, to offer a perfecting amendment. Mr. T. Alan Goldsborough, of 
Maryland, interrupted the reading of the amendment and stated that he 
wanted to be recognized on the original amendment. Mr. Wolcott objected 
to the interruption, and the Chair ruled that Mr. Wolcott was entitled 
to be heard on his amendment without interruption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 79 Cong. Rec. 3312, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 77.2 A Member who has offered an amendment and spoken thereon is 
    not precluded from recognition to speak to a proposed amendment to 
    his amendment.

    On Nov. 15, 1967,(3) Chairman John J. Rooney, of New 
York, ruled as to whether a Member, Augustus F. Hawkins, of California, 
who had offered an amendment and spoken thereon, was precluded from 
speaking on an amendment to his amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 113 Cong. Rec. 32644, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Hugh L.] Carey [of New York]: A point of order, Mr. 
    Chairman.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Carey: Mr. Chairman, I have no wish to foreclose the right 
    of my colleague from California to be heard, but I believe he has 
    already spoken on the floor for 10 minutes in support of his 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: Since the time the gentleman from California 
    addressed the Committee with regard to the Hawkins amendment, 
    another amendment has been offered, which is an amendment to the 
    Hawkins amendment, and the gentleman from California has not yet 
    spoken on that.
        Mr. Carey: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.

Sec. 77.3 A Member recognized under the five-minute rule may extend his 
    debate time only by unanimous consent, and a motion to that effect 
    is not in order.

    On Apr. 28, 1976,(4) the following proceedings occurred 
in the Committee of the Whole during consideration of House Concurrent 
Resolution 611, the first concurrent resolution on the budget for 
fiscal year 1977:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 122 Cong. Rec. 11622, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (5) The time of the 
    gentleman from California (Mr. Leggett) has expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Gillis W. Long (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert L.] Leggett [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that I may be permitted to proceed for 3 
    additional minutes.

[[Page 11072]]

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from California? . . .
        Mr. [Clarence D.] Long of Maryland: Mr. Chairman, I object.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Objection is heard.
        Mr. Leggett: Mr. Chairman, I move that I be given 2 additional 
    minutes.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: That motion is not in order. The time 
    of 
    the gentleman from California (Mr. Leggett) has expired.

Pro Forma Amendments

Sec. 77.4 While a Member may not speak twice on the same amendment, he 
    may speak 
    in opposition to a pending amendment and subsequently offer a pro 
    forma amendment and debate the latter.

    On June 30, 1955,(6) Mr. James P. Richards, of South 
Carolina, was managing a bill under consideration in the Committee of 
the Whole. He had spoken in opposition to a pending amendment and had 
then gained the floor by offering a pro forma amendment. Mr. H. R. 
Gross, of Iowa, objected that Mr. Richards could not speak twice on the 
same amendment. Chairman Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, ruled that Mr. 
Richards properly had the floor and could offer a pro forma amendment, 
gaining time for debate, where he had already spoken in opposition to 
the pending amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 101 Cong. Rec. 9614, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 77.5 While a Member may not be recognized to speak twice on the 
    same amendment, he may rise in opposition to a pro forma amendment 
    and accomplish that result.

    On July 20, 1951,(7) Chairman Wilbur D. Mills, of 
Arkansas, answered a parliamentary inquiry on recognition to debate 
amendments in the Committee of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 97 Cong. Rec. 8566, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jesse P.] Wolcott [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, is it in 
    order for a Member to talk twice on the same amendment?
        The Chairman: A Member may rise in opposition to a pro forma 
    amendment and accomplish that result, if he desires to do so.

Sec. 77.6 While the rules forbid a Member speaking twice on an 
    amendment offered under the five-minute rule, he may speak on the 
    amendment and later in opposition to a pro forma amendment offered 
    during the pendency of the original amendment.

    On Mar. 13, 1942,(8) Chairman Robert Ramspeck, of 
Georgia, rec

[[Page 11073]]

ognized, during five-minute debate in the Committee of the Whole, Mr. 
Everett M. Dirksen, of Illinois, to speak in opposition to a pro forma 
amendment. Mr. Frank E. Hook, of Michigan, objected that a Member could 
not speak twice on the same amendment and that Mr. Dirksen had already 
spoken on the pending amendment. The Chairman ruled that Mr. Dirksen 
could speak on the pro forma amendment although he had already spoken 
to the pending substantive amendment.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 88 Cong. Rec. 2425, 77th Cong. 2d Sess. See also 103 Cong. Rec. 
        9033, 85th Cong. 1st Sess., June 13, 1957.
 9. For the prohibition against one Member speaking twice to the same 
        question, see Rule XIV clause 6, House Rules and Manual 
        Sec. 762 (1995). For amendment under the five-minute rule, 
        permitting a Member to speak only once on an amendment, see 
        Rule XXIII clause 5(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 870 (1995). 
        Pro forma amendments are discussed id. at Sec. 873.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 77.7 Where there was pending in the Committee of the Whole an 
    amendment and a substitute therefor, the Chair stated, in response 
    to parliamentary inquiries: (1) that the Member offering the 
    substitute could debate it for five minutes and could subsequently 
    be recognized to speak for or against the original amendment; and 
    (2) that a Member recognized to speak on a pending amendment later 
    might offer a pro forma amendment and thereby be entitled to a 
    second five minutes of debate.

    On July 28, 1970,(10) an amendment and a substitute 
therefor were pending to a bill being considered under the five-minute 
rule in the Committee of the Whole. Chairman William H. Natcher, of 
Kentucky, responded to parliamentary inquiries on recognition of 
Members for amendments and substitute amendments:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 116 Cong. Rec. 26027, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William H.] Harsha [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Harsha: How many times is a Member permitted to speak on 
    his own amendment?
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Ohio inquires as to how many 
    times a Member may speak on his own amendment. The answer to that 
    is he may speak one time to his amendment.
        Mr. Harsha: The author of the amendment is asking for 
    additional time, and some of the rest of us have not had any time.
        Mr. [B. F.] Sisk [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my 
    request and yield back the remainder of my time.
        Mr. [Harold R.] Collier [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.

[[Page 11074]]

        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Collier: Is that rule not also applicable to any other 
    Member of the House, once he has spoken on an amendment?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. [James C.] Cleveland [of New Hampshire]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Cleveland: Am I not correct 
    in stating that when the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Schwengel) 
    offered his amendment, he spoke on it; and am I not correct that 
    when the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Reuss) offered an amendment 
    the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Schwengel) offered a substitute. Would 
    not the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Schwengel) be allowed to speak for 
    5 minutes for or against the Reuss amendment, as well as in support 
    of his own substitute?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Cleveland: I thank the Chairman.
        Mr. [Joe D.] Waggonner [Jr., of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Waggonner: Under the rules of the House cannot a Member 
    move to strike the last word and be considered on the same 
    amendment?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Waggonner: And under those conditions a man could speak 
    twice, could he not?
        The Chairman: Possibly. If a Member were to speak one time in 
    opposition to an amendment subsequently he could move to strike the 
    last word and he would be entitled to be recognized.

Restrictions on Pro Forma Amendments

Sec. 77.8 During debate on an amendment under the five-minute rule, a 
    Member who has been recognized for five minutes on a pro forma 
    amendment cannot thereafter gain additional time by offering a 
    second pro forma amendment.

    On Mar. 25, 1965,(11) an amendment was under discussion 
under the five-minute rule in the Committee of the Whole. Chairman 
Richard Bolling, of Missouri, sustained a point of order against a 
Member's offering a second pro forma amendment on the same amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 111 Cong. Rec. 6002, 6003, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles E.] Goodell [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I rise in 
    support of the amendment.
        Mr. Chairman, in the process of hearings one of the things 
    which became apparent to many of us on the subcommittee considering 
    this legislation was that the allocation formula, although 
    superficially attractive, was extremely discriminatory as to 
    certain parts of the country. . . .

[[Page 11075]]

        Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the requisite number of 
    words.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
    minutes.
        Mr. [Adam C.] Powell [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Powell: Did not the gentleman from New York get permission 
    just a few minutes ago to speak for 5 minutes?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Powell: I make the point of order, then, that he is out of 
    order.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.

Sec. 77.9 A Member, having been recognized under the five-minute rule 
    to debate his amendment and then having secured an extra five 
    minutes by unanimous consent, may not further extend his time by 
    moving to strike out the last word.

    On Aug. 17, 1966,(12) the House was considering under 
the five-minute rule H.R. 13228, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle 
Safety Act. Mr. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr., of Massachusetts, offered an 
amendment and debated it for five minutes. At the expiration of his 
five minutes, Chairman Emilio Q. Daddario, of Connecticut, advised him 
of that fact, and Mr. O'Neill gained unanimous consent to further 
proceed for five minutes. At the expiration of that time, Mr. O'Neill 
offered a pro forma amendment and the Chair ruled that he was not 
entitled to further recognition to gain debate time by amending his own 
amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 112 Cong. Rec. 19662-64, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 77.10 A Member recognized for five minutes on a pro forma 
    amendment may not extend his time by offering 
    a substantive amendment without being recognized by the Chair for 
    that purpose.

    On July 28, 1965,(13) Chairman Leo W. O'Brien, of New 
York, recognized Mr. William H. Ayres, of Ohio, the ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Education and Labor which had reported the 
bill under discussion, on a pro forma amendment. The Chair ruled that 
Mr. Ayres was not then recognized to offer a substantive amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 111 Cong. Rec. 18631, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Ayres: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word.
        Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for an 
    additional 5 minutes. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I am most gratified at the assurance of Chairman 
    Powell

[[Page 11076]]

    that a complete committee investigation of National Labor Relations 
    Board election procedures will be held. Mr. Powell's House floor 
    statement to me, just prior to a vote on the repeal of section 
    14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act, means that we can now delve into a 
    part of labor relations that could have great impact on the 
    establishment of a good climate for labor-industry relations. . . .
        In order to have a cooling-off period, Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: The Chair has not recognized the gentleman for 
    that purpose.
        Does any other Member offer an amendment at this time?

Motion To Strike Enacting Clause

Sec. 77.11 In the Committee of the Whole, on a motion to rise and 
    report a recommendation to strike out the enacting clause, only two 
    five-minute speeches are permitted, and the Chair declines to 
    recognize for a pro forma amendment.

    On Aug. 1, 1957,(14) after Mr. Earl Wilson, of Indiana, 
offered a motion that the Committee of 
the Whole rise and report back 
the pending bill with the recommendation the enacting clause be 
stricken, Mr. Leon H. Gavin, of Pennsylvania, sought to gain 
recognition on a motion to strike out the last word. Chairman Richard 
W. Bolling, of Missouri, declined to recognize him for that purpose. 
After two five-minute speeches had been had on the motion, Mr. Gavin 
again sought recognition to debate the motion, and the Chairman ruled 
that no further debate could be had.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 103 Cong. Rec. 13385, 13386, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 77.12 On a motion to strike out the enacting clause in the 
    Committee of the Whole, only two five-minute speeches are 
    permitted, notwithstanding the fact that the second Member, 
    recognized in opposition to the motion, actually spoke in favor 
    thereof.

    On Mar. 18, 1960,(15) Mr. Paul C. Jones, of Missouri, 
offered a motion that the Committee of the Whole rise and report the 
pending bill back to the House with the recommendation that the 
enacting clause be stricken. Mr. Jones was recognized for five minutes' 
debate in support of the motion. Mr. William M. Colmer, of Mississippi, 
rose in opposition to the motion and consumed his five minutes, 
actually speaking in favor of the motion. Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of 
Michigan, then made a point of

[[Page 11077]]

order, which was overruled by Chairman Francis E. Walter, of 
Pennsylvania:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 106 Cong. Rec. 6026, 6027, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chairman, a point of order. I seek recognition in 
    opposition to the amendment on the ground that the gentleman from 
    Mississippi [Mr. Colmer] did not talk against the motion.
        The Chairman: The 5 minutes for the preferential motion and the 
    5 minutes against the motion have expired.

Sec. 77.13 On a motion to strike out the enacting clause offered in the 
    Committee of the Whole, only two five-minute speeches are permitted 
    and the Chair declines to recognize a request for an extension of 
    that time.

    On July 18, 1951,(16) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, 
offered a motion that the Committee of 
the Whole rise and report back 
the pending bill with the recommendation that the enacting clause be 
stricken. He then asked unanimous consent to revise and extend his 
remarks and to proceed for five additional minutes. Mr. Brent Spence, 
of Kentucky, objected to the request. Chairman Wilbur D. Mills, of 
Arkansas, ruled as follows on the request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 97 Cong. Rec. 8371, 8372, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman may revise and extend his remarks, without 
    objection, but he may not proceed for an additional 5 minutes on a 
    motion to strike out the enacting clause.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. See also 111 Cong. Rec. 6098, 6099, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 26, 
        1965; and 98 Cong. Rec. 1829, 1830, 82d Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 4, 
        1952 (debate on the motion is limited to two five-minute 
        speeches).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 77.14 A motion that the Committee of the Whole rise and report a 
    bill back to the House with the recommendation that the enacting 
    clause be stricken takes precedence over a pending amendment to the 
    bill which has not been debated; such motion 
    is debatable for 10 minutes (five on each side), and following 
    disposition of such motion 10 minutes of debate (five on each side) 
    is permitted on the pending amendment.

    On Oct. 17, 1945,(18) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering under the five-minute rule an amendment (not yet debated) 
to a bill when a motion to rise with the recommendation that the 
enacting clause be stricken was made. Chairman Graham A. Barden, of 
North Carolina, answered a parliamentary inquiry on the precedence and 
effect of the mo

[[Page 11078]]

tion when an amendment was pending:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 91 Cong. Rec. 9751, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Hoffman moves that the Committee rise and report the 
        bill back to the House with the recommendation that the 
        enacting clause be stricken out.

        Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. McCormack: My understanding is that on the motion offered 
    by the gentleman from Michigan there may be 10 minutes of debate, 5 
    minutes for and 5 minutes against, and that if the motion is 
    defeated the 10 minutes of debate on the amendment still remain to 
    be used. Is that correct?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.

Sec. 77.15 A Member offering a motion in the Committee of the Whole to 
    strike out the enacting clause of a bill may yield part of the five 
    minutes available to him to another to make a comment while he has 
    the floor and remains on his feet.

    On Sept. 27, 1945,(19) Chairman Aime J. Forand, of Rhode 
Island, ruled as follows on the yielding of time under the five-minute 
rule:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 91 Cong. Rec. 9095, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Andrew J.] May [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. May moves that the Committee do now rise and report the 
        bill, H.R. 2948, back forthwith to the House with the 
        recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken out.

        Mr. May: Mr. Chairman, I yield my 5 minutes to the gentleman 
    from North Carolina, if I may.
        Mr. [Robert] Ramspeck [of Georgia]: The gentleman cannot do 
    that, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: He can yield time while he is holding the floor.

        Mr. May: I yield part of my time, then, to the gentleman from 
    North Carolina.

Sec. 77.16 Where a bill has been amended subsequent to the rejection of 
    a motion to strike out the enacting clause, a second such motion is 
    in order and is debatable under the five-minute rule 
    notwithstanding a limitation of remaining debate on the bill.

    On May 9, 1947,(20) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, 
offered a motion that the Committee of the Whole rise and report a bill 
to the House with the recommendation

[[Page 11079]]

that the enacting clause be stricken, after a previous such motion had 
been offered before the bill had been amended, and after a limitation 
on debate had been agreed to. Chairman Francis H. Case, of South 
Dakota, overruled points of order against the motion:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 93 Cong. Rec. 4974, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hoffman: Mr. Chairman, I offer a preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Hoffman moves that the Committee do now rise and report 
        the bill back to the House with the recommendation that the 
        enacting clause be stricken.

        Mr. [Pete] Jarman [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order 
    against the motion.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Jarman: Mr. Chairman, that motion has already been made and 
    was voted down once.
        The Chairman: There have been several amendments adopted on the 
    bill, it has been changed since that motion was previously acted 
    on. The Chair overrules the point of order.
        Mr. [John M.] Vorys [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Vorys: Mr. Chairman, debate is limited on the bill by 
    action of the committee.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Michigan has offered a 
    preferential motion which is in order in spite of the agreement on 
    closing debate.

Sec. 77.17 The preferential motion to strike the enacting clause may be 
    offered, debated for five minutes, and then, by unanimous consent, 
    withdrawn.

    On Oct. 7, 1965,(1) Mr. Thomas M. Pelly, of Washington, 
offered 
a motion in the Committee of 
the Whole to strike the enacting clause and gained five minutes' time 
for debate thereon, although a limitation on debate had been previously 
agreed to. After debate on the motion, Mr. Pelly withdrew the motion by 
unanimous consent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 111 Cong. Rec. 26306, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 77.18 The Chair recognizes only two Members to speak on the 
    preferential motion that the Committee rise and report with the 
    recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken.

    On Dec. 18, 1975,(2) during consideration of the Airport 
and Airway Development Act Amendments of 1975 (H.R. 9771) in the 
Committee of the Whole, the proceedings described above were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 121 Cong. Rec. 41799, 41800, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    a preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Conte moves that the Committee do now rise and report 
        the 


[[Page 11080]]

        bill back to the House with the 
        recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken.

        The Chairman: (3) The gentleman from Massachusetts 
    (Mr. Conte) is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his 
    amendment. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
    California (Mr. Anderson).
        Mr. [Glenn M.] Anderson of California: Mr. Chairman, I rise in 
    opposition to the gentleman's motion and yield back the balance of 
    my time.
        The Chairman: The question is on the preferential motion 
    offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Conte).
        The preferential motion was rejected.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Since Mr. Anderson utilized only a small 
fraction of his time to speak against the preferential motion, Mr. 
Garry Brown, of Michigan, sought recognition to speak against the 
motion. The Chair declined to recognize him, since only two Members may 
be recognized to speak on the motion.

Effect of Special Rule Limiting Amendments

Sec. 77.19 When a bill is being considered under a closed rule 
    permitting only committee amendments and no amendments thereto, 
    only two five-minute speeches on an amendment are in order, one in 
    support and one in opposition.

    On May 18, 1960,(4) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 5, the Foreign Investment Tax Act of 1960, reported 
by the Committee on Ways and Means, pursuant to the provisions of House 
Resolution 468, permitting only amendments offered at the direction of 
that committee. Chairman William H. Natcher, of Kentucky, indicated in 
response to a parliamentary inquiry that only five minutes for and five 
minutes against an amendment were in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 106 Cong. Rec. 10576, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 77.20 When a committee amendment is being considered under a 
    closed rule prohibiting amendments thereto, only two five-minute 
    speeches are in order, pro forma amendments are not permitted and a 
    third Member may be recognized only by unanimous consent.

    An illustration of the proposition described above occurred in the 
Committee of the Whole on Mar. 8, 1977,(5) during consider

[[Page 11081]]

ation of the Tax Reduction and Simplification Act of 1977 (H.R. 3477). 
The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 123 Cong. Rec. 6632, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William M.] Ketchum [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I move 
    to strike the requisite number of words, and I rise in support of 
    the committee amendment.
        The Chairman: (6) The Chair will state that only two 
    5-minute speeches are in order under the rule absent unanimous 
    consent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Tom Bevill (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Ketchum: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I may 
    be permitted to speak in favor of the amendment.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from California?
        There was no objection.

Sec. 77.21 Where a bill is being considered under a special rule 
    permitting only committee amendments and prohibiting amendments 
    thereto, a second Member rising to support the committee amendment 
    cannot be recognized.

    On Sept. 3, 1959,(7) Chairman William Pat Jennings, of 
Virginia, stated that to the pending bill, H.R. 9035, no amendments 
were in order under the special rule adopted by the House except 
amendments offered by the Committee on Public Works. Mr. Frank J. 
Becker, of New York, was recognized for five minutes 
to support the second committee amendment offered. At the conclusion of 
his remarks, Mr. Toby Morris, of Oklahoma, sought recognition in 
support of the amendment. Chairman Jennings declined to recognize Mr. 
Morris for that purpose:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 105 Cong. Rec. 17987-89, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair will state to the gentleman that only 5 minutes is 
    permitted in support of the amendment and 5 minutes in opposition. 
    Five minutes has been consumed in support of the amendment. 
    Therefore, the Chair cannot recognize the gentleman at this 
    time.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See also 106 Cong. Rec. 10579, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., May 18, 1960 
        (third Member not entitled to recognition notwithstanding the 
        fact that the second Member, recognized in opposition, spoke in 
        favor of the amendment); and 101 Cong. Rec. 4829-34, 84th Cong. 
        1st Sess., Apr. 20, 1955 (no pro forma amendments permitted).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 77.22 Where a bill is being considered under a special rule which 
    permits only committee amendments to title I, only the text of a 
    designated concurrent resolution as an amendment to title II, and 
    one motion to strike out title III, and prohibits amend

[[Page 11082]]

    ments to said amendments, five minutes of debate in support of and 
    five minutes in opposition to each amendment are in order.

    On Oct. 10, 1972,(9) the House adopted House Resolution 
1149, called up by Mr. John A. Young, of Texas, from the Committee on 
Rules, which provided for the consideration of a bill and limited the 
amendments that could be offered thereto:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 118 Cong. Rec. 34583, 34584, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee 
    of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration 
    of the bill (H.R. 16810) to provide for a temporary increase in the 
    public debt limit. . . . [T]he bill shall be considered as having 
    been read for amendment. No amendment shall be in order to said 
    bill except (1) amendments offered by direction of the Committee on 
    Ways and Means to title I of the bill; (2) an amendment containing 
    the text or a portion of the text of H. Con. Res. 713 if offered as 
    an amendment in the nature of a substitute to title II of the bill 
    H.R. 16810; and (3) an amendment proposing to strike out title III 
    of the bill; and said amendments shall be in order, any rule of the 
    House to the contrary notwithstanding, but shall not be subject to 
    amendment. . . .

    After general debate on the bill in the Committee of the Whole, 
Chairman Thomas G. Abernethy, of Mississippi, inquired whether any of 
the permitted amendments would be offered. Mr. George H. Mahon, of 
Texas, offered the designated amendment to title II of the bill and was 
recognized for five minutes in favor of it. The Chair then recognized 
Mr. Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas, for five minutes in opposition to the 
amendment. The amendment was rejected, no further amendments were 
offered, and the Committee rose.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Id. at pp. 34633-36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Debate on Two or More Amendments Considered En Bloc

Sec. 77.23 A Member offering two amendments may, with the consent of 
    the Committee of the Whole, have them considered together, but such 
    consent does not permit the Member to debate the measure for two 
    five-minute periods.

    On Mar. 5, 1937,(11) while the Committee of the Whole 
was considering for amendment under the five-minute rule an 
appropriation bill, Mr. Everett M. Dirksen, of Illinois, asked 
unanimous consent that two amendments he was

[[Page 11083]]

offering, both applicable to the same page, be considered together. 
There was no objection to the request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 81 Cong. Rec. 1919, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Dirksen then stated he assumed that he was entitled to proceed 
for 10 minutes, having two amendments. Chairman Schuyler Otis Bland, of 
Virginia, stated that Mr. Dirksen was entitled to only five minutes.

Sec. 77.24 Where amending language is offered to several paragraphs of 
    a bill as one amendment, only five minutes of debate is permitted 
    for the amendment and five minutes against.

    On July 20, 1942,(12) Chairman Fritz G. Lanham, of 
Texas, answered a parliamentary inquiry on the time for debate on an 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 88 Cong. Rec. 6385, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: All debate on the bill has been concluded. Are 
    there any committee amendments to be offered to the bill?
        Mr. [Robert L.] Doughton [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer a committee amendment which I send to the desk.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Committee amendment offered by Mr. Doughton: Page 14, line 
        6, strike out ``32 percent'' and insert in lieu thereof ``22 
        percent.''
            Page 14, lines 9 and 10, strike out ``21 percent'' and 
        insert in lieu thereof ``16 percent.''
            Page 15, line 13, strike out ``87\1/2\ percent'' and insert 
        in lieu thereof ``90 percent.''
            Page 18, line 13, strike out ``37 percent'' and insert in 
        lieu thereof ``36 percent.''
            Page 18, line 18, strike out ``$22,900'' and insert in lieu 
        thereof ``$22,800.''
            Page 18, line 20, strike out ``$22,900'' and insert in lieu 
        thereof ``$22,800.''
            Page 18, line 24, strike out ``$22,900'' and insert in lieu 
        thereof ``$22,800.''

        Mr. [Jere] Cooper [of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Cooper: It is correct, is it not, that as this is offered 
    as one amendment under the rule, under which the bill is being 
    considered only 5 minutes' debate is allowed for the amendment and 
    5 minutes against?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.

Sec. 77.25 Where consideration en bloc is granted, by unanimous 
    consent, of several amendments which had been printed in the 
    Record, the proponent is entitled only to a total of five minutes 
    of debate on the amendments.

    On July 25, 1974,(13) during consideration of the 
Surface Mining

[[Page 11084]]

Control and Reclamation Act of 1974(14) in the Committee of 
the Whole, the proposition stated above was demonstrated. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 120 Cong. Rec. 25224, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
14. H.R. 11500.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Craig] Hosmer [of California]: . . . I offer . . . my 
    amendments Nos. 121, 127, 118, and 142 to the committee amendment 
    in the nature of a substitute, and I ask unanimous consent that all 
    of these amendments be considered en bloc and considered as read 
    and printed in the Record.
        The Chairman: (15) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from California?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        Mr. Hosmer: Mr. Chairman, I make the additional unanimous-
    consent request that instead of the 25 minutes to which I might be 
    entitled because of the application of rule XXIII, consisting of 5 
    minutes for each one of these amendments, notwithstanding that 
    rule, I be recognized only for 5 minutes in toto.
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman that 5 
    minutes on his amendments considered en bloc is all the time the 
    gentleman is entitled to in any event.

Reintroduced Amendments

Sec. 77.26 Upon reintroduction of an amendment which has, 
    by unanimous consent, been withdrawn in the Committee of the Whole, 
    the Member is entitled to debate his amendment for a second five-
    minute period.

    On May 3, 1956,(16) Chairman J. Percy Priest, of 
Tennessee, stated, in response to a parliamentary inquiry, that a 
Member who reoffers an amendment he has withdrawn in the Committee of 
the Whole by unanimous consent is again entitled to debate the 
amendment for five minutes:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 102 Cong. Rec. 7439, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Noah M.] Mason [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Mason: Under the rules of the House does a man get two 5-
    minute discussions on the same amendment?
        The Chairman: The gentleman withdrew his amendment, and it has 
    been offered again. The gentleman from Maine is recognized for 5 
    minutes in support of his amendment.

Yielding Under Five-minute Rule

Sec. 77.27 A Member recognized in the Committee of the Whole to debate 
    an amendment may yield to another for debate if he so desires.

    On June 22, 1945,(17) the Committee of the Whole was 
consid

[[Page 11085]]

ering a House joint resolution under the five-minute rule. Chairman 
Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, recognized for five minutes Mr. Forest A. 
Harness, of Indiana, who then yielded to Mr. Fred L. Crawford, of 
Michigan, who had just consumed five minutes in debate. Mr. Wright 
Patman, of Texas, made a point of order and inquired whether one Member 
could yield another Member his time under the five-minute rule. The 
Chairman overruled the point of order and stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 91 Cong. Rec. 6548, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Any Member can yield to another Member, or decline to yield, as 
    he desires.

    Parliamentarian's Note: A Member who offers the preferential motion 
to strike the enacting clause may yield to another, but may not yield 
his full five minutes (see Sec. 77.15, supra); in this instance, Mr. 
Crawford had just consumed five minutes and Mr. Harness yielded to him 
to complete his remarks. Mr. Harness remained standing while Mr. 
Crawford completed his speech.

Sec. 77.28 A Member recognized to strike out the last word under the 
    five-minute rule may yield to another Member, even if the latter 
    has just spoken.

    On Mar. 21, 1960,(18) Chairman Francis E. Walter, of 
Pennsylvania, ruled that a Member recognized on a pro forma amendment 
under the five-minute rule could yield to another Member:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 106 Cong. Rec. 6162, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: The time of the gentleman from New York has 
    expired.
        Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent to proceed for 5 additional minutes.
        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman of Michigan: I object, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I move to 
    strike out the last word.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
    Celler].
        Mr. Celler: I thank the gentleman.
        Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: Just a minute. I make a point of order 
    on this.
        Mr. Celler: Mr. Chairman, deprivation of the State's ballot is 
    wrong.
        Mr. Yates: Mr. Chairman, I am entitled to yield to the 
    gentleman from New York.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Illinois was recognized, and 
    he yielded to the gentleman from New York. The gentleman from New 
    York is continuing in order.

Sec. 77.29 A Member recognized under the five-minute rule may not yield 
    to another Member to offer an amendment, as it is within the power 
    of the Chair to recognize each Member to offer amendments.

    On Apr. 19, 1973,(19) the Committee of the Whole was 
consid

[[Page 11086]]

ering a bill for amendment under the five-minute rule. Chairman Morris 
K. Udall, of Arizona, refused to allow a Member with the floor to yield 
to another to offer an amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 119 Cong. Rec. 13240, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Don H. Clausen [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I have an 
    amendment at the desk. However, at this time I want to yield to the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Bingham) who has another appointment, 
    so that he may offer his amendment at this time.
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman from 
    California (Mr. Don H. Clausen) he cannot yield for that purpose. 
    If the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bingham) were here, the Chair 
    would recognize him.

Sec. 77.30 Under the five-minute rule in the Committee of the Whole the 
    Member handling a bill has preference in recognition for debate but 
    the power of recognition remains with the Chair and the Member 
    cannot, in contravention of this rule, ``yield'' himself time for 
    debate.

    On Mar. 26, 1965,(20) Adam C. Powell, of New York, was 
the Member in charge of debate on H.R. 2362, the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act of 1965, which was being considered for 
amendment under the five-minute rule in the Committee of the Whole. Mr. 
Powell arose and stated ``I yield myself 5 minutes.'' Chairman Richard 
Bolling, of Missouri, stated as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 111 Cong. Rec. 6113, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman cannot yield himself 5 minutes. The Chair assumes 
    he moves to strike out the last word.

    Mr. Melvin R. Laird, of Wisconsin, objected that Mr. Powell had not 
moved to strike out the last word, and so moved himself. The Chairman 
first recognized Mr. Powell for the motion, as manager of the bill and 
Chairman on the Committee on Education and Labor.

Reading Papers

Sec. 77.31 A decision of the Committee of the Whole to permit a Member 
    to read a letter means that the Member may read the letter within 
    the five minutes allotted to him, and does not necessarily permit 
    him to read the entire letter.

    On June 26, 1952,(1) while the Committee of the Whole 
was considering under the five-minute rule H.R. 8210, the Defense 
Production Act Amendments of 1952, Mr. Clinton D. McKinnon, of 
California, was recognized on a pro

[[Page 11087]]

forma amendment and began reading a statement by Governor Arnall on a 
previously adopted amendment to the bill. Mr. Jesse P. Wolcott, of 
Michigan, objected to the reading. Chairman Wilbur D. Mills, of 
Arkansas, put the question to the Committee, which voted to permit Mr. 
McKinnon to read the letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 98 Cong. Rec. 8175, 8176, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While Mr. McKinnon was reading the letter, Chairman Mills 
interrupted him and stated that his five minutes had expired. Mr. 
Herman P. Eberharter, of Pennsylvania, made the point of order that the 
vote by the Committee permitted Mr. McKinnon to read the entire letter; 
the Chairman overruled the point of order:

        Mr. Eberharter: Mr. Chairman, the House decided by a teller 
    vote to permit the reading of this letter. I submit that the letter 
    should be read in its entirety; that is the point of order I make.
        The Chairman: That is not the decision made by the Committee. 
    The Committee made the decision that the gentleman could read the 
    letter within the time allotted to the gentleman of 5 minutes.
        Mr. Eberharter: I did not hear it so stated when the motion was 
    put, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The question put to the Committee had nothing 
    whatsoever to do with the time to be consumed by the gentleman from 
    California. The Chair recognized the gentleman from California for 
    5 minutes; the question arose as to whether or not he could within 
    that 5 minutes time read extraneous papers.
        The point of order is overruled.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See Rule XXX, House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 915-917 (1995), for 
        the former rule prohibiting the reading of papers, over 
        objection, without the consent of the House. For discussion of 
        Rule XXX, see Sec. Sec. 80 et seq., infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Debate on Appeals

Sec. 77.32 An appeal in the Committee of the Whole is debatable under 
    the five-minute rule and such debate is confined to the appeal.

    On Feb. 22, 1950,(3) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering under the five-minute rule H.R. 4453, the Federal Fair 
Employment Practice Act. Mr. Adam C. Powell, Jr., of New York, who had 
the floor, yielded one minute of debate to Mr. Howard W. Smith, of 
Virginia. Mr. Smith delivered some remarks on the lateness of the 
session and then moved that the Committee rise. Chairman Francis E. 
Walter, of Pennsylvania, ruled that Mr. Smith could not so move, having 
been recognized for debate only. Mr. Smith appealed the Chair's ruling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 96 Cong. Rec. 2178, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to a parliamentary inquiry by Mr. John E. Rankin, of

[[Page 11088]]

Mississippi, the Chairman stated that debate on the appeal was under 
the five-minute rule. Mr. Rankin debated the appeal, and Mr. Vito 
Marcantonio, of New York, made a point of order against Mr. Rankin's 
remarks on the ground he was not confining himself to the subject of 
the appeal. The Chairman sustained the point of order.

Vacating Proceedings To Permit Debate

Sec. 77.33 By unanimous consent, the proceedings in the Committee of 
    the Whole by which an amendment was adopted were vacated and the 
    Chair asked a second time if any Member desired to debate it.

    On Mar. 27, 1947,(4) a committee amendment was offered 
in the Committee of the Whole. Chairman Francis H. Case, of South 
Dakota, inquired whether any Member desired to debate the amendment, 
and when no Member so indicated, the Chair put the question on the 
amendment. The Committee of the Whole then vacated the proceedings by 
unanimous consent in order to permit further debate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 93 Cong. Rec. 2773, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. McCormack: My point of order is that the amendment has 
    apparently been adopted and, as I see it, there has to be unanimous 
    consent to have the action vacated in order that further 
    proceedings may be had.
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct. The amendment was 
    agreed to.
        Mr. McCormack: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
    proceedings by which the amendment was adopted be vacated so that 
    we can go along in an orderly way.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Massachusetts?
        There was no objection.

        The Chairman: The Chair will again invite anyone who desires to 
    do so to speak on the committee amendment.

Debate on Points of Order

Sec. 77.34 Debate on points of order against an amendment is within the 
    discretion of the Chair and does not come out of debate time on the 
    merits of the amendment under the five-minute rule; thus, the 
    proponent of an amendment against which a point of order has been 
    reserved does not reserve a portion of his time under the five-
    minute rule to oppose any points of order if made, as separate 
    debate time is permitted on points of order at the discretion of 
    the Chair.

[[Page 11089]]

    During consideration of H.R. 7014, the Energy Conservation and Oil 
Policy Act of 1975, on Aug. 1, 1975,(5) the proposition 
described above was demonstrated in the Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 121 Cong. Rec. 26945, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (6) Are there further amendments to 
    title III?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Brown of Ohio: Strike out Title 
        III, as amended, and reinsert all except for Section 301, as 
        amended.

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a 
    point of order against the amendment.
        Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I also reserve a 
    point of order.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, the thrust of this amendment 
    is to strike from the bill the provisions of the Staggers pricing 
    amendment, section 301, by revising title III to strike the whole 
    title and to reinsert all in the title, except section 301.
        Mr. Chairman, may I speak on the amendment?
        The Chairman: The gentleman has been recognized for 5 minutes, 
    so the gentleman may proceed.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, may I reserve 2 minutes of my 
    time to speak on the points of order?
        The Chairman: The Chair will recognize the gentleman to speak 
    on the points of order at the appropriate time.
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I have not yet made the point of 
    order. I reserved it.
        The Chairman: The Chair has recognized the gentleman from Ohio 
    to speak on the gentleman's amendment for 5 minutes. Then the 
    gentlemen who reserved the points of order may press them or they 
    may not.

Where Pro Forma Amendment Is in Third Degree

Sec. 77.35 Where a ``modified closed rule'' provides that a designated 
    amendment may be offered as a new title to a bill and, with the 
    exception of committee amendments thereto, only one designated 
    amendment to that amendment may be offered, only two five-minute 
    speeches are permitted on that amendment to the amendment since a 
    pro forma amendment thereto would be in the third degree (and a pro 
    for-ma amendment to the original amendment inserting a new title is 
    specifically prohibited by the rule), and further debate may be had 
    only by unanimous consent.

    On Dec. 18, 1975,(7) the following proceedings occurred 
in the Committee of the Whole during

[[Page 11090]]

consideration of H.R. 9771, the Airport and Airway Development Act of 
1975:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 121 Cong. Rec. 41788-90, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Glenn M.] Anderson of California: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Anderson of California to the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Ullman: In proposed section 301, 
        strike out subsections (b) and (c) and insert in lieu thereof 
        the following:
            (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
        shall apply to obligations incurred on or after the date of the 
        enactment of this Act. . . .

        Mr. [Sam] Gibbons [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I rise in 
    opposition to the amendment.
        Mr. Chairman, I will be brief. I have made my talk already. . . 
    .
        Mr. [Alphonzo] Bell [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I rise in 
    support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from California.
        Mr. [James C.] Corman [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve 
    a point of order.
        I will not make the objection, but I only reserve a point of 
    order to get a ruling from the Chair, because I want some time 
    also.
        Mr. Gibbons: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (8) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gibbons: Mr. Chairman, as I understood the rule granted by 
    the Ways and Means Committee, there was only one amendment, and the 
    time under the rule was limited to 5 minutes on each side, and that 
    pro forma amendments or any other amendments are out of order. That 
    is the way I understand the rule.
        The Chairman: The rule is a rather complex rule, and if the 
    gentleman will permit the Chair to review this matter, the Chair 
    will respond.
        Without objection, the gentleman from California (Mr. Bell) is 
    recognized for 5 minutes.
        There was no objection. . . .
        Mr. Gibbons: Mr. Chairman, I insist on regular order.
        The Chairman: Regular order is demanded.
        The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    California (Mr. Anderson) to the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Oregon (Mr. Ullman).

Debate Under Reservation of Objection

Sec. 77.36 On one occasion, where a Member reserved the right to object 
    to another Member's unanimous-consent request to revise and extend 
    his remarks in the Record, debate proceeded under the reservation 
    of objection rather than under the five-minute rule; the Chairman 
    of the Committee of the Whole suggested that extensions of time for 
    debate under the five-minute rule be accomplished by unanimous 
    consent rather than by reserva

[[Page 11091]]

    tion of objection to the unanimous-consent request.

    On June 4, 1975,(9) the following proceedings occurred 
in the Committee of the Whole during consideration of the Voting Rights 
Act extension (H.R. 6219):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 121 Cong. Rec. 16887-89, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Don] Edwards of California: Mr. Chairman, I yield to the 
    gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Matsunaga).
        Mr. [Spark M.] Matsunaga [of Hawaii]: Mr. Chairman, I rise in 
    support of H.R. 6219; however, there are certain questions which I 
    would like to have answered relative to title II, as well as title 
    III.
        I would like for the purpose of establishing legislative 
    history to engage in colloquy with the gentleman from California, 
    the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Edwards.
        To begin with, in both titles II and III of H.R. 6219 coverage 
    depends on their servicing the voting age population who are 
    members of single language minority groups. Although the bill 
    defines minority, the term ``single language minority'' is not 
    defined.
        What is the meaning of ``single language minority''? Does it 
    mean, for instance, that the minority must have a common single 
    language?
        (Mr. Edwards of California asked and was given permission to 
    revise and extend his remarks.)
        Mr. Matsunaga: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I may 
    revise and extend my remarks.
        The Chairman: (10) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Hawaii?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert] McClory [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, reserving the 
    right to object to the unanimous-consent request, I think that it 
    is appropriate that the committee hear the debate on this subject. 
    If we are making legislative history with respect to some matter 
    that is not actually orally debated on the floor of the House, it 
    seems to me that it is not going to be worth much to the Supreme 
    Court or any other body that is going to interpret what we are 
    doing here today.
        I do not want any secret, unwritten history with regard to the 
    extension of the Voting Rights Act. I want to know what we are 
    doing.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Illinois reserves the right to 
    object to the unanimous-consent request of the gentleman from 
    Hawaii to revise and extend his remarks, and makes the point that 
    there should be debate on that subject rather than extension to 
    achieve a legislative history.
        Mr. Matsunaga: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I may 
    proceed for 3 additional minutes.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Hawaii?
        There was no objection. . . .
        Mr. McClory: Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield to me on 
    that point?
        Mr. Matsunaga: I will yield to the gentleman as soon as the 
    gentleman has finished.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the committee is now 
    operating under the prior reservation of objection of the gentleman 
    from Illinois. The time of the gentleman from Hawaii has expired.

[[Page 11092]]

        Mr. McClory: Mr. Chairman, further reserving the right to 
    object, I would like to ask the gentleman where in the legislation 
    is there provision for this bailout with regard to the subgroups of 
    a single-language minority group such as Asian Americans? Will the 
    gentleman point that out in the bill? . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair desires to state that this is an 
    unusual procedure to continue with colloquy under the reservation 
    of objection during the 5-minute rule. The gentleman who last had 
    the floor in his own right was the chairman of the subcommittee, 
    the gentleman from California (Mr. Edwards).
        If the chairman of the subcommittee desires to continue this 
    discussion, the Chair would recommend that the gentleman ask 
    unanimous consent to proceed for some additional time.
        Mr. Edwards of California: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent that I may be allowed to proceed for an additional 30 
    seconds so that we may finish this discussion.

    Parliamentarian's Note: An attempt to develop a legislative history 
by inserting an apparent colloquy in the Record by unanimous consent is 
improper, since the purpose of the request is to permit a Member to 
insert only such materials as do not affect the statement of another 
Member; a colloquy during proceedings under the five-minute rule must 
be presented to all Members of the Committee of the Whole.

Effect of Adoption of Amendment in Nature of Substitute

Sec. 77.37 Where an amendment in the nature of a substitute for a bill 
    has been adopted 
    in Committee of the Whole, 
    the stage of amendments is passed and further amendments, including 
    pro forma amendments for debate, are not in order; but on one 
    occasion, when the Committee of the Whole had adopted an amendment 
    in the nature of a substitute, the Chair, by unanimous consent, 
    vacated that action to allow a Member to offer a pro forma 
    amendment.

    On May 13, 1977,(11) during 
consideration of the Intergovernmental Antirecession Assistance Act of 
1977 (H.R. 6810) in the Committee of the Whole, the following 
proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 123 Cong. Rec. 14622, 14625, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (12) Are there further amendments?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Elizabeth Holtzman (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Hearing none, the question is on the committee amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute, as amended.
        The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as 
    amended, was agreed to.
        The Chairman: Under the rule, the committee rises.

[[Page 11093]]

        Mr. [Joe D.] Waggonner [Jr., of Louisiana]: Madam Chairman, I 
    was seeking recognition by the Chair.
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman that the 
    Chair had put the question on the committee amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute. There were no further amendments and, under the 
    rule, the committee rises.
        Mr. [L. H.] Fountain [of North Carolina]: Madam Chairman, I 
    would like to say that I was standing and was prepared to make a 
    statement about an amendment which I was going to offer but can no 
    longer offer because I was not recognized.
        The Chairman: Without objection, the Chair will vacate the 
    proceedings so as to permit the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
    Fountain) to make a statement.
        There was no objection.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Fountain) 
    is recognized for 5 minutes. . . .
        The Chairman: Are there further amendments? If not, the 
    question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute, as amended.
        The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as 
    amended, was agreed to.
        The Chairman: Under the rule, the Committee rises.

Debate on Divisible Amendment

Sec. 77.38 Where the question has been put on the first portion of a 
    divisible amendment, further debate on the remaining portion may be 
    had under the five-minute rule before the Chair puts the question 
    thereon.

    On Aug. 4, 1983,(13) the following proceedings occurred 
in the Committee of the Whole during consideration of H.R. 2230 (Civil 
Rights Commission Act of 1983):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 129 Cong. Rec. 23134, 23142, 23143, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Don] Edwards of California: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Edwards of California: Page 2, 
        line 2, insert ``(a)'' after ``Sec. 2''.
            Page 2, line 4, strike out ``1998'' and insert ``1988'' in 
        lieu thereof.
            Page 2, after line 4, insert the following:
            (b) Section 104(c) of the Civil Rights Act of 1957 (42 
        U.S.C. 1975c(c)) is amended . . . .

        Mr. [F. James] Sensenbrenner [Jr., of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, 
    pursuant to the rule, I demand a division of the question. . . .
        The Chairman: (14) . . . The Chair would propose to 
    put the question first only on the date change, and then 
    on the remainder of the amendment which constitutes in effect one 
    proposition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Morris K. Udall (Ariz.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Sensenbrenner: That is fine, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The question now is on that portion of the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Edwards) 
    dealing with the date change from ``1998'' to ``1988.'' . . .

[[Page 11094]]

        So that portion of the amendment dealing with the date change 
    from ``1998'' to ``1988'' was agreed to. . . .
        Mr. [Elliott H.] Levitas [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        I understand the vote that was just taken was on the first part 
    of a divided question. My inquiry is: Is it in order at this time 
    for there to be any further debate on the second portion of the 
    question that has been divided?
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman that further 
    debate would be in order under the 5-minute rule until the Chair 
    puts the question.

Debate After Adoption of Substitute

Sec. 77.39 Under the five-minute rule, no debate may intervene after a 
    substitute for an amendment has been adopted and before the vote on 
    the amendment, as amended, except by unanimous consent (since the 
    amendment has been amended in its entirety and no further 
    amendments including pro forma amendments are in order).

    The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on 
Oct. 18, 1983,(15) during consideration of H.R. 3231, the 
Export Administration Amendments:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 129 Cong. Rec. 28185, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (16) The question is on 
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
    Bonker), as amended, as a substitute for the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Roth), as amended. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        So the amendment, as amended, offered as a substitute for the 
    amendment, as amended, was agreed to. . . .
        Mr. [Edwin V. W.] Zschau [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I move 
    to strike the last word.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Without objection, the gentleman from 
    California (Mr. Zschau) is recognized for 5 minutes.
        There was no objection.

Effect of Time Limitation on Right to Recognition

Sec. 77.40 In the Committee of the Whole the Member in charge of the 
    bill having spoken on an amendment may speak again on the amendment 
    following adoption of a motion to limit debate under the five-
    minute rule, where time is allocated by the Chair and the five-
    minute rule is abrogated.

    On June 25, 1952,(17) Mr. Brent Spence, of Kentucky, 
manager of a

[[Page 11095]]

bill being considered in the Committee of the Whole, moved that all 
debate on the pending amendment and all amendments thereto conclude at 
a certain time, and the motion was agreed to. Chairman Wilbur D. Mills, 
of Arkansas, then answered a parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 98 Cong. Rec. 8028, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman [of Michigan]: Under this limitation is 
    the chairman of the committee, who has already spoken once on this 
    amendment, entitled to be heard again under the rule?
        The Chairman: The chairman of the committee could rise in 
    opposition to a pro forma amendment and be recognized again.