[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§ 78. Closing and Limiting Debate]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 11095-11167]
 
                               CHAPTER 29
 
                        Consideration and Debate
 
          I. DURATION OF DEBATE IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
 
Sec. 78. -- Closing and Limiting Debate

    Rule XXIII clause 6 provides a privileged motion for closing five-
minute debate in the Committee of the Whole:

        The committee may, by the vote of a majority of the members 
    present, at any time after the five minutes' debate has begun upon 
    proposed amendments to any section or paragraph of a bill, close 
    all debate upon such section or paragraph or, at its election, upon 
    the pending amendments only (which motion shall be decided without 
    debate); but this shall not preclude further amendment, to be 
    decided without debate. However, if debate is closed on any section 
    or paragraph under this clause before there has been debate on any 
    amendment which any Member shall have caused to be printed in the 
    Congressional Record after the reporting of the bill by the 
    committee but at least one day prior to floor consideration of such 
    amendment, the Member who caused such amendment to be printed in 
    the Record shall be given five minutes in which to explain such 
    amendment, after which the first person to obtain the floor shall 
    be given five minutes in opposition to it, and there shall be no 
    further debate thereon; but such time for debate shall 
    not be allowed when the offering of 
    such amendment is dilatory. Material placed in the Record pursuant 
    to this provision shall indicate the full text of the proposed 
    amendment, the name of the proponent Member, the number of the bill 
    to which it will be offered and the point in the bill or amendment 
    thereto where the amendment in intended to be offered, and shall 
    appear in a portion of the Record designated for that 
    purpose.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. House Rules and Manual Sec. 874 (1995). The clause preserving five-
        minute debate regardless of a limitation for an amendment which 
        has been printed in the Record was added to the rule by H. Res. 
        5 in the 92d Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the House may by unanimous consent limit five-minute 
debate in Committee of the Whole, the motion or unanimous-consent 
request is ordinarily made in the Committee.(19) The

[[Page 11096]]

motion, which is not debatable, is privileged, but is not in order 
until the portion of the bill to which it applies has been read and 
debated.(20) By unanimous consent, time under the five-
minute rule may be limited before the relevant portion of the bill is 
read, or before there has been debate thereon.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See Sec. Sec. 78.1, 78.2, 78.39, infra. A dated precedent, at 5 
        Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5229, indicates that the motion under 
        Rule XXIII clause 6 may be offered in the House.
20. See Sec. Sec. 78.5-78.9, infra, for the privilege of the motion and 
        Sec. Sec. 78.58, 78.59, infra, for the precedence of the motion 
        to strike the enacting clause over the motion to close debate.
            For the nondebatability of the motion, see Sec. Sec. 78.16, 
        78.17, infra.
            For the proper time of offering 
        the motion, see Sec. Sec. 78.5, 78.26-78.31, infra (after 
        reading of relevant portion of bill); Sec. Sec. 78.21-78.25, 
        infra (after some debate has been had).
 1. See Sec. Sec. 78.93-78.95, infra.
            To permit a request to limit debate on an entire bill prior 
        to completion of its reading for amendment would allow 
        amendments under the limitation only to that portion of the 
        bill which has been read and, if the limitation were reached, 
        would require subsequent reading of the remainder of the bill 
        without further debate on any amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although a motion to close debate is not in order to change the 
effect of a prior motion to close debate, the House or the Committee 
may by unanimous consent vacate, rescind, or extend a 
limitation.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See Sec. Sec. 78.81-78.88, infra.
            A Member who is allotted time, by the Chair, under a 
        limitation, may not extend his time even by unanimous consent 
        (see Sec. 79.50, infra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Debate may be closed instantly by motion or unanimous-consent 
request; and it may be limited either to a certain number of minutes or 
to a fixed time by the clock.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. See Sec. Sec. 78.41, 78.50, 78.51, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The motion may not include a reservation or allocation of time 
under the limitation, but time may be reserved under a unanimous-
consent request to limit debate.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. See Sec. Sec. 78.61, 78.62, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another method in which debate may be suspended in the Committee of 
the Whole is the motion to rise, which is highly 
privileged.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See Sec. Sec. 78.53-78.55, infra. If the Committee rises and time 
        was set at a certain amount of minutes of debate when debate is 
        resumed the unexpired time remains; if time was set to expire 
        at a fixed time by the clock, and the Committee rises and does 
        not resume before the time arrives, all time is construed as 
        having expired (see Sec. 78.57, infra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            Cross References
Closing debate generally, see Sec. 7, supra.
Closing five-minute debate in the House as in the Committee of the 
    Whole, see Sec. 72, supra.
Closing and limiting general debate, see Sec. 76, supra.

[[Page 11097]]

Effect of limitation on five-minute debate, see Sec. 79, infra.
Procedure generally in Committee of the Whole, see Ch. 19, supra.
Recognition for motion to close debate, see Sec. 23, supra.
Recognition under a limitation on five-minute debate, see Sec. 22, 
    supra.
Special orders limiting or dispensing with five-minute debate, see 
    Sec. 74, supra.                          -------------------

In General; Authority of the Committee of the Whole

Sec. 78.1 The right to close debate under the five-minute rule may be 
    exercised by the Committee of the Whole.

    On Feb. 8, 1964,(6) inquiries were made by Mr. William 
M. McCulloch, of Ohio, relative to closing or limiting debate time on 
certain unread titles of a bill. Chairman Eugene J. Keogh, of New York, 
affirmed the right of the Committee of the Whole to close debate on 
those titles by unanimous consent under the five-minute rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 110 Cong. Rec. 2614, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 78.2 By unanimous consent, the Committee of the Whole agreed that 
    when it resumed consideration of a pending bill on the following 
    day, debate on all amendments to the bill would be limited to two 
    hours.

    On Mar. 28, 1972,(7) the Committee of the Whole agreed 
to a unanimous-consent limitation of debate under the five-minute rule, 
to take effect on the following day when consideration would be 
resumed:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 118 Cong. Rec. 10673, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert E.] Jones of Alabama: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent that debate on all amendments to the bill conclude 2 hours 
    after the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
    resumes consideration of this bill tomorrow, Wednesday, March 29, 
    1972.
        The Chairman: (8) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Alabama?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        Mr. Jones of Alabama: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee 
    do now rise.
        The motion was agreed to.

Sec. 78.3 While it is customary for the Chair to recognize the manager 
    of the pending bill to offer motions to limit debate, any Member 
    may, pursuant to Rule XXIII clause 6, move to limit debate at the 
    appropriate time in Committee of the Whole.

[[Page 11098]]

    The following proceedings occurred in the House on July 31, 1975: 
(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 121 Cong. Rec. 26223, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: (10) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hays of Ohio: Would it be in order for a person not a 
    member of the committee to move to close debate on whatever pending 
    amendment there might be, and all amendments thereto, to this bill 
    when we go into the Committee of the Whole?
        The Speaker: It is the practice and custom of the House that 
    the Chair looks to the manager of the bill for motions relating to 
    the management of the bill.
        Mr. Hays of Ohio: If I made the motion--and I will make it more 
    specific--would it be out of order or in violation of the rules?
        The Speaker: A proper motion could be entertained at the proper 
    time.
        Mr. Hays of Ohio: I am prepared to make such a motion and I 
    will seek the proper time.

Sec. 78.4 The Chair refused to entertain a unanimous-consent request 
    regarding the limitation of time for debate on an amendment during 
    the reading of the amendment.

    During consideration of the Energy Conservation and Oil Policy Act 
of 1975 (H.R. 7014) in the Committee of the Whole on Sept. 18, 
1975,(11) the proceedings described above occurred as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 121 Cong. Rec. 29322, 29323, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James M.] Jeffords [of Vermont]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Jeffords: Page 331, after line 10, 
        add the following:

        TITLE VI--ENERGY LABELING AND EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR BEVERAGE 
                                   CONTAINERS

                            definitions and coverage

            Sec. 601.--For purposes of this part--
            (1) The term ``beverage container'' means a bottle, jar, 
        can, or carton of glass, plastic, or metal, or any combination 
        thereof, used for packaging or marketing beer . . . or a 
        carbonated soft drink of any variety in 
        liquid form which is intended for human consumption. . . .

        Mr. Jeffords (during the reading): Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and 
    printed in the Record due to the fact that it was printed in the 
    Record with the exception of two words which I shall explain. . . .
        Mr. [Phillip H.] Hayes of Indiana: Mr. Chairman, I object. . . 
    .
        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to 
    make a unanimous consent request with regard to a limitation of 
    time. . . .
        The Chairman: (12) The Chair will state to the 
    gentleman from Michigan

[[Page 11099]]

    that the reading of the amendment has not been completed and we 
    should dispose of the reading of the amendment prior to such a 
    request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk will proceed to read the amendment.

Privilege of Motion

Sec. 78.5 A motion to close debate on a committee amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute and all amendments thereto is privileged 
    when made af-ter the amendment has been read and debated.

    On Aug. 16, 1967,(13) Chairman Richard Bolling, of 
Missouri, overruled a point of order against a motion to limit debate 
on a bill and amendments thereto, after a committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute had been read and debated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 113 Cong. Rec. 22754, 22755, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I now move 
    that all debate on the bill and all amendments thereto conclude at 
    5 minutes to 4. . . .
        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, a further point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Hays: Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that a motion 
    may be made to close debate on an amendment. But this motion is to 
    close debate on the bill and all amendments thereto.
        The Chairman: It happens that the Committee of the Whole is 
    considering an amendment which is a committee amendment, and the 
    motion made by the gentleman from New York under the circumstances 
    is in order.

Sec. 78.6 The pendency of an amendment to a committee amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute does not preclude a motion to limit debate 
    on the substitute and all amendments thereto.

    On Aug. 16, 1967,(14) Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, 
moved 
to limit debate on a committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 
and all amendments thereto while an amendment to the substitute was 
pending, and Chairman Richard Bolling, of Missouri, overruled a point 
of order against the motion:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 113 Cong. Rec. 22754, 22755, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Hays: Mr. Chairman, the point of order is that there is an 
    amendment pending, the point of order being can we have another 
    motion intervene to close debate?
        Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the gentleman's 
    motion is out of order.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the Chair will have to 
    overrule

[[Page 11100]]

    the gentleman's point of order because a motion may be made on the 
    amendment, or to close debate, at any time after debate has been 
    had on the pending amendment.

Sec. 78.7 The motion to limit debate on the pending portion of a bill 
    and all amendments thereto is in order while an amendment is 
    pending.

    On June 21, 1973,(15) while an amendment was pending in 
the Committee of the Whole, Mr. Augustus F. Hawkins, of California, 
moved that debate on the bill and amendments thereto close at a certain 
time. Chairman Robert C. Eckhardt, of Texas, then answered a 
parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 119 Cong. Rec. 20753, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John T.] Myers [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Myers: Mr. Chairman, there is one motion pending before the 
    motion made by the gentleman from California. Is this a substitute 
    motion?
        The Chairman: There is an amendment pending, but the motion of 
    the gentleman from California is in order at this time.
        The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from 
    California (Mr. Hawkins) that all debate on the bill and all 
    pending amendments thereto close at 11 p.m.
        The motion was agreed to.

Sec. 78.8 A motion to close debate in the Committee of the Whole is 
    privileged after 
    debate has been had on a 
    section or paragraph (and amendments thereto) to which the motion 
    applies.

    On Jan. 26, 1932,(16) Chairman John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, ruled in the Committee of the Whole that the motion to 
close debate under the five-minute rule was privileged and 
nondebatable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 75 Cong. Rec. 2749, 72d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William B.] Oliver [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman----

        Mr. [James P.] Buchanan [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman----
        The Chairman: For what purpose does the gentleman from Texas 
    rise?
        Mr. Buchanan: Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate upon this 
    amendment and upon this section do now close.
        The Chairman: The question is on the motion of the gentleman 
    from Texas that all debate on this amendment and the section do now 
    close.
        Mr. [Charles L.] Underhill [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Underhill: The Chairman had already recognized the 
    gentleman from Alabama, and he has the floor and can not be taken 
    off the floor.
        The Chairman: The Chair overrules the point of order. The 
    question is on

[[Page 11101]]

    the motion of the gentleman from Texas.
        The question was taken and the motion was agreed to.
        Mr. [Allen T.] Treadway [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Treadway: Does the adoption of that vote foreclose debate 
    on any other part of this section?
        The Chairman: The motion closes debate on the pending 
    paragraph.
        Mr. Treadway: Mr. Chairman, I was on my feet asking 
    recognition.
        The Chairman: The motion of the gentleman from Texas is . . . a 
    privileged motion after debate has been had on the paragraph.

Sec. 78.9 During the five-minute debate in the Committee of the Whole, 
    the Member managing the bill is entitled to prior recognition to 
    move to close debate on a pending amendment over other Members who 
    desire to debate 
    the amendment or to offer amendments thereto.

    On Nov. 25, 1970,(17) the Committee of the Whole was 
conducting five-minute debate on H.R. 19504, which was being handled by 
Mr. John C. Kluczynski, of Illinois. Mr. Kluczynski was recognized by 
Chairman Chet Holifield, of California, to move that all debate on the 
pending amendment immediately close. The motion was adopted; Mr. 
Jonathan B. Bingham, of New York, attempted to offer an amendment and 
Mr. Andrew Jacobs, Jr., of Indiana, attempted to debate the amendment 
on which debate had been closed. The Chairman stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 116 Cong. Rec. 38990, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair had not recognized the gentleman from New York or the 
    gentleman from Indiana. The Chair had recognized the gentleman from 
    Illinois (Mr. Kluczynski). The gentleman from Indiana misunderstood 
    the Chair had recognized him. The Chair had to recognize the 
    gentleman from Illinois as chairman of the 
    subcommittee.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. The manager of the bill, and not the proponent of a particular 
        amendment, is entitled to recognition to close debate on the 
        amendment. See 111 Cong. Rec. 16228, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., July 
        9, 1965 (cited at Sec. 7, supra, wherein is generally discussed 
        the closing of debate and recognition therefor).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 78.10 Although any Member may move, or request unanimous consent, 
    to limit debate under the five-minute rule in the Committee of the 
    Whole, the manager of the bill has the prior right to recognition 
    for such purpose.

    The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on 
June 19, 1984,(19) during

[[Page 11102]]

consideration of the Immigration Reform and Control Act (H.R. 1510):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 130 Cong. Rec. 17055, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Daniel E.] Lungren [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment end at 7:15.
        The Chairman: (20) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from California?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Theodore S.] Weiss [of New York]: Objection, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: Objection is heard.
        Mr. Lungren: Mr. Chairman, I move----
        Mr. [Romano L.] Mazzoli [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I should 
    be recognized as the floor manager.
        The Chairman: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky 
    (Mr. Mazzoli).
        Mr. Mazzoli: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Mazzoli: Mr. Chairman, I believe under the rule, the 
    gentleman from Kentucky, the floor manager, is entitled to be heard 
    and to be recognized on matters limiting debate.
        Let me just respectfully suggest to my friend, the gentleman 
    from California, the House has made it clear we are not going to 
    protract the debate tonight. . . .
        Mr. Lungren: Mr. Chairman, if I might reclaim my time, I 
    indulged the gentleman from Texas and asked him to withdraw his 
    motion on the pretext that I would make a motion, as I have the 
    ability to do under the rule, that debate on this amendment shall 
    end in a half hour. Since I had the gentleman agree to withdraw it, 
    I feel bound that I will then continue with this motion, and I so 
    move.
        Mr. Mazzoli: Mr. Chairman, can the gentleman say 45 minutes? I 
    understand 45 minutes will be enough.
        The Chairman: If the gentleman from Kentucky has no motion, the 
    gentleman from California is entitled to make his motion. Does the 
    gentleman offer a motion?
        Mr. Lungren: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, I move that debate on the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Wright) be concluded at 7:30.
        The Chairman: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from California (Mr. Lungren).

        The motion was agreed to.

Sec. 78.11 Under the five-minute rule in Committee of the Whole, the 
    subcommittee chairman who is managing the bill is entitled to prior 
    recognition to move to limit debate over a Member seeking 
    recognition to offer a pro forma amendment.

    The Committee of the Whole was considering H.R. 7797 (the Foreign 
Assistance and related agencies appropriations, 1978) under the five-
minute rule on June 22, 1977,(1) when the following 
proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 123 Cong. Rec. 20288, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 11103]]

        Mr. [Jonathan B.] Bingham [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I move 
    to strike the requisite number of words.
        Mr. [Clarence D.] Long of Maryland: Mr. Chairman, I was on my 
    feet seeking recognition.
        The Chairman: (2) For what purpose does the 
    gentleman from Maryland rise?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Abraham Kazen, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Long of Maryland: Mr. Chairman, I rise to ask unanimous 
    consent for a limitation on the debate.
        The Chairman: Will the gentleman make his request.
        Mr. Long of Maryland: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
    that all debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto cease 
    in 10 minutes.
        Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I object.
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I object.
        The Chairman: Objection is heard.
        Mr. Long of Maryland: Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on 
    this amendment and all amendments thereto cease in 10 minutes.
        Mr. Ashbrook: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Ashbrook: Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that the 
    Chairman recognized the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bingham) and 
    he was halfway down the aisle.
        The Chairman: The Chair saw both gentlemen at the same time, 
    and he did recognize the gentleman from Maryland because the Chair 
    had to, by custom and rule, I believe, recognize the chairman of 
    the subcommittee. . . .
        The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from 
    Maryland (Mr. Long).
        The motion was agreed to.

Sec. 78.12 The Chair may recognize the manager of a bill to request a 
    limit on debate on a pending portion of the bill before recognizing 
    a Member to offer an amendment thereto.

    On Dec. 4, 1979,(3) the following proceedings occurred 
in the Committee of the Whole during consideration of the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission Authorization bill (H.R. 2608):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 125 Cong. Rec. 34516, 34518, 34519, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (4) Is there any further debate on the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Harris)? If 
    not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Virginia (Mr. Harris).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Leon E. Panetta (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment was agreed to.
        The Chairman: The Chair will indicate that we believe there is 
    one additional amendment to be offered by the gentleman from Texas 
    (Mr. Gonzalez).
        Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: Mr. Chairman, then I would 
    ask unanimous consent that all debate on this bill and all 
    amendments thereto close at 4:15.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Arizona?

[[Page 11104]]

        There was no objection.
        The Chairman: Members standing at the time the unanimous 
    consent request was granted will be recognized for 10 seconds each.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez).
        Mr. [Henry B.] Gonzalez [of Tex-as]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Gonzalez: Page 11, after line 15, 
        add the following new title:

                      TITLE IV--PROTECTION FOR INSPECTORS

            Sec. 401. Section 1114 of Title 18, United States Code is 
        amended by inserting ``any construction inspector or quality 
        assurance inspector on any Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
        licensed project,'' after ``Department of Justice.''.

    After debate on a point of order, Mr. Gonzalez made a parliamentary 
inquiry:

        The Chairman: . . . The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez) is 
    recognized for 40 seconds.
        Mr. Gonzalez: Mr. Chairman, I would like now to interpose my 
    parliamentary inquiry with regard to the time allotted me. . . .
        Why should I be limited to a motion that was made subsequent to 
    the knowledge that I had a pending amendment to offer?
        Had I known that I would come under that limitation on a 
    subsequent motion, though I had not been recognized for the purpose 
    of amendment, because the gentleman from Arizona was recognized 
    anticipatorily on a motion I had no knowledge was going to be made. 
    If I had known, I would have objected to the unanimous-consent 
    request, because I wanted the opportunity to offer the amendment 
    and be given at least 5 minutes, that is the customary time 
    allotted a Member.
        Let me say this, in order to avoid any kind of an argument. How 
    much net time will I have to present this amendment?
        The Chairman: The gentleman has 1 minute and 20 seconds on his 
    amendment. . . .
        With regard to the parliamentary inquiry, the Chair would 
    indicate that he first recognized the chairman, the gentleman from 
    Arizona as manager of the bill, that the gentleman made a 
    unanimous-consent agreement with regard to limitation of time and 
    that there was no objection.
        Therefore, the gentleman is recognized for 1 minute and 20 
    seconds on his amendment.

Interruption of Member by Proposal To Limit Debate

Sec. 78.13 A Member having the floor in debate on his amendment may not 
    be interrupted without his consent by a motion to close debate in a 
    specified time.

    On Aug. 21, 1940,(5) Mr. John C. Schafer, of Wisconsin, 
offered an amendment under the five-minute rule in the Committee of

[[Page 11105]]

the Whole and was recognized for five minutes:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 86 Cong. Rec. 10698, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (6) The gentleman from Wisconsin is 
    recognized for 5 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Abe Murdock (Utah).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Schafer of Wisconsin: Mr. Chairman----
        Mr. [Henry B.] Steagall [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that all debate on this section and all 
    amendments thereto close in 5 minutes.
        Mr. [Jesse P.] Wolcott [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I object.
        Mr. Steagall: Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on this 
    section----
        Mr. Schafer of Wisconsin: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Schafer of Wisconsin: Mr. Chairman, I did not yield to the 
    gentleman from Alabama to submit a unanimous-consent request or to 
    make a motion. I have some rights here under the rules of the 
    House. I demand the regular order, and that is that I be permitted 
    to continue without interruption.
        The Chairman: The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes, but 
    there is a motion before the House.
        Mr. Schafer of Wisconsin: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of 
    order against that motion. I did not yield for the gentleman to 
    make a motion. I had the floor. The gentleman did not ask me to 
    yield and I did not yield. I have some rights under the rules of 
    the House and I ask that they be respected by the gentleman who has 
    interrupted even though he is chairman of the important committee 
    in charge of the pending legislation.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5 
    minutes.

Sec. 78.14 A motion to limit debate on an amendment, while privileged, 
    cannot deprive another Member of the floor.

    On Mar. 12, 1964,(7) a Member with the floor on his 
amendment under the five-minute rule declined to yield to another 
Member to move to limit debate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 110 Cong. Rec. 5118, 5119, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Glen C.] Cunningham [of Nebraska]: Mr. Chairman, I rise in 
    support of my amendment.

        Mr. [James H.] Morrison [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, will the 
    gentleman yield for a unanimous-consent request?
        Mr. Cunningham: For a unanimous-consent request I yield; yes.
        Mr. Morrison: I wonder if we can agree that all debate on the 
    amendment and all other amendments to title II end in 20 minutes.
        Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Chairman, I do not yield for that purpose. 
    That would come out of my time.
        Mr. Morrison: After consideration of the gentleman's amendment, 
    could all debate on all amendments end in 20 minutes?
        Mr. [August E.] Johansen [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I object.
        Mr. [Paul C.] Jones of Missouri: I object.

[[Page 11106]]

        The Chairman: (8) Objection is heard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Morrison: Mr. Chairman, I move that be done.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Nebraska has the floor. Does 
    the gentleman from Nebraska yield to the gentleman from Louisiana?
        Mr. Cunningham: No, because I wish to make a statement. 
    Following my statement the gentleman can be recognized.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Nebraska is recognized for 5 
    minutes.

Sec. 78.15 Time consumed in disposing of unanimous-consent requests or 
    motions to limit debate on an amendment in the Committee of the 
    Whole is charged to the Member who had been recognized under the 
    five-minute rule and who had yielded for that purpose.

    On June 1, 1972,(9) Chairman Robert N. Giaimo, of 
Connecticut, ruled on whether time for interruptions for which a Member 
with the floor under the five-minute rule yielded, would be taken out 
of that Member's time:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 118 Cong. Rec. 19476, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William V.] Chappell [Jr., of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment. . . .
        Mr. [Harley O.] Staggers [of West Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, 
    would the gentleman yield to me?
        Mr. Chappell: I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
        Mr. Staggers: I have asked the gentleman from Florida to yield 
    to me in order to ascertain if we could set a limit of debate on 
    this amendment.
        Having heard the amendment read, it is a very simple amendment, 
    and it can be read again if needed.
        Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all 
    debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 10 
    minutes.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from West Virginia?
        Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I object.
        The Chairman: Objection is heard.
        Mr. Staggers: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all 
    debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 15 
    minutes.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from West Virginia?
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Chairman, is this coming out of the gentleman's 
    time?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that that is correct.

Motion Not Debatable

Sec. 78.16 A motion to close debate under the five-minute rule in the 
    Committee of the Whole is not debatable.

    On Mar. 26, 1965,(10) Chairman Richard Bolling, of 
Missouri, ruled

[[Page 11107]]

that a motion to close debate under the five-minute rule is 
nondebatable:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 111 Cong. Rec. 6098, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Adam C.] Powell [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I move that 
    all debate on this title and all amendments thereto close now. . . 
    .
        Mrs. [Edith S.] Green of Oregon: Mr. Chairman . . . I rise in 
    opposition to this motion.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from New York [Mr. Powell] 
    withdraw his motion?
        Mr. Powell: I do not, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. [Robert P.] Griffin [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Griffin: Mr. Chairman, I understand the chairman of the 
    full committee to move that debate on title II be cut off at this 
    time. Was that the motion by the gentleman from New York?
        The Chairman: The motion, as the Chair understood it, was that 
    all debate on section 202 of title II close.
        The question is on the motion of the gentleman from New York.
        Mr. [William M.] Colmer [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman----
        The Chairman: For what purpose does the gentleman from 
    Mississippi rise?
        Mr. Colmer: Mr. Chairman, do I understand the ruling of the 
    Chair to be that a motion to close debate is not debatable?
        The Chairman: That is correct.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See also 75 Cong. Rec. 11453, 72d Cong. 1st Sess., May 27, 1932; 
        and 75 Cong. Rec. 2749, 72d Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 26, 1932.
            For the basis of the ruling, see Rule XXIII clause 6, House 
        Rules and Manual Sec. 874 (1995): ``The committee may, by the 
        vote of a majority of the members present, at any time after 
        the five minutes' debate has begun upon proposed amendments to 
        any section or paragraph of a bill, close all debate upon such 
        section 
        or paragraph or, at its election, 
        upon the pending amendments only (which motion shall be decided 
        without debate).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 78.17 A motion to fix the closing of debate under the five-minute 
    rule in the Committee of the Whole is not debatable.

    On Mar. 30, 1950,(12) Chairman Oren Harris, of Arkansas, 
responded as follows to a parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 96 Cong. Rec. 4423, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] Kee [of West Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I move that 
    all debate on title I and all amendments thereto close in 30 
    minutes.
        Mr. [Compton I.] White of Idaho: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. White of Idaho: I would like to know if this motion is 
    debatable.
        The Chairman: The motion is not debatable.

    Similarly, Chairman Howard W. Smith, of Virginia, ruled on Jan.

[[Page 11108]]

19, 1944,(13) that a motion that ``all debate on section 2 
and all amendments thereto close in 30 minutes'' was not debatable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 90 Cong. Rec. 418, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Jan. 26, 1932, Mr. James P. Buchanan, of Texas, moved, in the 
Committee of the Whole, that all debate on a pending amendment and on a 
pending section close instantly. Chairman John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, ruled that the motion was privileged and not 
debatable.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 75 Cong. Rec. 2749, 72d Cong. 1st Sess. See also 111 Cong. Rec. 
        6098, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 26, 1965; and 90 Cong. Rec. 
        418, 78th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 19, 1944.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 78.18 The motion to close debate is not subject to debate.

    An illustration of the principle described above was demonstrated 
in the Committee of the Whole on June 5, 1975,(15) as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 121 Cong. Rec. 17187, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I move that 
    all debate on the committee amendment and all amendments thereto 
    conclude at 5:15 o'clock.
        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, will the 
    gentleman yield?
        The Chairman: (16) The motion is not debatable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Bob Wilson (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from 
    Michigan.
        The motion was agreed to.

Sec. 78.19 A motion to limit debate under the five-minute rule in 
    Committee of the Whole is not subject to debate.

    On May 18, 1977,(17) during debate in the Committee of 
the Whole on the Federal Employees' Political Activities Act of 1977 
(H.R. 10), Mr. William Clay, of Missouri, made the following motion:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 123 Cong. Rec. 15418, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Clay: Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on the bill and 
    all amendments thereto close at 9 o'clock.

        The Chairman: (18) . . . Does the Chair understand 
    the gentleman's motion to be that all debate on the committee 
    amendment and all amendments thereto cease at 9 o'clock?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. James R. Mann (S.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Clay: And the bill is a part of the motion.
        The Chairman: That is the bill. . . .
        Mr. [Daniel R.] Glickman [of Kansas]: Mr. Chairman, under this 
    type of motion is it true that no Member of the body is allowed to 
    speak for or against the motion?
        I would like to speak against the motion. Is that possible?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the motion is not 
    debatable.
        The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from 
    Missouri (Mr. Clay).

[[Page 11109]]

Sec. 78.20 A motion to limit debate under the five-minute rule in 
    Committee of the Whole is not subject to debate.

    During consideration of the foreign aid authorization bill (H.R. 
12514) in the Committee of the Whole on Aug. 1, 1978,(19) 
the following exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 124 Cong. Rec. 23716, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I move 
    that all debate on the pending amendments and all amendments 
    thereto conclude at 4:30. . . .
        Mr. Gary A. Myers [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, is the 
    motion now before the House debatable?
        The Chairman: (20) The Chair will advise the 
    gentleman that it is not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Don Fuqua (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Time for Motion To Close Debate

Sec. 78.21 A motion to close five-minute debate in the Committee of the 
    Whole is in order after some debate has been had on the pending 
    proposition.

    On Feb. 27, 1931,(1) Mr. James S. Parker, of New York, 
moved to close debate in the Committee of the Whole after some debate 
had been had under the five-minute rule. Chairman William H. Stafford, 
of Wisconsin, overruled a point of order against the motion:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 74 Cong. Rec. 6300, 71st Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Parker: There is no reason why amendments can not be 
    offered to the bill. There is no reason why Members should not 
    offer as many amendments as they choose. Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    motion that all debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto 
    close in 15 minutes.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from New York moves that all debate 
    on the pending amendment and all amendments thereto close in 15 
    minutes.
        Mr. [George] Huddleston [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that this is an attempt in the committee to fix time 
    for the future, which is in violation of the rules of the House.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that, under the rules of the 
    House, after any quota of debate has been had on one amendment it 
    is then the privilege of the committee to close debate. . . .
        Paragraph 6 of Rule XXIII provides:

            The committee may, by the vote of a majority of the members 
        present, at any time after the five minutes' debate has begun 
        upon proposed amendments to any section or paragraph of a bill, 
        close all debate upon such section or paragraph or, at its 
        election, upon the pending amendments only (which motion shall 
        be decided without debate); but this shall not preclude further 
        amendment, to be decided without debate.

        Mr. Huddleston: Of course, I understand that, but the point I 
    am making is that this is not a motion to close

[[Page 11110]]

    debate but it is a motion to fix time. That is what the motion is.
        The Chairman: The present occupant of the chair cannot follow 
    the argument of the gentleman. It seems to the Chair, with due 
    respect, that the gentleman's point is a distinction without a 
    difference.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. The Chair may entertain a motion to close debate before debate has 
        been had where no point of order is made against the motion. 
        See 114 Cong. Rec. 22094, 22095, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., July 18, 
        1968.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 78.22 A motion to close debate on a section of or an amendment to 
    a bill in the Committee of the Whole is not in order until there 
    has been some debate on the section or amendment.

    On Mar. 26, 1965,(3) Chairman Richard Bolling, of 
Missouri, stated that a motion to close debate on a section in the 
Committee of the Whole was not in order until some debate had been had 
thereon:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 111 Cong. Rec. 6100, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                                  State Plans

            Sec. 203. (a) Any State which desires to receive grants 
        under this title shall submit to the Commissioner a State plan, 
        in such detail as the Commissioner deems necessary, which--
            (1) designates a State agency which shall, either directly 
        or through arrangements with other State or local public 
        agencies, act as the sole agency for administration of the 
        State plan. . . .

        The Chairman: For what purpose does the gentleman from New 
    York, the chairman of the committee, rise?
        Mr. [Adam C.] Powell [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I move that 
    all debate on section 203 of title II----
        The Chairman: If the gentleman will permit, the Chair will 
    advise the chairman of the committee that motion is not in order 
    until there is debate on the section.

    On the same day,(4) Chairman Bolling sustained a point 
of order by Mrs. Edith S. Green, of Oregon, against a motion offered by 
Mr. Powell to close debate on a section, which motion had been offered 
immediately after the section had been read and before any debate had 
occurred thereon.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Id. at pp. 6097, 6098.
 5. See also 111 Cong. Rec. 6104, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 26, 1965; 
        and 82 Cong. Rec. 1809, 75th Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 17, 1937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 9, 1965,(6) Chairman Richard Bolling, of 
Missouri, ruled as follows on the proper time to offer a motion to 
close debate on an amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 111 Cong. Rec. 16233, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Basil L.] Whitener [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

[[Page 11111]]

            Amendment offered by Mr. Whitener: On page 14 after line 6 
        strike all of section 4 and insert in lieu thereof the 
        following:
            ``Sec. 4. (a) To assure that the right of citizens of the 
        United States to vote. . . .

        Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, will the 
    gentleman yield for a unanimous-consent request?
        Mr. Whitener: I yield to the gentleman.
        Mr. Celler: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all 
    debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto end in 10 
    minutes.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from New York?
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I object.
        Mr. Celler: Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on this 
    amendment and all amendments thereto end in 10 minutes.
        The Chairman: The Chair will have to advise the gentleman that 
    no such motion is in order until the gentleman from North Carolina 
    has been heard on his amendment. The gentleman from North Carolina 
    is recognized for 5 minutes.

    On Mar. 21, 1930,(7) Chairman Earl C. Michener, of 
Michigan, ruled that a motion to close debate on an amendment was in 
order after one speech of five minutes had been had on the 
amendment.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 72 Cong. Rec. 5858, 71st Cong. 2d Sess.
 8. See also 113 Cong. Rec. 32349, 32350, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 
        14, 1967; and 93 Cong. Rec. 2557, 80th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 
        25, 1947.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 78.23 The motion to close debate in the Committee of the Whole is 
    in order after one five-minute speech.

    On Mar. 26, 1965, Chairman Richard Bolling, of Missouri, answered a 
parliamentary inquiry as follows:

        Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Halleck: Mr. Chairman, under the Rules of the House would 
    it be possible or permissible to move to close debate on the whole 
    bill until each section has been read?

        The Chairman: Under the practices and precedents of the House 
    the bill is being read by sections. A motion is in order to close 
    debate on each section after it has been read and debated.
        Mr. Halleck: How much debate on each section is required to be 
    had?
        The Chairman: At least 5 minutes.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 111 Cong. Rec. 6104, 89th Cong. 1st Sess. See also 72 Cong. Rec. 
        5858, 71st Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 21, 1930.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 78.24 After debate, however brief, the motion to close debate 
    under the five-minute rule is in order.

    On Apr. 8, 1964,(10) Chairman Phillip M. Landrum, of 
Georgia,

[[Page 11112]]

overruled a point of order against a motion to limit debate under the 
five-minute rule:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 110 Cong. Rec. 7298, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Harold D.] Cooley [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    move that all debate on this amendment and on this bill close by 6 
    o'clock.
        Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Halleck: As I understand it, that motion is not in order 
    until the first speech has been made in support of the amendment 
    and then a 5-minute speech in opposition to it.
        Mr. [Carl] Albert [of Oklahoma]: He just made the 5-minute 
    speech.
        The Chairman: There has been debate on this amendment already. 
    The motion is in order.
        Mr. [Charles B.] Hoeven [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Hoeven: Mr. Chairman, has the entire bill been read?
        The Chairman: The entire bill has been read, and there has been 
    debate on this amendment.
        Mr. [Ralph F.] Beermann [of Nebraska]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Beermann: As I understand it, one speaker may speak for the 
    amendment and one against it. Is that correct?
        The Chairman: That has been done.
        Mr. Beermann: So far only the author of the amendment has 
    spoken for it. Three minutes were granted additionally by the 
    majority leader and 3 minutes were requested by the minority 
    leader. There has been no 5-minute debate against the amendment.
        The Chairman: There has been debate on the amendment, the Chair 
    advises the gentleman, and the motion of the gentleman from North 
    Carolina is in order.

--What Qualifies as ``Debate'' To Permit Clause 6 Motion

Sec. 78.25 The motion to close 
    debate under the five-min-ute rule is in order after 
    one speech, even though the Member making the speech, after gaining 
    recognition to strike out the last word, obtains consent to speak 
    out of order.

    On Mar. 26, 1965,(11) Chairman Richard Bolling, of 
Missouri, stated in response to a parliamentary inquiry that a motion 
to close debate under the five-minute rule on an entire bill could not 
be offered until the last section of the bill had been read and debated 
for at least five minutes. The Clerk then read the last section of the 
pending bill, and Mr. George W. Andrews, of Alabama, gained recognition 
by moving to strike out the last word. He asked and was given 
permission to speak out of

[[Page 11113]]

order and delivered remarks not related to the pending bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 111 Cong. Rec. 6104, 6105, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following Mr. Andrews' remarks, Mr. Adam C. Powell, of New York, 
moved that all debate on the final section close instantly, and the 
Chairman stated in response to a parliamentary inquiry that the motion 
was properly offered:

        Mr. Powell: Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on this 
    section close now.
        Mr. [Albert H.] Quie [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Quie: The gentleman who has just spoken, spoke out of 
    order. Therefore, there was no debate on the bill. Therefore, I ask 
    if it is possible to strike out the last word.
        The Chairman: The gentleman obtained the 5 minutes by the 
    motion to strike out the last word. Therefore, there has been 
    debate on this section.
        The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from New 
    York.
        The motion was agreed to.

Motion To Close Debate in Order Only on Matter Read

Sec. 78.26 A motion to close debate on a bill in the Committee of the 
    Whole is not in order until the bill has been completely read.

    On June 29, 1949,(12) Chairman Hale Boggs, of Louisiana, 
sustained a point of order against a motion to close debate on a bill 
because the motion was offered before the bill had been read:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 95 Cong. Rec. 8652, 8653, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Brent] Spence [of Kentucky]: Then Mr. Chairman, I move 
    that all debate on the bill and all amendments thereto conclude at 
    5 minutes past 5, the remainder of the bill to be considered as 
    read and be open to amendment at any point.
        Mr. [T. Millet] Hand [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Hand: The motion is not in order. The gentleman from 
    Kentucky does not have the floor.

        Mr. [Sam] Rayburn [of Texas]: The gentleman from Mississippi 
    [Mr. Whittington] yielded to the gentleman from Kentucky.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Mississippi yielded and the 
    gentleman from Kentucky is not out of order.
        Mr. [Frank B.] Keefe [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the motion because the bill has not yet been 
    read in its entirety.
        The Chairman: The Chair must sustain the point of order because 
    the remainder of the bill has not been read.

Sec. 78.27 A motion to close debate on a bill and amendments thereto is 
    not in order until the bill has been completely read.

    On July 22, 1965,(13) Mr. Adam C. Powell, of New York, 
moved

[[Page 11114]]

that all debate on the pending bill and amendments thereto close at 5 
p.m. Chairman John J. Rooney, of New York, stated that the motion was 
not in order, the bill not having been fully read. When Mr. Powell made 
a unanimous-consent request to close debate on the bill, it was 
objected to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 111 Cong. Rec. 17932, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 18, 1966,(14) Chairman Eugene J. Keogh, of New 
York, stated in response to a parliamentary inquiry that it was in 
order by unanimous consent, but not by motion, to close debate on a 
bill and all remaining amendments thereto, the bill not having been 
read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 112 Cong. Rec. 10911, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 78.28 Until the last section of a bill being read by sections has 
    been read, a motion to close debate on the entire bill is not in 
    order.

    On Mar. 26, 1965,(15) Chairman Richard Bolling, of 
Missouri, answered a parliamentary inquiry on whether a motion to close 
debate on a bill can be offered before the entire bill has been read or 
debated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 111 Cong. Rec. 6104, 6105, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Halleck: Mr. Chairman, under the rules of the House would 
    it be possible or permissible to move to close debate on the whole 
    bill until each section has been read?
        The Chairman: Under the practices and precedents of the House 
    the bill is being read by sections. A motion is in order to close 
    debate on each section after it has been read and debated.

Sec. 78.29 When a bill is being read for amendment by titles or by 
    sections, debate under the five-minute rule on the portion of the 
    bill which has been read and debated may be closed by motion, but 
    on titles or sections that have not been read, debate may only be 
    closed by unanimous consent.

    On Feb. 8, 1964,(16) Chairman Eugene J. Keogh, of New 
York, answered parliamentary inquiries on closing debate under the 
five-minute rule:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 110 Cong. Rec. 2614, 2615, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William M.] McCulloch [of Ohio]: I should like to ask, Mr. 
    Chairman, if the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the 
    Union can now effect binding action as to time on the titles of the 
    bill which we have not reached?
        The Chairman: The Chair would inform the gentleman from Ohio 
    that

[[Page 11115]]

    that could be done only by unanimous consent.
        Mr. [Carl] Albert [of Oklahoma]: And cannot it be done in 
    Committee of the Whole, Mr. Chairman?
        The Chairman: It can be done in Committee of the Whole. It 
    would also depend in a measure on the nature of the request. . . .
        Mr. Albert: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate 
    on title VII on Monday next be limited to 2 hours and that the 
    debate on the remainder of the bill be limited to 2 hours, making a 
    total of 4 hours.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Oklahoma?
        Mr. [William M.] Colmer [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, 
    reserving the right to object, and I am just one ordinary Member of 
    this House, but I do have certain rights as one ordinary Member of 
    the House, if I understand what was agreed upon originally, I 
    am willing to abide by that agreement. . . .
        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman 
    yield to me?
        Mr. Colmer: I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
        Mr. Hays: Mr. Chairman, I would like to propound a 
    parliamentary inquiry. If the unanimous-consent request of the 
    majority leader should be objected to, would not the majority 
    leader or the chairman of the committee have a right to move that 
    that be set and that the debate be ended at a specified time on 
    Monday?
        The Chairman: The Chair would say a motion to limit debate 
    would be in order after there has been debate on the title.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The bill under consideration, H.R. 7152, 
the Civil Rights Act of 1963, was being read for amendment by titles 
instead of by sections, pursuant to House Resolution 616 from the 
Committee on Rules making in order its consideration.
    On Mar. 25, 1965,(17) Chairman Richard Bolling, of 
Missouri, answered inquiries on a motion to limit debate which had been 
agreed to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 111 Cong. Rec. 6016, 6020, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: All time on section 2 has expired. The question 
    is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. 
    Quie].
        Mr. [Robert P.] Griffin [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Griffin: The Chair said ``on section 2.'' It was my 
    understanding that the chairman of the Committee on Education and 
    Labor said ``title I.'' Am I incorrect?
        The Chairman: The Chair put the motion on section 2, which 
    contains a title I.
        Mr. Griffin: So the debate is closed at 6 o'clock on section 2, 
    but not on the remainder of title I?
        The Chairman: That is correct.
        Mr. [Adam C.] Powell [of New York]: Mr. Chairman----
        The Chairman: For what purpose does the gentleman rise?
        Mr. Powell: I should like for the Clerk to repeat my request.

[[Page 11116]]

        The Chairman: The gentleman may have made another request than 
    that, but since the other sections of this title have not been 
    read, and since no unanimous-consent request has been made that 
    they be considered as read, no motion could have been in order on 
    anything except that which was read. That was section 2.
        Mr. Powell: I beg to state, Mr. Chairman, that the motion I 
    offered was on all amendments and debate on title I, and there was 
    no point of order raised against it.
        The Chairman: There may have been a misunderstanding, but the 
    Chair knows how he put the motion, and he knows he could not have 
    put the other motion at that time. The other sections of that title 
    had not been read, nor had unanimous consent been requested that 
    they be considered as read. It does happen that section 2 contains 
    a different title I. That is the motion which the Chairman put.
        Mr. Powell: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Powell: Is it possible for the Chairman to put the motion 
    as made?
        The Chairman: The Chair stated the motion as the Chair at that 
    time understood it. There was no correction of the Chair's 
    statement of the motion. The motion stands as stated. That was what 
    the Committee voted on.

Sec. 78.30 Where the Committee of the Whole has by unanimous consent 
    dispensed with further reading of a bill for amendment, a motion to 
    fix the time for debate on the 
    remainder of the bill and amendments thereto is in order after 
    there has been debate.

    On Apr. 25, 1947,(18) Chairman Earl C. Michener, of 
Michigan, overruled a point of order against a motion to close debate, 
under the five-minute rule, on a bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 93 Cong. Rec. 4100, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert F.] Jones of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I move that all 
    debate on the bill and all amendments thereto, and amendments, be 
    limited to 40 minutes.

        Mr. [Francis E.] Walter [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Walter: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the 
    motion may eliminate the possibility of debate on an amendment or 
    amendments to amendments; therefore, until it is determined how 
    many amendments there are the motion is subject to a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: The Chair will be constrained to overrule the 
    point of order because by unanimous consent the further reading of 
    the bill was waived.
        The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from 
    Ohio [Mr. Jones].
        The motion was agreed to.

Sec. 78.31 Where a special rule provided for the reading of a

[[Page 11117]]

    bill in its entirety, and not by sections, it was held in order 
    following debate under the five-minute rule to move to close debate 
    on the bill and all amendments thereto.

    On Aug. 22, 1935,(19) the Committee of the Whole was 
conducting five-minute debate on H.R. 8455, relative to public works, 
pursuant to House Resolution 349, providing that the bill ``in its 
entirety shall be read for amendment.'' Mr. Jack Nichols, of Oklahoma, 
moved to close debate on the entire bill and amendments thereto, and 
Chairman Claude A. Fuller, of Arkansas, overruled a point of order 
against the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 79 Cong. Rec. 14192, 14193, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Nichols: Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on this bill 
    and all amendments thereto close in 30 minutes.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Nichols] moves 
    that all debate on the bill and all amendments thereto close in 30 
    minutes.
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against that motion.
        The Chairman: The Chair will hear the gentleman.
        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, such a motion is only in order when a 
    bill is being read by sections and after an amendment has been 
    offered. The motion is not in order at this stage.
        The Chairman: The rule provided for the reading of the entire 
    bill, and the Chair holds that the motion of the gentleman from 
    Oklahoma is in order.

Sec. 78.32 A motion under Rule XXIII clause 6 to close debate on a bill 
    and all amendments thereto is not in order until the reading of the 
    bill has been completed.

    The proposition stated above was demonstrated on June 21, 
1974,(20) during consideration of H.R. 15472 (agriculture, 
environmental, and consumer appropriations for fiscal year 1975) in the 
Committee of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 120 Cong. Rec. 20583, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I move 
    to strike the requisite number of words. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this 
    bill and all amendments thereto close at 5:30.
        The Chairman: (1) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Mississippi?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Sam Gibbons (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: I object.
        The Chairman: Objection is heard.
        Mr. Whitten: Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on this bill 
    and all amendments thereto close at 5:30.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the committee must 
    complete the reading of the bill before such a motion could be 
    entertained.
        Mr. Whitten: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that further 
    read

[[Page 11118]]

    ing of the bill be dispensed with, and that it be printed in the 
    Record and open to amendment at any point.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Mississippi?
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: I object.
        The Chairman: Objection is heard.
        The Clerk will read.

Sec. 78.33 The Chair may decline to entertain a unanimous-consent 
    request that all debate on a pending measure be limited, in advance 
    of completion of reading of that measure in its entirety and in the 
    absence of a unanimous-consent agreement to consider the measure as 
    having been read.

    On July 16, 1975,(2) during consideration of House 
Resolution 591 (establishing a Select Committee on Intelligence) in the 
Committee of the Whole, Mr. Richard Bolling, of Missouri, made a 
unanimous-consent request, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 121 Cong. Rec. 23112, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bolling: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the necessary 
    number of words. . . . I am going to ask unanimous consent that the 
    resolution be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open 
    to amendment at any point.
        The Chairman: (3) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Missouri?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Frank E. Evans (Colo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I object.
        The Chairman: Objection is heard.
        Mr. Bolling: Mr. Chairman, then I can only ask unanimous 
    consent that all debate on the resolution and all amendments 
    thereto close at 2:30.
        The Chairman: The gentleman should be advised that that request 
    cannot be made until the resolution has been read.

Sec. 78.34 A motion to close all debate on a bill and all amendments 
    thereto under the five-minute rule is not in order when the bill 
    has not been completely read; such motion may be made only with 
    respect to that portion which has been read and on which there has 
    been debate.

    The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on 
June 4, 1975,(4) during consideration of the Voting Rights 
Act Extension (H.R. 6219):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 121 Cong. Rec. 16899, 16901, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Don] Edwards of California: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike 
    the requisite number of words.
        Mr. Chairman, I believe we have an agreement to vote on the 
    final passage of the bill at 6:30 and with a time limitation on 
    certain amendments that remain, so I ask unanimous consent at this 
    time that the bill be considered as read in full and open to 
    amendment at any point.

[[Page 11119]]

        The Chairman: (5) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from California?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James P.] Johnson of Colorado: Mr. Chairman, I object.
        Mr. Edwards of California: Mr. Chairman, I so move.
        The Chairman: The motion is not in order. Only title II could 
    be closed at this time by a motion.

Sec. 78.35 Where the Committee of the Whole was considering a bill 
    pursuant to a special rule making in order a motion to strike out a 
    title thereof and insert a new text to be read by section for 
    amendment, the Chair stated, in response to a parliamentary 
    inquiry, that a motion would be in order to close debate under the 
    five-minute rule on a section of said amendment which had been read 
    for amendment.

    On July 26, 1977,(6) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration the Agriculture Act of 1977 (H.R. 7171), when the 
following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 123 Cong. Rec. 24973, 24974, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (7) Pursuant to the rule, it shall be 
    in order to consider an amendment striking out title XII and 
    inserting in lieu thereof the text of the bill H.R. 7940, which 
    shall be considered as original text for the purpose of amendment 
    and shall be read for amendment by sections. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Frank E. Evans (Colo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                             TITLE XII--FOOD STAMPS

            Sec. 1201. The Food Stamp Act of 1964, as amended, is 
        amended as follows:
            (a) New sections 18 and 19 are added as follows: . . .

        Mr. [Thomas S.] Foley [of Washington] (during the reading): Mr. 
    Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of title XII 
    be dispensed with, that it be considered as read, and open to 
    amendment at any point.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Washington?
        Mr. [Steven D.] Symms [of Idaho]: Reserving the right to 
    object, Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
    Foley) explain to the Members of the House just what the 
    parliamentary procedure is here.
        Mr. Foley: If the gentleman will yield, Mr. Chairman, the 
    parliamentary situation is that the title which was about to be 
    read is the title of the original bill, H.R. 7171. It is a 
    truncated food stamp title, and it would be my purpose at the time 
    we conclude the reading or the waiving of the reading to offer a 
    substitute in lieu of title XII, which will be the text of H.R. 
    7940, which is made in order as a substitute by the rule that the 
    House has previously adopted.
        In the event that that substitute is then offered, the 
    substitute would be read by section. . . .
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: If this particular 
    request is

[[Page 11120]]

    granted then there would be no curtailment of the reading of the 
    substitute amendment by section and time could not be limited on 
    any section or amendments thereto except by unanimous consent? . . 
    .
        Mr. Foley: If the gentleman from Maryland will permit me to 
    continue . . . the gentleman is correct in that if the substitute 
    is before the committee, it would be in order to move to cut off 
    the debate but by section by section and not on the whole title.
        The Chairman: The Chair would advise the gentleman from 
    Maryland (Mr. Bauman) that that is correct.

Sec. 78.36 By unanimous consent, a bill under consideration in the 
    Committee of the Whole may be considered as read and open for 
    amendment at any point; but until a bill has been read in full or 
    its reading dispensed with by unanimous consent, a motion to limit 
    debate on the bill (and amendments thereto) is not in order.

    On June 27, 1979,(8) the following proceedings occurred 
in the Committee of the Whole during consideration of the Departments 
of Labor and Health, Education, and Welfare appropriation bill for 
fiscal 1980 (H.R. 4389):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 125 Cong. Rec. 17013, 17014, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William H.] Natcher [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that the balance of the bill be considered as 
    read, open to amendment at any point, and further, Mr. Chairman, 
    that all debate on the bill and all amendments thereto end at 8 
    o'clock.
        The Chairman: (9) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Kentucky? . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Don Fuqua (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Natcher: Mr. Chairman, I would . . . like to propound a 
    parliamentary inquiry.

        As I understand it, under the rules of the House, it requires a 
    unanimous-consent request to open the bill for amendment at any 
    point; am I correct in that?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Natcher: Mr. Chairman, it requires unanimous consent before 
    the time of 8 or 8:30 could be fixed? A motion would not be in 
    order at this time? . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that a motion would not be 
    in order until the bill is read.

Sec. 78.37 Clause 6 of Rule XXIII permits the Committee of the Whole by 
    motion to limit debate on the pending portion of a bill (and on all 
    amendments thereto) or just on 
    a pending amendment (and 
    all amendments thereto), but does not permit a motion to limit and 
    allocate separate time for debate on perfecting amendments not yet 
    offered; unanimous consent is re

[[Page 11121]]

    quired to limit or allocate debate time on such amendments.

    During consideration of the nuclear freeze resolution (H.J. Res. 
13) in the Committee of the Whole on Mar. 16, 1983,(10) the 
following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 129 Cong. Rec. 5796, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I move 
    that all debate close at 11:30 on the resolve clause and all 
    amendments pending thereto. . . .
        Mr. Philip M. Crane [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, under the 
    provisions of the motion just made, does this mean again that one 
    of the 11 amendments that are pending on the resolution could 
    theoretically consume the entire time until 11:30?
        The Chairman: (11) The answer is yes, but the Chair 
    would remind the gentleman that the committee could separately 
    adopt a limitation of debate on any amendment that was pending if 
    there were a unanimous-consent request and no objection, or if 
    there were a motion so adopted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from 
    Wisconsin (Mr. Zablocki) to limit debate on the resolve clause and 
    all amendments thereto to 11:30 p.m. . . .
        [The motion was rejected.]
        Mr. [Albert A.] Gore [Jr., of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that debate be limited to 6 minutes on each 
    amendment, divided equally for and against.
        Mr. [Thomas F.] Hartnett [of South Carolina]: I object.
        The Chairman: Objection is heard.
        Mr. Gore: Mr. Chairman, I move that debate be limited to 6 
    minutes per amendment, divided equally for and against.
        The Chairman: That is not an appropriate motion and is not in 
    order.
        Mr. Gore: Mr. Chairman, would the motion be in order if those 
    amendments protected under the rule received 5 minutes for and 
    against?
        The Chairman: It is not appropriate or proper to limit and 
    allocate time for debate on amendments not yet offered.

    Parliamentarian's Note: As indicated in the Chair's remarks above, 
the Committee of the Whole, pursuant to clause 6 of Rule XXIII, may by 
motion limit debate on a pending committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute (considered as having been read as original text) and on all 
amendments thereto to a time certain, and may then, by subsequent 
unanimous consent or motions, separately limit debate on each 
perfecting amendment after it has been offered.

Sec. 78.38 Pursuant to clause 6 of Rule XXIII, the Committee of the 
    Whole may, by motion, limit debate to a time certain on a pending 
    committee amendment in the nature of a substitute (once it has been 
    considered as having been

[[Page 11122]]

    read) and on all amendments which might be offered thereto, since 
    the original amendment is pending and has been read in its 
    entirety, but may not separately by motion limit debate or allocate 
    time thereon on perfecting amendments not yet offered.

    On Mar. 16, 1983,(12) during consideration of House 
Joint Resolution 13, the nuclear freeze resolution, in the Committee of 
the Whole, a motion to close debate on all amendments resulted in the 
following parliamentary inquiries:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 129 Cong. Rec. 5803, 5804, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I move 
    that all debate end at a quarter to 12 on this amendment and all 
    amendments thereto and on all amendments to the resolve clause.
        The Chairman: (13) The gentleman moves that debate 
    on this amendment and all amendments to the text following the 
    resolve clause end at a quarter to 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair would inquire of the gentleman, does his motion cover 
    all amendments to the text following the resolve clause?
        Mr. Zablocki: All amendments. . . .
        Mr. [Trent] Lott [of Mississippi]: In line with my 
    parliamentary inquiry, I did not think we had even completed debate 
    on the Levitas amendment, and the distinguished chairman of the 
    Committee on Foreign Affairs is now asking that we dispense with 
    all further debate and vote on amendments by a quarter to 12, many 
    of which have not even been considered, amendments which have great 
    value. Some of the best amendments that could be offered here in 
    this body tonight have not even been offered and considered.
        My parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman, is, is that in order at 
    this point before we have even dispensed with the amendment pending 
    before us?
        The Chairman: The motion is in order since the underlying 
    committee substitute to the text has been considered as read in its 
    entirety and is pending.
        Mr. [Daniel E.] Lungren [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Lungren: Mr. Chairman, is this not the same motion that was 
    suggested by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gore) a few minutes 
    ago and ruled out of order by the Chair?
        The Chairman: No. The Chair would advise the gentleman it is a 
    different limitation motion on a text which is pending and all 
    amendments thereto, and does not allocate time.
        The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from 
    Wisconsin (Mr. Zablocki) to limit debate on this amendment and all 
    amendments to the resolving clause to 11:45 p.m.
        [The motion was rejected.]

    The motion by Mr. Gore and ruling thereon, referred to by Mr. 
Lungren, were as follows: (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 129 Cong. Rec. 5796, 98th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 16, 1983.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 11123]]

        The Chairman: For what purpose does the gentleman from 
    Tennessee (Mr. Gore) rise?
        Mr. [Albert A.] Gore [Jr., of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that debate be limited to 6 minutes on each 
    amendment, divided equally for and against.
        Mr. [Thomas F.] Hartnett [of South Carolina]: I object.
        The Chairman: Objection is heard.
        Mr. Gore: Mr. Chairman, I move that debate be limited to 6 
    minutes per amendment, divided equally for and against.
        The Chairman: That is not an appropriate motion and is not in 
    order.
        Mr. Gore: Mr. Chairman, would the motion be in order if those 
    amendments protected under the rule received 5 minutes for and 
    against?
        The Chairman: It is not appropriate or proper to limit and 
    allocate time for debate on amendments not yet offered.

Closing Debate Instanter or After Stated Time

Sec. 78.39 A motion to close debate under the five-minute rule in the 
    Committee of the Whole may be made to close debate instantly or 
    after a stated time.

    On Feb. 27, 1931,(15) after some debate had been had on 
an amendment in the Committee of the Whole, Mr. James S. Parker, of New 
York, moved that all debate on the amendment and amendments thereto 
close in 15 minutes. Mr. George Huddleston, of Alabama, made a point of 
order against the motion and Chairman William H. Stafford, of 
Wisconsin, ruled that the motion could be made, pursuant to Rule XXIII, 
at any time after five minutes' debate has begun. Mr. Huddleston then 
contended that the motion was not to close debate under the rule but to 
fix time. The Chairman stated that there was no difference between the 
motions as to their coming within the rule:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 74 Cong. Rec. 6300, 71st Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Huddleston: May I call this to the attention of the Chair? 
    This is not a motion to close debate but it is a motion to fix 
    time, which is a very different thing. I do not question the right 
    of the gentleman to move to close debate now, but you can not move 
    to fix time in the future.
        The Chairman: Paragraph 6 of Rule XXIII provides:

            The committee may, by the vote of a majority of the members 
        present, at any time after the five minutes' debate has begun 
        upon proposed amendments to any section or paragraph of a bill, 
        close all debate upon such section or paragraph or, at its 
        election, upon the pending amendments only (which motion shall 
        be decided without debate); but this shall not preclude further 
        amendment, to be decided without debate.

        Mr. Huddleston: Of course, I understand that, but the point I 
    am making is that this is not a motion to close debate but it is a 
    motion to fix time. That is what the motion is.

[[Page 11124]]

        The Chairman: The present occupant of the chair can not follow 
    the argument of the gentleman. It seems to the Chair, with due 
    respect, that the gentleman's point is a distinction without a 
    difference.
        Mr. [C. William] Ramseyer [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Ramseyer: Is the motion to close debate directed to the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from New York or to the 
    amendment to the amendment now pending?
        The Chairman: There is pending before the committee at the 
    present time one amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        Mr. Ramseyer: That is the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from New York [Mr. Parker]?
        The Chairman: Yes. The motion the gentleman makes is to close 
    debate on the amendment and all amendments thereto in 15 minutes. 
    That is the motion. The Chair will state that there is only one 
    amendment pending before the committee at the present time, and 
    that is an amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        Mr. Huddleston: I call the Chair's attention to the fact that 
    the motion is to close debate in 15 minutes and not to close it 
    now.
        The Chairman: It is the general practice, long established and 
    well recognized in the committee to entertain a motion to either 
    close the debate instanter or after any stated time for debate.

Sec. 78.40 The Committee of the Whole agreed to a unanimous-consent 
    request that all debate on the pending bill and all amendments 
    thereto terminate by a time certain on the following day.

    On June 20, 1979,(16) during consideration of the Panama 
Canal Act of 1979 (H.R. 111) in the Committee of the Whole, the 
following unanimous-consent request was agreed to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 125 Cong. Rec. 15775, 15776, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John M.] Murphy of New York: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent that all debate on H.R. 111 and all amendments thereto 
    conclude at 1 p.m. tomorrow. . . .
        The Chairman: (17) Is there objection to the 
    unanimous-consent request by the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
    Murphy)?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Thomas S. Foley (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The form of Mr. Murphy's initial request 
was to cut off debate and amendments at a time certain, a unanimous-
consent request which is not in order in Committee of the Whole where 
it would abrogate the rights of Members under special rules adopted by 
the House to offer amendments. Thus the request as restated affected 
only debate time.

Extending Debate Beyond Limitation

Sec. 78.41 The House, before resolving itself into the Com

[[Page 11125]]

    mittee of the Whole for the further consideration of a bill, agreed 
    by unanimous consent to extend debate un-der the five-minute rule 
    to two minutes on each side on the amendments remaining undisposed 
    of at the desk where all debate time on the bill had expired.

    On May 11, 1961,(18) the House, with Speaker Sam 
Rayburn, of Texas, presiding, agreed to a limitation on debate on 
certain amendments at the Clerk's desk to be considered in the 
Committee of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 107 Cong. Rec. 7869, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Harold D.] Cooley [of North Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, in 
    view of the extraordinary situation in which the House found itself 
    on yesterday, I ask unanimous consent that when the House resolve 
    itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the 
    Union for the further consideration of the bill, H.R. 2010, that 
    each of the authors of the two pending amendments now on the 
    Speaker's desk may be given 2 minutes to present their amendments 
    and that the committee be given 2 minutes in opposition.
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman 
    yield?
        Mr. Cooley: I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
        Mr. Gross: What happens to the allocation of other time other 
    than on the amendments?
        Mr. Cooley: We have no other time.
        Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, reserving 
    the right to object, how many amendments does this request cover?
        Mr. Cooley: I understand there are only two amendments now at 
    the desk.

        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from North Carolina?
        There was no objection.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Committee of the Whole had risen on the 
prior day before 4:15 p.m., which was the hour appointed by a 
unanimous-consent agreement for the closing of debate on the bill and 
all amendments thereto. By so rising, the Committee had allowed the 
time to expire and there was no time left on the following day, May 11.

Sec. 78.42 A time limitation on debate imposed by the Committee of the 
    Whole, pursuant to Rule XXIII clause 6, may be rescinded or 
    modified only by unanimous consent; and a unanimous consent request 
    to extend debate time on an amendment may not be entertained while 
    there is pending a demand for a recorded vote on that amendment.

    During consideration of the Energy Conservation and Oil Policy Act 
of 1975 (H.R. 7014) in the

[[Page 11126]]

Committee of the Whole on Sept. 17, 1975,(19) the following 
proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 121 Cong. Rec. 28904, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (20) When the Committee rose on 
    Friday, August 1, 1975, all time for debate on title III of the 
    committee amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute and all amendments thereto had expired and there 
    was pending the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
    Brown) to title III on which a recorded vote had been requested by 
    the gentleman from Ohio.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Without objection, the Clerk will again read the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).
        There was no objection.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Brown of Ohio: Strike out sections 
        301, 302, 303.
            Renumber the succeeding sections of title III accordingly. 
        . . .

        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . . The parliamentary inquiry, Mr. 
    Chairman is, Would it be in order at this point while the vote is 
    pending to ask unanimous consent of the House that 2 minutes may be 
    granted on either side of the aisle for a discussion at this point 
    of the pending vote?
        The Chairman: Such a request would be in order only if the 
    gentleman first withdrew his request for a recorded vote. . . .
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, then I ask unanimous consent 
    to withdraw my request for a recorded vote at this point.
        The Chairman: That does not require unanimous consent. The 
    gentleman withdraws his request for a recorded vote.
        Does the gentleman now ask unanimous consent for debate time? . 
    . .
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 1 
    minute be granted to the Democratic side in the hands of the 
    gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and 1 minute to the 
    Republican side to be in the hands of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
    Brown).
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Ohio?
        There was no objection.

Extending Time Under Limitation

Sec. 78.43 Where the Committee of the Whole has fixed the time for 
    debate on amendments, such time may be extended only by unanimous 
    consent.

    On Aug. 18, 1949,(1) the Committee of the Whole agreed 
to a request that all debate on pending amendments close in one hour. 
Chairman Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas, then advised Members that since 
30 Members wished to speak, each would be entitled to two minutes. Mr. 
Cecil F. White,

[[Page 11127]]

of California, inquired whether it would be in order to move that the 
time be extended in view of the fact that so many Members had requested 
time. The Chairman responded that such an extension would require 
unanimous consent, debate already having been limited.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 95 Cong. Rec. 11760, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 78.44 The House can, by unanimous consent, agree to an extension 
    of time for debate under the five-minute rule in the Committee of 
    the Whole after such debate has been limited, but a motion to that 
    effect is not in order.

    On May 10, 1961,(2) the Committee of the Whole rose 
before the hour had arrived when further debate on a bill and 
amendments thereto would expire pursuant to a unanimous-consent 
limitation. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, stated in response to a 
parliamentary inquiry that when the Committee resumed consideration of 
the bill on the following day, no time would be left, the time having 
expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 107 Cong. Rec. 7725, 7727, 7728, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Speaker stated in response to a parliamentary inquiry by Mr. 
Charles A. Halleck, of Indiana, that extension of the time for debate 
could be accomplished by unanimous consent, but only by unanimous 
consent.
    When Mr. Alfred E. Santangelo, of New York, submitted such a 
request, for 25 additional minutes of debate on the following day, the 
request was objected to. Mr. Santangelo then made a motion to that 
effect, and the Speaker ruled that such a motion was not in order.

Sec. 78.45 The House, by unanimous consent, agreed to an extension of 
    time for debate under the five-minute rule in the Committee of the 
    Whole, where the Committee had previously agreed to terminate 
    debate at a certain time on the preceding day.

    On May 11, 1961,(3) the House agreed to the following 
unanimous-consent request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 107 Cong. Rec. 7869, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Harold D.] Cooley [of North Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, in 
    view of the extraordinary situation in which the House found itself 
    on yesterday, I ask unanimous consent that when the House resolve 
    itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the 
    Union for the further consideration of the bill, H.R. 2010, that 
    each of the authors of the two pending amendments now on the 
    Speaker's desk may be given 2 minutes to present their amendments 
    and that

[[Page 11128]]

    the committee be given 2 minutes in opposition.
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman 
    yield?
        Mr. Cooley: I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
        Mr. Gross: What happens to the allocation of other time other 
    than on the amendments?
        Mr. Cooley: We have no other time.
        Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, reserving 
    the right to object, how many amendments does this request cover?
        Mr. Cooley: I understand there are only two amendments now at 
    the desk.
        The Speaker: (4) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from North Carolina?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.

    The ``extraordinary situation'' referred to was the fact that on 
the prior day the Committee had risen before 4:15 p.m., without 
concluding consideration of the bill and amendments thereto, after the 
Committee had agreed to a limitation that all debate on the bill and 
amendments thereto close at 4:15. Speaker Rayburn had stated, after the 
Committee had risen, that no time would remain for debate when the 
Committee resumed consideration of the bill, since 4:15 would have 
passed.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 107 Cong. Rec. 7727, 7728, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., May 10, 1961.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 78.46 Where the Committee of the Whole has, by unanimous consent, 
    limited debate on an amendment, the Chair declines to recognize for 
    a motion to extend the time for the debate but a unanimous-consent 
    request to extend or allot the time may be entertained.

    On June 11, 1968,(6) Mr. Daniel J. Flood, of 
Pennsylvania, was recognized under the five-minute rule and yielded to 
Mr. George H. Mahon, of Texas, who submitted 
a unanimous-consent request to close debate at a time certain, which 
request was agreed to. Chairman James G. O'Hara, of Michigan, advised 
Mr. Flood that the time consumed by making the request came out of his 
time, since he had yielded. Mr. Flood then moved that debate be 
extended to close in 30 minutes and the Chairman stated that such a 
motion was not in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 114 Cong. Rec. 16699, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to a parliamentary inquiry by Mr. Melvin R. Laird, of 
Wisconsin, the Chairman stated that he would entertain a unanimous-
consent request for an extension of time for Mr. Flood.

Sec. 78.47 The Committee of the Whole, by unanimous consent, extended 
    the time previously fixed for debate un-der the five-minute rule.

[[Page 11129]]

    On Nov. 15, 1967,(7) the Committee of the Whole agreed 
to a motion to close all debate on a pending section and amendments 
thereto at 8:05 p.m. A preferential motion and teller votes consumed 
much of the time under the limitation, and the Committee then agreed by 
unanimous consent to extend the time previously agreed upon:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 113 Cong. Rec. 32691-94, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John N.] Erlenborn [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I wonder 
    if I would be in order now to ask for unanimous consent to extend 
    the time limitation to 25 minutes after eight, in view of the fact 
    that so much time has been taken up by the preferential motion.
        The Chairman: (8) The Chair will put the request of 
    the gentleman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. John J. Rooney (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Erlenborn: I make that unanimous consent request.
        Mr. [Charles S.] Joelson [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    object.
        The Chairman: Objection is heard.
        Mr. [Carl] Albert [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent that the order limiting the time to 8:05 p.m. be vacated, 
    and that all time on this section be closed at 8:45 p.m.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Oklahoma?
        There was no objection.

Sec. 78.48 Although all time for debate on a title had expired, the 
    Chair advised that a unanimous-consent request would be entertained 
    for a Member to speak for five minutes in explanation of an 
    amendment.

    On Oct. 7, 1965,(9) Mr. Thomas M. Pelly, of Washington, 
offered an amendment to a title of a bill after debate had expired 
under a limitation of debate on the title and amendments thereto. Mr. 
Samuel S. Stratton, of New York, inquired whether it would be in order 
for him to ask unanimous consent that Mr. Pelly be allowed to speak for 
five minutes in support of a ``very important amendment.'' Chairman 
Phillip M. Landrum, of Georgia, responded that if the request was made 
he would put the request to the Committee. The request was made and 
objected to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 111 Cong. Rec. 26306, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 78.49 Although only two five-minute speeches are permitted on an 
    amendment printed in the Congressional Record after a limitation on 
    debate under the five-minute rule has expired, the Chair may in his 
    discretion entertain a unanimous-consent request to extend the time 
    for debate on the amendment, or

[[Page 11130]]

    enter his own objection by refusing to entertain such a request.

    The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on 
June 27, 1979,(10) during consideration of the Housing and 
Urban Development and independent agencies appropriation bill (H.R. 
4394):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 125 Cong. Rec. 16965-67, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (11) When the Committee of the Whole 
    rose on Friday, June 22, 1979, the remainder of the bill beginning 
    on line 10, page 15, had been considered as having been read and 
    open to amendment at any point, and all time for debate on the bill 
    and all amendments thereto had expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Elliott H. Levitas (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Are there any further amendments? . . .

            Amendment offered by Mr. Nelson: On page 24, line 23, 
        strike ``$6,854,-924,000'', and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``$6,169,924,000''.

        The Chairman: Did the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Nelson) have 
    this amendment printed in the Record?
        Mr. [Bill] Nelson [of Florida]: I did, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: Then the gentleman qualifies. The Chair 
    recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Nelson). . . .
        The time of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Nelson) has 
    expired.
        Mr. [Bob] Traxler [of Michigan]: I ask unanimous consent that 
    the gentleman be given 2 additional minutes.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that under the rules, 5 
    minutes is all the gentleman is entitled to.
        Mr. [Edward P.] Boland [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I rise 
    in opposition to the amendment. . . .
        Mr. [Timothy E.] Wirth [of Colorado]: At the time there was a 
    request for time of the gentleman from Florida, the Chair reported 
    that we were under the 5-minute rule. I wondered how that jibed 
    with the grant of additional time for the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts.
        The Chairman: By unanimous consent the House can extend time.
        Mr. Wirth: Had not the request been made for unanimous consent 
    that the gentleman be allowed 2 additional minutes?
        The Chairman: The Chair did not share in the unanimous-consent 
    request at that time.
        Mr. Wirth: I thank the Chairman.
        I wanted to rise in support of the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Florida.
        The Chairman: The gentleman can do that only by unanimous 
    consent.
        Mr. Wirth: I thank the Chairman.

Offering Amendments After Expiration of Debate Time

Sec. 78.50 The adoption of a 
    motion to close debate on 
    a section and all amendments thereto does not prevent Members from 
    offering amendments to the pending proposition after the stated 
    time has expired, but no debate may be had on such amendments.

[[Page 11131]]

    On Jan. 5, 1932,(12) Chairman Lindsay C. Warren, of 
North Carolina, ruled that the adoption of a motion to close debate on 
a section and all amendments thereto did not preclude the offering of 
further but nondebatable amendments:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 75 Cong. Rec. 2077, 72d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Henry B.] Steagall [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, I move that 
    all debate on this section and all amendments thereto do now close.
        The motion was agreed to.
        The Chairman: The question is on the adoption of the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Maine.
        The question was taken, and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Stafford) there were--ayes 13, noes 130.
        So the amendment was rejected.
        Mr. [LaFayette L.] Patterson [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment and desire to be heard on it.
        Mr. [William F.] Stevenson [of South Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    make the point of order that the motion was to close debate on this 
    section and on all amendments. There will be another section read 
    in a moment, and I direct the Chair's attention to the fact that 
    debate on this section has been closed.
        The Chairman: But that does not prevent the gentleman from 
    Alabama from offering an amendment to this section and having it 
    voted upon by the committee.
        The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for the purpose of 
    offering an amendment, which the Clerk will report.

Timekeeping

Sec. 78.51 Where the Committee of the Whole fixes the time for debate 
    on an amendment at 20 minutes, such time is counted as 20 minutes 
    of debate and not 20 minutes by the clock.

    On Feb. 8, 1950,(13) after the Committee of the Whole 
had agreed to fix debate on an amendment at 20 minutes, and points of 
order and other matters had intervened, Chairman Chet Holifield, of 
California, answered a parliamentary inquiry and overruled a point of 
order on the counting of the time:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 96 Cong. Rec. 1693, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas J.] Murray of Tennessee: Mr. Chairman, how much 
    more time remains?
        The Chairman: There are 6 minutes remaining.
        Mr. [Donald W.] Nicholson [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    point of order. I raise the point of order that 20 minutes ago we 
    voted to close debate. The 20 minutes have gone.
        The Chairman: The Chair advises the gentleman that the 20 
    minutes for debate have not been used. The Chair will watch the 
    matter closely.

    Parliamentarian's Note: If the limitation had provided that de

[[Page 11132]]

bate close at a certain time, exactly 20 minutes away (i.e., 4:00 
p.m.), time for purposes other than debate would have been charged 
against the remaining time.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See Sec. 79, infra, for a full discussion of the effect of 
        different types of limitations on five-minute debate, and the 
        computation of time thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Demand That Motion Be in Writing

Sec. 78.52 A motion to limit debate must, pursuant to Rule XVI clause 
    1, be reduced to writing upon the demand of any Member.

    On Dec. 14, 1973,(15) Mr. Samuel L. Devine, of Ohio, 
offered, in the Committee of the Whole, a motion that debate on an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute and on all amendments thereto 
close at a certain time. Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, inquired whether 
that motion did not have to be 
in writing. Chairman Richard Bolling, of Missouri, responded that the 
motion had to be in writing if Mr. Gross insisted upon it. Mr. Gross so 
insisted.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 119 Cong. Rec. 41712, 41713, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
16. Rule XVI clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 775 (1995), provides 
        that every motion made and entertained shall be reduced to 
        writing on the demand of any Member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Motion To Rise During Five-minute Debate

Sec. 78.53 A motion that the Committee of the Whole rise is of high 
    privilege, and may be offered by a Member who holds the floor by 
    virtue of having offered an amendment.

    On Nov. 15, 1967,(17) Mr. Paul C. Jones, of Missouri, 
was recognized under the five-minute rule in the Committee of the Whole 

to offer an amendment. He then inquired of Chairman John J. Rooney, of 
New York, whether it would be in order for him to move that the 
Committee rise. The Chairman responded that the motion was highly 
privileged and could be made by Mr. Jones.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 113 Cong. Rec. 32694, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
18. See also 116 Cong. Rec. 25628, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., July 23, 1970 
        (motion to rise is highly privileged and can be offered any 
        time when the proponent secures the floor in his own right 
        during the five-minute rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 78.54 A simple motion to rise made in the Committee of the Whole 
    is not debatable.

    On Apr. 8, 1964,(19) Chairman Phillip M. Landrum, of 
Georgia,

[[Page 11133]]

advised Mr. Ben F. Jensen, of Iowa, who had moved that the Committee of 
the Whole rise, that the motion was not debatable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 110 Cong. Rec. 7298, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. 
    Jensen].
        Mr. Jensen: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise 
    out of further respect for one of the greatest Americans, Gen. 
    Douglas MacArthur.
        The Chairman: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Jensen].
        Mr. Jensen: Mr. Chairman, I demand tellers. It is disgraceful 
    to have this sort of thing going on while General MacArthur is 
    lying here in the Capitol.
        The Chairman: The Chair will inform the gentleman that a vote 
    on his motion is being taken. He is not recognized to make a 
    speech.

Sec. 78.55 The motion that the Committee of the Whole rise (thereby 
    cutting off debate at that time) is not debatable and is always 
    within the discretion of the Member handling the bill before the 
    Committee.

    On June 16, 1948,(20) Mr. Walter G. Andrews, of New 
York, was handling the consideration of H.R. 6401 in the Committee of 
the Whole. He moved that the Committee rise, and Chairman Francis H. 
Case, of South Dakota, ruled that the motion was within Mr. Andrews' 
discretion:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 94 Cong. Rec. 8521, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Andrews of New York: Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that 
    two or three Members who have time are not here, I move that the 
    Committee do now rise.

        The Chairman: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from New York [Mr. Andrews].
        Mr. [George A.] Smathers [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I would 
    like to be heard on that.
        The Chairman: That is not a debatable motion. It is always 
    within the discretion of the gentleman handling the bill to move 
    that the Committee rise.

Sec. 78.56 The motion that the Committee of the Whole rise is 
    privileged and may be offered during the pendency of a motion to 
    limit debate or immediately upon the adoption of that motion.

    On Oct. 7, 1974,(1) the following proceedings occurred 
in the Committee of the Whole during consideration of House Resolution 
988 (to reform the structure, jurisdiction, and procedures of House 
committees):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 120 Cong. Rec. 34170, 34171, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Richard] Bolling [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I move that 
    all debate on the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered 
    by the gen

[[Page 11134]]

    tlewoman from Washington (Mrs. Hansen), and all amendments thereto, 
    conclude in 5 hours.
        The Chairman:(2) The question is on the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the 
    noes appeared to have it.
        Mr. Bolling: Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote. . . .
        [Several parliamentary inquiries ensued at this point.]
        Mr. [David T.] Martin of Nebraska: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Martin of Nebraska moves that the Committee rise and 
        report the resolution H. Res. 988 to the House with the 
        recommendation that the resolving clause be stricken out.

        The Chairman: The Chair would like to ask the gentleman from 
    Nebraska, is the gentleman opposed to this resolution?
        Mr. Martin of Nebraska: I am, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The gentleman qualifies to make the motion.
        The gentleman from Nebraska is recognized for 5 minutes in 
    support of his motion.
        Mr. Bolling: Mr. Chairman, I wish to propound a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Bolling: Mr. Chairman, my understanding of the situation is 
    that the question that is now pending is on the motion that I made 
    to limit debate on the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    offered by the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. Hansen) and all 
    amendments thereto.
        My parliamentary inquiry is this: If that motion carries, my 
    intention is to move that the Committee then rise.
        Mr. Chairman, is there anything unparliamentary in that?
        The Chairman: The gentleman's motion in that event would be in 
    order.
        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Dingell moves the Committee do now rise.

        The Chairman: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).
        [After rejection of the motion, the Chair put the question on 
    Mr. Martin's motion:]
        The Chairman: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Martin) to strike the resolving 
    clause.
        [The preferential motion was rejected.]
        Mr. [John H.] Dent [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        [A]s I understand the motion, the motion is to limit the time 
    to 5 hours on the issue itself, the Hansen amendment and all 
    amendments thereto; is that true?
        The Chairman: The Chair will now state the question.
        The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Bolling) moves that debate on 
    the Hansen amendment in the nature of a substitute, and all 
    amendments thereto be limited to 5 hours. . . .
        The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from 
    Missouri (Mr.

[[Page 11135]]

    Bolling) that all debate on the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute offered by the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. 
    Hansen), and all amendments thereto, be limited to 5 hours, on 
    which a recorded vote has been demanded.
        A recorded vote was ordered.

Resuming Debate When Committee Resumes Consideration

Sec. 78.57 Where time for debate has been fixed on an amendment in the 
    Committee of the Whole and the Committee rises before the time 
    expires, debate continues when the Committee resumes its 
    deliberations (if time was not set by the clock).

    On June 16, 1948,(3) Chairman Francis H. Case, of South 
Dakota, answered parliamentary inquiries on the procedure where the 
Committee of the Whole rises before a certain amount of time, agreed to 
by the Committee, has expired for debate on an amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 94 Cong. Rec. 8521, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Walter G.] Andrews of New York: Mr. Chairman, in view of 
    the fact that two or three Members who have time are not here, I 
    move that the Committee do now rise.
        The Chairman: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from New York [Mr. Andrews].
        Mr. [George A.] Smathers [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I would 
    like to be heard on that.
        The Chairman: That is not a debatable motion. It is always 
    within the discretion of the gentleman handling the bill to move 
    that the Committee rise.
        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Marcantonio: Mr. Chairman, under the arrangement entered 
    into limiting debate on this amendment, will the Members who were 
    scheduled to be recognized be recognized when the Committee resumes 
    its deliberations?
        The Chairman: They will be recognized, if the Committee should 
    vote to rise, when the Committee meets again.
        Mr. Andrews of New York: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Andrews of New York: My understanding is that all those 
    gentlemen whose names are on the list will be recognized 
    immediately tomorrow.
        The Chairman: The statement of the gentleman from New York is 
    correct.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The agreement in question provided that 
debate on the amendment close in 50 minutes. If the agreement had 
provided that debate close at a certain time, by the clock, and the 
Committee rose to resume after that time had arrived, no time would be 
left for debate on the amendment.

[[Page 11136]]

Motion To Close Debate as Related to Motion To Strike Enacting Clause

Sec. 78.58 A timely motion that the Committee of the Whole rise and 
    report a bill to the House with the recommendation that the 
    enacting clause be stricken out under Rule XXIII clause 7 takes 
    precedence over a motion to limit debate under Rule XXIII clause 6.

    On Dec. 14, 1973,(4) Mr. Samuel L. Devine, of Ohio, 
offered a motion in the Committee of the Whole to close debate on a 
pending amendment and on amendments thereto to a time certain. Mr. H. 
R. Gross, of Iowa, then demanded that the motion be put in writing. 
Immediately following that demand, Mr. Phillip M. Landrum, of Georgia, 
offered the preferential motion that the Committee rise and report the 
bill back to the House with the recommendation that the enacting clause 
be stricken, and was recognized by Chairman Richard Bolling, of 
Missouri, for five minutes on that motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 119 Cong. Rec. 41712, 41713, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Chairman Bolling stated in response to a parliamentary inquiry by 
Mr. Devine that the motion to strike the enacting clause took 
precedence over the motion to limit debate. After the motion to strike 
was disposed of, the question recurred on the motion to limit debate.

--Enacting Clause Preferential

Sec. 78.59 The motion to strike or recommend striking the enacting 
    clause is preferential to the motion to close debate.

    The proceedings of June 28, 1995,(5) demonstrate that 
the motion to strike the enacting clause is preferential to the motion 
to close debate. The Committee of the Whole had under consideration 
H.R. 1868, the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related 
Programs Appropriations Act of 1996:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 141 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Porter J.] Goss [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I move that 
    all debate on the Goss amendment and all amendments thereto close 
    immediately.
        Mr. [Harold L.] Volkmer [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    preferential motion at the desk.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the preferential motion.

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

[[Page 11137]]

        Mr. Volkmer: Mr. Chairman, the attempt by the gentleman from 
    Florida [Mr. Goss] to limit debate on this very important amendment 
    of the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] to the gentleman's 
    amendment, I do not think is appropriate at this time.

    On July 13, 1995,(6) a motion to limit debate was made 
during consideration of H.R. 1977, the Department of the Interior and 
Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1996, followed by a motion to 
recommend striking the enacting clause.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 141 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Ralph] Regula [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I move to limit 
    debate on title I and all amendments thereto to 90 minutes not 
    including vote time.
        Mr. [David R.] Obey [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    privileged motion. I move that the Committee rise and report the 
    bill back to the House with a recommendation that the enacting 
    clause be stricken.
        Mr. Chairman, what is at issue here, in my view, is whether or 
    not this House is going to be able to conduct the business at 
    reasonable times in public view or whether we are going to be 
    reduced to making virtually every major decision in subcommittees 
    and on the floor at near midnight, with minimal public attention 
    and minimal public understanding and minimum attention. . . .
        Mr. Regula: Mr. Chairman, I oppose the motion.
        I was not a party to the earlier negotiations. The gentleman 
    from Illinois [Mr. Yates] and I discussed a possible agreement here 
    that we would finish title I with time limits on the amendments 
    that remain. . . .
        The Chairman: The question is on the preferential motion 
    offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
        The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the 
    noes appeared to have it.

                               recorded vote

        Mr. Obey: Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

        A recorded vote was ordered.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 
    162, noes 236, not voting 36, as follows: . . .

    On one occasion, when a preferential motion to close debate was 
before the Committee of the Whole, the Chair declined to recognize a 
Member to offer another privileged motion until the pending motion had 
been disposed of. On Mar. 26, 1965,(7) Adam C. Powell, of 
New York, Chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor, offered the 
privileged motion that all debate close on the pending title of H.R. 
2362, the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, reported 


[[Page 11138]]

by his committee. Chairman Richard Bolling, of Missouri, advised 
Members that the motion to close debate was not debatable. Mrs. Edith 
S. Green, of Oregon, then sought recognition to offer a preferential 
motion. The Chairman ruled that since the preferential motion to close 
debate was before the Committee of the Whole, no Member could be 
recognized to offer another preferential motion until the pending 
motion was disposed of.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 111 Cong. Rec. 6098, 6099, 89th Cong. 1st Sess. See Sec. 23.31, 
        supra, indicating that while a motion to limit debate is 
        pending, the preferential motion that the Committee of the 
        Whole rise with the recommendation that the enacting clause be 
        stricken may be offered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Effect of Limitation on Pro Forma Motion To Strike the Last Word

Sec. 78.60 By unanimous consent, debate under the five-minute rule on 
    possible amendments to be offered by two designated Members (one as 
    a substitute for the other) and on all amendments thereto was 
    limited and equally divided between proponents and opponents prior 
    to the offering of those amendments; and where debate has been so 
    limited and allocated on amendments to the pending section of the 
    bill, a Member may not obtain time by moving to strike out the last 
    word unless there is 
    no amendment pending (debate having been limited on amendments but 
    not on the section).

    During consideration of the Legal Services Corporation Act 
Amendments of 1981 (H.R. 3480) in the Committee of the Whole on June 
18, 1981,(8) the following unanimous-consent requests 
resulted in a discussion, as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 127 Cong. Rec. 12958, 12959, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert W.] Kastenmeier [of Wisconsin] (during the 
    reading): Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that section 11 be 
    considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at 
    any point.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (9) Is there objection to 
    the request of the gentleman from Wisconsin?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Bruce F. Vento (Minn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        Mr. Kastenmeier: . . . I ask unanimous consent all debate on 
    amendments to section 11 do not exceed more than 20 minutes, one-
    half to be controlled by the proponents of the amendment and one-
    half by the opponents of the amendment, excepting in the case of 
    the so-called alien amendments to be offered by the gentleman from 
    Texas (Mr. Kazen) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum), in 
    which case the debate on those amendments do not exceed 40 minutes, 
    those amendments and all amendments thereto on the question of 
    aliens.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: A point of clarification from the 
    stand

[[Page 11139]]

    point of the Chair. Is the gentleman suggesting to limit debate on 
    each amendment to section 11 and on any amendment thereto to 20 
    minutes, the time to be divided equally between the proponents and 
    the opponents, and 40 minutes on the amendments being offered by 
    the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Kazen) and the possible substitute 
    therefor of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) and all 
    amendments thereto?
        Mr. Kastenmeier: Yes. The request of 40 minutes pertains to 
    both amendments, that is to say that they may be offered in tandem, 
    but that the total amount of time allocated to the subject 
    represented by those two amendments not exceed 40 minutes.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: And all amendments thereto.
        Mr. Kastenmeier: Yes. . . .
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair would point out to the 
    Members that are discussing this, that the request addresses itself 
    to each amendment and any amendment thereto, inclusive. . . .
        The unanimous-consent request has been modified to 1 hour of 
    debate on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
    Kazen) and the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
    McCollum) and all amendments thereto, 1 hour.
        Is there objection to the unanimous-consent request of the 
    gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kastenmeier)?
        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, 
    reserving the right to object, I have a couple of questions.
        Under the proposal would we be prevented from offering motions 
    to strike the requisite number of words in order to engage in 
    debate that might not be directly related to the amendment?. . .
        Mr. Kastenmeier: I would have to ask the Chairman if that would 
    entitle the speaker to time other than that allocated under this 
    request.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: If an amendment to section 11 were 
    pending, under this request, a motion to strike the last word would 
    not be in order, since time would be allocated. . . .
        The unanimous-consent request does not go to the section 
    itself, but only goes to substantive amendments if offered; so it 
    would be possible, if there are no other amendments pending, at the 
    right time, to be recognized as the Chair has permitted to strike 
    the requisite number of words.

Control of Time Under Limitation

Sec. 78.61 A motion to close debate under the five-minute rule is not 
    in order if it includes a provision for division of time between 
    the proponents and opponents of the pending amendment.

    On May 24, 1967,(10) Chairman Charles M. Price, of 
Illinois, sustained a point of order against a motion to close debate 
which divided the time under the limitation:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 113 Cong. Rec. 13824, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Carl D.] Perkins [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I move that 
    all

[[Page 11140]]

    debate on the so-called Quie amendments and all amendments thereto 
    close within 1 hour and 30 minutes, the time to be equally divided.
        Mr. [Porter] Hardy [Jr., of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Hardy: It is proper to move that time be equally divided 
    between two Members?
        The Chairman: No, the motion is not in order.
        Mr. Hardy: Then, I make a point of order against the motion.
        The Chairman: The Chair sustains the point of 
    order.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See also 117 Cong. Rec. 43406, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 30, 1971 
        (not in order, in motion to limit debate, to reserve three 
        minutes of the time to each side); and 96 Cong. Rec. 11837, 
        81st Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 4, 1950.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 78.62 The Committee of the Whole, by unanimous consent, limited 
    debate to 30 minutes on a pending motion to strike and provided 
    that the time should be controlled equally by the managers of the 
    bill.

    On Aug. 4, 1966,(12) while the Committee of the Whole 
was considering H.R. 14765, the Civil Rights Act of 1966, the Committee 
agreed to a unanimous-consent request on the time and control of debate 
on a motion to strike a pending title:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 112 Cong. Rec. 18207, 18208, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Carl] Albert [of Oklahoma]: The unanimous-consent request 
    is that when the Committee resumes consideration of the bill, H.R. 
    14765, after the recess tonight the first order of business shall 
    be after 30 minutes of debate a vote on the Moore amendment to 
    strike out title IV and, in the event that amendment is defeated, 
    the Committee shall then continue the consideration of title IV.
        Mr. [John Bell] Williams [of Mississippi]: Do I understand that 
    the gentleman dropped that portion in which he provided for a 
    division of time equally between the proponents and opponents?
        Mr. Albert: No. That is included. Fifteen minutes shall be 
    under the control of the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Rodino] and 
    15 minutes under the control of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
    McCulloch]. I think it is well understood that they will yield the 
    time to both proponents and opponents of the Moore amendment.
        Mr. Williams: By gentleman's agreement?
        Mr. Albert: Yes.
        Mr. Williams: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation.
        The Chairman: (13) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Oklahoma?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.

Sec. 78.63 By unanimous consent, the Committee of the Whole

[[Page 11141]]

    provided for two hours of debate on a pending amendment (abrogating 
    the five-minute rule) and vested control of such time in the 
    chairman and ranking minority member of the committee that had 
    reported the bill.

    On July 8, 1965,(14) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering for amendment the Civil Rights Act of 1965, H.R. 6400. Mr. 
William M. McCulloch, of Ohio, offered an amendment, and the Committee 
agreed to the following unanimous-consent request for the time of 
debate and control thereof on the amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 111 Cong. Rec. 16036-38, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that all debate on the so-called McCulloch 
    substitute and all amendments thereto be limited to 2 hours, and 
    that such time be equally divided and controlled by myself and the 
    gentleman from Ohio [Mr. McCulloch].

    Parliamentarian's Note: The McCulloch amendment, was made in order 
by House Resolution 440 as a substitute for the committee amendment in 
the nature of a substitute. Where such a unanimous-consent agreement 
for control of time for debate on an amendment has been fixed, the 
proponent is first recognized for debate.

--Allocating Time

Sec. 78.64 Where all time for debate on an amendment and all amendments 
    thereto is limited and, by unanimous consent, placed in control of 
    the proponent of the amendment and the chairman 
    of the committee (in opposition), the Chair first recognizes the 
    proponent of the amendment under the limitation.

    On July 9, 1965,(15) the unfinished business in the 
Committee of the Whole was H.R. 6400, the Voting Rights Act of 1965. 
Chairman Richard Bolling, of Missouri, made the following statement on 
the order of recognition, the Committee having limited, on the prior 
day, time for debate on a pending amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 111 Cong. Rec. 16207, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        When the Committee rose on yesterday, there was pending the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. McCulloch] as a 
    substitute for the committee amendment.
        It was agreed that all time for debate on the so-called 
    McCulloch substitute and all amendments thereto would be limited to 
    2 hours, such time to be equally divided and controlled by the 
    gentleman from New York [Mr. Celler] and the gentleman from Ohio 
    [Mr. McCulloch]. Under the unani

[[Page 11142]]

    mous-consent agreement, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
    Ohio [Mr. McCulloch] in support of his amendment.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The time limitation coupled with the 
unanimous-consent agreement on control of time abrogated the five-
minute rule. Under the agreement, the two Members controlling debate 
could yield for debate or for amendments. Amendments could also be 
offered by Members not yielded time, after the expiration of the time 
limitation, but without debate on such amendments.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. For an example of a unanimous-consent agreement for control of time 
        on an appropriations bill, see Sec. 24.38, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 78.65 Debate on an amendment and all amendments thereto pending in 
    the Committee of the Whole may be limited to a time certain by 
    motion; and the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may divide 
    remaining debate time equally between two Members following such 
    limitation.

    On July 26, 1984,(17) during consideration of the 
Education Amendments of 1984 (H.R. 11) in the Committee of the Whole, 
the Chair divided the remaining time for debate equally between the 
chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor and the proponent of 
the pending amendment. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 130 Cong. Rec. 21249, 21250, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Carl D.] Perkins [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that all debate on the pending amendment, all 
    amendments thereto and all substitutes, close at 2 p.m.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (18) Is there objection to 
    the request of the gentleman from Kentucky?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Abraham Kazen, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Dan R.] Coats [of Indiana]: Reserving the right to object, 
    Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding, and I am not sure, I just 
    want to check, I think a perfecting amendment is going to be 
    offered, and I just want to check to see if that is the case. If 
    that is the case, I would have to object to that unanimous-consent 
    request.
        Mr. Perkins: Then, Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on the 
    Coats amendment, all substitutes and all amendments thereto, be 
    concluded at 2 p.m.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The question is on the motion offered 
    by the gentleman from Kentucky. . . .
        So the motion was agreed to.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair will proceed to divide the 
    time.
        Since there are so many Members seeking recognition, the Chair 
    at this time will divide the time equally 
    between the chairman, Mr. Perkins, 
    and the gentleman from Indiana, Mr.

[[Page 11143]]

    Coats, 10 minutes each, and they will yield time as they see fit.

    Parliamentarian's Note: During the above proceedings, the Chairman 
also ruled that a parliamentary inquiry relating to a pending motion 
occurring after the Chairman has announced the results of a voice vote 
does not constitute such intervening business as to preclude the right 
of a Member to demand a recorded vote on the pending motion. After the 
result of the voice vote was announced in the above instance (that a 
majority favored the motion), a parliamentary inquiry was made: 
(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 130 Cong. Rec. 21249, 21250, 98th Cong. 2d Sess., July 26, 1984.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William F.] Goodling [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    have a parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        I want to make sure the motion was talking only about this 
    portion of this bill.
        Mr. Perkins: . . . This does not include the Goodling 
    amendment, the funding of the school programs.
        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: I want to get a 
    record vote.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: This motion referred to the Coats 
    amendment and all amendments thereto.
        Mr. Walker: That is right, and I want a record vote on the 
    ruling of the Chair.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Those in favor of taking this by 
    recorded vote. . . .
        Mr. [Richard J.] Durbin [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his point of 
    order.
        Mr. Durbin: Is it my understanding there was intervening 
    business between the vote which was taken orally, the parliamentary 
    inquiry made by the gentleman?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The intervening business was a 
    parliamentary inquiry that was related to the motion, and no 
    independent business has been taken up.

        Mr. Durbin: As a further parliamentary inquiry of the Chair, 
    does not 
    this parliamentary inquiry and interruption preclude the gentleman 
    from Pennsylvania's right to ask for a recorded vote?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: No; it is related to the status of 
    the vote, and of the motion.

Sec. 78.66 A motion to limit debate under the five-minute rule on a 
    pending amendment in the Committee of the Whole is not in order if 
    it includes a provision for division of time between two Members, 
    since debate time can be allocated between Members only by 
    unanimous consent; but where debate 
    on an amendment and all amendments thereto has been limited to a 
    time certain, the Chair may exercise his discretion and allocate 
    the remaining time between two Members and may indicate which 
    Member may close the debate.

[[Page 11144]]

    The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on 
Aug. 2, 1984,(20) during consideration of the Department of 
Interior Appropriations Act of 1985 (H.R. 5973):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 130 Cong. Rec. 22180, 22181, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I move that 
    all time on the Conte amendment and all amendments thereto with the 
    exception of the Ottinger amendment end at 3:30, the time to be 
    equally divided between the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
    Conte) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Ratchford).
        The Chairman: (1) The Chair will remind the 
    gentleman that time cannot be allocated between sides or between 
    Members except by unanimous consent. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        But the motion only to limit debate is in order. . . .
        Mr. [Bill] Frenzel [of Minnesota]: If the gentleman's motion 
    passes I will not object to the unanimous-consent request at that 
    time to divide the time.
        The Chairman: . . . The motion offered by the gentleman from 
    Illinois (Mr. Yates) is to end all debate on the Conte amendment 
    and all amendments thereto except the Ottinger amendment at 3:30.
        Mr. Yates: That is correct, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates).
        [The motion was agreed to.]
        Mr. Yates: Mr. Chairman, the time has been limited to 3:30. I 
    ask unanimous consent that the time be expanded to permit 10 
    minutes on each side, with those favoring the Conte amendment to be 
    controlled by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Conte) and 
    those favoring the Ratchford amendment to be controlled by 
    the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Ratchford).
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Illinois.
        Mr. [Marty] Russo [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I object.
        The Chairman: Objection is heard.
        The Chair now intends to allocate 6 minutes to the gentleman 
    from Massachusetts (Mr. Conte) and 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
    Connecticut (Mr. Ratchford).
        The Chair intends that the debate will end with Mr. Ratchford.

Reservation of Time Under Limitation

Sec. 78.67 A motion to limit debate on an amendment in 
    the Committee of the Whole under Rule XXIII clause 6, may not 
    include a reservation of time for any purpose, such reservation 
    depriving the Chair of his power of recognition.

    On May 9, 1973,(2) Mr. Wright Patman, of Texas, in 
control of the bill pending before the Committee of the Whole, moved as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 119 Cong. Rec. 15010, 15011, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        I move that all debate conclude in 20 minutes on this amendment 
    only, and

[[Page 11145]]

    all amendments thereto, and that the last 5 minutes be reserved.

    Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, made a point of order against the motion 
and Chairman Otis G. Pike, of New York, sustained it, ruling that the 
last part of the motion (reserving time) was not in or-
der.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. See also 118 Cong. Rec. 34137, 92d Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 5, 1972 
        (motion to limit debate may not include reservation of time for 
        an individual Member); 118 Cong. Rec. 10771-74, 92d Cong. 2d 
        Sess., Mar. 29, 1972; 111 Cong. Rec. 20263, 89th Cong. 1st 
        Sess., Aug. 12, 1965 (no reservation of time for committee); 
        105 Cong. Rec. 12127, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., June 29, 1959; 103 
        Cong. Rec. 12370, 85th Cong. 1st Sess., July 22, 1957; and 95 
        Cong. Rec. 9949, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., July 21, 1949.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 78.68 Under the five-minute rule, debate may be fixed but control 
    of the time may not be allotted by motion if a point of order is 
    made.

    On May 11, 1949,(4) Chairman Albert A. Gore, of 
Tennessee, stated in response to a parliamentary inquiry that where the 
Committee of the Whole fixes by unanimous consent the time for debate, 
the Chairman ordinarily divides such time equally among Members seeking 
recognition. Mr. Brent Spence, of Kentucky, therefore made the 
following motion which the Chairman ruled out of order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 95 Cong. Rec. 6055, 6056, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Spence: Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on section 1 
    and all amendments thereto conclude at 3:30 and that the time be 
    equally divided among those Members who asked for time and that the 
    last 5 minutes be assigned to the committee.
        Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, the same 
    point of order. The Committee of the Whole cannot allot time that 
    way. That is in the discretion of the House of Representatives and 
    not the committee. It must be by unanimous consent.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.
        Mr. Spence: Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on section 1 
    and all amendments thereto conclude at 3:30.
        The Chairman: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from Kentucky.
        The motion was agreed to.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Control of time under a time limitation may be effected either by 
        motion, where no point of order is made (see Sec. 22.39, 
        supra), or by unanimous consent (see Sec. 22.26, supra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 78.69 The Committee of the Whole may, by unanimous consent, limit 
    further debate on an amendment and reserve part of the time to the 
    reporting committee.

    On June, 9, 1960,(6) Mr. Overton Brooks, of Louisiana, 
asked

[[Page 11146]]

unanimous consent that further debate on the pending amendment (the 
only amendment to be offered to the bill) and on amendments thereto 
close in 10 minutes, with five minutes to be allowed to each side, the 
last five minutes to the chairman of the reporting committee. Mr. 
Leonard G. Wolf, of Iowa, made a point of order and questioned whether 
time could be divided that way. Chairman Edwin E. Willis, of Louisiana, 
stated that time could be so divided by unanimous consent. There was no 
objection to the request.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 106 Cong. Rec. 12250, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
 7. See also 109 Cong. Rec. 8144, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., May 9, 1963.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 78.70 Where a committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    was being read by titles as an original bill for amendment, the 
    Committee of the Whole agreed, by unanimous consent, that: (1) the 
    remainder of the committee amendment be considered as read and open 
    to amendment at any point; (2) all debate on the bill and 
    all amendments thereto conclude in 3 hours plus additional time 
    claimed upon offering of amendments printed in the Record; and (3) 
    designated portions of the 3 hours be allotted to each remaining 
    title of the committee amendment.

    During consideration of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation 
Act of 1974 (8) in the Committee of the Whole on July 23, 
1974,(9) the unanimous-consent agreement stated above was 
proposed as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. H.R. 11500.
 9. 120 Cong. Rec. 24621, 24622, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent as the first that the remainder of the bill, 
    titles II through VIII in their entirety be considered as read, 
    printed in the Record, and open for amendment at any point.
        Second, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on all the 
    bill, including all titles and all amendments, close after 3 hours 
    of debate tomorrow, that time not to include time out for rollcalls 
    or quorum calls.
        Mr. [Craig] Hosmer [of California]: Mr. Chairman, reserving the 
    right to object, would the gentleman also include in that request, 
    excluding time for offering and debate of any posted amendments 
    which have not been offered?
        Under those circumstances, I would not offer more than my 10 
    and I think Mr. Hechler would have to make the same gentleman's 
    agreement for his.
        Mr. Udall: We will accept the word of the gentleman from 
    California that he will abide by that.
        I will ask the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Hechler) if he 
    will also abide by that gentleman's agreement?

[[Page 11147]]

        Mr. [Ken] Hechler of West Virginia: Yes, I certainly will.
        Mr. Hosmer: Will the gentleman's request for unanimous consent 
    be agreed to on printing under clause 6, rule XXIII?
        Mr. Udall: The Parliamentarian tells me we do not need that as 
    part of the unanimous-consent request.
        Mr. Hosmer: Mr. Chairman, further reserving the right to 
    object, now that we have had our gentleman's agreement, 
    nevertheless when the expiration of the 3 hours have occurred and 
    there are one or more amendments of myself or the gentleman from 
    West Virginia (Mr. Hechler) still pending, I would like to ask that 
    notwithstanding, they would be in order.
        Mr. Udall: I think that is clear under the rules; but in order 
    to make it perfectly clear, I add to the request that at the 
    conclusion of 3 hours of debate it shall be in order under clause 6 
    of rule XXIII for any Members having posted amendments to call up 
    their amendments claimed under the 5-minute rule. . . .
        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: The amendments I have referred 
    to are not published in the Record. Would they be included?
        Mr. Udall: No; but as I said earlier, we will protect the 
    gentleman on that.
        The final part of my request is that the 3-hour time referred 
    to be divided as follows:
        Title II not to exceed 60 minutes. . . .
        Title VII not to exceed 30 minutes.
        Title VIII not to exceed 10 minutes. . . .
        Mr. [Teno] Roncalio of Wyoming: Could we have 40 minutes 
    instead of 30 minutes on title VII?
        Mr. Udall: Yes. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I would amend my request by taking 10 minutes off 
    title II and adding 10 minutes to title VII. . . .
        The Chairman: (10) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Arizona?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.

Sec. 78.71 A motion to close debate and reserve time is not in order.

    On June 5, 1975,(11) the following proceedings occurred 
in the Committee of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 121 Cong. Rec. 17187, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that all debate on the committee amendment and 
    all amendments thereto conclude at 5:15 o'clock, and that the last 
    5 minutes be reserved for me.
        The Chairman: (12) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Michigan?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Bob Wilson (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [J. J.] Pickle [of Texas]: I object, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on the 
    committee amendment and all amendments thereto conclude at 5:15 
    o'clock, with the last 5 minutes reserved for me.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state the gentleman cannot reserve 
    time under his motion.

Sec. 78.72 A motion to limit debate under the five-minute

[[Page 11148]]

    rule pursuant to clause 6 of Rule XXIII may not include a 
    reservation of time to designated Members.

    During consideration of the State Department authorization for 
fiscal year 1977 (H.R. 13179) in the Committee of the Whole on June 18, 
1976,(13) the following exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 122 Cong. Rec. 19251, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I move 
    that all debate on the bill and all amendments thereto close at 
    2:30, and that 10 minutes of the 30 minutes may be allotted to the 
    amendment to be offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), 
    5 minutes of that time to be allotted to the gentleman from 
    Illinois (Mr. Crane) and 5 minutes of the time to be allotted in 
    opposition to the amendment.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (14) The Chair will advise 
    the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Morgan) that it is not in 
    order to allocate time within such a motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. John Brademas (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania, therefore, wish to 
    restate his motion?
        Mr. Morgan: Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on the bill 
    and all amendments thereto close at 2:30, with the understanding 
    that 5 minutes be allotted to the gentleman from Illinois on behalf 
    of his amendment.
        The motion was agreed to.

Sec. 78.73 A portion of debate on a pending amendment and all 
    amendments thereto can be reserved only by unanimous consent, and a 
    motion including a reservation of time within a limitation of 
    debate is not in order.

    On Sept. 15, 1976,(15) during consideration of the Clean 
Air Act Amendments of 1976 (H.R. 10498) in the Committee of the Whole, 
the following exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 122 Cong. Rec. 30465, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Paul G.] Rogers [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I move that 
    all debate on the Waxman-Maguire amendment and on the Dingell 
    amendment terminate at 1:25, and that the last 10 minutes be 
    reserved for the chairman.
        The Chairman: (16) The Chair will state to the 
    gentleman that he cannot reserve time under a motion. That can be 
    done only by a unanimous-consent request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. J. Edward Roush (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rogers: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all 
    debate on the Waxman-Maguire amendment and on the Dingell amendment 
    end at 1:25, and that the last 10 minutes be reserved for the 
    chairman of the subcommittee.

Where Time Is Limited by Minutes, Not Clock; Reserving Time

Sec. 78.74 Where time for debate is limited to a specific number of 
    minutes rather than a

[[Page 11149]]

    limitation to a time certain on the clock, the Chair may permit 
    Members to reserve time until an amendment to an amendment has been 
    disposed of so as to speak on the main amendment.

    On Oct. 3, 1975,(17) the proposition described above was 
demonstrated in the Committee of the Whole, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 121 Cong. Rec. 31602-04, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas S.] Foley [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw 
    my request and now I ask unanimous consent that all debate on the 
    Brown amendment and all amendments thereto end in 20 minutes.
        The Chairman: (18) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Washington?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. William L. Hungate (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Peter A.] Peyser [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, reserving 
    the right to object, I would like to ask the chairman of the 
    committee, if this is going to be ending in 20 minutes and we have 
    a vote on the Symms amendment, as I understand it, does that time 
    for the vote go into the 20 minutes?
        Mr. Foley: No. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield. I 
    asked unanimous consent that all debate on the Brown amendment and 
    all amendments thereto end in 20 minutes. . . .
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Washington that all debate will end on the Brown 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute and the Symms amendment and 
    all amendments thereto in 20 minutes?
        There was no objection. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
    Washington (Mr. McCormack).
        Mr. [Mike] McCormack [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve 
    my time in order to speak on the Brown of California amendment 
    after the vote on the Symms amendment. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York 
    (Mr. Peyser).
        Mr. Peyser: Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time until after the 
    vote on the Symms amendment. . . .
        Mr. Foley: Is it correct that approximately 2\1/2\ minutes 
    remain of debate under the limitation previously adopted, and that 
    following that a vote will occur on the Brown amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute?
        The Chairman: The gentleman states the question correctly. The 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Peyser) has 1\1/4\ minutes, and the 
    gentleman from Washington (Mr. McCormack) has 1\1/4\ minutes. Then 
    a vote will occur on the Brown amendment.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Peyser).

    Parliamentarian's Note: Where time is limited by the clock, a 
Member attempting to reserve time may be preempted by votes, quorum 
calls, etc., which come out of the time remaining. Therefore, the 
Chair, to protect Members' right to speak, might refuse to permit a 
reservation of time.

[[Page 11150]]

Setting Time by Clock

Sec. 78.75 A request or motion to close debate at a time certain under 
    the five-minute rule 
    in Committee of the Whole should specify that the debate cease at a 
    certain time, and not that the Committee vote at a certain time, 
    since the Chair cannot control time consumed by quorum calls and 
    votes on other intervening motions.

    On June 29, 1977,(19) the following proceedings occurred 
in the Committee of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 123 Cong. Rec. 21383, 21384, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [George E.] Shipley [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that we vote on this amendment at 1:15 p.m. . . .
        The Chairman: (20) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Illinois?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. John M. Murphy (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Reserving the right to 
    object, Mr. Chairman, I believe the gentleman's request was that we 
    vote on this amendment at 1:15. I do not believe that that request 
    is in order.
        A request to limit all debate on this amendment would be in 
    order, but not that a vote be ordered at a certain time. It is not 
    provided in the rules, Mr. Chairman. . . .
        Mr. Shipley: Mr. Chairman, would it be possible to set it at a 
    time certain, that time to be 1 p.m.? . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair would state to the gentleman from 
    Illinois (Mr. Shipley) that the Chair cannot guarantee a 1 o'clock 
    time certain because of the possibility of a quorum call or other 
    extension of debate. . . .
        Mr. Shipley: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my unanimous-consent 
    request.

        Mr. Chairman, let me renew the request in this way, since we 
    are trying to get all of the Members on the floor before we vote, I 
    would ask unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment end 
    at 1 o'clock, no later than 1 o'clock. . . .
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Illinois?
        Mr. [John H.] Rousselot [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    object.
        The Chairman: Objection is heard.
        Mr. Shipley: Mr. Chairman, I move that 1:15 p.m. be used as a 
    time certain to end the debate on this amendment.
        The motion was agreed to.

Sec. 78.76 A unanimous-consent request or motion to close debate under 
    the five-minute rule in the Committee of the Whole should limit 
    debate time either by the clock or to a number of minutes of 
    debate, and not by setting a time certain for voting, since the 
    Chair cannot control motions or points of order which might 
    intervene at that time.

    During consideration of H.R. 4102 (Universal Telephone Preser

[[Page 11151]]

vation Act of 1983) in the Committee of the Whole on Nov. 10, 
1983,(1) the following exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 129 Cong. Rec. 32172, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Timothy E.] Wirth [of Colorado]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that we vote on the Tauke amendment at 6:30 and 
    that the 30 minutes will be allocated with the first 10 minutes on 
    our side, the next 5 minutes to your side, 10, and then you close 
    with the final 5.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (2) Is the unanimous-
    consent request for debate time only, excluding voting time?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Sam M. Gibbons (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Wirth: We will then vote at 6:30 on the Tauke amendment.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair cannot entertain a request 
    for a vote at a time certain. The Chair will entertain a motion for 
    the debate time to terminate.
        Mr. Wirth: The debate time on the Tauke amendment would 
    terminate at 6:30.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: As the Chair understands it, the 
    gentleman is asking for 30 additional minutes for debate on the 
    amendment and all amendments thereto, with 20 minutes going to the 
    gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Wirth) and 10 minutes going to the 
    gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Broyhill)?
        Mr. Wirth: That is correct, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from Colorado?
        There was no objection.

Chair's Discretion in Limiting Debate

Sec. 78.77 Where a bill was being read for amendment by titles instead 
    of by sections, the Chair declined to entertain 
    a unanimous-consent request to limit debate on just one section 
    within that title where such an agreement would be difficult to 
    enforce.

    On Sept. 15, 1976,(3) during 
consideration of the Clean Air 
Act Amendments of 1976 (H.R. 
10498) in the Committee of the 
Whole, the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 122 Cong. Rec. 30464, 30465, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that all debate on the so-called Dingell-Broyhill 
    amendment and the Waxman-Maguire amendment and all amendments 
    thereto, and on section 203(b) end at 1:20 o'clock p.m. with the 
    last 10 minutes being reserved by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
    Rogers).
        The Chairman: (4) May the Chair suggest to the 
    gentleman from Michigan that because the entire title is open to 
    amendment at any point, he limit his request to the pending 
    amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. J. Edward Roush (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Dingell: My unanimous-consent request is to the two pending 
    amendments and to section 203.

[[Page 11152]]

        The Chairman: Permit the Chair to state to the gentleman from 
    Michigan that the Chair has some difficulty with that portion of 
    the request because he is limiting debate on a section when the 
    entire title is open to amendment. If the gentleman could limit his 
    request to his amendment and the substitute, and amendments 
    thereto, it would make the limitation of time more manageable.
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all 
    debate on the Dingell-Broyhill amendment and the Waxman-Maguire 
    amendment, the two amendments now pending, and all amendments 
    thereto terminate at 20 minutes after 1.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Michigan?
        Mr. [David E.] Satterfield [of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    object.

Sec. 78.78 Where there was pending an amendment and a substitute 
    therefor, the Chair declined to entertain a unanimous-consent 
    request that debate end 10 minutes after another Member ``has had 
    an opportunity to offer'' a further substitute, where the 
    offering of such substitute might be precluded by the adoption of 
    the pending substitute.

    During consideration of the Defense Production Act Amendments of 
1979 (H.R. 3930) in the Committee of the Whole on June 26, 
1979,(5) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 125 Cong. Rec. 16670, 16672, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    amendments as a substitute for the amendments.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments offered by Mr. Michel as a substitute for the 
        amendments offered by Mr. Wright of Texas: On page 5, line 2, 
        strike out the period after ``section'' and insert in lieu 
        thereof ``and at least 2,000,000 barrels per day crude oil 
        equivalent of synthetic fuels . . . .

        Mr. [William S.] Moorhead of Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman, I see 
    only about five or six Members standing. I ask unanimous consent 
    that all debate on the Wright amendment and all amendments thereto 
    close in 15 minutes.
        The Chairman: (6) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Pennsylvania?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James M.] Jeffords [of Vermont]: Reserving the right to 
    object, the gentleman knows I have a substitute which I think ought 
    to be considered . . . and I just cannot agree to 15 minutes unless 
    I am sure I am going to have 5 minutes myself in order to be able 
    to explain the substitute.
        Mr. Moorhead of Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent that all debate on the Wright amendment and all amendments 
    thereto close 10 minutes after the gentleman has had an opportunity 
    to offer his substitute amendment.

[[Page 11153]]

        The Chairman: The Chair would advise the gentleman that in the 
    event the amendment offered as a substitute by the gentleman from 
    Illinois (Mr. Michel) were adopted, no other substitute would be in 
    order and the request would be unworkable.

Reconsideration of Vote To Close Debate

Sec. 78.79 Where the Committee of the Whole has, by motion, agreed to 
    limit debate on a pending amendment, a motion to reconsider its 
    action is not in order since the 
    motion to reconsider does 
    not lie in Committee of the Whole.

    On May 24, 1967,(7) after the Committee of the Whole had 
adopted a motion limiting debate, Chairman Charles M. Price, of 
Illinois, stated that a motion to reconsider that action would not be 
in order in the Committee:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 113 Cong. Rec. 13824, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Roman C.] Pucinski [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Illinois will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Pucinski: Mr. Chairman, is a motion to reconsider the last 
    motion in order?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state to the gentleman from 
    Illinois [Mr. Pucinski] that such motion is not in order in the 
    Committee of the Whole.

Sec. 78.80 The motion to reconsider a limitation on debate is not in 
    order in Committee of the Whole.

    While a unanimous-consent agreement may be subject to a motion to 
reconsider in the House,(8) the motion to reconsider is not 
in order in Committee of the Whole. This principle is illustrated in 
the proceedings of Oct. 5, 1981,(9) relating to H.R. 3112, 
to extend the Voting Rights Act of 1965:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2794.
 9. 127 Cong. Rec. 23154, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Don] Edwards of California: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent that all debate on this amendment close in 15 minutes.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (10) The Chair will 
    inquire of the gentleman from California whether his unanimous-
    consent request includes this amendment and all amendments thereto.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Dennis E. Eckart (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Edwards of California: Just on this amendment, Mr. 
    Chairman.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Just on this amendment.
        Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
    California?
        There was no objection. . . .
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair will first allocate the 
    time

[[Page 11154]]

    among all Members seeking recognition on this amendment.
        The Chair has observed the following Members standing: The 
    gentleman from California (Mr. Edwards), the gentleman from 
    Illinois (Mr. Hyde) . . . and the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. 
    Fenwick).
        Mr. [Henry J.] Hyde [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Hyde: Mr. Chairman, I have three Members who want to speak 
    on this side. . . .
        I was assuming 5 minutes apiece, 15 minutes total. . . .
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair will point out to the 
    gentleman from Illinois that the Chair merely allocated the time 
    among those Members who rose by the time that the unanimous-consent 
    request was granted.
        Mr. Hyde: Mr. Chairman, having voted on the prevailing side, I 
    move to reconsider the vote by which we limited this to 15 minutes. 
    I have three Members who want to talk on this side.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: A motion to reconsider is not in 
    order.
        The Chair would suggest to the gentleman from Illinois that 
    those who merely wish to speak for a short time could allocate the 
    remainder of their time to another Member by unanimous consent.

Vacating or Rescinding a Time Limitation

Sec. 78.81 The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole indicated, in 
    response to a 
    parliamentary inquiry, that whether the House could rescind a time 
    limitation (on the five-minute rule) imposed by the Committee of 
    the Whole was a matter for the Speaker, and not the Chairman, to 
    determine.

    On Dec. 14, 1973,(11) the Committee of the Whole had 
agreed to a motion limiting five-minute debate. In response to a 
parliamentary inquiry, Chairman Richard Bolling, of Missouri, stated 
that the question whether the House could rescind that limitation would 
be a question for the Speaker and not for the Chairman:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 119 Cong. Rec. 41731, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] Buchanan [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Buchanan: Mr. Chairman, should a motion be offered that the 
    committee do now rise, and that motion would be accepted by the 
    Committee, would it be possible then in the House for time to be 
    extended or for the earlier motion limiting time to be rescinded?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state to the gentleman from 
    Alabama that the gentleman is asking the Chairman of the Committee 
    of the Whole to rule on a matter that would come before

[[Page 11155]]

    the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
        Mr. Buchanan: The Chairman cannot answer that according to the 
    rules of the House?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the Chair is not in a 
    position to answer for the Speaker.

    Parliamentarian's Note: A motion in the House to extend debate 
beyond a limitation agreed to in the Committee would not be privileged, 
but the House could rescind a limitation by unanimous consent, by 
special rule, or under suspension of the rules. The Committee could 
only rescind or modify a limitation by unanimous consent, the motion to 
reconsider not being in order in the Committee.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See Sec. 78.79, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 78.82 Where debate on a pending amendment and all amendments 
    thereto had been limited to a time certain, the Committee of the 
    Whole, by unanimous consent, vacated the limitation and then agreed 
    to limit debate on an amendment to the pending amendment.

    On Sept. 30, 1971,(13) the Committee of the Whole agreed 
to a unanimous-consent request propounded by Mr. Carl D. Perkins, of 
Kentucky, to close debate on an amendment and all amendments thereto at 
2:30 p.m. Following a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Perkins stated that he 
had intended the limitation to apply only to his own perfecting 
amendment to the amendment, and not to other perfecting amendments to 
be offered to the pending amendment. He therefore asked unanimous 
consent to vacate the unanimous-consent limitation previously agreed 
to. This request was granted, and he restated his proposal, which was 
agreed to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 117 Cong. Rec. 34289, 34290, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 78.83 Instance where the Committee of the Whole, by unanimous 
    consent, limited debate under the five-minute rule to ``15 minutes 
    on each amendment''; it later, by motion, curtailed all debate to 
    ``40 minutes to the bill and all amendments thereto.''

    On Oct. 14, 1966,(14) the Committee of the Whole agreed 
to a unanimous-consent request by Mr. Wright Patman, of Texas, that 
debate under the five-minute rule be limited not to exceed 15 minutes 
on each amendment which might be offered to the pending bill (the bill 
having been considered as read).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 112 Cong. Rec. 26968, 26976, 26977, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Later in the debate, when it appeared that there were 23 amend

[[Page 11156]]

ments remaining to the bill, the Committee agreed to a motion by Mr. 
Patman to close all debate on the bill and amendments thereto in 40 
minutes.

Sec. 78.84 The Chair advised that only by unanimous consent could the 
    Committee of the Whole rescind an agreement it had previously 
    reached limiting debate on an amendment.

    On Aug. 5, 1966,(15) Chairman Richard Bolling, of 
Missouri, answered a parliamentary inquiry on the power of the 
Committee of the Whole to rescind a limitation:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 112 Cong. Rec. 18416, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John Bell] Williams [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I do 
    have a legitimate parliamentary inquiry if the other was not. Would 
    it be in order to make a unanimous-consent request at this time 
    that the action of the House in voting to limit debate be vacated?
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman that a 
    unanimous consent is in order.
        Mr. Williams: If such a request is in order, I make the 
    request.
        Mr. [Peter W.] Rodino [Jr., of New Jersey]: I object.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from North Carolina has the floor.
        Mr. [William L.] Dickinson [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Dickinson: Mr. Chairman, if I understand correctly, we were 
    granted 2 hours in which to submit amendments. One hour and 45 
    minutes has been used up. We have 15 minutes remaining. Did the 
    Chair just rule that would be inappropriate, and this Committee 
    would be unable to reconsider, the fixing of this time? Was that 
    the ruling of the Chair?
        The Chairman: A motion to reconsider is not in order in the 
    Committee of the Whole.

Sec. 78.85 Where the Committee of the Whole has limited debate on a 
    paragraph of a bill and all amendments thereto, it may on the 
    succeeding day by unanimous consent vacate such agreement.

    On Mar. 11, 1942,(16) Chairman Alfred L. Bulwinkle, of 
North Carolina, advised Mr. J. Buell Snyder, of Pennsylvania, that he 
had on the previous day submitted a unanimous-consent request, which 
was agreed to by the Committee of the Whole, that debate on a paragraph 
and amendments thereto close in 15 minutes. The Chairman stated however 
that the unanimous-consent limitation reached on the prior day could be 
vacated by unanimous consent, and the Committee so agreed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 88 Cong. Rec. 2269, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 78.86 The Chair advised that by unanimous consent the

[[Page 11157]]

    Committee of the Whole could rescind an agreement it had previously 
    reached limiting debate on an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute and all amendments thereto, and could impose other 
    limitations.

    On Dec. 14, 1973,(17) Chairman Richard Bolling, of 
Missouri, stated in response to a parliamentary inquiry that the 
Committee could by unanimous consent rescind a time limitation formerly 
agreed to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 119 Cong. Rec. 41743, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Edward J.] Derwinski [of Illinois]: Then, Mr. Chairman, 
    one further parliamentary inquiry:
        Would it be in order for me at this time to ask unanimous 
    consent that all debate on the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute and all amendments thereto be open until midnight? . . .
        The Chairman: If the Chair understands the gentleman, the 
    gentleman is proposing by unanimous consent that the Committee of 
    the Whole rescind its previous agreement?
        Mr. Derwinski: That is exactly right, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: And the gentleman is proposing that the Committee 
    of the Whole enter into a new agreement which would provide for no 
    further debate at midnight?
        Mr. Derwinski: Well, Mr. Chairman, the real intent is to 
    provide that we vote on amendments after some explanation of their 
    content so we are not voting in the blind. This is not a proper 
    parliamentary statement, but it is a statement of the facts before 
    us.
        The Chairman: The Chair will try to state the unanimous-consent 
    request which I understand the gentleman is seeking to make.
        The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Derwinski) seeks unanimous 
    consent to rescind the agreement heretofore entered into by the 
    Committee of the Whole and to provide that all debate on the 
    Staggers amendment and all amendments thereto close at midnight 
    tonight.
        Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
    Illinois?

Sec. 78.87 The Committee of the Whole having limited time for debate on 
    a pending amendment and all amendments thereto, that limitation can 
    be rescinded only by unanimous consent.

    An illustration of the proposition stated above can be seen 
in the proceedings of the Committee of the Whole during consideration 
of H.R. 6096 (18) on Apr. 23, 1975: (19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Vietnam Humanitarian Evacuation Assistance Act.
19. 121 Cong. Rec. 11507, 11508, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    substitute for the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

[[Page 11158]]

            Amendment offered by Mr. Eckhardt as a substitute for the 
        amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Edgar: 
        strike all after enacting clauses and add:
            Sec. 2. There is authorized to be appropriated to the 
        President for the fiscal year 1975 not to exceed $150,- 000,000 
        to be used, notwithstanding any other provision of law, on such 
        terms and conditions as the President may deem appropriate for 
        humanitarian assistance to an evacuation program from South 
        Vietnam. . . .

        Mr. [William J.] Randall [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order that the understanding was the debate on the 
    substitute and all amendments thereto would end at 4 o'clock and 
    the hour of 4 o'clock has arrived. What is the parliamentary 
    situation?
        The Chairman: The parliamentary situation is, as the Chair 
    understands it, as follows:
        A substitute amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas for 
    the amendment in the nature of a substitute can be read but cannot 
    be debated.
        If there are amendments to the substitute offered by the 
    gentleman from Texas they will be reported by the Clerk but they 
    will not be debated and they will be disposed of as soon as they 
    are reported by the Clerk. . . .
        Mr. [Peter A.] Peyser [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, would it be 
    in order to ask unanimous consent that the proposer of this 
    substitute amendment could have 5 minutes of time, because what we 
    are dealing with obviously is a major change and could he by 
    unanimous consent of the House have 5 minutes time?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that by unanimous consent 
    and by unanimous consent only could that be done.
        Mr. Peyser: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a unanimous-
    consent request that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Eckhardt) have 5 
    minutes in order to explain his amendment, because it will 
    undoubtedly take that much time.
        Mr. [Michael T.] Blouin [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I object.
        (Several other Members objected.)
        The Chairman: Objection is heard.

Extensions of Allotted Time

Sec. 78.88 Where debate on an amendment has been limited to a time 
    certain, and the time equally divided by the Chair among those 
    Members desiring to speak, the Chair declined to entertain a 
    unanimous-consent request to give one of those allotted time a 
    larger share.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See Sec. 79.50, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Procedure Where Language of Limitation is Disputed

Sec. 78.89 Where a Member disagreed with the Chair's interpretation of 
    a motion to limit debate, the Chair indicated that the Member could 
    verify the Chair's interpretation by consulting the notes of the 
    reporters of debates.

[[Page 11159]]

    On June 13, 1947,(1) Mr. George E. MacKinnon, of 
Minnesota, made a point of order against 
the interpretation by Chairman Thomas A. Jenkins, of Ohio, of a request 
for unanimous consent to close debate which had been agreed to. Mr. 
MacKinnon contended that the Chair misread the agreement as limiting 
debate on a section and on amendments thereto, when the agreement 
purportedly applied only to the section and not to amendments thereto. 
The Chair answered parliamentary inquiries on the matter of 
disagreement as to the provisions of a limitation on debate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 93 Cong. Rec. 6972, 6973, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: The gentleman cannot be right in his observation, 
    for the motion was not to limit debate on the bill but only to that 
    section which had been read.
        Mr. MacKinnon: I mean on the section. The motion was only to 
    limit time of debate on the section. The words ``and amendments 
    thereto'' were not included.
        I make that point of order. May we have it checked?
        The Chairman: The Chair will overrule the point of order 
    because the motion was made to close all debate with reference to 
    any amendments to section 202. The question now is on section 203, 
    which the Clerk is reading.
        Mr. MacKinnon: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. MacKinnon: What will be the situation if the Chair is in 
    error in the Chair's recollection according to the record?
        The Chairman: We will have to decide that when we come to it.
        Mr. MacKinnon: I thank the Chairman.
        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Hoffman: May we have a copy of that part of the record?
        The Chairman: The gentleman may secure that from the reporters.
        The Clerk will report the committee amendment.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Chair did in fact interpret the 
limitation correctly.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Id. at p. 6968.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 78.90 When the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole understood 
    that a motion to limit debate under the five-minute rule did not 
    contain a reservation of time to the committee handling the bill, 
    the time was divided without reservation.

    On May 9, 1963,(3) the Committee of the Whole agreed to 
a motion to limit debate and Chair

[[Page 11160]]

man John W. Davis, of Georgia, answered a parliamentary inquiry on the 
terms and effect of the limitation:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 109 Cong. Rec. 8144, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Edwin E.] Willis [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I observed 
    only a few Members standing. I ask unanimous consent that all time 
    on this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 15 minutes, 
    the last 5 minutes to be reserved for the opposition.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Louisiana?
        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I object.
        Mr. Willis: Mr. Chairman, I so move.
        The Chairman: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from Louisiana.
        The motion was agreed to.
        Mr. Willis: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Willis: Mr. Chairman, I ask for a clarification of the 
    motion just voted on. The time was limited to 15 minutes, but was 
    the last 5 minutes reserved to the committee?
        The Chairman: The Chair did not understand that the motion 
    included the reservation of the last 5 minutes to the committee. 
    The Chair therefore rules that the motion agreed to by the 
    committee simply limits the time to 15 minutes without that 
    reservation.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Chair may refuse to entertain a motion 
to limit debate with a reservation of time, that motion not being in 
order; and the Chair could object to, as could any Member, or refuse to 
entertain a unanimous-consent request which includes a reservation of 
time.

Sec. 78.91 The Committee of the Whole having agreed that debate on an 
    amendment be limited to five minutes and the Chair having 
    misinterpreted the agreement as limiting debate on the amendment 
    and all amendments thereto, the Chair later apologized to the 
    Committee and to a Member who was denied the privilege of debate on 
    his amendment to the amendment through the misinterpretation.

    On May 3, 1946, Chairman Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas, made the 
following statement and apology relative to an agreement, previously 
agreed to by the Committee, to close debate:

        The Chair desires to make a statement.
        Earlier today, immediately upon the House resolving itself into 
    the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the 
    consideration of the present bill, H.R. 6065, the chairman of the 
    subcommittee handling the bill propounded a unanimous-consent 
    request which the Chair endeavored to understand. The Chair, in 
    attempting to understand the unani

[[Page 11161]]

    mous-consent request, failed, however, to understand that request 
    as it was transcribed by the official reporter. The Chair has 
    before him the transcript of the record as taken by the official 
    reporter, of the request made by the gentleman from Michigan. The 
    request of the gentleman from Michigan was that all debate on the 
    pending amendment close in 5 minutes. The Chair misunderstood the 
    gentleman so that when the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Vorys] offered 
    an amendment to his amendment, the gentleman from Ohio, instead of 
    being recognized for the 5 minutes to which he was entitled, was 
    barred by the Chair from speaking in support of his amendment to 
    the amendment.
        The Chair wishes to apologize to the Committee and to the 
    gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Vorys] for making a most unintentional 
    misinterpretation of the request of the gentleman from Michigan. 
    The Chair trusts the apology of the Chair may be accepted both by 
    the gentleman from Ohio and the Committee.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 92 Cong. Rec. 4418, 79th Cong. 2d Sess. For the proceedings 
        referred to by the Chair, see id. at pp. 4404-06.
            A limitation may be vacated, extended, or rescinded by 
        unanimous consent (see Sec. Sec. 78.81-78.88, supra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chair's Role in Interpreting or Enforcing Time Limitations

Sec. 78.92 Where the Committee of the Whole has, by unanimous consent, 
    limited five-minute debate on a pending title and the remaining 
    time has been allocated among those Members desiring to speak, the 
    Chair has declined to entertain a unanimous-consent request to 
    close debate prior to calling each name on his list of Members to 
    be recognized under the time limitation.

    On Nov. 3, 1971,(5) the Committee of the Whole had 
agreed upon a time limitation on five-minute debate, and Chairman James 
C. Wright, Jr., of Texas, had prepared a list of those Members desiring 
to speak under the limitation. In response to a parliamentary inquiry, 
he stated that he would not entertain a unanimous-consent request to 
further close debate and preclude Members on the list from speaking:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 117 Cong. Rec. 39091, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John N.] Erlenborn [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state the parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Erlenborn: Mr. Chairman, would it be in order to ask 
    unanimous consent that we pass to the next item if there are no 
    further amendments to this title?
        The Chairman: The Chair would have to advise the gentleman that 
    the committee has already determined that there be a limitation on 
    debate. Those Members who were standing and seek

[[Page 11162]]

    ing recognition at the time are entitled to recognition if they 
    wish to use their time and it is their privilege to do so.

Opening Bill for Amendment, Dispensing With Reading, Limiting Debate

Sec. 78.93 The Committee of the Whole may, by unanimous consent, limit 
    debate on all amendments to a pending bill, but such a request 
    should include the condition that the remainder of the bill be 
    considered as read and open to amendment at any point.

    On May 18, 1972,(6) a unanimous-consent request to limit 
five-minute debate was propounded and then modified in the Committee of 
the Whole, with Chairman Thomas G. Abernethy, of Mississippi, 
presiding:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 118 Cong. Rec. 18052, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John J.] Rooney of New York: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent that all debate on the pending amendments and any further 
    amendments thereto, as well as any other amendments to the bill, 
    close in 15 minutes.
        The Chairman: The Chair advises the gentleman that his request 
    is not in order inasmuch as the remainder of the bill has not yet 
    been read.
        Mr. Rooney of New York: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
    that the remainder of the bill be considered as read, printed in 
    the Record at this point and that all debate on the pending 
    amendments and any further amendments thereto, as well as any 
    further amendments to the bill, shall close in 5 minutes.
        Mr. [Andrew J.] Jacobs [Jr., of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    object.
        Mr. Rooney of New York: Mr. Chairman, I should like to amend my 
    request by extending the time to 10 minutes.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from New York asks unanimous 
    consent that the bill be considered as read, printed in the Record 
    at this point, and that debate on the pending amendments and all 
    amendments to the bill close in 10 minutes.
        Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New 
    York?
        There was no objection.

Sec. 78.94 Debate on a bill and all amendments thereto was, by 
    unanimous consent, limited prior to the conclusion of the reading 
    of the bill.

    On Sept. 12, 1968,(7) the Committee of the Whole agreed 
to a unanimous-consent request propounded by Mr. George H. Mahon, of 
Texas, that all debate on the pending bill and all amendments thereto 
close in 30 minutes, before the entire reading of the bill had been 
concluded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 114 Cong. Rec. 26566, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 78.95 Debate on a bill and all amendments thereto may be

[[Page 11163]]

    limited by unanimous consent prior to the complete reading of the 
    bill.

    On May 18, 1966,(8) Chairman Eugene J. Keogh, of New 
York, stated in response to a parliamentary inquiry that debate on a 
bill, prior to its reading, could be limited by unanimous consent:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 112 Cong. Rec. 10911, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Halleck: The gentleman from Texas asked that the bill be 
    considered as read. I do not know whether that request was acted 
    upon or not.
        The Chairman: Objection was heard on that request.
        Mr. Halleck: Mr. Chairman, a further parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Halleck: Under the rules of the House, would it then be 
    possible to limit debate unless the bill has been considered as 
    read?
        The Chairman: Under a unanimous-consent agreement it would be 
    possible, and the Chair understands that the gentleman from Texas 
    is trying 
    to get an unanimous-consent agreement.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. See also 114 Cong. Rec. 26566, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 12, 1968.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 78.96 By unanimous consent, the Committee of the Whole agreed 
    that, on a general appropriations bill considered as read and open 
    to amendment at any point, debate under the five-minute rule should 
    terminate at a time certain, with 30 minutes of the time remaining 
    for debate to be allowed on a particular amendment and to 
    be equally divided and controlled.

    On Sept. 22, 1983,(10) the following proceedings 
occurred in the Committee of the Whole during consideration of H.R. 
3913 (the Departments of Labor and Health and Human Services 
appropriations for fiscal year 1984):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 129 Cong. Rec. 25407, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William H.] Natcher [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, at this 
    time 
    I would ask unanimous consent that 
    all debate on the bill and all amendments thereto conclude not 
    later than 3:30. . . .
        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, 
    reserving the right to object, the motion does not, however, 
    include the 30 minutes for the abortion debate that I thought the 
    gentleman from Illinois was assured of? . . .
        Mr. Natcher: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Chairman, I would ask that debate conclude not later than 
    3:30 with 30 minutes of the time to be allocated to the amendment 
    pertaining to abortion. . . .

[[Page 11164]]

        Mr. [Les] AuCoin [of Oregon]: Reserving the right to object, 
    Mr. Chairman, I want to be sure I understand what the gentleman 
    just said. My understanding is that in that 30 minutes the time 
    will be divided equally between those who agree with Mr. Hyde and 
    those who agree with the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. AuCoin)? . . .

        Mr. Natcher: . . . The gentleman (Mr. AuCoin) is correct. . . .
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (11) Is there objection to 
    the request of the gentleman from Kentucky?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Abraham Kazen, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.

Limiting Debate on Amendment in Nature of Substitute

Sec. 78.97 Where there was pending an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute for a bill, the Chair indicated in response to a 
    parliamentary inquiry that motions to limit debate on each 
    amendment to said amendment could only be made after the amendment 
    was offered and could not include an allocation of time.

    On Dec. 14, 1973,(12) there was pending in the Committee 
of the Whole an amendment in the nature of a substitute for a bill. 
Chairman Richard Bolling, of Missouri, stated in response to a 
parliamentary inquiry that only by unanimous consent could time be 
limited and allocated on each amendment to be offered to the amendment 
in the nature of a substitute. He then answered a further inquiry on a 
motion to limit debate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 119 Cong. Rec. 41712, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Lawrence] Williams [Jr., of New Jersey]: Would a motion to 
    limit debate on each amendment to 10 minutes be in order?
        The Chairman: That would be in order.
        Mr. Williams: Then, in that case, I would like to say to my 
    esteemed colleague----
        The Chairman: On individual amendments. A motion to limit 
    debate on individual amendments to 10 minutes with no allocation of 
    the 10 minutes would be in order.
        Mr. Williams: But it has to be made on each individual 
    amendment?
        The Chairman: It has to be offered to each individual amendment 
    after each amendment is offered.

Sec. 78.98 Where there was pending an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute for a bill, the Chair indicated in response to a 
    parliamentary inquiry that a motion to close all debate on the said 
    amendment and all amendments thereto would be in order.

    On Dec. 14, 1973,(13) there was pending an amendment in 
the 


[[Page 11165]]

nature of a substitute for a bill 
in the Committee of the Whole. Chairman Richard Bolling, of Missouri, 
stated in response to parliamentary inquiries that: (1) debate on 
amendments to the substitute could be limited and allocated only by 
unanimous consent; and (2) that motions to limit debate to a certain 
amount of time on each amendment to be offered could be made only after 
each amendment was offered and could not include an allocation of time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 119 Cong. Rec. 41712, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Chair answered a further inquiry:

        Mr. [Thomas P.] O'Neill [Jr., of Massachusetts]: A 
    parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
        A motion would be in order to end all debate on all amendments 
    pending at 7 o'clock?
        The Chairman: Such a motion to end all debate on the Staggers 
    amendment and all amendments thereto at an hour certain would be in 
    order.
        Mr. O'Neill: I thank the Chairman.

    After further discussion, the Chair answered an inquiry on the same 
subject:

        Mr. [Samuel L.] Devine [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry?
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Devine: Mr. Chairman, my parliamentary inquiry is this: Is 
    a motion now in order to say that the House will vote on the bill 
    and all amendments thereto by a time certain?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that a motion to limit 
    debate on the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by 
    the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Staggers) and all amendments 
    thereto, to a time certain, would be in order.
        Mr. Devine: Mr. Chairman, I therefore will make that motion.
        Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on the amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from West Virginia 
    (Mr. Staggers) and all amendments thereto, close at 5:30 p.m. 
    today.

Variations on Unanimous Consent To Limit Debate

Sec. 78.99 By unanimous consent, the Committee of the Whole agreed at 
    the beginning of general debate to limit and divide control of time 
    for 
    debate on any amendments 
    to be offered by designated Members to certain paragraphs (or to 
    amendments thereto).

    The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on 
July 23, 1981,(14) during consideration of the energy and 
water development appropriations for fiscal 1982 (H.R. 4144):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 127 Cong. Rec. 16983, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Tom] Bevill [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent that the debate on the amendments by

[[Page 11166]]

    the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Pritchard) and the gentleman 
    from Pennsylvania (Mr. Edgar) in title I to the paragraph entitled 
    ``Construction, General'' on page 2, be limited to 2 hours, one-
    half of the time to be controlled equally by the gentleman from 
    Washington and one-half by myself.
        The Chairman: (15) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Alabama?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Anthony C. Beilenson (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        Mr. Bevill: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
    debate on the amendments by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
    Coughlin) in title III to the paragraph entitled ``Energy Supply, 
    Research and Development Activities'' on page 16, be limited to 2 
    hours, one-half of the time to be controlled equally by the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania and one-half by myself.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Alabama?
        There was no objection.

Curtailing Previously Limited Time

Sec. 78.100 Where the Committee of the Whole has limited debate on a 
    pending amendment and all amendments thereto, a further limitation 
    may be imposed only by unanimous consent and not by motion.

    On Oct. 8, 1974,(16) during consideration of House 
Resolution 988 (to reform the structure, jurisdiction, and procedures 
of House committees), Richard Bolling, of Missouri, was recognized and 
made the following statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 120 Cong. Rec. 34459, 34460, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bolling: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
    number of words.

        Mr. Chairman, I have been talked to and have talked to a great 
    number of Members on both sides of the aisle. There is a 
    substantial amount of time left under the agreement voted 
    yesterday. I believe the time is in the order of 2 hours and 15 
    minutes. . . .
        Most of the Members with whom I have discussed this matter 
    would like to cut back that amount of time.
        Now, there is no attempt in any request that I make to limit 
    the right of Members with noticed amendments to offer their noticed 
    amendments. . . . I propose to ask by unanimous consent that the 
    debate on amendments, not including those noticed under the rule, 
    be limited to 30 minutes on the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute offered by the gentlewoman from Washington and all 
    amendments thereto.
        The Chairman: (17) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Missouri? . . . 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: Objection is heard. . . .
        Mr. Bolling: Mr. Chairman, would it be proper to make my 
    unanimous-consent request as a motion?
        The Chairman: The Chair would like to inform the gentleman that 
    such a motion would not be in order at this time.

[[Page 11167]]

    Parliamentarian's Note: In this instance, a motion to further limit 
debate on each amendment as it was offered to the pending amendment in 
the nature of a substitute would have been in order, but it would not 
be in order by motion to change the overall limitation imposed by the 
Committee on the amendment and all amendments thereto.

Motion To Require a Certain Amount of Debate

Sec. 78.101 A motion to require a certain amount of debate on an 
    amendment under the five-minute rule is not in order in the 
    Committee of the Whole.

    On June 18, 1959,(18) Chairman Wilbur D. Mills, of 
Arkansas, ruled as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 105 Cong. Rec. 11302, 11303, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Barratt] O'Hara of Illinois: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. O'Hara of Illinois: On page 10, 
        strike out all of lines 14, 15, and 16, and renumber the 
        paragraphs. . . .

        Mr. O'Hara of Illinois: . . . I earnestly urge the adoption of 
    my amendment.
        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Illinois [Mr. O'Hara].
        Mr. O'Hara of Illinois: Mr. Chairman, I think this matter is 
    very important and certainly I believe there should be more time 
    given to the discussion than just taking a vote now.
        The Chairman: The Chair did not observe anyone standing.
        Mr. O'Hara of Illinois: Mr. Chairman, I move that one-half hour 
    be given to discussing my amendment.
        The Chairman: The gentleman's motion is not in order. . . .
        The time of the gentleman from Iowa has expired.
        The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Illinois [Mr. O'Hara].
        The amendment was agreed to.