[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§ 79. Effect of Limitation; Distribution of Remaining Time]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 11167-11281]
 
                               CHAPTER 29
 
                        Consideration and Debate
 
          I. DURATION OF DEBATE IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
 
Sec. 79. -- Effect of Limitation; Distribution of Remaining Time

    Where a limitation on debate under the five-minute rule is agreed 
to, the Chair usually notes the names of those Members who indicate 
their desire to speak by standing, and equally divides the time among 
those Members.(19) Such distribution is, however, in the 
discretion of the Chair, and he may recognize a Member for a full five 
minutes.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See Sec. 22, supra (recognition under a limitation on five-minute 
        debate).
20. See Sec. 79.46, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee may provide by unanimous consent that time on

[[Page 11168]]

amendments be limited and controlled, and that the Members in charge 
control and distribute the time under the limitation.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See Sec. Sec. 79.83, 79.87, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If debate is closed instantly, no further debate is in order for 
any purpose (including the preferential motion that the enacting clause 
be stricken if the limitation is on the entire bill) and further 
amendments may be offered but not debated (2) unless they 
have been printed in the Congressional Record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See Sec. Sec. 79.1, 79.23, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If debate is limited to a time certain (e.g., 5 p.m.), time runs 
for all purposes, including the taking of votes, reading amendments, 
quorum calls, and debating the preferential motion to strike the 
enacting clause.(3) If the Committee rises before the 
expiration of such a limitation, and does not 
resume consideration before the time certain arrives, no further time 
for debate remains.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. See Sec. Sec. 79.2 et seq., infra.
 4. See Sec. 79.128, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If debate on an amendment or portion of a bill is limited to a 
fixed period for debate (e.g., 20 minutes), time runs only for debate 
and not for votes, quorum calls, reading amendments, or offering and 
debating the preferential motion to strike the enacting 
clause.(5) But if time is limited to a fixed period on the 
entire bill and all amendments thereto, the time for the preferential 
motion does consume time under the limitation.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See Sec. Sec. 79.10 et seq., infra.
 6. See Sec. 79.17, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Whether the expiration of a limitation precludes debate on an 
amendment yet to be offered depends on whether the amendment comes 
within the scope of the limitation, which may apply to an amendment, a 
section, a paragraph, a title, or the entire bill, and also to 
amendments to each of those.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. See Sec. Sec. 79.30, 79.35, 79.38-79.40, 79.43, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The expiration of a limitation does not apply to amendments which 
have been printed, pursuant to Rule XXIII clause 6, in the 
Congressional Record at least one day prior to their 
consideration.(8) Amendments which are covered by the 
limitation may be offered after the expiration thereof, but may not be 
debated.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See Sec. 79.104, infra.
 9. See Sec. Sec. 79.95-79.98, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            Cross References
Opening and closing debate generally, see Sec. 7, supra.
Recognition for offering and debating amendments, see Sec. 19, supra.
Recognition where five-minute debate has been limited, see Sec. 22, 
    supra.

[[Page 11169]]

Reserving time under limitation, see Sec. 78, supra.
Yielding time under limitation, see Sec. 31, 
    supra.                          -------------------

Debate Closed Instantly

Sec. 79.1 Where debate on a pending amendment has been closed instantly 
    by motion, the Chair puts the question on the amendment and does 
    not recognize Members who seek to debate the amendment further.

    On Nov. 25, 1970,(10) Mr. John C. Kluczynski, of 
Illinois, the manager of the pending bill in the Committee of the 
Whole, moved that all debate on the pending amendment close instantly. 
The Committee agreed to the motion by division vote. Mr. Andrew Jacobs, 
Jr., of Indiana, and Mr. Jonathan B. Bingham, of New York, then sought 
recognition to debate the amendment. Chairman Chet Holifield, of 
California, ruled that no further debate was in order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 116 Cong. Rec. 38990, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Jacobs: What about those of us who were on our feet when 
    debate was choked off? Will we be recognized?
        The Chairman: There was no count made of Members standing for 
    time, and the motion of the gentleman from Illinois was to close 
    debate, and that motion was agreed to.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. The manager of a bill has priority of recognition to move to close 
        debate instantly on an amendment, even if other Members seek to 
        debate it further or to offer amendments thereto; see 
        Sec. 21.30, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Running of Time Under Limitation to Time Certain

Sec. 79.2 Where the Committee of the Whole has agreed to close debate 
    on an amendment and all amendments thereto at a time certain, the 
    Chair attempts to divide the time equally between Members desiring 
    recognition; but where part of the fixed time is consumed by votes, 
    it may not be possible for the Chair to reach each Member on the 
    list before the time expires.

    On Aug. 7, 1964,(12) the Committee of the Whole agreed 
to a motion offered by Mr. Phillip M. Landrum, of Georgia, that debate 
under the five-minute rule on an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute and amendments thereto close at 6:30 p.m. Before the time 
expired, various teller votes intervened and prevented all the Members 
who were noted by the Chair and who desired recognition under the 
limitation from being heard before the time expired. Chairman Albert 
Rains, of Ala

[[Page 11170]]

bama, answered an inquiry on that subject as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 110 Cong. Rec. 18583, 18608, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: All time has expired for debate on the 
    amendments.
        Mr. [Charles E.] Goodell [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry. I was standing on my feet when the original 
    time limitation was made. There are others here who were standing 
    on their feet. Everybody had 2 minutes. Do I understand now, since 
    time has elapsed, that we are prevented from even taking the 2 
    minutes?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the Committee voted to 
    close all debate at 6:30 and that most of the time was taken up by 
    the ordering of teller votes. There were many Members who did not 
    get to be recognized who were standing on their feet.

    On Oct. 7, 1965,(13) the Committee of the Whole agreed 
to a motion that debate on a title of a bill and amendments thereto 
close at 8:20 p.m. Mr. William C. Cramer, of Florida, offered an 
amendment and debated it, and a division vote and teller vote consumed 
the time. Chairman Phillip M. Landrum, of Georgia, stated in response 
to a parliamentary inquiry that Members who had indicated their desire 
to speak when the limitation was agreed to could not be recognized for 
further debate, the time for votes having consumed the time under the 
limitation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 111 Cong. Rec. 26305, 26306, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 79.3 Time consumed by teller votes comes out of a limitation of 
    time for debate on a pending amendment and all amendments thereto 
    where that debate has been limited to a time certain.

    On Nov. 30, 1971,(14) the Committee of the Whole agreed 
to a motion by Mr. Wayne L. Hays, of Ohio, that all debate on an 
amendment and amendments thereto end at 7 o'clock p.m. Chairman Richard 
Bolling, of Missouri, answered a parliamentary inquiry on the effect of 
teller votes on such a time limitation:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 117 Cong. Rec. 43406, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: If there is a teller vote on the Bingham 
    amendment, or any subsequent amendment, would those teller votes 
    come out of the time limitation at 7 o'clock?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state in response to the 
    parliamentary inquiry of the gentleman from Ohio that the time 
    limitation has been fixed at 7 o'clock and all time used comes out 
    of that time limitation.

Sec. 79.4 Where time for debate 
    is limited to a certain hour rather than a number of 
    minutes of debate time, the 
    time taken by teller votes is counted as time out of the time 
    allowed for debate.

[[Page 11171]]

    On Feb. 22, 1950,(15) the Committee of the Whole agreed 
to the following motion to close debate offered by Mr. John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 96 Cong. Rec. 2240-46, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent that all debate on the McConnell amendment and all 
    amendments thereto close at 2:30 a.m.

    Chairman Francis E. Walter, 
of Pennsylvania, then answered 
a parliamentary inquiry on the counting of time under the limitation:

        Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Case of South Dakota: The limitation on time fixed the time 
    at a precise hour rather than so many minutes. The effect of teller 
    votes, then, is simply to take time out of the time allowed for 
    debate?
        The Chairman: Of course, it comes out of the time.

Sec. 79.5 After time for debate has been fixed to a certain hour by 
    motion, time for parliamentary inquiries, rereading of amendments, 
    and the like, is taken from the time remaining, thus cutting the 
    time for debate apportioned to Members who have not yet spoken.

    On Jan. 23, 1962,(16) the Committee of the Whole had 
agreed to a motion that debate under the five-minute rule close at 5:30 
p.m. on an amendment and amendments thereto. Mr. Charles McC. Mathias, 
Jr., of Maryland, offered an amendment and was recognized. Mr. Hale 
Boggs, of Louisiana, then made a unanimous-consent request and Chairman 
Charles M. Price, of Illinois, answered a parliamentary inquiry on the 
consumption of time under the limitation:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 108 Cong. Rec. 769, 773, 774, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Boggs: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
    amendment may be reread by the Clerk.
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, reserving the right 
    to object is this coming out of the gentleman's time?
        The Chairman: It is coming out of the time allotted for general 
    debate which closes at 5:30 p.m. There will be a loss of time to 
    succeeding Members.
        Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
    Louisiana?
        Mr. Gross: Yes; I object.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Maryland is recognized.

Sec. 79.6 In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Chair indicated 
    that a limitation of time for debate on a bill and all amendments 
    thereto at a time certain

[[Page 11172]]

    would preclude any debate thereafter except on amendments printed 
    in the Record, while time consumed by votes and quorum calls is not 
    counted where the limitation is on the number of minutes of debate 
    and not by the clock.

    During consideration of H.R. 6096, the Vietnam Humanitarian and 
Evacuation Assistance Act, in the Committee of the Whole on Apr. 23, 
1975,(17) the proceedings relative to limiting debate were 
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 121 Cong. Rec. 11534, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: . . . It is my 
    intention at this time to seek a time limit on the debate if I can 
    obtain the permission of the House.
        Mr. Chairman, I move that the debate on the bill and all 
    amendments thereto be concluded at 11:30.
        Mr. [Paul S.] Sarbanes [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, will the 
    gentleman yield for a question?
        The Chairman: (18) This motion is not a debatable 
    question. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Otis G. Pike (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Eckhardt: Mr. Chairman, do I understand correctly that when 
    such a motion is passed setting a time certain for conclusion of 
    the debate, that regardless of the situation which may exist in the 
    House debate is absolutely cut off and amendments must proceed 
    without presentation of any argument, whereas if a time is provided 
    as for instance an hour and a half, then when the Chair establishes 
    time for each Member, that time is not cut off at any specific 
    hour?
        The Chairman: The gentleman has stated the case properly, with 
    the exception that even under the pending motion those amendments 
    which have previously been printed in the Record would get the time 
    allotted to them under the basic House rules.

Sec. 79.7 Where all debate on a bill and all amendments thereto has 
    been limited to a time certain, time consumed by votes comes out of 
    the time remaining for debate.

    On Dec. 17, 1975,(19) an example of the principle stated 
above was demonstrated in the Committee of the Whole during 
consideration of the Regional Rail Reorganization Act amendments (H.R. 
10979). The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 121 Cong. Rec. 41386, 41389, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Fred B.] Rooney [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I move 
    that all debate on the bill and all amendments thereto conclude at 
    5 o'clock.
        The Chairman: (20) The question is on the motion 
    offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rooney).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).

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

[[Page 11173]]

        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Skubitz) there were--ayes 61, noes 37.
        Mr. [William A.] Steiger of Wisconsin: Mr. Chairman, I demand a 
    recorded vote.
        A recorded vote was ordered.
        The vote was taken by electronic device and there were--ayes 
    258, noes 161, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 14, as follows: . 
    . .
        Mr. [Peter A.] Peyser [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Peyser: Mr. Chairman, does the time of the vote go against 
    the 5 o'clock deadline?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that it does, yes.
        Mr. Peyser: In other words, Mr. Chairman, if we have another 
    vote we would then cut 15 more minutes out of that time?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct, yes.

Sec. 79.8 A limitation of debate to a time certain terminates all 
    debate at that time notwithstanding reallocations of allotted time 
    which remain unused when debate expires.

    During consideration of the Vocational Educational Act amendments 
(H.R. 12835) in the Committee of the Whole on May 11, 
1976,(1) a motion to limit debate was offered as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 122 Cong. Rec. 13416, 13427, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Carl D.] Perkins [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I move that 
    all debate on title III and all amendments thereto close at 4:50 
    p.m.
        The motion was agreed to. . . .
        The Chairman: (2) All time has expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. B. F. Sisk (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Arizona (Mr. Conlan).
        Mr. [John B.] Conlan [of Arizona]: Mr. Chairman, I have time. 
    Five minutes were allowed.
        The Chairman: The time was set certain and, unfortunately, the 
    time has expired.

--Argument on Point of Order

Sec. 79.9 Where debate under the five-minute rule has been limited to a 
    time certain, debate consumed for argument on a point of order 
    comes out of all the time under the limitation (and not only out of 
    the time of the Member whose amendment was the subject of the point 
    of order), and reduces the time allotted to each Member who had 
    indicated a desire to speak under the limitation.

    On Apr. 26, 1978,(3) during consideration of H.R. 8494, 
the Pub-lic Disclosure of Lobbying Act of

[[Page 11174]]

1978, a limitation on debate was agreed to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 124 Cong. Rec. 11641-43, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [George E.] Danielson [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I move 
    that all debate on this bill and all amendments thereto be 
    terminated at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m. tonight.
        [The motion was agreed to.]
        Mr. Gary A. Myers [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Gary A. Myers: Page 39, insert the 
        following after line 7:
            (8) If any lobbying communication was made on the floor of 
        the House of Representatives or adjoining rooms thereof, or on 
        the floor of the Senate or adjoining rooms thereof, a statement 
        that such lobbying communication was made. . . .

        Mr. Danielson: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that 
    this amendment is not germane to the bill. The bill calls for 
    disclosure of lobbying activities under the terms of expenditure 
    and the like, and related lobbying activities as to influencing the 
    conduct and disposition of legislation. This has to do with 
    activities within the Capitol Building and is not necessarily 
    within the purview of the bill. . . .
        Mr. Gary A. Myers: Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that 
    the amendment is more narrowly drafted than the amendment which I 
    offered last year. It only requires an item of disclosure by those 
    individuals who otherwise would have to be reporting. . . . In last 
    year's amendment there was a point of order raised about the 
    invasion of the House rules. It would seem to me that article I, 
    section 5 of the Constitution clearly states that:

             . . . each House may determine the rules of its 
        proceedings.

        Numerous precedents have held that the power to make rules is 
    not impaired by rules of previous Congresses or by laws passed by 
    previous Congresses. So that this amendment in no way adds to or 
    impairs the rules of the House. . . .
        The Chairman: (4) The Chair will notify the members 
    of the committee that time taken from the allotted time for the 
    discussion of the point of order was not allotted to the gentleman 
    from Pennsylvania but will come out of the general time and will 
    reduce everyone's time to 5 minutes each.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Lloyd Meeds (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Are there further amendments?

Running of Time Under Fixed-period Limitation

Sec. 79.10 Where the Committee of the Whole limits debate under the 
    five-minute rule to a fixed period of debate time, time consumed by 
    voting is not counted against this limitation.

    On Feb. 10, 1964,(5) Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, 
propounded a unanimous-consent request that all debate on the pending 
title and amendments thereto conclude in two hours. Chairman

[[Page 11175]]

Eugene J. Keogh, of New York, answered a parliamentary inquiry on the 
effect of interruptions on such a limitation:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 110 Cong. Rec. 2705, 2706, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: If the limit is 2 hours, 
    would that 2 hours include teller votes or division votes, or 
    matters of that sort, or would it be actually 2 hours of debate.
        The Chairman: If the unanimous-consent agreement is that there 
    be 2 hours' debate, division votes would not be taken out of the 2 
    hours.

Sec. 79.11 Where debate has been limited ``to 30 minutes,'' time is 
    counted only during debate, not during quorum calls.

    On Aug. 4, 1966,(6) Majority Leader Carl Albert, of 
Oklahoma, propounded a unanimous-consent request that debate on a 
pending motion to strike a title of a bill be limited to 30 minutes. 
Chairman Richard Bolling, of Missouri, answered a parliamentary inquiry 
on the effect of a quorum call on time under the limitation:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 112 Cong. Rec. 18207, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, is my 
    understanding correct that the unanimous-consent request propounded 
    by the distinguished majority leader would preclude a quorum call 
    prior to the first order of business and the 30 minutes before the 
    vote?
        The Chairman: The Chair will reply to the gentleman that if 
    there is no quorum present any Member at any time can make a point 
    of order. In other words, it will not preclude a quorum call.
        Mr. Hall: A further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman. Would 
    that time come out of the 30 minutes allotted for debate?
        The Chairman: It would not.

Sec. 79.12 Time consumed by a quorum call does not come out of a 
    limitation of time for debate on a pending amendment and all 
    amendments thereto where that limitation specifies minutes of 
    debate rather than a time certain by the clock.

    On Nov. 9, 1971,(7) Chairman William L. Hungate, of 
Missouri, answered a parliamentary inquiry on whether time for a quorum 
call would come out of the time for debate under a limitation:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 117 Cong. Rec. 40060, 40061, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William R.] Poage [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I move that 
    all debate on the Dow amendment in the nature of a substitute, the 
    Kyl substitute amendment, and all amendments thereto close in 20 
    minutes.
        The Chairman: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poage).
        The motion was agreed to.
        Mr. [John G.] Dow [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order that a quorum is not present.

[[Page 11176]]

        The Chairman: The Chair will count.
        Mr. Dow: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Dow: Mr. Chairman, if there is a rollcall will this come 
    out of the time limitation?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state in response to the inquiry 
    of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Dow) that the motion that was 
    agreed to, that was offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poage) 
    was for 20 minutes of debate, and the Chair will advise the 
    gentleman from New York that there will be 20 minutes allotted for 
    debate.

Sec. 79.13 In answer to a parliamentary inquiry, the Chair indicated 
    that when debate is limited to ``60 minutes,'' the time consumed 
    for purposes other than debate is not counted as part of the time.

    On May 26, 1966,(8) Mr. Adam C. Powell, of New York, 
made a unanimous-consent request that debate on a pending amendment be 
limited to ``60 minutes.'' Mr. Charles A. Halleck, of Indiana, 
propounded a parliamentary inquiry whether that limitation would be a 
specific number of minutes or to a given time on the clock. Chairman 
Charles M. Price, of Illinois, responded that the language of the 
limitation meant one hour of debate (to exclude time for purposes other 
than debate).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 112 Cong. Rec. 11608, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When a quorum call was had during the limitation, the time consumed 
thereby was not taken out of the remaining time for 
debate.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Id. at p. 11618.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 79.14 Where time for debate is limited without reference to a time 
    certain, the time consumed by the reading of amendments is not 
    taken from that remaining for debate.

    On Oct. 3, 1969,(10) the Committee of the Whole agreed 
to a motion by Mr. L. Mendel Rivers, of South Carolina, that all debate 
on a title and amendments thereto close in 15 minutes. Under the 
limitation, Mr. John B. Anderson, of Illinois, offered a perfecting 
amendment to the title, and it was read by the Clerk. During the 
reading, Mr. Harold R. Collier, of Illinois, inquired whether the 
reading of the amendment was charged against the time under the 
limitation. Chairman Daniel D. Rostenkowski, of Illinois, responded 
that the time for the

[[Page 11177]]

reading would not be charged against the limited time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 115 Cong. Rec. 28459, 28460, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 79.15 Where the Committee of the Whole has agreed to a limitation 
    for debate on a pending amendment and the limitation specified 
    minutes of debate rather than a time certain, time consumed by 
    votes does not come out of the time under the limitation.

    On Sept. 28, 1976,(11) during consideration of H.R. 15 
(the Public Disclosure of Lobbying Act of 1976), the Chair responded to 
parliamentary inquiries regarding a limitation on debate time, as 
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 122 Cong. Rec. 33081, 33082, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Walter] Flowers [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, I move that 
    all debate on the amendment in the nature of a substitute and all 
    amendments thereto be limited to 30 minutes.
        The Chairman: (12) The question is on the motion 
    offered by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Flowers). . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        So the motion was agreed to.
        The Chairman: Members standing at the time the motion was 
    agreed to will each be recognized for a fraction over 2 minutes.
        Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Ashbrook: Mr. Chairman, the way the motion was stated, 
    would the time for votes be taken out of the 30 minutes, or will 
    there be 30 minutes of debate?

        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the time consumed by 
    votes would be excluded from the time allotted.
        Mr. Ashbrook: So, Mr. Chairman, the time for votes, if we would 
    have votes, would not come out of the 30 minutes?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.

Sec. 79.16 When debate under the five-minute rule has been limited to a 
    certain amount of time for debate, time is counted only during 
    debate and not during quorum calls and recorded votes, unless 
    otherwise stipulated in the request to limit debate.

    During consideration of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (H.R. 
1614) in the Committee of the Whole on Feb. 1, 1978,(13) the 
following exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 124 Cong. Rec. 1827, 1828, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John M.] Murphy of New York: Mr. Chairman, I will revise 
    the unanimous-consent request.
        Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that when we convene 
    tomorrow, all debate on H.R. 1614 and all amendments and 
    substitutes thereto end after 3 hours of debate.

[[Page 11178]]

        The Chairman: (14) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from New York?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William A.] Steiger [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, 
    reserving the right to object, may I inquire of the Chairman of the 
    committee: Does that include quorum calls and rollcall votes?
        Mr. Murphy of New York: Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will 
    yield, we did not set 3 o'clock tomorrow as the time to terminate 
    the debate. We said we would have 3 hours of debate. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair would like to make an inquiry of the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Murphy).
        Assuming that the unanimous-consent request for 3 hours is 
    approved, ordinarily the time for quorum calls and rollcall votes 
    would not be deducted from the 3 hours of debate unless that is the 
    intention of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Murphy). The 
    unanimous-consent request for 3 hours would cover debate time only, 
    and it would not take into consideration the time consumed for 
    quorum calls and rollcall votes.
        That would be the ordinary procedure, unless the gentleman from 
    New York (Mr. Murphy) would like to stipulate that those be 
    included in the 3 hours.
        Mr. Murphy of New York: Mr. Chairman, I would like to stipulate 
    in the unanimous-consent request that any time allocated to quorum 
    calls or to rollcalls not be included in the 3 hours.

Time on Enacting Clause

Sec. 79.17 After debate on a bill and all amendments thereto had been 
    limited to 10 minutes and five had been consumed, a preferential 
    motion to strike the enacting clause consumed the remaining time 
    and prevented recognition of a member of the committee handling the 
    bill to speak against the pending amendment or against the motion 
    to strike the enacting clause.

    On Mar. 28, 1958,(15) the Committee of the Whole agreed 
to a motion, offered by Mr. George P. Miller, of California, the 
manager of the pending bill, that all debate on the bill and amendments 
thereto close in 10 minutes. After five minutes of debate following the 
limitation agreement, Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, offered the 
motion that the Committee of the Whole rise and report the bill to the 
House with the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken. 
Chairman William H. Natcher, of Kentucky, stated in response to 
parliamentary inquiries that the time for the motion would come out of 
remaining time on the bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 104 Cong. Rec. 5701, 5702, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hoffman: If my motion is defeated can there be further 
    debate on the pending amendment, since time for debate has been 
    limited?

[[Page 11179]]

        The Chairman: The Chair informs the gentleman that all debate 
    will be concluded in 5 minutes.
        Mr. [Albert P.] Morano [of Connecticut]: Mr. Chairman, will the 
    gentleman yield for a parliamentary inquiry?
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman yield for a parliamentary 
    inquiry? It will come out of his time.
        Mr. Hoffman: Will the Chair inform me how much time I have?
        The Chairman: The gentleman has 4 minutes remaining.
        Mr. Hoffman: I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
    Connecticut.
        Mr. Morano: As I understand, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from 
    Michigan moves to strike out the enacting clause.
        The Chairman: That is the pending motion.
        Mr. Morano: Do the rules of the House not provide that there 
    may be 5 minutes debate in opposition to strike the enacting 
    clause?
        The Chairman: That would be the case ordinarily, but in this 
    particular instance the Committee adopted a motion closing all 
    debate on the bill in 10 minutes.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoffman].

Sec. 79.18 The 10 minutes of debate on a motion to strike the enacting 
    clause in the Committee of the Whole is not taken from the time 
    fixed for debate on an amendment previously offered, where the time 
    was not fixed by the clock.

    On Apr. 28, 1953,(16) the Committee of the Whole agreed 
to limit debate on a pending amendment, the time thereto to expire 
after a fixed number of minutes (not to expire at a specified time on 
the clock). Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, offered the preferential 
motion to strike the enacting clause and debated it, as did a Member in 
opposition to the motion. After the 10 minutes on the motion expired, 
Chairman J. Harry McGregor, of Ohio, answered a parliamentary inquiry 
on the time left to debate the pending amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 99 Cong. Rec. 4125-28, 83d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

        [After 10 minutes debate on the motion.]
        The Chairman: The time of the gentleman from Missouri has 
    expired. All time has expired.
        Mr. [Herman P.] Eberharter [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Eberharter: The time on the preferential motion offered by 
    the gen

[[Page 11180]]

    tleman from Michigan is not taken out of the time already allotted 
    for debate on this subject?
        The Chairman: That is correct. All debate on the preferential 
    motion has expired, but not all debate on the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Texas.

Sec. 79.19 When time for debate on an amendment is limited to a time 
    certain, the 10 minutes permitted for debate on a preferential 
    motion that the Committee rise and report with the recommendation 
    that the enacting clause be stricken comes out of the time 
    remaining under the limitation and reduces the time which may be 
    allocated to Members wishing to speak.

    On May 6, 1970,(17) the Committee of the Whole agreed to 
a motion that all debate on a pending amendment and amendments thereto 
close at a time certain, 5 o'clock. During debate under the limitation, 
Mr. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr., of Massachusetts, offered the preferential 
motion that the Committee rise and report back the bill with the 
recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken. Chairman Daniel D. 
Rostenkowski, of Illinois, stated in response to a parliamentary 
inquiry that regardless of the allocation by the Chair of time 
remaining under the limitation, the motion could be debated for 10 
minutes, five in favor of and five against the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 116 Cong. Rec. 14452, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Chairman then answered a further parliamentary inquiry on the 
charging of the time on the motion to the time remaining under the 
limitation:

        Mr. [Robert L.] Leggett [of California]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Leggett: Mr. Chairman, considering the fact that a time 
    limitation has now been set in relation to today at 5 o'clock, does 
    the time of the debate on the motion that we have already heard, 
    come out of the time on the amendments?
        The Chairman: The time will come out of the time of those who 
    are participating in debate.
        Mr. Leggett: Mr. Chairman, a further parliamentary inquiry. If 
    we choose to rise right now and come back tomorrow, then would 
    there be any time limitation on debate?
        The Chairman: There would be no further debate.
        The time was set at 5 o'clock.
        The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts (Mr. O'Neill).
        The motion was rejected.

Sec. 79.20 When because of a limitation of debate on a para

[[Page 11181]]

    graph or section a Member is unable to obtain time during the stage 
    of amendments, he may offer a motion to strike out the enacting 
    clause and thus secure time for debate, if he is opposed to the 
    bill.

    On Mar. 13, 1942,(18) the Committee of the Whole had 
agreed to limit debate on a paragraph of the pending bill and 
amendments thereto. When the time expired, Mr. Andrew J. May, of 
Kentucky, offered the motion that the Committee rise and report the 
bill to the House with the recommendation that the enacting clause be 
stricken. He indicated he would withdraw the motion after it was 
discussed, or expect the House to vote it down. Chairman Robert 
Ramspeck, of Georgia, recognized Mr. May for five minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 88 Cong. Rec. 2439, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, then made a point of order 
against recognition of Mr. May for that purpose, stating that the 
offering of the motion merely to secure time for debate should not 
abrogate the right of the Committee to close debate when it chose. The 
Chairman overruled the point of order.
    When Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, made the point of order 
that Mr. May had not qualified to offer the motion by stating he was 
opposed to the bill, Mr. May assured the Chairman that he was opposed 
to the bill in its present form.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See also 91 Cong. Rec. 5149, 79th Cong. 1st Sess., May 26, 1945; 
        and 86 Cong. Rec. 1883, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., Feb. 23, 1940. For 
        argument opposing such use of the motion, see 88 Cong. Rec. 
        2441, 2442, 77th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 13, 1942; and 86 Cong. 
        Rec. 2017-19, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., Feb. 26, 1940.
            A Member offering the motion or opposing the motion may 
        discuss the entire bill, the motion opening the bill up for 
        discussion (see Sec. 38, supra).
            The Member making the motion, if challenged, must qualify 
        by stating he is opposed to the bill (see 104 Cong. Rec. 3443, 
        85th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 5, 1958), and to obtain recognition 
        in opposition to the motion a Member must qualify by stating he 
        is opposed to the motion (see 97 Cong. Rec. 8539, 82d Cong. 1st 
        Sess., July 20, 1951). When no member of the reporting 
        committee seeks recognition in opposition to the motion, the 
        Chair may recognize a Member from the opposite party of the 
        Member making the motion (see 101 Cong. Rec. 12997, 84th Cong. 
        1st Sess., Aug. 2, 1955).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 79.21 Where a bill has been amended subsequent to the rejection of 
    a motion to strike out the enacting clause, a second such motion

[[Page 11182]]

    is in order and is debatable notwithstanding a limitation of 
    unexpired debate on the bill.

    On May 9, 1947,(20) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, 
offered a motion that the Committee of the Whole rise and report a bill 
to the House with the recommendation that the enacting clause be 
stricken, after a previous such motion had been offered before the bill 
had been amended, and after a limitation on debate had been agreed to. 
Chairman Francis H. Case, of South Dakota, overruled points of order 
against the motion:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 93 Cong. Rec. 4974, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

Sec. 79.22 A preferential motion to strike the enacting clause is not 
    debatable after all time for debate on the bill and amendments 
    thereto has expired.

    On July 9, 1965,(1) while the Committee of the Whole was 
considering the Voting Rights Act of 1965, H.R. 6400, Chairman Richard 
Bolling, of Missouri, ruled that a motion to strike the enacting clause 
was not debatable, all time having expired on the bill and amendments 
thereto:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 111 Cong. Rec. 16280, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: All time has expired.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I was on the 
    list, but the time has expired. I have a preferential motion.
        The Chairman: All debate is concluded even with a preferential 
    motion. The agreement was that all debate would conclude at 7:20 
    p.m. The hour is now 7:20 p.m. There is no further time.

[[Page 11183]]

        The question is on the committee amendment, as amended.

Sec. 79.23 A motion having been adopted in the Committee of the Whole 
    to close debate instantly on a bill, a preferential motion that the 
    Committee rise and report back to the House a recommendation that 
    the enacting clause be stricken is not debatable.

    On June 11, 1959,(2) Mr. Harold D. Cooley, of North 
Carolina, moved and the Committee of the Whole agreed to close all 
debate on the pending bill and on all amendments thereto. Chairman 
Joseph L. Evins, of Tennessee, then ruled that a preferential motion on 
the bill was not debatable since debate on the bill had been closed:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 105 Cong. Rec. 10560, 10561, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Chairman: The Chair must inform the gentleman from Michigan 
    that the motion is not debatable.
        Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: Is this a Senate bill?
        The Chairman: This is a House bill.
        Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: This is a Senate bill and the Chair 
    holds that it is not debatable at this time?
        The Chairman: All debate on the bill has been ordered closed.
        Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: This is not on the bill. This is on a 
    motion to strike out the enacting clause on the ground that the 
    first amendment has been denied to the minority here, the right of 
    free speech in debate, and this being the greatest deliberative 
    body in the world and the accusation having been made the other day 
    that the minority was intimidated, or the majority was being 
    intimidated.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Michigan is a very beloved and 
    very distinguished and very able parliamentarian, but the majority 
    have ruled and ordered that all debate is concluded at this time.

Sec. 79.24 Where all debate on 
    a bill and all amendments thereto has been limited and there 
    remains less than 10 minutes, a Member offering the preferential 
    motion that the Committee rise and report with a recommendation to 
    strike the enacting clause, is entitled to one-half of the time 
    remaining and a Member in opposition to the motion is recognized 
    for the other half.

    On June 19, 1975,(3) during consideration of the Energy 
Conservation and Conversion Act of 1975 (H.R. 6860) in the Committee of 
the Whole, the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 121 Cong. Rec. 19785-87, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Al] Ullman [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent

[[Page 11184]]

    that all debate on the bill and all amendments cease in 2 minutes.
        The Chairman: (4) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Oregon?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        The Chairman: Under the rule, the Chairman has the right at 
    this time to recognize one Member on each side. The Chair will do 
    that. All debate on the bill is limited to 2 minutes. The Chair 
    would be unable to recognize 40 or 50 Members for 1 second or 2 
    seconds.
        Mr. [William A.] Steiger of Wisconsin: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

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

        Mr. [John H.] Rousselot [of California]: Why, on a motion which 
    the gentleman from Wisconsin made, is he not allowed 5 minutes?
        The Chairman: The Chair would like to state to the gentleman 
    from California that all debate on the bill and all amendments 
    thereto is limited to two minutes. . . .
        Mr. Rousselot: But he has 5 minutes on a preferential motion.
        The Chairman: All time has been fixed on the bill, and all 
    amendments thereto, and the time was 2 minutes.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Phillip 
    Burton) for 1 minute in opposition to the preferential motion.

Sec. 79.25 Despite a limitation of time for debate on the remaining 
    portion of a bill and all amendments thereto to a time certain and 
    the subsequent allocation of less than five minutes time to each 
    Member seeking recognition, a full 10 minutes' debate, five for and 
    five against, may still be demanded on a preferential motion that 
    the Committee rise and report with the recommendation that the 
    enacting clause be stricken.

    During debate in the Committee of the Whole on an appropriation for 
public works for water and power development and energy research (H.R. 
8122) on June 24, 1975,(5) the following proceedings 
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 121 Cong. Rec. 20618, 20619, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Joe L.] Evins of Tennessee: Mr. Chairman, I now move that 
    all debate on the remaining portion of the bill and all amendments 
    thereto conclude in 30 minutes.
        The Chairman: (6) The question is on the motion 
    offered by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Evins). . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Richard H. Ichord (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        So the motion was agreed to.
        The Chairman: Members standing at the time the motion was made 
    will be recognized for 40 seconds each. . . .
        Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    a preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

[[Page 11185]]

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

        The Chairman: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts (Mr. Conte) for 5 minutes. . . .
        Mr. [Edward P.] Boland [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I rise 
    in opposition to the preferential motion.
        (By unanimous consent, Messrs. Perkins, James V. Stanton, 
    Moakley, and Burke of Massachusetts yielded their time to Mr. 
    Boland). . . .
        The Chairman: The time of the gentleman has expired.
        The Chair will advise the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. 
    Boland, that the Chair will now put the question on the 
    preferential motion, and after that time the Chair will recognize 
    the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Boland) for the remainder of 
    the time.
        The question is on the preferential motion offered by the 
    gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Conte).
        The preferential motion was rejected.
        The Chairman: The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts (Mr. Boland) for 2 additional minutes.

Sec. 79.26 The 10 minutes of debate otherwise permitted on a 
    preferential motion to recommend that the enacting clause be 
    stricken is not available where all time for debate under the five-
    minute rule on a bill and all amendments thereto has expired.

    On Apr. 9, 1976,(7) during consideration of the military 
procurement authorization bill (H.R. 12438) in the Committee of the 
Whole, the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 122 Cong. Rec. 10245, 10246, 10249, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Melvin] Price [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent that all debate on the remainder of the bill, title VII and 
    all amendments thereto, close in 10 minutes.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (8) Is there objection to 
    the request of the gentleman from Illinois?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. John Brademas (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection. . . .
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: All time for debate has expired. . . 
    .
        Mr. [Tom] Harkin [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Harkin moves that the Committee do now rise and report 
        the bill back to the House with the 
        recommendation that the enacting clause of H.R. 12438 be 
        stricken.

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman's motion is not 
    debatable, in that all time has expired.
        The question is on the preferential motion offered by the 
    gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Harkin).
        The preferential motion was rejected.

Sec. 79.27 When the Committee of the Whole has limited debate on the 
    bill and all amend

[[Page 11186]]

    ments thereto to a time certain, even a preferential motion to 
    strike the enacting clause is not debatable if offered after the 
    expiration of time for debate.

    On Aug. 1, 1984,(9) during consideration of H.R. 6028 
(Departments of Labor and Health, Education, and Welfare appropriations 
for fiscal 1985) in the Committee of the Whole, the following 
proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 130 Cong. Rec. 21869, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (10) All time has expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Don Fuqua (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William E.] Dannemeyer [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    have a preferential motion at the desk.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will state the motion.
        The Chair will first advise the gentleman that it is not 
    debatable at this point under the unanimous-consent agreement.
        Mr. Dannemeyer: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry. . 
    . .
        Is it not true that on behalf of this motion this Member would 
    have 5 minutes?
        The Chairman: All debate on the bill and all amendments to the 
    bill under the unanimous-consent agreement was to end at 1:30, 
    unless amendments had been printed in the Record.
        Mr. Dannemeyer: This is not an amendment.
        The Chairman: All debate on the bill ended at 1:30, under the 
    unanimous-consent agreement.
        Mr. Dannemeyer: Maybe this Member does not understand, but the 
    preferential motion takes precedence over the time limitation that 
    has been agreed to; does it not?
        The Chairman: It could be offered, but there will be no debate 
    on the preferential motion.
        Mr. Dannemeyer: This Member would have no time on behalf of it?
        The Chairman: The gentleman would not have any time under the 
    unanimous-consent agreement.
        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I have 
    a parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        The time limitation was on the bill itself; is that correct?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Walker: The preferential motion deals with a specific 
    motion before the House which would be my understanding, would 
    permit the gentleman 5 minutes of time to debate his motion. That 
    is the pattern that I have understood we have used before when time 
    limitations have been declared. Is this a change of policy on the 
    part of the Chair?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the precedents of the 
    House are that when the time limit is on the 
    entire bill, that includes all motions thereto.
        Mr. Walker: So that the Chair is ruling that this motion is a 
    part of the debate on the bill?
        The Chairman: That is correct.

Where Enacting Clause Debate Uses All Time Remaining

Sec. 79.28 A limitation of all debate time on a bill and all

[[Page 11187]]

    amendments thereto to a time certain does not preclude the offering 
    of a preferential motion to rise with the recommendation that the 
    enacting clause be stricken, nor debate thereon during time 
    remaining under the limitation; and where the remaining time for 
    debate on 
    a bill and all amendments thereto is consumed by debate on a 
    preferential motion, an amendment pending when the preferential 
    motion was offered is voted on without further debate, if that 
    amendment was not printed in the Record.

    On Oct. 6, 1981,(11) during consideration of H.R. 4560 
(Labor, Health and Human Services appropriations for fiscal year 1982) 
in the Committee of the Whole, the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 127 Cong. Rec. 23361, 23362, 23396, 23397, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William H.] Natcher [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that all debate on the bill and all amendments 
    thereto conclude not later than 5 o'clock.
        The Chairman: (12) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Kentucky?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Don Fuqua (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Theodore S.] Weiss [of New York]: . . . I wonder if the 
    distinguished gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Natcher) would not agree 
    that a 6 o'clock time frame would be more appropriate?
        Mr. Natcher: Mr. Chairman, I would accept the recommendation, 
    and so move.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Kentucky?

        There was no objection.
        The Chairman: The time will be limited to 6 o'clock. . . .
        Mr. [Trent] Lott [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

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

        Mr. Weiss: Mr. Chairman, at the time the gentleman from 
    Kentucky (Mr. Natcher) requested unanimous consent that debate be 
    terminated at 6 o'clock, we were given assurances that all the 
    amendments that . . . any Member had to offer would be entertained. 
    So I now raise the point of order that in fact the gentleman is 
    proceeding out of the regular order that was agreed to.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Lott) has 
    offered a preferential motion which is in order and not precluded 
    by the unanimous-consent agreement, and under the unanimous-consent 
    agreement, the gentleman from Mississippi is recognized for 2\1/2\ 
    minutes. . . .
        Mr. [Joseph M.] Gaydos [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    a point of order.

[[Page 11188]]

        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Gaydos: Mr. Chairman, I am asking the Chair whether or not 
    I have 5 minutes to respond to the amendment as offered by the 
    gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg).
        The Chairman: All time for debate on the bill and on the 
    pending amendment has expired.
        The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg). . . .
        So the amendment was rejected.
        Mr. [Donald J.] Pease [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: Is the gentleman's amendment printed in the 
    Record?
        Mr. Pease: It is, Mr. Chairman. It is amendment No. 1.
        [Mr. Pease was subsequently recognized to debate the 
    amendment.]

    Parliamentarian's Note: During debate on the preferential motion, 
there was discussion of a prospective motion to recommit. For 
discussion of the distinction between a motion to recommit pending a 
vote on a motion to strike the enacting clause, and the motion to 
recommit pending final passage, see Sec. 15, supra.

Applicability of Limitation to Particular Measures

Sec. 79.29 The closing of debate on a section of a bill and 
    all amendments thereto does not apply to an amendment offered as a 
    new section.

    On June 30, 1939,(13) Chairman Jere Cooper, of 
Tennessee, ruled that the adoption of a motion to close debate on a 
section did not preclude offering a new section with debate thereon:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 84 Cong. Rec. 8500, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James E.] Van Zandt [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment which I send to the Clerk's desk.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Van Zandt: Page 9, line 14, 
        insert:

                ``Arming of American Merchant Vessels Prohibited

            ``Sec. 9. Whenever the President shall have issued a 
        proclamation under the authority of section 1, it shall 
        thereafter be unlawful, until such proclamation is revoked, for 
        any American vessel engaged in commerce with any belligerent 
        state, named in such proclamation, to be armed, except small 
        arms and ammunition therefor which the President may deem 
        necessary and shall publicly designate for the preservation of 
        discipline aboard such vessels.''

        Mr. Luther A. Johnson [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I call the 
    attention of the Chair to the fact that debate has expired on 
    section 9 by unanimous consent.
        The Chairman: The Chair invites the attention of the gentleman 
    to the fact that section 9 has been eliminated. This is a new 
    section.

    Similarly, Chairman Emanuel Celler, of New York, ruled as follows 
on Mar. 12, 1935: (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 79 Cong. Rec. 3478, 74th Cong. 1st Sess. See also 78 Cong. Rec. 
        9397, 73d Cong. 2d Sess., May 23, 1934; 75 Cong. Rec. 4887, 72d 
        Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 27, 1932; and 72 Cong. Rec. 7640, 71st 
        Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 24, 1930.

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

[[Page 11189]]

        Mr. [Henry] Ellenbogen [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment which I send to the desk.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment by Mr. Ellenbogen: Page 15, after line 15, insert 
        a new section, as follows:
            ``Sec. 29. Any loan insured under the National Housing Act 
        shall bear interest at a rate not to exceed 6 percent per 
        annum, inclusive of all charges.''

        Mr. Ellenbogen: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 
    proceed for 3 minutes.
        Mr. [Henry B.] Steagall [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, all debate 
    has been closed.
        The Chairman: The Chair will say to the gentleman from Alabama 
    that his request covered section 27 and all amendments thereto.
        Mr. Steagall: Mr. Chairman, a motion was made and carried, as I 
    understood, closing debate on this section and all amendments 
    thereto.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Ellenbogen] 
    has offered an amendment adding a new section, and is entitled to 
    recognition for 5 minutes.

Sec. 79.30 Under a limitation of time for debate on a paragraph and all 
    amendments thereto, a Member may not offer a second amendment until 
    the pending amendment is disposed of.

    On June 29, 1959,(15) the Committee of the Whole agreed 
to a unanimous-consent request that debate on the pending paragraph and 
amendments thereto close in 15 minutes. Mr. Joel T. Broyhill, of 
Virginia, inquired when he could offer another amendment to the 
paragraph. Chairman Paul J. Kilday, of Texas, responded that he could 
so offer it after the pending amendment was disposed of.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 105 Cong. Rec. 12122-24, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 79.31 A limitation on debate under the five-minute rule in 
    Committee of the Whole on a section of a bill and all amendments 
    thereto does not affect debate on an amendment adding a new section 
    to the bill.

    On Aug. 1, 1979,(16) during consideration of the 
Emergency Energy Conservation Act of 1979 (S. 1030), the following 
proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 125 Cong. Rec. 21963, 21964, 21969, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I move that 
    all debate on Section 3 and all amendments thereto end at 4 
    o'clock.
        The Chairman: (17) The question is on the motion 
    offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell). . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Dante B. Fascell (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 
    247, noes 164, not voting 23, as follows. . . .

[[Page 11190]]

            Amendment offered by Mr. Tauke: Page 50, after line 2, 
        insert the following new section: . . .

        Mr. [John N.] Erlenborn [of Illinois]: I have a point of order, 
    Mr. Chairman.
        I understood we were operating under a time limit.
        The Chairman: Will the gentleman restate his point of order?
        Mr. Erlenborn: Mr. Chairman, the point of order is that I 
    understood that the House voted a time limit.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state to the gentleman that the 
    time limitation agreement involves debate on section 3. This is a 
    new section.

Status of ``Amendments at the Desk'' Under Limitation

Sec. 79.32 Where all time for debate in Committee of the Whole on a 
    bill and all amendments thereto is limited to a time certain, the 
    Chair may in his discretion continue to recognize Members under the 
    five-minute rule, rather than allocate the remaining time among all 
    Members desiring to speak or between two Members, subject to 
    subsequent limitations on time ordered by the Committee of the 
    Whole on separate amendments when offered.

    The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole 
during consideration of the military procurement authorization for 
fiscal 1983 (H.R. 6030) on July 29, 1982: (18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 128 Cong. Rec. 18569, 18570, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Melvin] Price [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, we are now in 
    our seventh day of the authorization bill. . . .
        I therefore move that the debate on the bill and all amendments 
    thereto conclude at 2 p.m. . . .
        So the motion was agreed to. . . .
        Mr. Price: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if we could resolve this and 
    compromise and make it 3 o'clock.
        The Chairman: (19) The gentleman from Illinois is 
    asking unanimous consent that debate be concluded at 3 o'clock as 
    opposed to 2 o'clock. Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Illinois?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, 
    reserving the right to object, I do so to ask the Chairman whether 
    or not, under the procedure that he is adopting here, we are going 
    to have all amendments protected that have been at the desk and 
    have been awaiting consideration. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair expects that we will continue under the 
    5-minute rule, and all amendments are protected. . . .
        Mr. Walker: . . . I am trying to find out how many of the 
    amendments already at the desk are going to be permitted to be 
    called here under the 2 o'clock or 3 o'clock time.
        The Chairman: The gentleman understands, though, that the 
    Committee has every right to limit debate on any amendment which is 
    pending? . . .

[[Page 11191]]

        The Chair hears no objection. . . .
        Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: Would it be in order to 
    propose that the time between now and 3 o'clock be controlled one-
    half by the Chairman and one-half by the ranking minority Member?
        The Chairman: The Chair would make the observation that that 
    would be very difficult with all the amendments which may be 
    offered.
        Mr. Stratton: Then in what way are Members who want to discuss 
    various amendments protected on the opportunity to speak in favor 
    or against them?
        The Chairman: The gentleman would be protected under the 5-
    minute rule unless there is a further limitation.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Where a limitation on the entire bill is 
agreed to far in advance of the expiration of time (in the instant case 
4 or 5 hours later) the Chair will normally proceed under the five-
minute rule subject to subsequent limitations or allocations of time.

Pro Forma Amendments During Allocated Time

Sec. 79.33 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,(20) the following unanimous-consent requests 
resulted in a discussion, as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 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: (1) Is there objection to 
    the request of the gentleman from Wisconsin?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 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 con

[[Page 11192]]

    trolled 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 
    standpoint 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.

Limitation on Resolving Clause, Not on Preamble

Sec. 79.34 Where the text of a joint resolution (all after the 
    resolving clause) is open to amendment at any point, a

[[Page 11193]]

    motion to limit debate thereon and on all amendments thereto to a 
    time certain: 
    (1) does not include debate 
    on amendments to the preamble, which has not been read for 
    amendment; (2) does not include debate on an amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute to be offered to the text and preamble at 
    the end of the amendment process pursuant to a special rule; (3) 
    cannot include separate allocations of time on amendments to 
    amendments not yet offered (only by unanimous consent or separate 
    motion when the amendments are pending); (4) would permit the Chair 
    in his discretion to continue under the five-minute rule rather 
    than allocate the lengthy amount of remaining time, with printed 
    amendments guaranteed 10 minutes' debate at the expiration of time; 
    and (5) would include time consumed by votes and quorum calls.

    On Apr. 21, 1983,(2) during consideration of House Joint 
Resolution 13 (nuclear weapons freeze) in the Committee of the Whole, 
the Chair responded to several parliamentary inquiries regarding a 
motion to limit debate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 129 Cong. Rec. 9347, 9348, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I move 
    that all debate on the text of House Joint Resolution 13 and all 
    amendments thereto close at 3:30 p.m.

        Mr. [Elliott H.] Levitas [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, as I understand the motion of the gentleman from 
    Wisconsin, all debate on House Joint Resolution 13 and all 
    amendments thereto will end at 3:30 today?
        Mr. Zablocki: Mr. Chairman, my motion only covers the resolving 
    clause. It does not include the preamble, the whereas clauses, or 
    the substitute if the gentleman intends to offer it.
        Mr. Levitas: . . . What would be the status of amendments 
    printed in the Record with respect to the resolving clause, and, 
    also, how would the time be allocated with respect to amendments 
    pending between now and 3:30 p.m.?
        The Chairman: (3) The Chair will advise the 
    gentleman from Georgia that, with respect to the amendments printed 
    in the Record which have not been offered before 3:30, the 
    proponents of the amendment would be entitled to offer those 
    amendments after 3:30, and 5 minutes would be allotted for the 
    proponent of the amendment and 5 minutes would be allocated to an 
    opponent of the amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        With respect to the time between now and 3:30, if the motion 
    offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Za

[[Page 11194]]

    blocki) is agreed to, the Chair would have discretion as to how to 
    allot the time.
        Mr. [Trent] Lott [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        I would like to inquire if it would be possible for the 
    distinguished chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs to amend 
    his motion, to put some amendment in there with regard to these 
    perfecting amendments or the amendments to amendments that are 
    being offered that wind up tying up a good portion of the time and 
    in fact delaying the debate on the amendments that are the crucial 
    amendments.
        Could the gentleman offer a change in that or some suggestion?
        The Chairman: The Chair would advise the gentleman from 
    Mississippi that that would not be appropriate in the form of a 
    motion but only by a unanimous-consent request. . . .
        Mr. [James A.] Courter [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, my 
    parliamentary inquiry is with regard to exactly what the motion 
    offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Zablocki) covers.
        The gentleman from Wisconsin indicated in language which I did 
    not hear that it in fact excluded some clauses or some sections of 
    the resolutions.
        Would the Chair state what this motion includes and what it 
    does not include, and I think we would be satisfied.
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman from New 
    Jersey that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Zablocki) has moved 
    that debate on the resolving clause and all amendments thereto 
    cease at 3:30. That would cover all amendments to the resolving 
    clause except those that have been printed in the Record and which 
    have not been offered prior to 3:30.
        Mr. Courter: . . . Those amendments that we have proffered so 
    far, the pending amendments, are they on the resolving clause?
        The Chairman: The amendments which are now being considered are 
    amendments to the resolving clause.
        Mr. Courter: So the result of the gentleman's motion is, 
    basically, to cut off debate at 3:30 on any amendments that are not 
    printed in the Record.
        The Chairman: With respect to the amendments to the resolving 
    clause. That does not cover the amendments to the preamble or the 
    substitute which the gentleman from Michigan may offer, which is 
    protected by the rule. . . .
        Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, would the 
    Chair define what amendments are to the resolving clause?
        The Chairman: Any amendments which relate to the resolving 
    portion of the joint resolution.
        Mr. Stratton: Suppose there is the addition of a section. Is 
    that an amendment to the resolving clause?
        The Chairman: That would be an amendment to the resolving 
    clause.
        Mr. Stratton: Mr. Chairman, how does the Chair propose to 
    allocate the time on individual amendments?
        We have to know how many amendments are pending in order for 
    this thing to become other than just a rat race where someone 
    hardly has time to read the amendment, as I understand it.
        The Chairman: The Chair would intend, at least for a time, to 
    proceed

[[Page 11195]]

    under the 5-minute rule, in expectation that Members who have 
    amendments to offer would do so in accordance with the 5-minute 
    rule.
        Mr. [William] Carney [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        I would like to know if the Chair would consider the time 
    necessary for rollcall votes would be taken out, or would that be 
    part of the limitation to 3:30?
        The Chairman: Under the motion as offered, all time would cease 
    at 3:30. So the time for rollcall votes would be covered by the 
    3:30 limitation.

Pro Forma Amendments After Closing of All Debate on Bill

Sec. 79.35 When debate on a bill is limited by unanimous consent prior 
    to the reading thereof, and, after the time for debate expires, the 
    remainder of the bill is read, pro forma amendments are not 
    debatable.

    On Sept. 12, 1968,(4) the Committee of the Whole agreed 
by unanimous consent to limit debate on a bill and amendments thereto 
before the bill had been completely read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 114 Cong. Rec. 26574, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When the limitation expired, Chairman Daniel D. Rostenkowski, of 
Illinois, directed the Clerk to read the remainder of the bill. Mr. 
John E. Moss, Jr., of California, sought recognition to move to strike 
the last word, and the Chairman ruled that he could not be recognized 
for that purpose, all debate having been concluded.

Sec. 79.36 Where a limitation on debate under the five-minute rule on 
    an amendment and all amendments thereto has expired, no further 
    debate is in order and a Member may not gain time for debate by 
    offering a pro forma amendment ``to strike the last word.''

    On Aug. 2, 1978,(5) the Committee of the Whole had under 
consideration the foreign aid authorization bill (H.R. 12514) when the 
following exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 124 Cong. Rec. 23947, 23954, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I move 
    that 
    all debate on the pending amendment 
    and all amendments thereto end at 4 o'clock.
        The Chairman: (6) The question is on the motion 
    offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Zablocki).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Don Fuqua (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The motion was agreed to. . . .
        The Chairman: For what purpose does the gentleman from 
    California (Mr. Lagomarsino) rise?
        Mr. [Robert J.] Lagomarsino [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    move to strike the last word.

[[Page 11196]]

        The Chairman: The Chair will inform the gentleman that no 
    further debate is in order at this time.

Applicability of Limitation on Amendment and Amendments Thereto

Sec. 79.37 A motion to close all debate on a pending amendment and 
    amendments thereto includes all amendments to the pending amendment 
    not yet offered or at the desk.

    On Aug. 13, 1959,(7) Chairman Francis E. Walter, of 
Pennsylvania, answered a parliamentary inquiry on the application of a 
motion to close debate on an amendment and amendments thereto:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 105 Cong. Rec. 15850, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Graham A.] Barden [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    move that all debate on the amendment and 
    all amendments thereto close at 4 o'clock. . . .
        Mr. [Edwin E.] Willis [of Louisiana]: My parliamentary inquiry 
    is this: Would the suggested time of closure of debate on all 
    pending amendments--I seek an interpretation of ``all pending 
    amendments.'' Does that include amendments on the desk?
        Mr. Barden: Pending amendment and all amendments thereto.
        The Chairman: The Chair may say that the pending amendment is 
    the Landrum-Griffin bill. Amendments thereto are the amendments 
    that are on the desk which have not yet been offered.
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a further 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Taber: And that would include any other amendments which 
    may hereafter be offered?

        The Chairman: That would include all amendments.

Sec. 79.38 Where the Committee of the Whole limits debate on a 
    substitute and all amendments thereto, such limitation does not 
    apply to amendments which may 
    be offered to the original amendment.

    On Sept. 29, 1965,(8) Mr. B. F. Sisk, of California, 
propounded 
a unanimous-consent request to limit five-minute debate to a certain 
time on a substitute amendment and amendments thereto, offered to an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute for the pending bill. Chairman 
Eugene J. Keogh, of New York, stated in response to a parliamentary 
inquiry that if perfecting amendments to the amendment in the nature of 

a substitute were offered, such amendments would not be subject to the 
limitation:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 111 Cong. Rec. 25426, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: The House is in Committee of the Whole House on 
    the

[[Page 11197]]

    State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill H.R. 
    4644.
        When the Committee rose there was pending a substitute 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Sisk] for 
    the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the 
    gentleman from New York [Mr. Multer].
        Mr. Sisk: Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a unanimous-consent 
    request.
        Mr. Chairman, in order to expedite the business of the House--
    and after some 3 days of debate it seems to me the time has come to 
    move along--I ask unanimous consent that all debate on the Sisk 
    amendment and all amendments thereto close in 20 minutes. It is my 
    understanding that there is one amendment at the desk to be offered 
    by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Craley] and as part of my 
    unanimous-consent request, I ask unanimous consent that 3 minutes 
    of that time be reserved to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
    Craley]. . . .
        Mr. [Abraham J.] Multer: Mr. Chairman, there is an amendment to 
    be offered to the Multer amendment. Would that come out of the time 
    reserved for the closing of debate on the Sisk amendment, if that 
    is offered--in other words, if someone offers an amendment to the 
    Multer amendment?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state to the gentleman from New 
    York that as the Chair understood the request of the gentleman from 
    California, it was that all debate on the Sisk substitute and all 
    amendments thereto close in 20 minutes and that, therefore, would 
    not preclude the offering of any amendments to the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from New York.

Sec. 79.39 A limitation of debate on a pending amendment and all 
    amendments thereto does not, following the disposition of the 
    amendment, proscribe offering and debating further amendments to 
    the pending section of a bill.

    On May 4, 1966,(9) Mr. John E. Fogarty, of Rhode Island, 
propounded a unanimous-consent request that debate under the five-
minute rule be limited on the pending amendment and all amendments 
thereto. In response to a parliamentary inquiry by Mr. Frank T. Bow, of 
Ohio, who intended to offer an amendment to the pending section should 
the pending amendment thereto fail, Chairman Frank Thompson, Jr., of 
New Jersey, stated that the limitation applied only to the pending 
amendment and amendments thereto and did not preclude offering and 
debating further amendments to the pending section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 112 Cong. Rec. 9829, 9830, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 79.40 A substitute offered to a pending committee amendment is 
    considered an amendment for the purpose of a debate limitation 
    imposed on the pending amendment and all amendments thereto.

[[Page 11198]]

    On Aug. 5, 1970,(10) Chairman Pro Tempore Neal Smith, of 
Iowa, answered a parliamentary inquiry on the effect of a limitation on 
debate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 116 Cong. Rec. 27466, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William R.] Poage [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I move that 
    all debate on the pending amendment and all amendments thereto 
    close at 4 o'clock.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The question is on the motion offered 
    by the gentleman from Texas.
        The motion was agreed to.
        Mr. [Joe D.] Waggonner [Jr., of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Waggonner: Do I correctly understand that we are closing 
    debate at 4 o'clock on the Lowenstein amendment?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: On all amendments pending.
        Mr. Waggonner: Mr. Chairman, was not the Findley motion offered 
    as a substitute, rather than an amendment?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: It was a substitute amendment.
        Mr. Waggonner: Then debate will not close at 4 o'clock, will 
    it?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: There is a committee amendment 
    pending. The limitation of debate applies to the committee 
    amendment and all amendments thereto, including the substitute and 
    amendment thereto.

Sec. 79.41 Where there was pending an amendment proposing to strike out 
    an entire section of text and insert new language, and a substitute 
    for that amendment, the Chair indicated in response to a series of 
    parliamentary inquiries that: (1) termination of debate on the 
    pending amendment and all amendments thereto at a time certain 
    would preclude further debate on amendments offered to the 
    amendment or substitute but not printed in that form in the Record 
    pursuant to Rule XXIII clause 6; (2) rejection of the amendment as 
    amended would permit further amendments to the pending section and 
    debate thereon; (3) adoption of an amendment changing the entire 
    section would preclude further amendment to that section--and 
    amendments printed in the Record could not be offered to that 
    section.

    During consideration of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation 
Act of 1974 (11) in the Committee of the Whole on July 22, 
1974,(12) the Chair responded to

[[Page 11199]]

several parliamentary inquiries, as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. H.R. 11500.
12. 120 Cong. Rec. 24459, 24460, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: Mr. Chairman, I move that 
    all debate on the pending Hosmer amendment and the Mink substitute 
    for that amendment and all perfecting amendments to either close at 
    40 minutes past 4 o'clock.
        Mr. [Craig] Hosmer [of California]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (13) The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hosmer: Mr. Chairman, does that mean all these gentlemen 
    who have any amendments that pertain to section 201 either by way 
    of amendment to the Mink substitute or by way of amendment to my 
    substitute or by way of amendment to the language in the bill 
    itself are preemptorily cut off in 40 minutes?
        The Chairman: As far as further amendments to section 201 of 
    the committee bill is concerned, that depends on the committee's 
    disposition of the Hosmer amendment. . . .
        Mr. [Ken] Hechler of West Virginia: Supposing there are several 
    votes in the process that we discovered the other day, this would 
    effectively cut off all debate, such as we had three rollcalls or 
    quorum calls.
        The Chairman: The time will be set by the clock. The Chair 
    thinks the motion is clear. . . .
        Mr. [William M.] Ketchum [of California]: What effect would 
    this motion have on those individuals who under the rules or who 
    have published their amendments in the Record, is that going to 
    close them off? . . .
        The Chairman: That depends on the form of the amendment printed 
    in the Record and on the disposition of the substitute amendment of 
    the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) and the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from California (Mr. Hosmer). . . .

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, reserving 
    the right to object for the purpose of making a parliamentary 
    inquiry, as I understand there are a number of us who do have 
    amendments to the bill itself or which are appropriate to the 
    substitute amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Hawaii or the 
    gentleman from California.
        Now, what is the ruling of the Chair with regard to the 
    limitation of time on section 201? Are those amendments published 
    in the Record foreclosed from the 5-minute rule by reason of the 
    debate here, or foreclosed by expiration of the time under the 
    clock, if the time does expire from even offering an amendment?
        The Chairman: If section 201 of the bill is later open to 
    amendment due to adverse disposition of the Mink substitute and the 
    Hosmer amendment, then those rights would obtain; but those rights 
    would be foreclosed if no further amendments to section 201 were in 
    order. . . .
        Mr. Dingell: I am of the impression that what the Chair is 
    saying is that if the Mink amendment is adopted or if the Hosmer 
    amendment is adopted that Members will not be protected by the 
    provisions of the rule affording them 5 minutes to discuss or offer 
    amendments, even if they are published in the Record in compliance 
    with the rule?

[[Page 11200]]

        The Chairman: If further amendments to section 201 are not in 
    order, then amendments cannot be submitted under which 5 minutes 
    would otherwise be allowed. . . .
        Mr. Dingell: The provisions of the rule relating to 5 minutes 
    of time for a Member where he has published his amendment in the 
    Record in appropriate fashion will not be protected if either the 
    Mink amendment or the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Hosmer is 
    adopted; am I correct?
        The Chairman: If the substitute is adopted to the Hosmer 
    amendment and then the Hosmer amendment as amended by the 
    substitute is adopted, further amendments to section 201 could not 
    be offered. Therefore, there would be no further amendments 
    appropriate. . . .
        Mr. Dingell: Then I understand the ruling to be further that 
    the rule relating to a Member getting 5 minutes on an amendment 
    does not apply to the substitute offered by the gentlewoman from 
    Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) or the gentleman from California (Mr. Hosmer), 
    even previous to the time that those amendments are adopted, am I 
    correct?
        The Chairman: That would be true if they were not printed in 
    the Record as amendments to the substitute. . . .
        Mr. Hosmer: Does that mean if either amendment, the Hosmer or 
    the Mink substitute, is adopted, that is it as far as section 201 
    is concerned, even if somebody had placed his amendment?
        The Chairman: If the Hosmer amendment is not adopted as amended 
    by the Mink substitute, then further amendments to section 201 will 
    be in order. . . .
        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, is it not true 
    that if, under the gentleman's motion, an amendment--I am now 
    giving a hypothetical situation--the Mink substitute for that 
    portion of the Hosmer amendment were to prevail, and the Hosmer 
    amendment would be defeated, is it not true that the rest of that 
    section which the Mink substitute does not pertain to would be 
    proper to amend at any point?
        The Chairman: If the entire section has been amended, further 
    amendments to that section would not be in order.
        Mr. Hays: Not if the Hosmer substitute were defeated, it would 
    not be true, would it? Just to section 201?
        The Chairman: If the Mink substitute is adopted, the vote would 
    then recur on the Hosmer amendment since it is a substitute for the 
    entire amendment. If the Hosmer amendment were then adopted, 
    section 201 would not be open to amendment.
        Mr. Hays: Yes, section 201 only. Not all of title II?
        The Chairman: Not the rest of title II; just section 201.

Sec. 79.42 A limitation of debate under the five-minute rule on a 
    pending amendment and all amendments thereto includes debate on any 
    substitute for the amendment that might subsequently be offered.

    During consideration of House Joint Resolution 13 (nuclear weapons 
freeze) in the Committee

[[Page 11201]]

of the Whole on Apr. 21, 1983,(14) the following proceedings 
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 129 Cong. Rec. 9341, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (15) When the Committee rose on 
    Wednesday, April 20, 1983, pending was an amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Carney) and an amendment to the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solarz). 
    Debate on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
    Carney) and all amendments thereto had been limited to 10 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair will recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
    Zablocki) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Broomfield) for 5 
    minutes each. . . .
        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I have 
    a substitute for the pending amendment, the pending amendment and 
    the amendment thereto.
        Mr. [William] Carney [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Carney: Mr. Chairman, if the substitute is offered, I would 
    like to know what that does to the standing agreement on the 5-
    minute debate between the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solarz) and 
    myself.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the previously agreed 
    to time will still apply with respect to the two pending 
    amendments, including the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    New York.
        Mr. Carney: And will the substitute then be open to normal 5-
    minute rule procedures? . . .
        The Chairman: The substitute, if offered, will be subject to 
    the same 10-minute limitation since the limitation was on the 
    Carney amendment and all amendments thereto.

Chair's Distribution of Time

Sec. 79.43 Where the Committee of the Whole has agreed to close debate 
    on a title of 
    a bill and all amendments thereto to a time certain, the Chair 
    endeavors to recognize as many Members as possible prior thereto, 
    and after the time fixed has arrived will recognize Members only to 
    offer amendments which will be voted on without debate.

    On Feb. 10, 1964,(16) the Committee of the Whole agreed 
to a motion by Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, that debate on the 
pending title of a bill and amendments thereto close at 1 o'clock p.m. 
Chairman Eugene J. Keogh, of New York, answered a parliamentary inquiry 
on recognition under and after the expiration of the limitation:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 110 Cong. Rec. 2706, 2719, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Richard H.] Poff [of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, will the 
    gentleman from Mississippi yield for a parliamentary inquiry?

[[Page 11202]]

        Mr. [William M.] Colmer [of Mississippi]: I yield, very 
    briefly.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Poff: Mr. Chairman, in light of the limitation on time may 
    I inquire what amendments will be voted upon when the time expires? 
    I have two amendments at the desk which I may or may not offer, 
    depending upon developments. I would like to be advised whether I 
    will be recognized to offer the amendments and if so when that time 
    will occur.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state to the gentleman from 
    Virginia that up to 1 o'clock the Chair will undertake to recognize 
    such Members as he can. After 1 o'clock the Chair will recognize 
    those Members desiring to offer amendments and the question on each 
    amendment will be put immediately without debate.
        Mr. Poff: I thank the Chair.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. A Member who has previously debated an amendment may speak again 
        under a limitation thereon. See 113 Cong. Rec. 17762, 90th 
        Cong. 1st Sess., June 28, 1967; and 113 Cong. Rec. 15903, 90th 
        Cong. 1st Sess., June 15, 1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 79.44 Where the Committee of the Whole agrees to terminate debate 
    on an amendment and all amendments thereto to a time certain, the 
    Chair generally divides the time equally among Members who indicate 
    a desire to speak and may decline to 
    apportion the time solely among Members who have amendments.

    On Jan. 23, 1962,(18) the Committee of the Whole agreed 
to a limitation of debate under the five-minute rule (on an amendment 
and amendments thereto). Mr. John M. Ashbrook, of Ohio, inquired 
whether the Chair would divide the remaining time among those Members 
having amendments to offer, and Chairman Charles M. Price, of Illinois, 
responded that the time would be equally divided among all Members 
desiring to speak.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 108 Cong. Rec. 769, 773, 774, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
19. But see Sec. 79.49, infra (Chair may in his discretion recognize 
        only Members with amendments and others opposed thereto).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 79.45 While a limitation of debate in the Committee of the Whole 
    on a pending amendment and on all amendments thereto normally 
    abrogates the five-minute rule, the Chair may, in his discretion, 
    announce his intention to recognize each Member offering an 
    amendment for five minutes where it is apparent that all Members 
    who might offer amendments are not in the Chamber at the time the 
    limitation is imposed.

[[Page 11203]]

    On Dec. 14, 1973,(20) Chairman Richard Bolling, of 
Missouri, stated in response to a parliamentary inquiry that where 
there was pending an amendment in the nature of a substitute for a 
bill, a motion to close all debate on that amendment and all amendments 
thereto at a time certain would be in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 119 Cong. Rec. 41712, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Chairman answered a further parliamentary inquiry on 
recognition by the Chair should five-minute debate be limited:

        Mr. [James T.] Broyhill of North Carolina: Mr. Chairman, my 
    parliamentary inquiry is this: If the time is limited, would only 
    those Members who are presently standing and would be listed--would 
    they be the only Members who could be recognized either to propose 
    an amendment or to oppose an amendment?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state any motion that the Chair 
    can conceive of would involve enough time so that the Chair would 
    feel that he could reserve that right to recognize Members under 
    the 5-minute rule.
        The Chair will explain that if needed.
        The gentleman is talking about limiting debate on the amendment 
    in the nature of a substitute, and all amendments thereto?
        Mr. Broyhill of North Carolina: That is correct, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The Chairman would presume that there will be a 
    substantial block of amendments, and the Chair would feel that the 
    Chair should not fail to protect the Members who are not in the 
    Chamber at the moment who might have amendments that they sought to 
    offer.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See also 111 Cong. Rec. 17961, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., July 22, 1965 
        (where all debate on a section and all amendments thereto has 
        been limited, the Chair generally divides the time equally 
        among those seeking recognition; but if there has been no 
        agreement as to the division of time, the Chair may recognize 
        each Member who seeks recognition for the full five minutes to 
        which he is entitled under the rule, until the time has 
        expired).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 79.46 Where the Committee of the Whole fixed debate at an hour and 
    a half, the Chair did not note the names of the Members seeking 
    recognition and divide the time at less than five minutes each, as 
    is the practice when a shorter period is fixed.

    On Feb. 22, 1950,(2) Mr. John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, moved that debate close on pending amendments at 2:30 
a.m. and the Committee of the Whole agreed thereto. Chairman Francis E. 
Walter, of Pennsylvania, then answered a parliamentary inquiry on 
division of the time:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 96 Cong. Rec. 2240-46, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jacob K.] Javits [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, is the Chair 
    dis

[[Page 11204]]

    posed to divide the time in view of the fact that it has been 
    limited, and to announce the Members who will be recognized?
        The Chairman: In view of the fact that one hour and a half 
    remains for debate, and since it was impossible for the Chair to 
    determine the number of Members who were on their feet, I believe 
    it is advisable to follow the strict rule [five minutes for each 
    Member recognized].

Sec. 79.47 After time for debate under the five-minute rule has been 
    fixed by motion, and the Chair announces the list of Members to be 
    recognized, the Chair does not recognize in his own right a Member 
    not on the list.

    On Jan. 23, 1962,(3) the Committee of the Whole agreed 
to limit debate under the five-minute rule to a certain hour. Chairman 
Charles M. Price, of Illinois, noted the names of the Members who 
wished to be recognized under the limitation and announced the list of 
those Members. He then answered a parliamentary inquiry on recognition 
under the limitation:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 108 Cong. Rec. 769, 774, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Ben F.] Jensen [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Jensen: How much time will be allowed in support of this 
    amendment?
        The Chairman: The time has been allocated under the motion to 
    limit debate.
        Mr. Jensen: Will I have any time in support of the amendment?
        The Chairman: Not unless the gentleman's name is on the 
    list.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. See also 114 Cong. Rec. 19757, 19914, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., July 2 
        and 3, 1968 (after the Committee of the Whole agrees to a 
        limitation of time for debate on a bill and all amendments 
        thereto, the Chair notes and announces the names of the Members 
        who are standing to indicate their desire to be recognized and 
        then allots equal time to each).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 79.48 Where the Committee of the Whole fixes the time for debate 
    on a substitute amendment, the Chair in counting those seeking 
    recognition may in his discretion and without objection allot a 
    portion of the time to the committee reporting the bill.

    On Feb. 8, 1950,(5) the Committee of the Whole fixed 
time for 
debate on amendments to a committee substitute. Chairman Chet 
Holifield, of California, then stated, in response to a parliamentary 
inquiry, that the Chair could recognize the same committee member in 
opposition to each amendment offered where no other mem

[[Page 11205]]

ber of the committee sought such recognition:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 96 Cong. Rec. 1691, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Case of South Dakota: Under what precedent or ruling is the 
    Chair recognizing a certain member of the committee for 1 minute in 
    opposition to each amendment being offered? That was not included 
    in the motion. Had it been included in the motion, it would have 
    been subject to a point of order.
        The Chairman: The Chair is trying to be fair in the conduct of 
    the committee, and the only gentleman that has arisen on the 
    opposite side has been the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Murray]. 
    There was no point of order raised at the time that I announced 
    that I would recognize the committee for 1 minute in rebuttal to 
    each amendment.
        Mr. Case of South Dakota: But the gentleman from South Dakota 
    got up at the time the Chair proposed to recognize the gentleman 
    from Tennessee a second time. Obviously, when the committee avails 
    itself of the opportunity to make a motion to limit debate it, in a 
    sense, is closing debate, and unless it does seek to limit time and 
    is successful in so doing, in principle it forfeits that courtesy. 
    The Members who have proposed amendments here have been waiting all 
    afternoon to be heard, and if the committee adopted the procedure 
    of seeking to close debate on 20 minutes' notice, with 10 
    amendments pending, it would seem as a matter of courtesy that the 
    committee should restrain itself to one member of the committee who 
    might have been on his feet, but to recognize one gentleman a 
    succession of times seems entirely out of keeping with the spirit 
    of closing debate.
        The Chairman: The Chairman, in the list of names, also read the 
    name of the committee. If the Chair was 
    so inclined, the Chair could recognize 
    two Members for 5 minutes each on amendments, on each side, and 
    that would preclude the others from having any voice in the 
    amendments that are pending, or in the debate.
        Mr. Case of South Dakota: That, of course, is true, the Chair 
    could do that. But, ordinarily, under the precedents always 
    followed in the House, when time is closed on amendments, the time 
    is divided among those who are seeking to offer amendments, and 
    unless the motion specifically reserves time to the committee, it 
    has been the precedent to divide the time among those who are 
    seeking to offer amendments.
        The Chairman: The Chair feels that the committee is entitled to 
    a rebuttal on any amendment that is offered, and has so announced, 
    and there was no point of order made at the time. The Chair 
    sustains its present position.

Sec. 79.49 Where debate on a bill and all amendments thereto is limited 
    to a time certain, the five-minute rule is abrogated, and the Chair 
    may choose either to allocate the time among those Members standing 
    and desiring to speak, or choose to recognize only Members wishing 
    to

[[Page 11206]]

    offer amendments and to oppose amendments.

    On May 6, 1970,(6) the Committee of the Whole agreed to 
a motion, offered by Mr. L. Mendel Rivers, of South Carolina, that all 
debate on the pending bill and amendments thereto close at a certain 
hour. Chairman Daniel D. Rostenkowski, of Illinois, stated his 
intention to recognize under the time limitation Members offering and 
opposing amendments, rather than to divide time among all Members 
indicating their desire to speak:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 116 Cong. Rec. 14465, 14466, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: Under the limitation of 
    debate imposed by the House, a moment ago, is there any restriction 
    on those Members who will be permitted to speak on amendments, 
    either for or against, between now and 7 o'clock?
        The Chairman: The Chair will endeavor to divide the time 
    equally among the proponents and the opponents of those who have 
    amendments.

Sec. 79.50 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 extend the time of one Member.

    On Mar. 31, 1971,(7) the Committee of the Whole agreed 
to 
a motion by Mr. Charles W. Whalen, Jr., of Ohio, that debate on an 
amendment and amendments thereto close at 6 p.m. Mr. Whalen was 
recognized in support of his amendment and when his time had expired 
asked unanimous consent to proceed for two additional minutes. Chairman 
Edward P. Boland, of Massachusetts, declined to entertain the request 
and advised Mr. Whalen that the time had been fixed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 117 Cong. Rec. 8814, 8815, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Time under a limitation may be extended by 
a unanimous-consent request to vacate the limitation, if the Chair 
entertains that request.

Sec. 79.51 Where debate has been limited on a pending title and all 
    amendments thereto and the Chair has divided the remaining time 
    among Members desiring to offer amendments or to speak, a Member 
    not allocated time may not speak in opposition to an amendment; 
    thus, such a time limitation imposed in Committee of the Whole 
    abrogates the right of a Member under Rule XXIII clause 5 to speak 
    for five minutes 


[[Page 11207]]

    in opposition to an offered amendment.

    On July 25, 1974,(8) during consideration of the Surface 
Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1974 (H.R. 11500), the Chair made 
a statement and responded to a parliamentary inquiry regarding debate 
on amendments offered to the pending title of the bill. The proceedings 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 120 Cong. Rec. 25214, 25217, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (9) When the Committee rose on 
    yesterday, titles II through VIII inclusive were subject to 
    amendment at any point, and there was pending an amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from California (Mr. Hosmer) to title II of the 
    committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. Before 
    recognizing the gentleman from California, the Chair will state for 
    the information of the Committee of the Whole that there are 42 
    minutes remaining out of 50 minutes debate allocated to title II 
    under the unanimous consent agreement of Tuesday, July 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Before the Chair recognizes the gentleman from California, the 
    Chair will reiterate his announcement of yesterday that if listed 
    Members who have printed their amendments to title II in the Record 
    would agree to offer those amendments during the 42-minute period, 
    and to be recognized for 1 minute and 20 seconds, the Chair will 
    recognize both committee and noncommittee members for that purpose.
        The Chair will request that Members who have amendments printed 
    in the Record and who insist upon 5 minutes for debate defer 
    offering those amendments until the conclusion of the 42 remaining 
    minutes.
        Mr. [John H.] Rousselot [of California]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.

        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Rousselot: In this time frame, when somebody might object 
    or support the amendment, how does he get time to do it? He does 
    not?
        The Chairman: Not unless he is on the list.
        Mr. Rousselot: In other words, if anyone wants to oppose the 
    amendment, he has no time; is that correct?
        The Chairman: Not unless the gentleman is on the list announced 
    by the Chair.

Sec. 79.52 Where debate under the five-minute rule has been limited on 
    a pending portion of a bill and the Committee of the Whole is about 
    to rise on motion, the Chair may, in his discretion, defer his 
    allocation of that time until the Committee resumes consideration 
    of the bill on a subsequent day.

    On Sept. 11, 1978,(10) during consideration of the Civil 
Service Reform Act of 1978 (H.R. 11280)

[[Page 11208]]

in the Committee of the Whole, the following exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 124 Cong. Rec. 28800, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: . . . Mr. Chairman, we have 
    had a long and difficult day . . . the hour is late, and I am not 
    sure we can be productive much longer. We do have a number of 
    important amendments left.
        Mr. Chairman, I am going to make a unanimous-consent request in 
    just a moment, and if it is agreed to, at that point I would move 
    that the Committee rise. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, my unanimous-consent request is that the 
    remaining time for debate on title VII, and all amendments 
    thereto--that is the title we are now considering--be limited to a 
    total of 2 hours. . . .
        Mr. Gary A. Myers [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, reserving 
    the right to object, I do so [to] make inquiry on parliamentary 
    procedure. It is normal parliamentary procedure upon such a request 
    for Members to stand and request time. Is it the Chairman's intent 
    that the time to be divided be divided tonight?
        The Chairman: (11) The Chair would advise the 
    gentleman that the Chair would not intend to divide the time 
    tonight, but that subject will be taken up at the time we reconvene 
    in connection with this bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. George E. Danielson (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Significance of Members Standing To Be Noted

Sec. 79.53 In allocating time un-der a limitation on debate on an 
    amendment under the five-minute rule, the Chair divides the time 
    among all Members standing when the limitation is agreed to, not 
    just those standing when the request or motion is first stated.

    The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on 
June 22, 1983,(12) during consideration of H.R. 3329 
(Department of Transportation appropriations for fiscal 1984):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 129 Cong. Rec. 16845, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William] Lehman of Florida: Would the Chair count how many 
    want to speak?
        The Chairman: (13) The Chair has only seen one 
    person rise who has not yet spoken, unless the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania (Mr. Coughlin) is also seeking recognition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Philip R. Sharp (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Lehman of Florida: Mr. Chairman, there is one at this time 
    on this side.
        Mr. [Lawrence] Coughlin [of Pennsylvania]: How about 3:30?
        Mr. Lehman of Florida: 3:25.
        Mr. Coughlin: 3:25 it is.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the unanimous-consent 
    request of the gentleman from Florida that all debate on this 
    amendment and all amendments thereto close at 3:25?
        There was no objection.
        The Chairman: It is so ordered, and the Chair saw standing at 
    the time the limitation was agreed to the gentleman

[[Page 11209]]

    from Florida (Mr. Lehman) . . . the gentlemen from California, Mr. 
    Fazio, Mr. Coelho, and Mr. Dixon.
        Mr. Coughlin: Mr. Chairman, un-der my reservation, I do not 
    think that is a proper count.
        Mr. [Julian C.] Dixon [of California]: Mr. Chairman, will the 
    minority leader on this issue yield?
        I had no intention of speaking. As we looked around the room--
    --
        The Chairman: The Chair heard no objection to the request.
        Mr. Coughlin: I reserved the right to object, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. [James C.] Wright [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, regular 
    order.
        The unanimous-consent request was made, opportunity was given 
    for objection, and no objection was heard. The Chair waited to see 
    if there was objection, and agreement was reached.
        Mr. Coughlin: I object, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Wright: Debate was limited on the amendment. The 
    gentleman's objection comes too late.
        The Chairman: The majority leader is correct. The regular order 
    is to proceed, and those standing when the request was agreed to, 
    their names have been taken down and the time will be allocated 
    among them.
        Mr. [Daniel E.] Lungren [of California]: I have a parliamentary 
    inquiry, Mr. Chairman. . . .
        At the time the reservation was expressed, was there not an 
    understanding, at least implicit, that those who rose were the ones 
    who intended to speak, and that being the case, should it not be 
    limited to the people who rose at that time, rather than the 
    additional three or four people who rose after the time that the 
    limit was placed?
        The Chairman: The Chair will have to indicate that the Chair 
    has no control over that. The Chair was asked how many wished to 
    speak and how many were standing prior to the request. The 
    gentleman from California was the only person standing. However, 
    when the request was put, others began to rise and take an interest 
    in the issue, including the author of the amendment.

Reserving Time Under Limitation

Sec. 79.54 An agreement to limit debate in the Committee of the Whole 
    abrogates the five-minute rule and the Member holding the floor at 
    the time the agreement is entered into may not reserve any part of 
    the five minutes for debate under the limitation (unless such 
    reservation was stated as part of the agreement).

    On Sept. 19, 1967,(14) Mr. Harley O. Staggers, of West 
Virginia, offered a pro forma amendment under the five-minute rule and 
was recognized for five minutes. He then propounded a unanimous-consent 
agreement to limit debate on the pending amendment and amendments 
thereto to 20

[[Page 11210]]

minutes. The request was agreed to, and Mr. Staggers stated he would 
reserve the balance of his time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 113 Cong. Rec. 26030, 26033, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the limitation, Mr. Staggers was recognized for one and one-
half minutes by Chairman Jack B. Brooks, of Texas, but Mr. Staggers 
contended he was entitled to more time, having reserved the time he had 
not used when he had been recognized for five minutes. The Chairman 
stated that he was only entitled to the one and one-half minutes:

        . . . The gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Staggers] is 
    recognized for 1\1/2\ minutes.
        Mr. Staggers: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from West Virginia 
    had been recognized prior to the time the motion for the limitation 
    of debate had been made, the gentleman had been recognized for 5 
    minutes.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the Chair understood 
    that the limitation as to time was made prior to the expiration of 
    the gentleman's 5 minutes, for which the gentleman was recognized, 
    which was when the gentleman made the motion that all debate on 
    this amendment cease after 20 minutes' time.
        Mr. Staggers: That is correct, Mr. Chairman, but I had been 
    recognized for 5 minutes.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the gentleman was among 
    those standing, and was included among those who were standing; in 
    addition to the gentleman 13 other Members were standing, so that 
    there were 14 Members who were entitled to a minute and a half.
        Mr. Staggers: Mr. Chairman, I will do the best I can in a 
    minute and a half.

Sec. 79.55 The Chair indicated that he would permit a Member to use a 
    portion of his time under a limitation on one amendment and reserve 
    the remainder of his time for further debate on another amendment 
    yet to be offered.

    On July 3, 1968,(15) Chairman Daniel D. Rostenkowski, of 
Illinois, indicated that Members recognized under a limitation of 
debate could use part of their allotted time on one amendment and part 
on another by reserving time:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 114 Cong. Rec. 19914, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Chet] Holifield [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    understand that there are at least two amendments which are major 
    amendments, one being as to section 17, and the other on section 
    22.
        Section 17 is now being considered in the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from New York [Mr. McCarthy].
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that that amendment is now 
    pending.
        Mr. Holifield: Those gentlemen who wish to speak on that 
    amendment must speak at this time, and they will be precluded from 
    speaking on the section 22 amendment; is that correct?

[[Page 11211]]

        The Chairman: The Chair will state that if they so speak on the 
    McCarthy amendment, that is correct.
        Mr. Holifield: I thank the Chairman.
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, a further 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Gross: That would be true if they exhaust their time?

        The Chairman: The Chair will state that that is correct.
        Mr. Gross: And only in the event that they exhaust their time 
    will they not be permitted to speak on another matter?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that that is 
    correct.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See also 104 Cong. Rec. 14659, 14664, 85th Cong. 2d Sess., July 22, 
        1958 (when debate on a bill and all amendments thereto has been 
        limited, a Member allotted time pursuant to the limitation may 
        in the discretion of the Chair use whatever part thereof he 
        desires in support of each of various amendments he may offer).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 79.56 After time for debate under the five-minute rule has been 
    fixed by motion, the remaining time is divided equally among those 
    Members indicating a desire to speak; but when the parliamentary 
    situation warrants it, the Chair may allow a Member, when 
    recognized, to use a portion of his allotted time and reserve the 
    balance.

    On Feb. 28, 1962,(17) the Committee of the Whole agreed 
to 
a motion to limit debate on 
an amendment and amendments thereto to an hour certain. Chairman George 
H. Mahon, of Texas, indicated he would recognize the Members who 
indicated they wished to speak under the limitation (he divided the 
remaining time at two minutes per Member). The Chairman then overruled 
a point of order against a Member's reserving a portion of his time:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 108 Cong. Rec. 3069, 3070, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Adam C.] Powell [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I rise in 
    opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida 
    [Mr. Cramer].
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The gentleman exhausted his time on the previous amendment, did 
    he not? I demand the regular order.
        The Chairman: Each Member was allocated 2 minutes.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Chairman, did not the gentleman from New York 
    use his time in response to a previous amendment?
        The Chairman: The Chair will say to the gentleman from Iowa 
    that the gentleman from New York did not use his full 2 minutes.

[[Page 11212]]

        Mr. Gross: How much time does the gentleman have remaining?
        The Chairman: The gentleman from New York has 1\1/2\ minutes 
    remaining.

Sec. 79.57 Where time for debate on amendments has been limited and 
    equally divided among those desiring to speak, the Chair may in his 
    discretion insist that each Member utilize or yield back his full 
    time when recognized and may permit a portion to be reserved only 
    by unanimous consent.

    During consideration of H.R. 10760 (Black Lung Benefits Reform Act 
of 1976) in the Committee of the Whole on Mar. 2, 1976,(18) 
the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 122 Cong. Rec. 4992, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John H.] Dent [of Pennsylvania]: . . . I . . . ask 
    unanimous consent to end all debate on amendments in 1 hour's time.
        The Chairman: (19) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Pennsylvania that all debate cease in 1 hour 
    on the committee amendment and all amendments thereto?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Sam Gibbons (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection. . . .
        Mr. Dent: As a point of information, Mr. Chairman, would the 
    Chair establish the time basis.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state to the gentleman that it is 
    1 hour of time on the committee amendment and all amendments 
    thereto. . . .
        The Chair will state, for the gentleman's information, that 
    there are 12 speakers who were standing at the time the request was 
    made, and there is only 1 hour allotted, each speaker will have 5 
    minutes, and that is all. . . .
        Mr. [Gary] Myers of Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman, in utilization 
    of the 5-minute allotment will the speakers be allowed to divide it 
    up into different periods and reserve time back and forth?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that by unanimous consent, 
    Members may do that, yes. . . .
        Mr. Myers of Pennsylvania: The Chairman is then saying, it 
    takes unanimous consent to reserve time for later usage?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the Members will be 
    recognized for 5 minutes each. If the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
    wishes to reserve a portion of his five minutes then it requires 
    unanimous consent to do so.

Sec. 79.58 Where debate has been limited under the five-minute rule to 
    a time certain and the Chair has allocated the remaining time among 
    those Members desiring to speak, the Chair may require that Members 
    wishing to reserve a portion of their allocated time may do so only 
    by unanimous consent.

    On May 11, 1976,(20) the Committee of the Whole had 
under

[[Page 11213]]

consideration H.R. 12835 (the Vocational Education Act amendments) when 
a motion to limit debate was offered as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 122 Cong. Rec. 13416, 13417, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Carl D.] Perkins [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I move that 
    all debate on title III and all amendments thereto close at 4:50 
    p.m.
        The motion was agreed to.
        The Chairman: (1) Members standing at the time the 
    motion was made will each be recognized for approximately a minute 
    and a quarter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. B. F. Sisk (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Albert H.] Quie [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Quie: Mr. Chairman, would it be in order for a Member to 
    divide his minute and a quarter into parts if he wishes to speak on 
    more than one amendment?
        The Chairman: The gentleman might make that request by 
    unanimous consent.

Sec. 79.59 The allocation of time pursuant to a limitation un-der the 
    five-minute rule is within the discretion of the Chair, who may 
    refuse to permit Members to whom time has been allotted to split 
    their time except by unanimous consent.

    On Apr. 26, 1978,(2) during consideration of H.R. 8494, 
the Pub-lic Disclosure of Lobbying Act of 1978, a limitation on debate 
to a time certain was agreed to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 124 Cong. Rec. 11641, 11643, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [George E.] Danielson [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I move 
    that all debate on this bill and all amendments thereto be 
    terminated at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m. tonight.

        [The motion was agreed to.]
        Mr. [Thomas N.] Kindness [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Kindness: On page 31, line 18, in-
        sert . . . before the comma the following language: ``or to the 
        membership of an organization''. . . .

        Mr. Danielson: Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: (3) At this time the Chair will advise 
    Members that even if they have 5 minutes, they may address 
    themselves only to one amendment. They will not be able to split 
    their time except by unanimous consent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Lloyd Meeds (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Danielson: Between amendments?
        The Chairman: That is correct.

Sec. 79.60 A Member to whom time is allocated under a limitation on 
    debate under the five-minute rule may, by unanimous consent, 
    consume a portion of his time and reserve the unused portion for 
    debate on another amendment to be offered under the limitation.

[[Page 11214]]

    The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on 
May 24, 1978,(4) during consideration of H.R. 10929 (the 
Department of Defense authorization for fiscal 1979):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 124 Cong. Rec. 15338, 15341, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Melvin] Price [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I move that all 
    debate on the bill and all amendments thereto close at 6:30.
        The Chairman: (5) The question is on the motion 
    offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Price).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The motion was agreed to. . . .
        Mr. Gary A. Myers [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Gary A. Myers: Page 35, line 10, 
        strike out ``and''. . . .

        Mr. Gary A. Myers: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I 
    be allotted one-half my time at this time and reserve the balance 
    for another amendment.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania?
        There was no objection.

Sec. 79.61 A Member allocated time under a limitation of debate under 
    the five-minute rule must obtain unanimous consent to reserve his 
    time, and time for other Members in opposition, for debate on an 
    amendment if offered.

    During consideration of the foreign assistance authorization bill 
(H.R. 12514) in the Committee of the Whole on Aug. 2, 
1978,(6) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 124 Cong. Rec. 23950, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Richard H.] Ichord [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I have an 
    amendment pending at the desk, which I will offer in the event that 
    the amendment of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Findley) to the 
    substitute amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Zablocki) 
    fails.
        Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I may 
    reserve my time for the discussion of that amendment.
        The Chairman: (7) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Missouri?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Don Fuqua (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Stephen J.] Solarz [of New York]: Reserving the right to 
    object, Mr. Chairman, if the Findley amendment is defeated and the 
    gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Ichord) offers his amendment, at that 
    point, after he makes his remarks, will there be time for other 
    Members to speak on the amendment?
        The Chairman: The Chair will inform the gentleman that any 
    other Member or Members will be permitted to speak only if a 
    unanimous-consent request is made and granted.
        Mr. Solarz: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of 
    objection.
        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I do 
    not intend to object, but I would join in the gen

[[Page 11215]]

    tleman's unanimous-consent request that, if his time is reserved 
    just prior to the consideration of his amendment, he also include 
    my time.
        Mr. Ichord: Mr. Chairman, I would so request.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Missouri?
        There was no objection.

Reserving Time To Debate Amendments Not Yet Pending

Sec. 79.62 Notwithstanding a limitation of debate under the five-minute 
    rule, an amendment printed in the Record in the proper form will be 
    guaranteed 10 minutes of debate thereon.

    On Sept. 11, 1978,(8) during consideration of the Civil 
Service Reform Act of 1978 (H.R. 11280) in the Committee of the Whole, 
the Chair responded to an inquiry regarding the effect of a limitation 
of debate on amendments printed in the Record:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 124 Cong. Rec. 28800, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: . . . Mr. Chairman, we have 
    had a long and difficult day . . . the hour is late, and I am not 
    sure we can be productive much longer. We do have a number of 
    important amendments left.
        Mr. Chairman, I am going to make a unanimous-consent request in 
    just a moment, and if it is agreed to, at that point I would move 
    that the Committee rise. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, my unanimous-consent request is that the 
    remaining time for debate on title VII, and all amendments 
    thereto--that is the title we are now considering--be limited to a 
    total of 2 hours. . . .
        Mr. [Bill] Frenzel [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, reserving the 
    right to object, as I understand it, there will be two substitutes 
    posed, and a number of Members have amendments in the Record. They 
    are, of course, amendments to the bill and not to the substitutes. 
    I wonder if the Chair could tell me how we could protect the 
    amendments which are now filed so that they would be in order and 
    have time under the proposal that the gentleman suggests, to either 
    of the substitutes.
        The Chairman: (9) The Chair advises the gentleman 
    that the amendments which have been printed in the Record would be 
    protected under our rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. George E. Danielson (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Frenzel: Will we be able to make the amendments to the 
    substitute, Mr. Chairman?
        The Chairman: Yes. If they can be redrafted to pertain to the 
    substitute, and placed in the Record, the answer is in the 
    affirmative.
        Mr. Frenzel: I thank the Chair.

Additional Debate Time Beyond Original Cutoff

Sec. 79.63 The Committee of the Whole may by unanimous consent permit 
    additional debate on an amendment prior

[[Page 11216]]

    to its being offered, notwithstanding a previous limitation on 
    debate under the five-minute rule on all amendments to the bill.

    On Oct. 4, 1983,(10) the following proceedings occurred 
in Committee of the Whole during consideration of H.R. 2379 (National 
Park System Protection and Resources Management Act of 1983):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 129 Cong. Rec. 27099, 27102, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John F.] Seiberling [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, reserving the 
    right to object, I wonder if we could have agreement on putting a 
    time limitation on discussions on this amendment and all other 
    amendments to this bill of 4:15?
        I make that as a unanimous-consent request.
        The Chairman: (11) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Ohio?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Carl D. Perkins (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        Mr. [Manuel] Lujan [Jr., of New Mexico]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Lujan: Mr. Chairman, we undoubtedly will have a vote on 
    this bill which will take us beyond 4:15, and I was wondering if it 
    would be in order, by a unanimous-consent request, that we could 
    change that 4:15 time so that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
    Murphy) would have time to offer his amendment after the vote on 
    this amendment?
        The Chairman: By unanimous consent, he can obtain time to 
    debate his amendment. . . .
        Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that following the vote on the pending Hansen 
    amendment the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Brown) have 3 minutes 
    and some member in opposition have 3 minutes for debate; and that 
    the same request be extended to the amendment of the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy).
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Arizona?
        There was no objection.

Chair's Discretion in Allocating Time

Sec. 79.64 A limitation of debate on a bill and all amendments thereto 
    to a time certain abrogates in effect the five-minute rule, and 
    decisions regarding the division of time and the order of 
    recognition of those Members desiring to speak are largely within 
    the discretion of the Chair, who may decline to recognize Members 
    more than one time under the limitation and may refuse to permit 
    Members to divide their allotted time so as to speak to several of 
    the amendments which are to be offered.

[[Page 11217]]

    On May 6, 1970,(12) after the Committee of the Whole had 
agreed to close debate on a pending bill and amendments thereto at a 
certain hour, Chairman Daniel D. Rostenkowski, of Illinois, answered a 
parliamentary inquiry on whether he would, under his discretion, allow 
Members to speak more than once or to allot their time under the 
limitation:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 116 Cong. Rec. 14467, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Stratton: Under the limitation of debate, is it permissible 
    for a Member to speak twice within his allotted time either for or 
    against two specific amendments?
        The Chairman: The Chair will recognize the gentleman for one 
    time in support of or in opposition to an amendment.
        Mr. Stratton: But not more than once?
        The Chairman: No; not more than once.

Sec. 79.65 While the Chair normally allocates time for debate among 
    those standing at the time a motion to limit debate is adopted, the 
    Chair may refrain from doing so where several hours of debate 
    remain under the limitation and where it would be premature to 
    deviate from the five-minute rule by dividing all remaining time 
    just among Members who are then present.

    On Oct. 7, 1974,(13) during consideration of H. Res. 988 
(to reform the structure, jurisdiction, and procedures of House 
committees), the Chair responded to a parliamentary inquiry as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 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 gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. Hansen), and all 
    amendments thereto, conclude in 5 hours.
        The Chairman: (14) The question is on the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 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. . . .
        Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I have a . . . 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that when time is limited 
    under the rules of the House, the Chair normally recognizes those 
    Members standing and allocates time. I pose the question to the 
    Chair whether that would or would not be the procedure for as long 
    as we would proceed, for as long as a period of 5 hours?

[[Page 11218]]

        The Chairman: The Chair would like to advise the gentleman that 
    those amendments pending and those that would be offered would, of 
    course, be considered. As far as the Members standing on the 
    request that is now before the committee, it would seem to the 
    Chair that it would be premature to recognize the Members standing 
    when there are a number of Members not present at this time who 
    would like to be heard.

        Mr. [Frank] Thompson [Jr. of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Thompson of New Jersey: Mr. Chairman, I did not understand 
    the Chair's answer to the parliamentary inquiry by the gentleman 
    from Michigan (Mr. O'Hara). Is it my understanding that 
    notwithstanding that 5 hours under the gentleman's motion would 
    dispose of the Hansen and Martin substitutes, in addition thereto 
    for those amendments which have been printed in the Record will 
    there be time to debate them allowed?
        The Chairman: The Chair would like to advise the gentleman from 
    New Jersey that the proponents of all amendments printed in the 
    Record that have not been reached during the 5-hour period will be 
    recognized under the rules of the House for 5 minutes in support of 
    their amendments. They would be protected.
        Mr. Thompson of New Jersey: How about time in opposition?
        The Chairman: And 5 minutes in opposition. The gentleman is 
    correct.

Sec. 79.66 A limitation on time for debate on a pending amendment and 
    all amendments thereto in effect abrogates the five-minute rule and 
    the Chair, at his discretion, may allocate time to all Members 
    desiring to speak, whether or not they have previously spoken on 
    the amendment; and where time for debate has been limited and the 
    time remaining allocated to those Members wishing to speak, an 
    extension of time for debate by unanimous consent would increase 
    the time allotted to individual Members but would not allow 
    additional Members to seek recognition.

    On Oct. 1, 1975,(15) during consideration of the 
Department of Defense appropriation bill (H.R. 9861) in the Committee 
of the Whole, the proceedings described above occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 121 Cong. Rec. 31074, 31075, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I move to 
    strike the requisite number of words.
        Mr. Chairman, I had misjudged before the desire of the House at 
    an earlier time to try to limit debate to 30 minutes. I want to be 
    sure that no one is denied the opportunity to speak. I ask 
    unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment and all 
    amendments thereto conclude in 15 minutes.

[[Page 11219]]

        The Chairman: (16) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Texas?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection. . . .
        Mr. [Burt L.] Talcott [of California]: Mr. Chairman, may I 
    inquire whether or not the Members who have already spoken on this 
    amendment may speak again during limited time?
        The Chairman: When time is limited, Members are permitted to 
    speak again under the allocation of time.
        Mr. Talcott: And they can yield their time to other Members?
        The Chairman: That is a unanimous-consent request. . . .
        Mr. [Barry] Goldwater [Jr., of California]: . . . I ask 
    unanimous consent that the time be extended another 15 minutes.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from California?
        Mr. [Andrew J.] Hinshaw [of California]: Mr. Chairman, 
    reserving the right to object, if we were to accede to the 
    unanimous-consent request, would that open the door for additional 
    Members to stand up to seek additional time?
        The Chairman: The Chair has already announced his allocation of 
    time.

Sec. 79.67 Where time for debate is limited to a specific number of 
    minutes rather than a 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).

[[Page 11220]]

        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.

Sec. 79.68 A limitation of debate on a bill and all amendments thereto 
    to a time certain in effect abrogates the five-minute rule; and 
    decisions regarding the division of the remaining time and the or-
    der of recognition of those Members desiring to speak are largely 
    within the discretion of the Chair, who may defer recognition of 
    listed Members whose amendments have been printed in the Record and 
    who are therefore guaranteed five minutes notwithstanding the 
    limitation.

    The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on 
June 4, 1975,(19) during consideration of the Voting Rights 
Act Extension (H.R. 6219):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 121 Cong. Rec. 16899, 16901, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Don] Edwards of California: Mr. Chairman, I move that all 
    debate on the bill and all amendments thereto terminate at 6:45 
    p.m.
        The Chairman: (20) The question is on the motion 
    offered by the gentleman from California.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The motion was agreed to. . . .
        The Chairman: With the permission of the Committee, the Chair 
    will briefly state the situation.
        There are a number of Members who do not have amendments that 
    were placed in the Record, and the Chair feels that he must try to 
    protect them somewhat, so he proposes to go to a number of Members 
    on the list so they will at least get some time. The time allotted 
    will be less than a minute.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. de la 
    Garza).

[[Page 11221]]

Sec. 79.69 Where the Committee of the Whole agrees to limit debate on a 
    pending amendment, the five-minute rule is abrogated and the Chair 
    allocates the remaining time among those Members standing at the 
    time the limitation is agreed to, and not among those Members who 
    stand after the allocation of time is announced.

    On May 4, 1977,(1) the situation described above 
occurred in the Committee of the Whole, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 123 Cong. Rec. 13413, 13414, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Dante B.] Fascell [of Florida]: I am trying to be 
    reasonable about this.
        Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Dornan) and 
    the amendment offered as a substitute by the gentleman from Alabama 
    (Mr. Buchanan), and all amendments thereto, close in 10 minutes.
        The Chairman: (2) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Florida?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Elliott Levitas (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        The Chairman: Members standing at the time the unanimous-
    consent request was granted will be recognized for 50 seconds each. 
    . . .
        Mr. [Parren J.] Mitchell of Maryland: Mr. Chairman, was the 
    limitation set on debate a time period of 10 minutes?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct. The time limitation is 
    10 minutes.
        Mr. Mitchell of Maryland: Ten minutes. And may I ask the 
    Chairman, how many Members were standing? I figured there were 
    roughly 120 Members standing.
        The Chairman: At the time the unanimous-consent request for 
    limitation of debate was agreed to the Chair saw 14 Members on 
    their feet. That observation was made at the time the request for 
    limitation was agreed to, and not later on. The Chair saw 14 
    Members standing at the time the request for limitation was agreed 
    to, and under the precedents the Chair has discretion to divide the 
    remaining time only among those Members
        Mr. [Ronald V.] Dellums [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Dellums: Mr. Chairman, would the Chair announce the names 
    of the Members who were standing? The gentleman from California was 
    standing at the time of the agreement to the limitation. This 
    gentleman from California was on his feet, and I do not recall 
    hearing my name announced.
        The Chairman: The Chair named each Member he saw standing at 
    the time the unanimous-consent agreement for a time limitation was 
    agreed to. . . .
        The Chair will once again read the names of the Members who 
    were seen standing at the time the unanimous-consent request was 
    agreed to.

[[Page 11222]]

Sec. 79.70 Where the Committee of the Whole has limited to 5 minutes 
    the remaining time for debate on an amendment, the five-minute rule 
    is in effect abrogated and the Chair may in his discretion 
    recognize two Members to equally control the time in support of and 
    in opposition to the amendment, granting priority of recognition to 
    control the time in opposition to a member of the committee 
    handling the bill; but where no committee member seeks recognition 
    for that purpose, the Chair may recognize any Member to control the 
    time.

    On June 22, 1977,(3) during consideration of H.R. 7797 
(the foreign assistance and related agencies appropriation bill for 
fiscal 1978) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair made an 
announcement regarding debate un-der the five-minute rule. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 123 Cong. Rec. 20291, 20292, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clarence D.] Long of Maryland: Mr. Chairman, I move that 
    all debate on this amendment and any amendments thereto close in 5 
    minutes.
        The motion was agreed to.
        The Chairman: (4) Let the Chair make this 
    announcement. There is no way that the Chair can divide 5 minutes 
    among all who wish to speak. Therefore, under the prerogative of 
    the Chair, the Chair will recognize one proponent and one opponent 
    each for 2\1/2\ minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Abraham Kazen, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair at this time recognizes the proponent, the gentleman 
    from New York (Mr. Wolff). . . .
        Is there any member of the committee who wishes to be 
    recognized in opposition to the amendment?
        If not, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
    Weiss) as an opponent of the amendment.

Sec. 79.71 Adoption of a motion to limit debate in Committee of the 
    Whole abrogates the five-minute rule, and the allocation of the 
    remaining time is within the discretion of the Chair, who may 
    divide the time between the majority and minority manager of the 
    bill rather than among all Members indicating a desire to speak.

    On Apr. 1, 1976,(5) during consideration of H.R. 12406 
(the Federal Election Campaign Act amendments of 1976) in the Committee 
of the Whole, the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 122 Cong. Rec. 9088, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I move that all 
    debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto finish at 3 
    p.m.

[[Page 11223]]

        The Chairman: (6) The question is on the motion 
    offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hays).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. Hays 
    of Ohio) there were--ayes 93, noes 48. . . .
        So the motion was agreed to. . . .
        The Chairman: With the permission of the Committee, the Chair 
    would like to make a brief statement.
        The Committee has just limited the time on this amendment and 
    all amendments thereto to 3 o'clock. The gentleman from California 
    (Mr. Phillip Burton) had been recognized for 5 minutes. That will 
    leave approximately 6 minutes to be allocated.
        The precedents provide under chapter 29, section 31, of 
    Deschler's Procedures that the Chair has discretion in distributing 
    the time. Due to the obvious impossibility of satisfying all 
    Members the Chair proposes to allocate 3 minutes to the gentleman 
    from Ohio (Mr. Hays) and 3 minutes to the gentleman from California 
    (Mr. Wiggins), whereby they may yield time.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. 
    Phillip Burton).

Sec. 79.72 Where there was pending an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute for a bill and the permissible degree of amendments 
    thereto, the Chair indicated in response to parliamentary 
    inquiries: (1) that a motion to limit debate on the amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute and all amendments thereto was in order 
    although the bill itself had not been read; (2) that amendments 
    printed in the Record would be debatable for 10 minutes 
    notwithstanding the limitation; and (3) that all Members would be 
    allocated equal time under the limitation regardless of committee 
    membership but that Members seeking to offer amendments could be 
    first recognized.

    The proceedings in the Committee of the Whole relating to 
consideration of H.R. 13367 (a bill to amend and extend the State and 
Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972) on June 10, 1976,(7) 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 122 Cong. Rec. 17380, 17381, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Frank] Horton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I move that all 
    debate on the Brooks amendment and all amendments thereto end by 6 
    p.m. . . .
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: . . . I do not remember 
    the bill being open at any point to amendment.
        The Chairman: (8) The motion of the gentleman from 
    New York, as the Chair understood it, was that all debate on the 
    Brooks amendment and all amendments thereto end at 6 p.m.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bauman: So that the motion is in order?
        The Chairman: The motion is in order. It is limited to the 
    Brooks amendment and amendments thereto.

[[Page 11224]]

        Mr. [Clarence D.] Long of Maryland: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Long of Maryland: Mr. Chairman, of course I believe it is 
    understood that this does not apply to any amendments that are 
    printed in the Congressional Record?
        The Chairman: Under the rules of the House, it does not apply 
    to those amendments. . . .
        Mr. [J. J.] Pickle [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Pickle: Mr. Chairman, under the proposed time limitation, 
    would the Chair tend to recognize a Member who is not a member of 
    the commit-tee? For instance, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
    Adams) has an important amendment, and if he is not recognized 
    within the time limitation, would the chairman of the committee let 
    the gentleman be recognized?
        Mr. [Jack] Brooks [of Texas]: I do not have control of the 
    time. I think the answer, obviously, is that he will be recognized.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that under limitation of 
    time committee members no longer have priority in seeking 
    recognition. Time is equally allocated.
        So the motion was agreed to.
        The Chairman: Members standing at the time the motion was made 
    will be recognized for approximately 1 minute and 55 seconds each.

Sec. 79.73 Where debate has been limited to a time certain and the 
    Chair has divided the remaining time among those desiring to speak, 
    the Chair may, in his discretion, entertain a parliamentary inquiry 
    without deducting the time from that allocated to the Member 
    raising the inquiry.

    On June 18, 1976,(9) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 13179 (the State Department authorization for fiscal 
year 1977) when a time limitation on debate was agreed to, following 
which several parliamentary inquiries were directed to the Chair. The 
proceedings were as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 122 Cong. Rec. 19251, 19254, 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. . . .
        The motion was agreed to. . . .
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (10) The Chair recognizes 
    the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Biester).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. John Brademas (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Edward G.] Biester [Jr., of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Biester: Mr. Chairman, so far we have been discussing only 
    one of the five remaining amendments that the Chairman of the 
    Committee of the Whole informed the chairman of the

[[Page 11225]]

    Committee on International Relations that were at the desk.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: That is correct.
        Mr. Biester: I am wondering what the plans of the Chair are 
    with respect to allocating time to those Members who wish to speak 
    on the various other amendments.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that Members 
    will have to use the time that is allotted to them prior to 2:30 
    p.m. to debate any of the amendments that remain, under the 
    unanimous-consent request that was granted earlier.
        Mr. Biester: Since I have engaged in this parliamentary 
    inquiry, I presume that my time has about expired; is that correct?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that the 
    gentleman's parliamentary inquiry will not come out of his time.

Sec. 79.74 Where debate under the five-minute rule is limited to three 
    hours of debate, the Chair may determine that any allocation of the 
    time at that point is premature, and continue to recognize Members 
    for five minutes.

    On Feb. 1, 1978,(11) during consideration of H.R. 1614 
(the Out-er Continental Shelf Lands Act Amendments) in the Committee of 
the Whole, the Chair responded to inquiries regarding allocation of 
time for debate, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 124 Cong. Rec. 1827, 1828, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John M.] Murphy of New York: Mr. Chairman, I will revise 
    the unanimous-consent request.
        Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that when we convene 
    tomorrow, all debate on H.R. 1614 and all amendments and 
    substitutes thereto end after 3 hours of debate. . . .
        Mr. [William A.] Steiger [of Wisconsin]: . . . If we were to 
    agree to this procedure tonight, what Members are going to be 
    recognized tomorrow? Will it be those Members who are standing, the 
    majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Wright), the 
    gentleman from Illinois, and a few others? There are four or five 
    Members standing, and I am one of those standing. . . .
        The Chairman: (12) The Chair would like to advise 
    the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Steiger) that regardless of the 
    time fixed, we would proceed under the 5-minute rule at the outset.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Steiger: Regardless of the time fixed, we proceed under the 
    5-minute rule?
        The Chairman: We will proceed under the 5-minute rule. The 
    Chair would like to advise the gentleman that it would be premature 
    for the Chair to allocate time at this point.

Sec. 79.75 Priority of recognition under a limitation of time for 
    debate under the five-minute rule is in the complete discretion of 
    the Chair, who may disregard committee se

[[Page 11226]]

    niority and consider amendment sponsorship.

    On June 26, 1979,(13) it was demonstrated that where the 
Committee of the Whole has agreed to a limitation on debate under the 
five-minute rule on a section of a bill and all amendments thereto, 
distribution of the time under the limitation is within the discretion 
of the Chair. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 125 Cong. Rec. 16677, 16678, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
            Under consideration was H.R. 3930, the Defense Production 
        Act Amendments of 1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William S.] Moorhead of Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman, I move 
    that all debate on section 3 and all amendments thereto cease at 
    6:40 p.m. . . .
        A recorded vote was ordered.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 
    209, noes 183, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 41, as follows: . 
    . .
        The Chairman: (14) The Chair will attempt to explain 
    the situation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Committee has just voted to end all debate on section 3 and 
    all amendments thereto at 6:40. The Chair in a moment is going to 
    ask those Members wishing to speak between now and then to stand. 
    The Chair will advise Members that he will attempt, once that list 
    is determined, to recognize first those Members on the list with 
    amendments which are not protected by having been printed in the 
    Record. . . .
        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, did I understand 
    the Chair correctly that Members who are protected by having their 
    amendments printed in the Record will not be recognized until the 
    time has run so that those Members will only have 5 minutes to 
    present their amendments, but that other Members will be recognized 
    first for the amendments which are not printed in the Record?
        The Chairman: Those Members who are recognized prior to the 
    expiration of time have approximately 20 seconds to present their 
    amendments. Those Members whose amendments are printed in the 
    Record will have a guaranteed 5 minutes after time has expired. . . 
    .
        The Chair will now recognize those Members who wish to offer 
    amendments which have not been printed in the Record.
        The Chair will advise Members he will recognize listed Members 
    in opposition to the amendments also for 20 seconds. . . .
        Mr. [Richard] Kelly [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, is it not 
    regular order that the Members of the Committee with amendments be 
    given preference and recognition?
        The Chairman: The Chair would advise the gentleman once the 
    limitation of time has been agreed to and time divided, that 
    priority of recognition is within the complete discretion of the 
    Chair.

Sec. 79.76 Where the Committee of the Whole has, by unanimous consent, 
    permitted four designated amendments to be offered to a title of a 
    bill

[[Page 11227]]

    which has been passed in the reading for amendment, and has limited 
    time on those amendments to a time certain, the Chair may, in his 
    discretion, allocate in advance a portion of that time among the 
    proponent and opponent of those amendments and then allocate the 
    remaining time among other Members desiring to speak.

    On Jan. 29, 1980, the Committee of the Whole, having under 
consideration H.R. 4788, the Water Resources Development Act, had by 
unanimous consent agreed to allow four specified amendments to be 
offered to a title of the bill that had been passed in the reading for 
amendment.
    Mr. Ray Roberts, of Texas, subsequently asked unanimous consent 
that debate on the title and amendments end at a time certain: 
(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 126 Cong. Rec. 993, 994, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Roberts: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all 
    debate on title III and all amendments thereto end at 4:40.
        The Chairman: (16) Does the gentleman from Texas 
    wish to allocate any portion of that time under his unanimous-
    consent request, consistent with the discussion that took place 
    previously?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Roberts: Five minutes only. I think there is enough to go 
    around. I will not use my 5 minutes.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roberts)?
        Mr. [Robert W.] Edgar [of Pennsylvania]: Reserving the right to 
    object, in our colloquy we had suggested that the gentleman from 
    Montana be given at least a minimum of 5 minutes and the gentleman 
    from Washington be given 5 minutes. I would have no objection to 
    that.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roberts) so 
    revise his unanimous-consent request?
        Mr. Roberts: I do, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roberts) as revised? . . .
        There was no objection.
        The Chairman: The Chair has discretion to allocate time under 
    the unanimous-consent request. In addition to the allocation which 
    has been requested of 5 minutes for the gentleman from Montana and 
    5 minutes for the gentleman from Washington, the Chair in the 
    exercise of that discretion will allocate a total of 10 minutes to 
    the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Edgar) on the basis that he is 
    offering three amendments, and will allocate the balance of the 
    time to those Members who are standing.
        Members standing at the time the unanimous-consent request was 
    agreed to will be recognized for 40 seconds each, with the possible 
    loss of time if there are any recorded votes.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
    Edgar) for 10 minutes.

[[Page 11228]]

Sec. 79.77 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. 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. . . .

[[Page 11229]]

        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. 79.78 Following an agreement to limit debate on an amendment and 
    an amendment thereto to a time certain, the Chairman of the 
    Committee of the Whole may exercise his discretion and allot the 
    remaining time in three equal parts; in this case time was 
    controlled by the offeror of the amendment (Brown), the offeror of 
    the amendment to the amendment (Leach) and the floor manager of the 
    bill (Zablocki).

    The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on 
Apr. 13, 1983,(20) during consideration of House Joint 
Resolution 13 (nuclear weapons freeze):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 129 Cong. Rec. 8425, 8426, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: . . . I ask unanimous 
    consent that debate close at 6:05.
        The Chairman: (1) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Wisconsin?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jack] Kemp [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I object.
        The Chairman: Objection is heard.
        Mr. Zablocki: 6:15?
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Wisconsin?
        There was no objection.
        The Chairman: The unanimous-consent request is agreed to and 
    debate is limited to 6:15.

[[Page 11230]]

        The Chair is going to exercise discretion and allot the time in 
    three equal parts to the gentleman from Iowa 
    (Mr. Leach), the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Brown) and the 
    gentleman 
    from Wisconsin (Mr. Zablocki) and, of course, those Members can 
    yield for purposes of debate.
        Mr. [Newt] Gingrich [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Gingrich: Mr. Chairman, if I may express my ignorance for a 
    moment, is it, in fact, the prerogative of the Chair in that sort 
    of unanimous-consent request to then design whatever system seems 
    workable?
        The Chairman: Yes, it is. The Chair has exercised its 
    discretion in light of the circumstances and allocates 6 minutes to 
    the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach); 6 minutes to the gentleman 
    from Colorado (Mr. Brown); and 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
    Wisconsin (Mr. Zablocki).

Sec. 79.79 Where debate under the five-minute rule on a bill and all 
    amendments thereto has been limited by motion to a time certain 
    (with approximately 90 minutes remaining) the Chair may in his 
    discretion continue to recognize Members under the five-minute 
    rule, according priority to members of the committee reporting the 
    bill, instead of allocating time between proponents and opponents 
    or among all Members standing, where it cannot be determined what 
    amendments will be offered.

    On July 29, 1983,(2) during consideration of the 
International Monetary Fund Authorization (H.R. 2957) in the Committee 
of the Whole, the Chair responded 
to several parliamentary inquiries regarding recognition following 
agreement to a motion to limit debate to a time certain:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 129 Cong. Rec. 21649, 21650, 21659, 21660, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Fernand J.] St Germain [of Rhode Island]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill, H.R. 2957, be 
    considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at 
    any point.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from Rhode Island?
        There was no objection.
        The text of title IV and title V is as follows:

                  TITLE IV--INTERNATIONAL LENDING SUPERVISION

            Sec. 401. This title may be cited as the ``International 
        Lending Supervision Act of 1983''. . . .

        Mr. St Germain: I have a motion, Mr. Chairman. . . .
        I now move that all debate on the bill, H.R. 2957, and all 
    amendments thereto, cease at 12 o'clock noon. . . .
        Mr. [Ed] Bethune [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry. . . .

[[Page 11231]]

        Mr. Chairman, the parliamentary inquiry is for the Chair to 
    please state the process by which we will do our business from now 
    until the time is cut off. . . .
        Mr. [Stephen L.] Neal [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, would 
    it not be in order at this time to ask that the time be divided 
    between the proponents and the opponents of this measure, since 
    there is a limitation on the time?
        The Chairman: (3) The Chair believes not, because 
    the time has been limited on the entire bill. It would be very 
    difficult to allocate time to any one particular party or two 
    parties when the Chair has no knowledge of the amendments that will 
    be offered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Donald J. Pease (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Neal: Mr. Chairman, a further parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Neal: Mr. Chairman, is it not true that members of the 
    committee should be given preference in terms of recognition?
        The Chairman: That is true. At the time the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania was recognized, he was the only one seeking 
    recognition.

Chair Allocates Limited Time, Not Proponent of Amendment

Sec. 79.80 Where debate is limited on an amendment in the Committee of 
    the Whole, the Chair divides the remaining time among all Members 
    desiring to speak at the time the limitation was agreed to, and not 
    merely among those Members mentioned by a Member as having wished 
    to be recognized prior to the limitation.

    The proceedings in the Committee of the Whole on Oct. 5, 
1981,(4) during consideration of H.R. 3112 (to extend the 
Voting Rights Act of 1965) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 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: (5) The Chair will inquire 
    of the gentleman from California whether his unanimous-consent 
    request includes this amendment and all amendments thereto.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 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: For what purpose does the gentleman 
    from Louisiana seek recognition?
        Mr. [W. Henson] Moore [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I move to 
    strike the requisite number of words.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair will first allocate the 
    time

[[Page 11232]]

    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. That is the gentleman from Louisiana, the gentleman 
    from Michigan, and the gentlewoman from New Jersey.
        I was assuming 5 minutes apiece, 15 minutes total.
        Are we talking about a whole slew of Members who want to talk 
    now?
        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.

Where Division of Time by Unanimous Consent Was Objected to, Chair Used 
    His Discretion

Sec. 79.81 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.

    The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on 
Aug. 2, 1984,(6) during consideration of the Department of 
Interior Appropriations Act of 1985 (H.R. 5973):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 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: (7) The Chair will remind the 
    gentleman that time cannot be allocated between sides or between 
    Members except by unanimous consent. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 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.

[[Page 11233]]

        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.

Procedure Where Control of Time Set by Unanimous Consent

Sec. 79.82 The Committee of the Whole may by unanimous consent limit 
    the time for debate under the five-minute rule and provide for the 
    time to be controlled and divided between the majority and minority 
    sides.

    On May 26, 1966,(8) Adam C. Powell, of New York, 
Chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor which had reported the 
bill under discussion under the five-minute rule in the Committee of 
the Whole, asked unanimous consent that debate on a pending amendment 
be limited to 60 minutes, 30 minutes on each side (majority and 
minority), to be equally divided and controlled by the proponent of the 
amendment and the subcommittee chairman handling the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 112 Cong. Rec. 11608, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The request was agreed to.
    On May 10, 1966,(9) the Committee of the Whole agreed to 
a request limiting five-minute debate and dividing the control of the 
time between the majority and minority Members in charge of the bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Id. at p. 10232.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Carl] Albert [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, for the purpose 
    of clarification, would it be in order for the gentleman from 
    Tennessee to ask unanimous consent that debate on this amendment be 
    confined to 20 minutes

[[Page 11234]]

    on each side, the 20 minutes on this side to be controlled by the 
    gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Evins] and the 20 minutes on the 
    Republican side by the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Jonas]?
        Mr. [Joseph L.] Evins: Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished 
    majority leader for the suggestion and now make the unanimous-
    consent request accordingly.
        The Chairman: (10) Without objection, it is so 
    ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See also 111 Cong. Rec. 16227, 16228, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., July 9, 
        1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 79.83 Where the Committee of the Whole has by unanimous consent 
    fixed debate on an amendment to two hours and divided control of 
    the time between the proponent of the amendment and the chairman of 
    the committee, the two Members controlling debate may yield time as 
    in general debate, and Members may offer and debate amendments in 
    the time yielded them.

    On July 9, 1965,(12) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 6400, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, pursuant to a 
unanimous-consent agreement fixing debate on the pending amendment at 
two hours and dividing control of the time between Mr. William M. 
McCulloch, of Ohio, the proponent of the amendment, and Emanuel Celler, 
of New York, Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary. Mr. McCulloch, 
who had the floor, yielded to Mr. Robert McClory, of Illinois, who 
offered an amendment and was recognized by Chairman Richard Bolling, of 
Missouri, for five minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 111 Cong. Rec. 16207, 16217, 16218, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Chairman stated, in response to a parliamentary inquiry by Mr. 
Celler that the two Members in control could, under the unanimous-
consent agreement, yield time to other Members and that Members yielded 
to could offer amendments.

Sec. 79.84 Where by unanimous consent the final portion of debate under 
    a limitation has been reserved to the manager of the bill, and that 
    Member has also consumed five minutes in opposition 
    to a preferential motion to strike the enacting clause, he is 
    nevertheless recognized again where all other time under the 
    limitation has been preempted by debate on the preferential motion.

    During consideration of the Clean Air Act Amendments of

[[Page 11235]]

1976 (H.R. 10498) in the Committee of the Whole on Sept. 15, 
1976,(13) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 122 Cong. Rec. 30466, 30469-71, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Paul G.] Rogers [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that debate on the Waxman-Maguire amendment and 
    the Dingell amendment, and all amendments thereto, conclude at 1:30 
    . . . and that the last 10 minutes be reserved for myself.
        The Chairman: (14) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Florida?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. J. Edward Roush (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        The Chairman: Members standing at the time the unanimous-
    consent request was made will be recognized for 30 seconds each. . 
    . .
        Mr. [James C.] Wright [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

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

        The Chairman: The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Wright) is 
    recognized for 5 minutes in support of his preferential motion. . . 
    .
        Mr. Rogers: Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the motion.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rogers) is 
    recognized for 5 minutes in opposition to the preferential motion. 
    . . .
        The time of the gentleman has expired. . . .
        The question is on the preferential motion offered by the 
    gentleman from Texas (Mr. Wright).
        The preferential motion was rejected.
        The Chairman: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida 
    (Mr. Rogers) for the balance of the time.
        Mr. [James T.] Broyhill [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, did 
    the Chair not mean to recognize the gentleman from North Carolina?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state to the gentleman from North 
    Carolina that the Chair is operating under the limitation which was 
    imposed by the unanimous-consent request. There are two key points 
    that come into play at this time, the limitation of the time and 
    the reservation of time to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rogers) 
    of the last 10 minutes. The gentleman from Florida will not get the 
    full 10 minutes because the time will have expired at 1:30.
        The Chair again recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
    Rogers).

Sec. 79.85 Although a motion to limit debate on a pending amendment is 
    in order in the Committee of the Whole, such a motion may not 
    allocate the time proposed under the limitation or vary the order 
    of recognition to close debate under the limitation.

    During consideration of the Defense Savings Act of 1988 (H.R. 4481) 
in the Committee of the

[[Page 11236]]

Whole on July 12, 1988,(15) the following exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 134 Cong. Rec. 17767, 100th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William L.] Dickinson [of Alabama]: I think that the rule 
    provides a division of time of all those standing and who want to 
    speak. But if it would be proper, Mr. Chairman, I would so move 
    that limitation of time would be within 30 minutes of the present 
    time, the time to be divided equally by the proponents and 
    opponents and that the gentleman from Texas, the author of the 
    amendment, be allowed to close debate.
        Mr. [Dennis M.] Hertel [of Michigan]: . . . I have no problem 
    with the gentleman closing debate. I just do not know if it is 
    proper to put it in a motion. I have no objection to him being the 
    last person to speak. . . .
        The Chairman: (16) The gentleman . . . has made a 
    motion. He has moved. But the gentleman should make a unanimous-
    consent request to allocate time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Harold L. Volkmer (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Dickinson: Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent that 
    all debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto close 
    within 30 minutes, that the 30 minutes be divided half and half 
    between the proponents and the opponents and that the gentleman 
    from Texas be allowed to close.
        Mr. [G. V.] Montgomery [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, 
    reserving the right to object, I agree with the gentleman's first 
    part with respect to 30 minutes but over the years the House 
    procedure is I believe, and I will have the Chair correct me if I 
    am wrong, that when an amendment is offered and the chairman of the 
    committee objects to that amendment, that he has the right to close 
    debate. Is that proper?
        The Chairman: Normally when the Committee of the Whole divides 
    the time on an amendment the person handling the bill, the 
    chairman, has the right to end the debate. That is normal.
        There has been a unanimous-consent request to alter that, which 
    can be done, to permit the gentleman from Texas to close the 
    debate.

Special Rule May Permit Time Allocation by Motion

Sec. 79.86 A special rule agreed to by the House for consideration of a 
    bill permitted motions by the chairman of the committee reporting 
    the bill to include the allocation of time in any motion to limit 
    debate, and to consider the remainder of the bill or any titles 
    thereof read and open to amendment.

    On Dec. 9, 1981,(17) Mr. Anthony C. Beilenson, of 
California, called up House Resolution 291 (providing for consideration 
of H.R. 3566, International Security and Development Assistance 
authorizations for fiscal 1982 and 1983) in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 127 Cong. Rec. 30193, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Beilenson: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
    Rules, I

[[Page 11237]]

    call up House Resolution 291 and ask for its immediate 
    consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 291

            Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
        shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into 
        the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for 
        the consideration of the bill (H.R. 3566) to authorize 
        appropriations for the fiscal years 1982 and 1983 for 
        international security and development assistance and for the 
        Peace Corps, and for other purposes, the first reading of the 
        bill shall be dispensed with. . . . After general debate, which 
        shall be confined to the bill and shall continue not to exceed 
        one hour, to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman 
        and ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign 
        Affairs, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
        five-minute rule by titles instead of by sections, and each 
        title shall be considered as having been read. It shall be in 
        order at any time while the bill is being considered for 
        amendment under the five-minute rule for the chairman of the 
        Committee on Foreign Affairs to move to limit debate on the 
        pending portion of the bill and to provide in said motion for 
        the allocation of time under the limitation on the pending 
        portion of the bill, or on amendments, or on amendments to 
        amendments, thereto. It shall also be in order at any time 
        while the bill is being considered for amendment under the 
        five-minute rule for the chairman of the Committee on Foreign 
        Affairs to move that the remainder of the bill, or any title 
        thereof, be considered as having been read and open to 
        amendment. At the conclusion of the consideration of the bill 
        for amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the bill to 
        the House with such amendments as may have been adopted, and 
        the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
        bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
        intervening motion except one motion to recommit.

Where All Debate on Pending Amendment Is Limited, Enacting Clause Still 
    Debatable

Sec. 79.87 During consideration of an amendment in the Committee of the 
    Whole, where time for debate thereon has been fixed and control 
    vested in two Members, the motion that the Committee rise and 
    report the bill to the House with the recommendation that the 
    enacting clause be stricken is in order and privileged and the 
    Member making the motion as well as the Member rising in opposition 
    thereto are entitled to recognition for five minutes.

    On July 9, 1965,(18) the Committee of the Whole was 
conducting debate on an amendment pursuant to a unanimous-consent 
agreement limiting debate on the amendment and amendments thereto to 
two hours, to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and the 
ranking minority member of the Committee on

[[Page 11238]]

the Judiciary which reported the bill (Emanuel Celler, of New York, and 
William M. McCulloch, of Ohio, respectively). The bill under 
consideration was H.R. 6400, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the 
amendment was the ``McCulloch substitute.'' During debate under the 
unanimous-consent agreement, Mr. Albert W. Watson, of South Carolina, 
offered the preferential motion that the Committee of the Whole rise 
and report the bill to the House with the recommendation that the 
enacting clause be stricken. Chairman Richard Bolling, of Missouri, 
entertained the motion and recognized Mr. Watson for five minutes in 
favor of the motion and Mr. William T. Cahill, of New Jersey, for five 
minutes against the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 111 Cong. Rec. 16227, 16228, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Since the limitation previously agreed to 
was not on the bill and not by the clock, the time consumed in debating 
the motion was not charged to the time remaining under the limitation.

Sec. 79.88 Where debate has been closed on all amendments to a bill, 
    but not on the bill itself, the preferential motion to strike the 
    enacting clause is debatable for 10 minutes, five to a side.

    During consideration of the military procurement authorization 
(H.R. 6674) in the Committee of the Whole on May 20, 
1975,(19) the proposition described above was demonstrated 
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 121 Cong. Rec. 15458, 15465, 15466, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Melvin] Price [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I move that all 
    debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto, and on further 
    amendments to the bill, end in 20 minutes.
        The Chairman: (20) The question is on the motion 
    offered by the gentleman from Illinois.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The motion was agreed to. . . .

        The Chairman: The time of the gentleman has expired. [All time 
    has expired.]
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

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

        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, I only offer this motion in order to 
    obtain time since I was not able to receive any time from the 
    gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Harkin) who offered what he claimed to be 
    the Bauman amendment. I have read his amendment very carefully. It 
    is not the same amendment which I offered to the National Science 
    Foundation authorization bill. . . .
        Mr. [Tom] Harkin [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
    requisite number of words, and I rise in opposition to the 
    preferential motion.

[[Page 11239]]

        I thank the gentleman from Maryland for giving me an 
    opportunity to expand a little bit more on some of these ridiculous 
    spending programs that waste the taxpayers' dollars. . . . If we 
    pass this routine authorization bill for the Defense Department of 
    $32 billion in the usual manner, we will have to answer to our 
    constituents if we choose to be honest about it.

Sec. 79.89 Where all time for debate on a committee amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute (being read as an original bill for 
    amendment pursuant to a special rule) and all amendments thereto 
    has been terminated, a preferential motion that the Committee rise 
    with the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken out is 
    debatable for 10 minutes since the preferential motion applies to 
    the bill and all debate on the bill has not been closed.

    On June 20, 1975,(1) during debate in the Committee of 
the Whole pertaining to the Energy Research and Development 
Administration authorization for fiscal year 1976 (H.R. 3474), and 
after a motion to terminate that debate had been agreed to, the 
preferential motion described above was offered. The proceedings were 
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 121 Cong. Rec. 19966, 19970, 19971, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] Young of Texas: Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate 
    on the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute and all 
    amendments thereto terminate at 4 o'clock p.m.
        The Chairman: G5(2) The question is on the motion offered by 
    the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Young). . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. J. Edward Roush (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        So the motion was agreed to. . . .
        The Chairman: All time has expired. . . .
        Mr. [Tom] Harkin [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

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

        The Chairman: . . . The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.

Sec. 79.90 A Member who has been recognized under a time limitation on 
    an amendment in Committee of the Whole may offer a preferential 
    motion (that the Committee rise and report the bill to the House 
    with the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken out) 
    and be recognized for five minutes to debate the motion.

    During consideration of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act

[[Page 11240]]

for fiscal year 1978 (H.R. 6689) in the Committee of the Whole on May 
4, 1977,(3) Mr. Dante B. Fascell, of Florida, was granted a 
unanimous-consent request limiting debate, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 123 Cong. Rec. 13413, 13414, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Fascell: . . . Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 
    all debate on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    California (Mr. Dornan) and the amendment offered as a substitute 
    by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Buchanan), and all amendments 
    thereto, close in 10 minutes.
        The Chairman:(4) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Florida?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Elliott Levitas (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        The Chairman: Members standing at the time the unanimous-
    consent request was granted will be recognized for 50 seconds each. 
    . . .
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Dornan) 
    for 50 seconds.
        Mr. [Robert K.] Dornan [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to 
    offer a preferential motion.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from California (Mr. Dornan) 
    have such a motion?
        Mr. Dornan: Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from California (Mr. Dornan). Is there such a motion at 
    the desk?
        Mr. Dornan: Mr. Chairman, the motion is offered to get time for 
    debate, providing 5 more minutes on each side, and this is to try 
    to wipe out this part of the bill. The motion is to strike all 
    after the enacting clause. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I have my motion in writing.
        Mr. Chairman, I offer a preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

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

        The Chairman: The gentleman from California (Mr. Dornan) is 
    recognized for 5 minutes in support of his preferential motion.

Sec. 79.91 Where debate in Committee of the Whole on an amendment has 
    been limited to a number of minutes of debate (rather than to a 
    time certain), time consumed debating a preferential motion does 
    not reduce the time remaining under the limitation.

    During consideration of the Treasury Department and Postal Service 
appropriation bill for fiscal year 1981 (H.R. 7593) in the Committee of 
the Whole on Aug. 20, 1980,(5) the Chair responded to a 
parliamentary inquiry concerning debate time as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 126 Cong. Rec. 22173-76, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Tom] Steed [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I move that all 
    debate on

[[Page 11241]]

    this amendment and all amendments thereto end in 15 minutes.
        The Chairman: (6) The question is on the motion 
    offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Steed).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Richardson Preyer (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The motion was agreed to.

                 preferential motion offered by mr. bauman

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        Mr. [Peter A.] Peyser [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Peyser: Mr. Chairman, does the time for the preferential 
    motion come out of the 15 minutes that we have just agreed to?
        The Chairman: The Chair informs the gentleman that it does not 
    come out of the preferential motion.

Disposition of Unused Time

Sec. 79.92 While a motion to limit debate on a portion of a bill and 
    all amendments thereto was pending, the Chair advised that in the 
    event the motion carried: (1) the Chair would first recognize those 
    Members standing, each for five minutes, then any other Members 
    seeking recognition, also for five minutes, until the time expired 
    or there were no other requests for recognition; and (2) if 
    requests for recognition did not consume the time set, the Chair 
    would direct the Clerk to read.

    On Aug. 1, 1966,(7) while the Committee of the Whole was 
considering under the five-minute rule H.R. 14765, the Civil Rights Act 
of 1966, Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, moved that all debate on 
title I and amendments thereto close in one and one-half hours. 
Chairman Richard Bolling, of Missouri, then answered a parliamentary 
inquiry stated by Mr. Gerald R. Ford, of Michigan, on the order of 
recognition should the motion be agreed to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 112 Cong. Rec. 17759, 17760, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: Mr. Chairman, I notice that there are 
    relatively only a few standing. How will the Chair determine under 
    that process those who will be eligible to speak? The lack of those 
    standing does not necessarily mean that Members will not wish to 
    speak.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that if the time is fixed at 
    1\1/2\ hours and there are no other gentlemen to be recognized or 
    who desire to be heard, the Chair will proceed to ask the Clerk to 
    read the next title.
        If, however, there are 1\1/2\ hours, each Member standing now 
    will be recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: A further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. 
    Chairman. If

[[Page 11242]]

    there are not a sufficient number of Members standing at the 
    present time, will the Chair proceed under the 5-minute rule during 
    the 1\1/2\ hours?
        The Chairman: The Chair will see to it that each of those 
    Members now standing will be recognized in an orderly fashion. If 
    there are others desiring to speak within the time limitation, the 
    Chair will then recognize them. Those now standing will receive a 
    priority from the Chair.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See also 116 Cong. Rec. 25809, 25810, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., July 27, 
        1970 (where time limitation on amendment and amendments 
        thereto, time divided among Members wishing to speak, Chair 
        indicated in response to a parliamentary inquiry that he would 
        put the question on the amendments prior to the designated hour 
        if all those Members listed had not consumed their allotted 
        time and if there were no further requests to speak).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 79.93 Where the Committee of the Whole agrees to terminate all 
    debate on an amendment at a certain time, the Chair divides the 
    time remaining among those Members who indicate a desire to speak; 
    and if free time remains after these Members have been recognized, 
    the Chair may recognize Members who have not spoken to the 
    amendment or Members who were recognized for less than five minutes 
    under the limitation of time.

    On Mar. 17, 1960,(9) the Committee of the Whole agreed 
to a request that all debate on the pending amendment close at 3:50 
p.m. Chairman Francis E. Walter, of Pennsylvania, recognized under the 
limitation Members who had indicated they wished to speak. When those 
Members had spoken, time still remained and the Chairman recognized for 
debate Members who were not standing seeking recognition when the 
limitation was agreed to. The Chair answered a parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 106 Cong. Rec. 5911, 5914, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James C.] Davis of Georgia: Was not the time fixed for 
    this debate, and was not the time limited to those who were 
    standing on their feet seeking recognition?
        The Chairman: The time was fixed at 3:50. The Chair made a list 
    of the names of those Members who indicated they desired to speak. 
    However, the thing that governs is the time that was fixed in the 
    unanimous-consent request made by the gentleman from New York, but 
    because the time has not arrived when debate will end, the Chair 
    will recognize those Members who seek recognition.
        Mr. Davis of Georgia: Mr. Chairman, a further parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Davis of Georgia: Does that limitation then of 2 minutes 
    apply to me, or could I have some of this additional time?

[[Page 11243]]

        The Chairman: Yes, the gentleman could be recognized again if 
    he sought recognition.

Amendments Offered After Debate Time Expires

Sec. 79.94 Where all time expires for debate on a paragraph of a bill 
    and on amendments thereto, further amendments to the paragraph may 
    be offered but are not debatable.

    On June 29, 1959,(10) the Committee of the Whole agreed 
to 
a unanimous-consent request to limit debate on the pending paragraph 
and amendments thereto. In response to parliamentary inquiries, 
Chairman Paul J. Kilday, of Texas, stated that when all time had 
expired pursuant to that agreement, further amendments could be offered 
but not debated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 105 Cong. Rec. 12122-24, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Joel T.] Broyhill [of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, when could 
    I offer this other amendment?
        The Chairman: To this paragraph?
        Mr. Broyhill: Yes.
        The Chairman: After the disposition of the pending amendment. 
    The Chair would point out that under the arrangement made, the 
    gentleman might find himself in the position of not being permitted 
    to debate the other amendment.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See also 113 Cong. Rec. 32691-94, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 15, 
        1967 (where time expires on section and amendments thereto, 
        Chair may still recognize Members to offer amendments, which 
        will be voted upon without debate).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 79.95 Members may offer amendments to a title, after a time 
    limitation for debate on the title and all amendments thereto has 
    expired, and such amendments may be reported and voted on, but not 
    debated.

    On May 21, 1959,(12) the Committee of the Whole agreed 
to a motion closing debate on a pending title and on amendments thereto 
at 3:35 p.m. Chairman Francis E. Walter, of Pennsylvania, answered 
parliamentary inquiries on the effect of the limitation on the offering 
of further amendments to the title:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 105 Cong. Rec. 8828-31, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Taber: Is it not a fact that an amendment may be offered 
    after debate has concluded? Any one has a right to offer an 
    amendment even after debate has concluded.
        The Chairman: The Member may offer an amendment after time for 
    debate has expired; and the amendment may be reported and voted on, 
    but it may not be debated.

[[Page 11244]]

        Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Halleck: Suppose a Member has an amendment which might or 
    might not be offered depending on the action taken on the pending 
    amendment and he had informed the Chair of the situation, could not 
    his time be allotted to him after the pending amendment is disposed 
    of?
        The Chairman: If debate goes beyond 3:35, then, of course, he 
    could not be recognized for debate.
        Mr. Halleck: I understand, but if he was standing and was one 
    of those who would be entitled to part of the time allotted, could 
    not the Chair, under the circumstances, refrain from recognizing 
    him until such time as the pending amendment were disposed of?
        The Chairman: The Chair has no way of telling for what purpose 
    a Member rises, certainly not until he stated the purpose for which 
    he sought recognition.

Sec. 79.96 Where time for debate on an amendment and amendments thereto 
    has expired, the Chair may still recognize Members to offer 
    amendments, but not for further debate.

    On Feb. 10, 1964,(13) the Committee of the Whole voted 
to close debate on a title of a pending bill and on all amendments 
thereto.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 110 Cong. Rec. 2706, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Chairman Eugene J. Keogh, of New York, responded to a later 
parliamentary inquiry as follows:

        Mr. [Richard H.] Poff [of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, in light of 
    the limitation on time may I inquire what amendments will be voted 
    upon when the time expires? I have two amendments at the desk which 
    I may or may not offer, depending upon developments. I would like 
    to be advised whether I will be recognized to offer the amendments 
    and if so when that time will occur.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state to the gentleman from 
    Virginia that up to 1 o'clock the Chair will undertake to recognize 
    such Members as he can. After 1 o'clock the Chair will recognize 
    those Members desiring to offer amendments and the question on each 
    amendment will be put immediately without debate.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Id. at p. 2719. See also 110 Cong. Rec. 18583, 18608, 88th Cong. 2d 
        Sess., Aug. 7, 1964.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 79.97 After time set under 
    a limitation on a bill and amendments thereto has expired, further 
    amendments may be offered but not debated.

    On July 18, 1968,(15) Mr. Wayne L. Hays, of Ohio, 
offered an amendment after all time had expired, time having been 
limited 
on the bill and all amendments thereto. In response to his 
parliamentary inquiry, Chairman Charles M. Price, of Illinois, stated 
that the amendment was not debatable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 114 Cong. Rec. 22110, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 79.98 The expiration of time for debate on a pending

[[Page 11245]]

    amendment in the nature of a substitute and all amendments thereto 
    does not preclude the offering of a substitute and amendments to 
    the substitute, which are voted upon, after being read, without 
    debate.

    On Apr. 23, 1975,(16) during consideration of the 
Vietnam Humanitarian and Evacuation Assistance Act (H.R. 6096) in the 
Committee of the Whole, Chairman Otis G. Pike, of New York, responded 
to several inquiries relating to the offering and debating of 
amendments:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 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:

            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. [Robert W.] Edgar [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order that this is a substitute amendment for my 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute and it would not be in 
    order at this time.
        The Chairman: A substitute for the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute would be in order at this time. . . .
        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. . . .
        Ms. [Elizabeth] Holtzman [of New York]: Would the Chair further 
    elaborate; is this substitute amendment by the gentleman from Texas 
    open to further amendment in time?
        The Chairman: As each amendment is disposed of, other 
    amendments would be in order, but they may not be debated. . . .
        Mr. [Donald W.] Riegle [Jr., of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, if I 
    understood our time limit earlier when we set the 4 o'clock time 
    limit and when Members were standing at the time and were given 
    time, it was on the

[[Page 11246]]

    basis that we would consider the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute and all amendments thereto by 4 o'clock.
        As I understand it, when we got to 4 o'clock, can the Chair 
    tell me why the proceedings passed 4 o'clock?
        The Chairman: The committee is proceeding past 4 o'clock 
    because the limitation was on debate. Members wishing to offer 
    amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute cannot be 
    cut off from offering their amendments. The debate has ended. . . .
        Mr. Riegle: Does that mean that those offering amendments are 
    restricted to those who were on their feet at the time we set the 
    time limit, or not?
        The Chairman: No. As long as the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute is pending, amendments to that amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute may be offered. . . .
        Mr. Riegle: Is the Chairman saying that amendments now can be 
    offered really indefinitely by any Member of the House who wishes 
    to so offer them.
        The Chairman: As long as the amendments are in order, they may 
    be offered.

Sec. 79.99 The expiration of a limitation on debate under the five-
    minute rule in Committee of the Whole does not prohibit the 
    offering of further amendments, but such amendments are not subject 
    to debate if not printed in the Congressional Record.

    On June 14, 1979,(17) during consideration of H.R. 4388, 
the energy and water appropriation bill for fiscal year 1980, the 
following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 125 Cong. Rec. 14993, 14994, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Tom] Bevill [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, as I understand 
    it, we are scheduled to adjourn at 5:30 this evening.
        Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on these 
    amendments and all amendments thereto conclude in 2 minutes.
        The Chairman: (18) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Alabama?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Philip R. Sharp (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        The Chairman: The question is 
    on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Johnson) to the amendments offered by 
    the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd). . . .
        [The amendment to the amendments was agreed to.]
        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment, as amended.
        The Chairman: For what purpose does the gentleman from Alabama 
    (Mr. Bevill) seek recognition?
        Mr. Bevill: Mr. Chairman, on the amendment, as amended, I ask 
    for a rollcall vote.
        The Chairman: The Chair has not yet put the question on the 
    amendment, as amended.

[[Page 11247]]

        Mr. Bevill: I ask for a vote then. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair had recognized the gentleman from 
    Michigan and asked him for what purpose he sought recognition. The 
    gentleman indicated that he had an amendment.
        Mr. [Mike] McCormack [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. McCormack: Mr. Chairman, when the gentleman from Alabama, 
    the chairman of the subcommittee, requested an agreement to end 
    debate, there was no objection on the amendment and amendments 
    thereto. At that point the vote was put.
        I suggest to the Chair that it is in order now to vote on the 
    amendment.
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment I desire to 
    offer as a substitute at this time.
        The Chairman: The Chair will indicate to the gentleman from 
    Washington that we are operating under a time limit; however, that 
    does not exclude the possibility of offering an amendment as a 
    substitute, though no debate will be in order in the absence of a 
    unanimous-consent request.
        Therefore, the Clerk will read the amendment.

Sec. 79.100 Where the Committee of the Whole rises immediately after 
    having limited debate under the five-minute rule on the pending 
    bill, the Chair allocates time under the limitation among those 
    Members present when the Committee of the Whole reconvenes on that 
    bill, but a Member who has printed an amendment in the Record is 
    entitled to five minutes notwithstanding the allocation, and may be 
    recognized to offer the amendment after the limitation has expired.

    During consideration of H.R. 3000 (Department of Energy 
authorization bill) in the Committee of the Whole on Oct. 24, 
1979,(19) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 125 Cong. Rec. 29384, 29385, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
    Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration 
    of the bill, H.R. 3000, with Mr. Studds, Chairman pro tempore, in 
    the chair.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (20) When the Committee of 
    the Whole rose on Tuesday, October 18, title VIII was open to 
    amendment at any point.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Pending was an amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
    (Mr. Peyser).
        It was also agreed that all time for debate on the bill and all 
    amendments thereto would be limited to 15 minutes. At this point, 
    the Chair would like to ascertain those Members wishing to be 
    recognized in the allocation of the remaining 15 minutes of debate.
        Mr. [James A.] Courter [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.

[[Page 11248]]

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state the 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Courter: Mr. Chairman, there are, I believe, two Members, 
    perhaps even three, who have amendments printed in the Record, 
    printed I believe last week. Under the rules, are we given 5 
    minutes despite the fact that we use up the 15 minutes that are 
    left for debate?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair will advise the gentleman 
    that at the conclusion of the allocated time of 15 minutes 
    remaining those Members with amendments printed in the Record--and 
    the Chair believes there are three of them--will be entitled to 5 
    minutes in support of these amendments.
        Mr. Courter: I thank the Chairman.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Members standing at the time the 
    motion was agreed to, amongst whom the time will be allocated, will 
    be recognized for approximately 50 seconds each.

Debate on Amendments to Amendments Printed in Record

Sec. 79.101 Where all debate has been limited on an amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute and all amendments thereto, only amendments 
    and amendments to amendments which have been printed in the Record 
    may be debated, and other amendments may be offered and voted upon 
    without debate.

    During consideration of the Federal Employees' Political Activities 
Act of 1977 (H.R. 10) in the Committee of the Whole on June 7, 
1977,(1) the Chair responded to 
inquiries regarding debate on amendments:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 123 Cong. Rec. 17700, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (2) When the Committee rose on 
    Wednesday, May 18, 1977, the committee amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute was considered as having been read and open for 
    amendment at any point. Pursuant to a motion to limit debate in the 
    Committee of the Whole, all time for debate on the committee 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute and all amendments thereto 
    had expired. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. James R. Mann (S.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Edward J.] Derwinski [of Illinois]: . . . If there is an 
    amendment covered by clause 6, rule XXIII, and this is then subject 
    to an amendment, is an additional 10 minutes debate time granted to 
    the proponent of that amendment and in opposition thereto?
        The Chairman: Proper amendments to an amendment will be in 
    order. If the amendment to the amendment has been printed in the 
    Record, there will be 5 minutes allowed to the proponent of the 
    amendment and 5 minutes to the opponent of the amendment.
        Mr. Derwinski: It must have been printed in the Record?
        The Chairman: It must have been printed in the Record. However, 
    proper amendments to the amendment may be offered, even though they 
    have not been printed in the Record, but there

[[Page 11249]]

    will be no debate time allotted to such amendments to the 
    amendment.

Sec. 79.102 After the expiration 
    of a limitation on debate un-der the five-minute rule, an amendment 
    which has been printed in the Record may 
    be offered and debated, five minutes for and five minutes against, 
    and an amendment to the amendment may be offered but may not be 
    debated unless it has also been printed in the Record.

    On Apr. 28, 1983,(3) during consideration of House Joint 
Resolution 13 (nuclear weapons freeze) in the Committee of the Whole, 
the Chair, in response to parliamentary inquiries, indicated the 
procedures to be followed in offering and debating amendments pursuant 
to the expiration of a debate limitation under the five-minute rule:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 129 Cong. Rec. 10428, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I rise 
    in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Michigan (Mr. Siljander).
        Mr. [James A.] Courter [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (4) The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Courter: The parliamentary inquiry to the Chair is whether 
    the gentleman can offer an amendment to the amendment if same has 
    not been printed in the Record?
        The Chairman: The answer to the gentleman is ``Yes.''
        Mr. Courter: A further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
        What type of time now are we dealing with? I understand the 
    proponent of the amendment utilized or yielded back his 5 minutes. 
    Then the gentleman has an amendment to the amendment. Is he given 5 
    minutes and then an additional 5 minutes to those who oppose the 
    amendment?
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman that under 
    the limitation previously agreed to, the gentleman from Michigan 
    (Mr. Siljander) in offering the amendment, since it was printed in 
    the Record, had 5 minutes to support his amendment for debate 
    purposes.
        The Chair will now recognize the chairman of the committee, the 
    gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Zablocki) in opposition for 5 
    minutes.
        If the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) or someone else offers 
    an amendment to the amendment, which is not printed in the Record, 
    there is no time available for debate on that amendment.

Amendments Printed in Record

Sec. 79.103 Where all debate in the Committee of the Whole on a bill 
    and on amendments thereto has been terminated, a Member offering an 
    amend

[[Page 11250]]

    ment which has been printed in the Record on a preceding day may 
    nevertheless, pursuant to Rule XXIII clause 6, debate that 
    amendment for five minutes, and another Member opposing the 
    amendment may then speak for five minutes.

    On Aug. 2, 1973,(5) Chairman William H. Natcher, of 
Kentucky, answered a parliamentary inquiry on the right of Members with 
amendments printed in the Record to debate them for five minutes, after 
the Committee had agreed to a unanimous-consent agreement closing all 
debate on the pending bill and amendments thereto at a time certain:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 119 Cong. Rec. 27712, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] Dellenback [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Dellenback: May I ask whether under the rules of the House 
    for every amendment that has been published in the Record is it not 
    true the sponsor has 5 minutes?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.

    At the expiration of the time agreed to, the Chair made an 
announcement and the following procedure ensued for printed amendments: 
(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Id. at p. 27715.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: The Chair desires to announce at this time that 
    all time under the limitation has expired. This does not apply to 
    those Members 
    who had their amendments previously printed in the Record. Those 
    Members whom the Chair observed standing who have amendments, those 
    amendments will be reported and voted upon.

        Are there amendments from the members of the committee who were 
    standing at the time the limitation was set? If not, the Chair 
    recognizes the Members who have had their amendments printed in the 
    Record.
        Mr. [John F.] Seiberling [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows: . . .
        Mr. [Sam] Steiger of Arizona: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Steiger of Arizona: Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding 
    that the proponent of the amendment is entitled to be recognized 
    for 5 minutes.
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Steiger of Arizona: And also any Member opposing the 
    amendment is entitled to 5 minutes?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. See also 118 Cong. Rec. 10771-74, 92d Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 29, 1972 
        (debate on all amendments to a pending bill having been closed, 
        the Chair inquired of Members whether amendments then offered 
        had been printed in the Record, the Members answered in the 
        affirmative, and the Chair recognized for five minutes against 
        and in support of the amendments).

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

[[Page 11251]]

    Parliamentarian's Note: Rule XXIII clause 6, provides that the 
right of five-minute debate is preserved for an amendment printed in 
the Record ``at least one day prior to floor consideration of such 
amendment.'' The rule has been construed to protect Members printing 
amendments in the Record dated the day prior to such consideration, 
although such an edition of the Record is not usually available until 
the morning of the following day (the day of consideration).

Sec. 79.104 Notwithstanding a limitation of debate on a pending title 
    of a bill and all amendments thereto to a time certain and the 
    allocation of the remaining time by the Chair, a Member who had 
    inserted the text of his amendment in the Record is entitled, under 
    Rule XXIII clause 6, to be recognized for five minutes upon 
    offering that amendment during the limitation.

    On Apr. 19, 1973,(8) the Committee of the Whole agreed 
to a unanimous-consent request, offered by Mr. James C. Wright, Jr., of 
Texas, that all debate on the pending title and amendments, being 
considered under the five-minute rule, close at a certain time. 
Chairman Morris K. Udall, of Arizona, allotted the remaining time to 
Members seeking recognition, each Member being entitled to 45 seconds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 119 Cong. Rec. 13253, 13254, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Thomas F. Railsback, of Illinois, was recognized and offered an 
amendment. At the conclusion of 45 seconds, the Chairman stated that 
his time had expired. Mr. Railsback objected that he had printed his 
amendment in the Congressional Record prior to floor consideration 
thereof, and was therefore entitled to debate his amendment for five 
minutes pursuant to Rule XXIII clause 6. The Chairman, who had not been 
aware the amendment was printed in the Record, ruled that Mr. Railsback 
was entitled to five minutes.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Rule XXIII clause 6, was amended in the 92d Congress to allow five 
        minutes, regardless of a limitation, on an amendment printed in 
        the Record. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 874 (1995).
            The Chair, in response to a parliamentary inquiry, has 
        declined to rule in advance upon the applicability of Rule 
        XXIII clause 6 (permitting 10 minutes of debate on amendments 
        printed in the Record notwithstanding a limitation of time 
        under the five-minute rule) to an amendment not yet offered 
        from the floor. See 117 Cong. Rec. 39089, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., 
        Nov. 3, 1971.

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

[[Page 11252]]

Sec. 79.105 Where all debate in Committee of the Whole on a bill and 
    all amendments thereto has been terminated, a Member offering an 
    amendment which has been printed in the Record on a preceding day 
    may nevertheless, pursuant to Rule XXIII, clause 6, debate that 
    amendment for five minutes, and another Member opposing the 
    amendment may then speak for five minutes.

    During consideration of the agriculture, environment, and consumer 
appropriation bill (10) in the Committee of the Whole on 
June 21, 1974,(11) Chairman Sam Gibbons, of Florida, 
indicated the procedure for offering amendments after time for all 
debate had expired, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. H.R. 15472.
11. 120 Cong. Rec. 20616, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: The Chair will state the parliamentary situation 
    as it is now. Under a unanimous-consent agreement entered into 
    earlier, all time for debate on amendments and on this bill has 
    expired. The Chair will recognize no one to debate on an amendment 
    or the bill unless that Member has had his amendment published in 
    the Record in advance.
        Is there anyone who falls into that category?
        Mr. [Lionel] Van Deerlin [of California]: Mr. Chairman, there 
    is at least one Member.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman seek recognition?
        Mr. Van Deerlin: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: And the gentleman's amendment has been printed in 
    the Record?
        Mr. Van Deerlin: Yes, at page H5504.
        Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
        The portion of the bill to which the amendment relates is as 
    follows:

            Sec. 511: Except as provided in existing law, funds 
        provided in this Act shall be available only for the purposes 
        for which they are appropriated.

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Van Deerlin: On page 52, after 
        line 11, insert a new Section 513:
            ``No funds contained in this appropriation act shall be 
        available for the promotion or advertising of tobacco or any 
        tobacco products in foreign nations.''

Sec. 79.106 Where the Committee of the Whole had separately limited 
    debate on the remaining titles of a committee amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute which was open to amendment at any point, 
    the Chair indicated that he would give preference in recognition to 
    all Members who had amendments to the title being debated, and that 
    Members who had printed amendments in the Record should offer them 
    at the con

[[Page 11253]]

    clusion of debate under the limitation on that title.

    The proceedings of July 24, 1974, relating to H.R. 11500, the 
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1974, are discussed in 
Sec. 79.131, infra.

Sec. 79.107 Amendments printed in the Record pursuant to Rule XXIII 
    clause 6 to a pending amendment in the nature of a substitute or to 
    a substitute therefor may be debated for 10 minutes if offered 
    following the expiration of all time for debate on the pending 
    amendment and all amendments thereto.

    During consideration of H. Res. 988 (to reform the structure, 
jurisdiction, and procedures of House committees) in the Committee of 
the Whole on Oct. 7, 1974,(12) the Chair responded to 
parliamentary inquiries concerning debate allowed for amendments 
printed in the Record. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 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 gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. Hansen), and all 
    amendments thereto, conclude in 5 hours.
        The Chairman: (13) The question is on the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 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.
        Mr. [James G.] O'Hara [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, if the motion were to be agreed on, what effect 
    would that have on amendments that have been printed in the Record 
    under the rule?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that amendments printed in 
    the Record would be protected.
        Mr. O'Hara: A further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman, 
    Would there be time for debate guaranteed to those amendments?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the gentleman's 
    statement is correct; they would be protected. . . .
        Mr. [Frank] Thompson [Jr.] of New Jersey: Mr. Chairman, I did 
    not understand the Chair's answer to the parliamentary inquiry by 
    the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. O'Hara). Is it my understanding 
    that notwithstanding that 5 hours under the gentleman's motion 
    would dispose of the Hansen and Martin substitutes in addition 
    thereto for those amendments which have been printed in the Record 
    will there be time to debate them allowed?
        The Chairman: The Chair would like to advise the gentleman from 
    New Jersey that the proponents of all amendments printed in the 
    Record that have not been reached during the 5-hour period will be 
    recognized under

[[Page 11254]]

    the rules of the House for 5 minutes in support of their 
    amendments. They would be protected.
        Mr. Thompson of New Jersey: How about time in opposition?
        The Chairman: And 5 minutes in opposition. The gentleman is 
    correct.

Sec. 79.108 Upon the expiration of time for debate on a bill and all 
    amendments thereto, only those amendments which have been printed 
    in the Record pursuant to Rule XXIII clause 6 may be debated, while 
    other amendments may be offered and voted upon without debate.

    On Dec. 11, 1974,(14) during consideration of H.R. 17234 
(to amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended) in the 
Committee of the Whole, the Chair responded to a parliamentary inquiry, 
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 120 Cong. Rec. 39165, 39170, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I now 
    move that all debate on the bill and all amendments thereto cease 
    at 7 o'clock.
        The motion was agreed to. . . .
        The Chairman: (15) All time has expired. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Melvin Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, will those 
    Members who have amendments at the desk have a minute for time to 
    present their amendments?
        The Chairman: Those Members who have amendments at the desk may 
    present their amendments. Those who have amendments which were 
    printed in the Record will be recognized for 5 minutes in support 
    of their amendments.

Sec. 79.109 Pursuant to Rule XXIII clause 6, a Member may be recognized 
    for five minutes in opposition to an amendment which had been 
    printed in the Record and debated by its proponent for five 
    minutes, notwithstanding a prior allocation of time to that Member 
    under a limitation on the pending proposition and all amendments 
    thereto.

    On July 25, 1974,(16) during consideration of the 
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1974 (H.R. 11500) in the 
Committee of the Whole, the Chair overruled a point of order, as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 120 Cong. Rec. 25221, 25222, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: Mr. Chairman, I move to 
    strike the requisite number of words, and I rise in opposition to 
    the amendment.
        Mr. [Craig] Hosmer [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: (17) The gentleman will state his 
    point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hosmer: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Arizona has spoken 
    for a minute and 20 seconds already.

[[Page 11255]]

        The Chairman: The Chair will state that under the rule, when 
    the amendment has been printed in the Record, the author of the 
    amendment gets 5 minutes in support of his amendment and an 
    opponent gets 5 minutes in opposition to the amendment, regardless 
    of a time limitation.
        The Chair overrules the point of order.

To Qualify for Five Minutes, Form of Offered Amendment Must Be 
    Identical to That Printed

Sec. 79.110 While Rule XXIII clause 6 permits any Member who has 
    printed an amendment in the Record five minutes of debate thereon 
    notwithstanding any limitation imposed by the Committee of the 
    Whole, the amendment must be offered in the precise form in which 
    it was printed in the Record to guarantee its proponent time for 
    debate, and an amendment printed in the Record to be offered to 
    original text is not protected by the rule when offered in 
    different form as an amendment to a pending substitute.

    On July 25, 1974,(18) during consideration of the 
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1974 (H.R. 11500) in the 
Committee of the Whole, the principle described above was demonstrated 
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 120 Cong. Rec. 25230, 25232, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John F.] Seiberling [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Seiberling to the committee 
        amendment in the nature of a substitute: Section 401, page 250, 
        line 5 through page 251, line 5, strike subsection (d) and (e), 
        substitute the following new subsections, and renumber the 
        remaining subsection accordingly:
            (d) All operators of coal mining operations which are 
        subject to this Act shall, not later than 60 days following the 
        end of the calendar year 1975 and each calendar year 
        thereafter, pay a reclamation fee to the Secretary equal in 
        amount to $2.50 per ton of coal mined by the operator during 
        the preceding calendar year. . . .

        Mr. [Joseph M.] McDade [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment to the amendment offered as a substitute for the 
    amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        Mr. Seiberling: Mr. Chairman, a point of order. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, this is a third degree amendment on an amendment.
        The Chairman: (19) This is an amendment to the 
    substitute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Seiberling: It is an amendment to the substitute, which is 
    an amendment to my amendment.
        The Chairman: That is not in the third degree.

[[Page 11256]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. McDade to the amendment offered by 
        Mr. Ruppe as a substitute for the amendment offered by Mr. 
        Seiberling to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
        substitute: Page 249, strike out lines 15 through 16 and insert 
        in lieu thereof the following:
            (3) appropriations made to the fund, or amounts credited to 
        the fund, under subsection (d). . . .

        Mr. McDade (during the reading): Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with and 
    that it be printed in the Record.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania?
        There was no objection.
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania that the time has been set. The gentleman is not on 
    the list.
        Mr. McDade: Mr. Chairman, may I say that I have this amendment 
    printed in the Record. It has been printed for about 10 days.
        The Chairman: This is an amendment drafted as an amendment to 
    the Ruppe substitute, whereas the amendment which the gentleman 
    caused to be printed in the Record was drafted as an amendment to 
    the committee amendment.
        (By unanimous consent Mr. [Edwin D.] Eshleman [of Pennsylvania] 
    yielded his time to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. McDade.)

Sec. 79.111 To be guaranteed five minutes of debate on an amendment 
    printed in the Record under clause 6 of Rule XXIII notwithstanding 
    a limitation of debate, the published amendment must indicate the 
    portion of the bill or amendment (or both) to which it could be 
    offered, and debate will not be permitted if the amendment is 
    offered to a proposition not identified in the Record.

    On Sept. 28, 1976,(20) during consideration of H.R. 15 
(the Public Disclosure of Lobbying Act of 1976), the Chair responded to 
parliamentary inquiries regarding time for debate on amendments 
previously printed in the Record, notwithstanding a limitation of 
debate. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 122 Cong. Rec. 33081, 33082, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Walter] Flowers [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, I move that 
    all debate on the amendment in the nature of a substitute and all 
    amendments thereto be limited to 30 minutes.
        The Chairman: (1) The question is on the motion 
    offered by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Flowers). . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        So the motion was agreed to. . . .
        Mr. [Abner J.] Mikva [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, if any Member 
    has had an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    printed in the Record, that Member, would, of course, be protected 
    by the rule and

[[Page 11257]]

    would be allowed to speak for 5 minutes?
        The Chairman: If the amendment had been printed in the proper 
    form, the gentleman is correct.
        Mr. [Thomas N.] Kindness [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Kindness: Mr. Chairman, to clarify the previous 
    parliamentary inquiry, if an amendment was published in the Record 
    as an amendment to be offered to H.R. 15 and not as an amendment to 
    the substitute, I take it that the Member offering the amendment 
    would not be protected at this stage of the proceedings?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.

Sec. 79.112 The guarantee of 10 minutes of debate on amendments printed 
    in the Record inures to an amendment offered as a substitute for 
    another amendment, rather than as an original amendment as 
    originally intended, if offered in the precise form printed; thus, 
    although an amendment printed in the Record to assure debate time 
    under clause 6 of Rule XXIII was not drafted as a substitute for 
    another amendment, the Chair indicated that 10 minutes of debate 
    would be permitted on the amendment if offered as a substitute at 
    the precise point in the bill as previously stated in the Record.

    During consideration of the Defense Production Act Amendments of 
1979 (H.R. 3930) in the Committee of the Whole on June 26, 
1979,(2) the following proceedings occurred relative to the 
offering of an amendment by Mr. Morris K. Udall, of Arizona:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 125 Cong. Rec. 16681, 16682, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Udall: Page 8, after line 13 add the 
    following new subsection and renumber the subsequent sections 
    accordingly:
        (g)(1) The Secretary of Energy is hereby authorized to 
    designate a proposed synthetic fuel or feedstock facility as a 
    priority synthetic project. . . .
        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: . . . I wish to make a point 
    of order, Mr. Chairman, the amendment which I had offered and had 
    printed in the Record would be an appropriate substitute amendment 
    for the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
    Udall). Under the time limitation, if I understand correctly, I 
    have 5 minutes to offer that amendment.
        The Chairman: (3) That is correct if offered in the 
    proper form.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Brown of Ohio: But if this amendment is not amended by my 
    amendment and succeeds, then I may be precluded from offering that 
    amendment; is that correct?
        The Chairman: It would be difficult for the Chair to rule on 
    that without

[[Page 11258]]

    having seen the gentleman's amendment.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: The question I would put to the Chair as a 
    parliamentary inquiry is: Does, then, my amendment become 
    appropriate to this amendment and give me the right to 5 minutes to 
    discuss my amendment?
        The Chairman: If the gentleman were to offer his amendment as a 
    substitute for this amendment in the form printed in the Record, he 
    would, indeed, have the 5 minutes guaranteed to him under the rule.

Sec. 79.113 Where all time for debate on a bill and all amendments 
    thereto has expired, only those amendments printed in the Record 
    under the rule may be debated.

    On Apr. 23, 1975,(4) during consideration of H.R. 6096 
(5) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair made the 
following statement regarding debate on amendments:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 121 Cong. Rec. 11544, 11545, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
 5. The Vietnam Humanitarian and Evacuation Assistance Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (6) The Chair would like to state the 
    parliamentary situation as best he can as follows: There is no 
    additional time for debate, except in the case of those amendments 
    which have been printed in the Record as to which the proponents 
    will have 5 minutes and the opponents will have 5 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Otis G. Pike (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Members seeking recognition for amendments which have not been 
    printed in the Record will be recognized. Their amendments will be 
    read and they will be voted on.

Sec. 79.114 A limitation of time for debate abrogates the five-minute 
    rule and allocation of the time remaining to Members seeking 
    recognition is within the discretion of the Chair, except that 
    Members who had caused amendments to be printed in the Record under 
    Rule XXIII clause 6 would receive the full five minutes.

    On June 26, 1975,(7) an illustration of the proposition 
described above was demonstrated in the Committee of the Whole, as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 121 Cong. Rec. 20951, 20957, 94th Cong. 1st Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 8121, the Departments of State, Justice, 
        and Commerce, the Judiciary and related agencies appropriation 
        bill for fiscal year 1976.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Neal] Smith of Iowa: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
    that all debate on the bill and all amendments thereto cease in 60 
    minutes.
        The Chairman: (8) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Iowa?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Charles A. Vanik (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair will further add that all Members who 
    were standing at the time the limitation of

[[Page 11259]]

    debate was made will be recognized for approximately 2 minutes 
    each. . . .
        Mr. [Robert F.] Drinan [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, will 
    the time be allotted according to the three amendments now pending 
    at the desk?
        The Chairman: All Members who were listed, who were standing at 
    the time the limitation of time was granted, will be accorded the 
    same amount of time.
        Mr. Drinan: Mr. Chairman, will the time be limited with regard 
    to the amendments offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
    Heinz) so that the other Members who have filed amendments will 
    also have a certain amount of time?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania (Mr. Heinz) will be recognized, and then all other 
    Members will be allotted 2 minutes, except for such amendments as 
    were printed in the Congressional Record. Every Member who has an 
    amendment that was printed in the Congressional Record will be 
    guaranteed a full 5 minutes.

Sec. 79.115 An amendment printed in the Record at least one day prior 
    to its consideration in Committee of the Whole may be debated five 
    minutes for and five minutes against, regardless of a limitation 
    imposed on five-minute debate by the Committee.

    In the Committee of the Whole on Feb. 1, 1978,(9) during 
consideration of H.R. 1614 (the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act 
Amendments), the following exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 124 Cong. Rec. 1827, 1828, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John M.] Murphy of New York: Mr. Chairman, I will revise 
    the unanimous-consent request.
        Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that when we convene 
    tomorrow, all debate on H.R. 1614 and all amendments and 
    substitutes thereto end after 3 hours of debate. . . .
        Mr. [David C.] Treen [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, if the 
    unanimous-consent request is granted, will all amendments that are 
    in the Record as of tonight have the protection of the 5-minute 
    rule, including any amendments that are put in the Record tonight?
        The Chairman: (10) The Chair would like to advise 
    the gentleman that his inquiry is correct. They would be protected; 
    all amendments placed in the Record tonight would be protected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Treen: And each would have 5 minutes for presentation; is 
    that correct?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the gentleman is 
    correct; 5 minutes would be allotted to each side.

Sec. 79.116 Amendments printed in the Record at least one day prior to 
    their consideration, including those printed after the debate time 
    has expired under a limitation but before the Committee of the 
    Whole resumes consider

[[Page 11260]]

    ation of that portion of the bill to which the limitation applies, 
    are nevertheless debatable for 10 minutes when consideration 
    resumes on the following day.

    On Mar. 15, 1978,(11) during consideration of H.R. 50 
(the Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act of 1978) in the Committee 
of the Whole, Chairman William H. Natcher, of Kentucky, responded to 
parliamentary inquiries as to the effect a limitation on debate would 
have to amendments printed in the Record. The proceedings were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 124 Cong. Rec. 7044, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Augustus F.] Hawkins [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I move 
    that all debate on title I and all amendments thereto terminate at 
    5:45 p.m. . . .
        So the motion was agreed to. . . .
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state the parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, am I correct in my understanding that 
    at the conclusion of the 45 minutes of debate that is remaining any 
    amendments that have been printed in the Record prior to this date 
    allow the Member to have 5 minutes of discussion today and 5 
    minutes for the opposition?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Maryland is 
    correct.
        Mr. Bauman: Further, Mr. Chairman, if a motion were made for 
    the Committee to rise at that time, those amendments would still be 
    under the limitation tomorrow?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Bauman: Further, Mr. Chairman, would amendments printed in 
    the Record tonight to title I also be in order tomorrow?

        The Chairman: The gentleman is again correct.

Pro Forma Amendments Printed in Record

Sec. 79.117 A Member who has printed a ``pro forma'' amendment (to 
    strike the last three words) in the Record is entitled to five 
    minutes on the amendment despite the expiration of a limitation on 
    debate; and the amendment must be voted on unless withdrawn by 
    unanimous consent.

    On Oct. 24, 1979,(12) during consideration of H.R. 3000 
(the Department of Energy authorization

[[Page 11261]]

bill) in the Committee of the Whole, the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 125 Cong. Rec. 29389, 29391, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
            In recent years, special rules from the Committee on Rules 
        permitting ``pro forma amendments for the purpose of debate'' 
        have been interpreted as contemplating automatic withdrawal 
        after debate, thereby avoiding the need to put the question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James A.] Courter [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Courter: On page 79 at the end of 
        title VIII: Strike out the last three words.

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I rise in 
    opposition to the amendment.
        (Mr. Dingell asked and was given permission to revise and 
    extend his remarks.)
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (13) Without objection, 
    the pro forma amendment of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
    Courter) is withdrawn.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.

Five Minutes in Support Inures Only to Member Placing Amendment in 
    Record

Sec. 79.118 Pursuant to clause 6 of Rule XXIII, only the Member causing 
    an amendment to be printed in the Congressional Record is entitled 
    to five minutes upon offering the amendment in Committee of the 
    Whole notwithstanding a limitation on time for debate under the 
    five-minute rule.

    On Nov. 12, 1980,(14) during consideration of the 
Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act (S. 
885), the Committee of the Whole having limited time for debate under 
the five-minute rule on the bill and all amendments thereto to a time 
certain, the Chairman stated that he would first recognize Members who 
did not have amendments printed in the Record for three minutes each, 
and would then recognize Members with amendments printed in the Record 
for five minutes (to which they were entitled under clause 6 of Rule 
XXIII). The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 126 Cong. Rec. 29255-58, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Manuel] Lujan [Jr., of New Mexico]: Mr. Chairman, I move 
    that all debate on the bill and the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute and all amendments thereto cease at 5:30. . . .
        The motion was agreed to. . . .
        The Chairman: (15) Members standing at the time the 
    unanimous-consent request was agreed to will be recognized for 3 
    minutes each, unless the Member has an amendment printed in the 
    Record, in which case he or she is protected. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Edward J.] Markey [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Markey: Page 27, line 10, strike 
        ``may'' and insert therefor ``shall''.

[[Page 11262]]

    The Chair then initially recognized Mr. Markey for five minutes, 
but subsequently stated, having noted that the amendment was printed in 
the Record under the name of Mr. James Weaver, of Oregon:

        The Chairman: Will the gentleman suspend for just a moment, 
    please?
        The Chair would like to advise the gentleman that the Chair was 
    incorrect originally, and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
    Markey) has 3 minutes under the rule in support of his amendment.

Form of Amendment Offered Must Conform to That Printed

Sec. 79.119 To be guaranteed the right to five minutes on an amendment 
    printed in the Record notwithstanding a limitation on debate under 
    the five-minute rule in Committee of the Whole, the Member causing 
    the amendment to be printed must offer the amendment exactly as it 
    was printed in the Record.

    During consideration of S. 885 (Pacific Northwest Electric Power 
Planning and Conservation Act of 1980) in the Committee of the Whole on 
Nov. 14, 1980,(16) an amendment was offered by Mr. James 
Weaver, of Oregon, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 126 Cong. Rec. 29613, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Weaver: Page 11, lines 24-25, strike 
    ``appointed'' and insert ``elected'';
        Page 12, line 2, after ``Council.'', insert ``All references in 
    this Act to the appointment of the members of such Council shall be 
    deemed to mean the election of the members of such Council under 
    applicable state law.''.
        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (17) The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, the rule provides that the gentleman 
    from Oregon (Mr. Weaver) is recognized for 5 minutes if his 
    amendment has been printed in the Record. Is that correct?
        The Chairman: That is correct.
        Mr. Dingell: That rule requires, as I understand it, that the 
    amendment printed in the Record and the amendment which is offered 
    be identical in every word and particular. Is that correct?
        The Chairman: That is correct.

    Upon assurance by Mr. Weaver that the amendment was identical to 
that appearing in the Record, the Chair recognized Mr. Weaver for five 
minutes.

Points of Order After Expiration of Limitation

Sec. 79.120 The Chair may hear argument on a point of or-

[[Page 11263]]

    der against an amendment although all debate under the five-minute 
    rule on the pending paragraph and all amendments thereto has been 
    closed.

    On Mar. 29, 1966,(18) Mr. Elford A. Cederberg, of 
Michigan, offered an amendment to a paragraph, after all time for 
debate on the paragraph and amendments thereto had expired under a 
unanimous-consent limitation of time. Mr. Joseph L. Evins, of 
Tennessee, made a point of order against the amendment on the ground 
that it constituted legislation in an appropriation bill. Chairman 
James G. O'Hara, of Michigan, allowed Mr. Cederberg to be heard briefly 
on the point of order despite the expiration of the 
limitation.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 112 Cong. Rec. 7118, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
19. Debate on a point of order is always in the Chair's discretion (see 
        Sec. 67.3, supra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reallocation of Time

Sec. 79.121 Where time for debate under the five-minute rule was, by 
    unanimous consent, extended beyond that previously fixed, the Chair 
    reallocated the additional time among those Members who had 
    requested time under the original limitation but had not been 
    reached.

    On Nov. 15, 1967,(20) the Committee of the Whole agreed 
to a motion to close debate under the five-minute rule at 8:05 p.m. 
When the time under the limitation was largely consumed by teller votes 
and preferential motions, the Committee agreed by unanimous consent to 
extend the time to 8:45 p.m. Chairman John J. Rooney, of New York, 
stated in response to parliamentary inquiries that he would reallocate 
the extended time only among those Members originally on the list to be 
recognized under the limitation:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 113 Cong. Rec. 32691-94, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Ashbrook: Under the unanimous-consent request of the 
    gentleman from Oklahoma, the previous order was vacated. Does that 
    mean the allocation of time under that was also vacated?
        The Chairman: Yes. The Chair then allocated the additional 30 
    minutes among the Members on the list he had before him.
        Mr. Ashbrook: What about Members who were not in that previous 
    listing?
        The Chairman: They may not be recognized. The Chair is 
    attempting to

[[Page 11264]]

    do what he has been trying to do since the first limitation of time 
    was proposed, and that is to dispose of the amendments at the desk.
        Mr. [Albert H.] Quie [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Quie: If a Member has an amendment at the desk but his name 
    is not on the list, he will not be precluded from offering his 
    amendment; is that correct?
        The Chairman: No. There is no question about that. If a 
    Member's name is not on the list, he will not have any time, but 
    his amendment will be voted on.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Where a limitation is vacated, after the Chair has noted the 
        Members wishing to speak under that first limitation, Members 
        must again indicate their desire to be heard under a second 
        limitation in order to be recognized (see Sec. 22, supra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Chair in his discretion could have 
allocated time under the new limitation to Members who were not listed 
under the original allocation.

Sec. 79.122 Where debate under the five-minute rule has been limited to 
    a time certain and remaining time has been reduced by a rollcall, 
    the Chair may reallocate the remaining time among the remaining 
    Members to whom time had been initially allocated and may first 
    recognize Members on that list who desire to offer amendments.

    On Apr. 26, 1978,(2) during consideration of H.R. 8494, 
the Public Disclosure of Lobbying Act of 1978, a motion to limit debate 
to a time certain was agreed to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 124 Cong. Rec. 11641, 11646, 11648, 11649, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [George E.] Danielson [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I move 
    that all debate on this bill and all amendments thereto be 
    terminated at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m. tonight.
        [The motion was agreed to.]
        Mr. [Thomas N.] Kindness [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Kindness: On page 32, line 5, 
        strike ``or''.
            On page 32, line 16, insert ``or'' after the semicolon. . . 
        .

        The Chairman: (3) The question is on the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kindness).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Lloyd Meeds (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Kindness) there were--ayes 16, noes 22. . . .
        Mr. Kindness: Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
        A recorded vote was ordered.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 
    207, noes 188, not voting 39, as follows: . . .
        So the amendment was agreed to. . . .

[[Page 11265]]

        The Chairman: The Chair will state that under the motion 
    setting a limitation of time previously entered into, all debate 
    will terminate in 10 minutes.
        The parliamentary situation is that there are nine Members 
    remaining to be recognized, and there are approximately 9 minutes 
    left. Each Member listed will be recognized for approximately 1 
    minute.
        The Chair will first ask if there are Members on the list who 
    have amendments to be offered.
        If not, the Chair will first recognize the gentleman from 
    Illinois (Mr. McClory).

Sec. 79.123 When no Members stand to indicate their desire to be 
    recognized under a limitation on five-minute debate when the 
    limitation is agreed to, the Chair allows debate 
    to proceed under the five-minute rule; but the Committee of the 
    Whole may subsequently by unanimous consent allow the time 
    remaining under the limitation to be divided among Members 
    indicating a desire to speak.

    On May 19, 1978,(4) during consideration of the Alaska 
National Interest Conservation Lands Act of 1978 (H.R. 39) in the 
Committee of the Whole, the following exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 124 Cong. Rec. 14661, 14670, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: . . . Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that all debate on the pending Udall substitute 
    and all amendments thereto end at 11:15 a.m. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I change my unanimous-consent request to 12 
    o'clock noon.
        The Chairman: (5) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Arizona?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Paul M. Simon (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection. . . .
        Mr. Gary A. Myers [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, at the time 
    the debate was limited, there was no assigning of time to 
    individuals. Is that procedure in accordance with normal practice?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that at the time the debate 
    was limited, no one was standing. Therefore, we proceeded under the 
    regular 5-minute rule.
        Mr. Gary A. Myers: . . . Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
    that the remaining time be divided by those who are presently 
    standing and make a request for time to speak during the remaining 
    period.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania?
        There was no objection.

Sec. 79.124 Where time has been limited for debate under the five-
    minute rule in Committee of the Whole, the Chair may continue to 
    recognize Members under the five-minute rule and then as the 
    expiration time approaches

[[Page 11266]]

    allocate the remaining time among Members seeking to offer 
    amendments not printed in the Congressional Record, and Members 
    opposing such amendments.

    On June 27, 1979,(6) it was demonstrated that where a 
limitation on debate abrogated the five-minute rule and the ordinary 
criteria for priority of recognition, the Chair could extend priority 
of recognition under a limitation to Members seeking to offer 
amendments not printed in the Record, before recognizing members of the 
reporting committee. The proceedings during consideration of H.R. 4389 
(the Departments of Labor and Health, Education, and Welfare 
appropriations) in the Committee of the Whole were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 125 Cong. Rec. 17018, 17029, 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 that all debate on the 
    bill and all amendments thereto close at 8:30 p.m.
        The Chairman: (7) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Kentucky?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Don Fuqua (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair would like to make an announcement. We 
    have less than 45 minutes of the allocated time. The Chair would 
    like for all those Members who have amendments which are not 
    printed in the Record--not printed in the Record--to please rise 
    and remain standing so that the Chair can get the names of the 
    Members and try to recognize them for the offering of their 
    amendments.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) 
    for approximately 3 minutes.
        Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.

        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Michel: Mr. Chairman, is it not normal practice to 
    recognize members of the committee before we recognize other 
    Members?
        The Chairman: Not when a time limitation has been imposed. That 
    rule does not apply, but the Chair will try to protect all the 
    Members who do not have amendments printed in the Record.
        Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Conte: If some member of the committee opposes one of these 
    amendments, may that Member rise and speak against an amendment?
        The Chairman: Certainly.

Sec. 79.125 Where debate has been limited to a time certain on an 
    amendment and all amendments thereto, the Chairman may utilize his 
    dis

[[Page 11267]]

    cretion in allocating debate time and continue to recognize Members 
    under the five-minute rule; but he may choose at a later time to 
    divide any remaining debate time among those Members standing and 
    reserve some time for the committee to conclude debate.

    The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on 
Nov. 2, 1983,(8) during consideration of the Department of 
Defense appropriations for fiscal year 1984 (H.R. 4185):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 129 Cong. Rec. 30504, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Joseph P.] Addabbo [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment and all 
    amendments thereto close at 2 o'clock. . . .
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (9) Is there objection to 
    the unanimous-consent request of the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
    Addabbo) . . . ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Abraham Kazen, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        Under the unanimous-consent agreement, does that mean only 
    those who were standing at the time the agreement was entered into 
    may enter into the debate?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair will continue to allow time 
    under the 5-minute rule.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Approximately 90 minutes of time for debate remained at this point.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With about 30 minutes remaining under the limitation, the Chair 
(11) stated: (12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).
12. 129 Cong. Rec. 30512, 98th Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 2, 1983.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair recognizes that there are more Members rising that 
    wish to participate in the debate than time will permit.
        The Chair has the discretion of dividing the time among Members 
    who wish to participate in the debate, and the Chair would also 
    make a request that those who have already entered into the debate 
    not seek further time.
        Those Members who wish to participate in the debate will please 
    rise.
        The Chair will reserve 2 minutes for the gentleman from Alabama 
    (Mr. Edwards) to conclude the debate.
        Members standing will be recognized for 1\1/2\ minutes each.

Reallocating Controlled Time by Unanimous Consent

Sec. 79.126 Where the House has adopted a special rule limiting debate 
    on an amendment in Committee of the Whole and equally dividing the 
    time between the proponent and an opponent, the Committee of the 
    Whole may, by unanimous consent, allocate some of the opposition 
    time to the proponent where no Member has claimed time in 
    opposition.

[[Page 11268]]

    The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on 
Mar. 3, 1983,(13) during consideration of H.R. 1718 
(emergency appropriations for fiscal 1983):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 129 Cong. Rec. 3939, 3943, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (14) Pursuant to House Resolution 113, 
    the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Howard) will be recognized for 
    15 minutes, and a Member opposed to the amendment will be 
    recognized for the other 15 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. David E. Bonior (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Is there a Member opposed who wishes to control that time?
        No Member has responded, and the Chair recognizes the gentleman 
    from New Jersey (Mr. Howard) for 15 minutes.
        Mr. [M. G. (Gene)] Snyder [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Snyder: The Chairman, since no one has risen in opposition, 
    would it be permissible to ask unanimous consent to transfer 5 
    minutes of the opposition time to the gentleman from New Jersey?
        The Chairman: Under unanimous consent, yes.
        Mr. Snyder: Mr. Chairman, I make that request.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Kentucky?
        There was no objection.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Committee of the Whole may not by 
unanimous consent extend time for debate set by the House, but may 
reallocate time where there is no opposition.

Effect of Limitation Where Committee Rises for the Day

Sec. 79.127 The Chair stated in response to a parliamentary 
    inquiry that where all de-bate on an amendment and 
    all amendments thereto has been limited to a time certain (i.e., 5 
    p.m.) and the Committee of the Whole rises before that time without 
    having completed action on the amendment, no time would be 
    considered as remaining when the Committee, on a later day, again 
    resumed consideration of the amendment.

    On May 6, 1970,(15) Chairman Daniel D. Rostenkowski, of 
Illinois, answered parliamentary inquiries on the effect of a 
limitation of debate under the five-minute rule:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 116 Cong. Rec. 14452, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert L.] Leggett [of California]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Leggett: Mr. Chairman, considering the fact that a time 
    limitation

[[Page 11269]]

    has now been set in relation to today at 5 o'clock, does the time 
    of the debate on the motion that we have already heard, come out of 
    the time on the amendments?
        The Chairman: The time will come out of the time of those who 
    are participating in debate.
        Mr. Leggett: Mr. Chairman, a further parliamentary inquiry. If 
    we choose to rise right now and come back tomorrow, then would 
    there be any time limitation on debate?
        The Chairman: There would be no further debate.
        The time was set at 5 o'clock.

Sec. 79.128 Where the Committee of the Whole has agreed by unanimous 
    consent that all debate under the five-minute rule on a bill and 
    amendments thereto close at 4:15 p.m., and the Committee rises 
    before that time without having completed action on all amendments, 
    no time is considered as remaining when the House resolves back 
    into the Committee of the Whole for the further consideration of 
    the bill on the following day.

    On May 10, 1961,(16) the Committee of the Whole had 
agreed to a unanimous-consent request that all debate on the pending 
bill and amendments thereto close at 4:15 p.m. The Committee rose 
before consideration of all amendments to the bill had been completed, 
and before 4:15. In the House, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, answered 
a parliamentary inquiry on the effect of the limitation:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 107 Cong. Rec. 7725, 7727, 7728, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Halleck: While the Committee of the Whole was considering 
    the bill H.R. 2010, a unanimous consent request was granted to 
    limit all debate on the bill and all amendments thereto to 4:15 
    this afternoon. In the meantime, the Committee has risen. My 
    parliamentary inquiry is, in view of the fact the time limit was 
    set at 4:15, which is some 25 minutes from now, does not that mean 
    that debate tomorrow will be limited to 25 minutes?
        The Speaker: It means, unless there is another consent 
    agreement, that there will not be any more debate.
        Mr. Halleck: There will be no more debate?
        The Speaker: Not unless there is an agreement to extend the 
    time.

    Parliamentarian's Note: If the limitation had provided for a fixed 
period, such as a certain number of minutes of debate, the number of 
minutes not consumed would have remained on the following day. On the 
day following the precedent discussed above, the House agreed by 
unanimous consent, before resolving itself into

[[Page 11270]]

the Committee of the Whole, to allow two minutes in favor of each 
amendment to be offered and two minutes in opposition.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 107 Cong. Rec. 7869, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., May 11, 1961.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 79.129 The House agreed to 
    a unanimous-consent request that further debate on a 
    bill and amendments thereto close in one hour, half to be consumed 
    on the present day and half when the Committee resumed its sitting 
    on the following day.

    On June 22, 1960,(18) the Committee of the Whole agreed 
to a unanimous-consent request propounded by Mr. Harold D. Cooley, of 
North Carolina, to close debate on a bill and amendments thereto:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 106 Cong. Rec. 13874, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The unanimous consent request was that debate be fixed at 
    1 hour on the bill, and all amendments thereto, and that we consume 
    30 minutes of that hour this afternoon and reserve 30 minutes to be 
    used tomorrow. That means the Committee will rise at approximately 
    5 minutes after 6.

Sec. 79.130 Prior to rising for the day, the Committee of the Whole 
    limited debate on a title of a bill and all amendments thereto to 
    one hour of debate, and the Chair advised that upon again resolving 
    into the Committee, 
    Members would be recognized within the time limit 
    under the five-minute rule.

    On Aug. 2, 1966,(19) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering for amendment title III of H.R. 14765, the Civil Rights Act 
of 1966. Prior to rising for the day, the Committee agreed to a request 
by Mr. Peter W. Rodino, Jr., of New Jersey, that all debate on the 
title and amendments thereto terminate in one hour. Chairman Richard 
Bolling, of Missouri, stated in response to a parliamentary inquiry 
that when the Committee again took up the bill on a following day, 
Members would be recognized subject to the limitation under the five-
minute rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 112 Cong. Rec. 17856, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 79.131 Where the Committee of the Whole rises prior to completion 
    of debate which has been limited to a designated number of minutes 
    rather than by the clock, time for debate remains un-der the 
    limitation when the Committee resumes consideration at a subsequent 
    time.

    When consideration of the Surface Mining Control and Reclama

[[Page 11271]]

tion Act of 1974 (20) resumed in the Committee of the Whole 
on July 24, 1974,(1) Chairman Neal Smith, of Iowa, made an 
explanatory statement of the pending situation as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. H.R. 11500.
 1. 120 Cong. Rec. 25009, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
    Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration 
    of the bill H.R. 11500, with Mr. Smith of Iowa in the chair.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        The Chairman: The Chair will attempt to explain the situation.
        Before the Committee rose on yesterday, it had agreed that the 
    remainder of the substitute committee amendment titles II through 
    VIII, inclusive, would be considered as read and open to amendment 
    at any point.
        The Committee further agreed that the time for debate under the 
    5-minute rule would be limited to not to exceed 3 hours and 
    allocated time to titles II through VIII as follows: 50 minutes for 
    title II, 20 minutes for title III, 50 minutes for title IV, 5 
    minutes for title V, 5 minutes for title VI, 40 minutes for title 
    VII, and 10 minutes for title VIII.
        In an attempt to be consistent with the unanimous-consent 
    agreement entered into on yesterday, the Chair will endeavor to 
    recognize all Members who wish to offer or debate amendments to 
    title II during the 50 minutes of time for debate on that title.
        If Members who have printed their amendments to title II in the 
    Record would agree to offer those amendments during the 50-minute 
    period and to be recognized for the allotted time, the Chair will 
    recognize both Committee and non-Committee members for that 
    purpose.
        Members who have caused amendments to title II to be printed in 
    the Record, however, are protected under clause 6, rule XXIII, and 
    will be permitted to debate for 5 minutes any such amendment which 
    they might offer to title II at the conclusion of the 50 minutes of 
    debate thereon.
        The Chair will now compile a list of those Members seeking 
    recognition to offer or debate amendments to title II and will 
    allocate 50 minutes for debate accordingly.
        The Chair will give preference where possible to those Members 
    who have amendments to offer to title II.
        Members who were standing at the time of the determination of 
    the time allocation will be recognized for 1 minute and 20 seconds 
    each.

Transferring Allocated Time

Sec. 79.132 Where time for debate on an amendment and all amendments 
    thereto has been limited and the time remaining has been allocated 
    by the Chairman to Members seeking recognition, a Member may, by 
    unanimous consent yield his time to another Member but a motion to 
    that effect is not in order.

    On June 25, 1975,(2) during consideration of the 
Departments of

[[Page 11272]]

Labor and Health, Education, and Welfare appropriations for fiscal year 
1976 (H.R. 8069) in the Committee of the Whole, Mr. Daniel J. Flood, of 
Pennsylvania, made a motion as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 121 Cong. Rec. 20839, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Flood: Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on this 
    amendment and all amendments thereto close . . . in 10 minutes.
        The Chairman: (3) The gentleman from Pennsylvania 
    moves that all debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto 
    close in 10 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania. . . .
        So the motion was agreed to.
        The Chairman: Members standing at the time the motion was made 
    will be recognized for approximately one-half minute each.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Downey).
        Mr. [Thomas J.] Downey of New York: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent to yield my time to the gentleman from Wisconsin 
    (Mr. Obey). . . .
        Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I object to any 
    yielding.
        The Chairman: Objection is heard.
        The gentleman from New York will be given the opportunity to 
    speak for 30 seconds.
        Mr. Downey of New York: Mr. Chairman, I move that my time be 
    given to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
        The Chairman: That is an improper motion. The Chair would 
    suggest that the gentleman from New York might yield for a question 
    to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
        Mr. [David R.] Obey [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, will the 
    gentleman yield?
        Mr. Downey of New York: I yield to the gentleman from 
    Wisconsin.

Transferring Unused Debate Time to Another Amendment

Sec. 79.133 By unanimous consent, remaining debate fixed at a time 
    certain on an amendment in the nature of a substitute may be 
    converted to minutes of debate and reserved to follow disposition 
    of a pending perfecting amendment not covered by the limitation.

    On Apr. 13, 1983,(4) during consideration of House Joint 
Resolution 13 (nuclear weapons freeze) in the Committee of the Whole, 
the following exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 129 Cong. Rec. 8402-04, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Henry J.] Hyde [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, would a 
    unanimous-consent request be in order that the gentleman from 
    Georgia (Mr. Levitas) move his perfecting amendment and a 
    unanimous-consent request that the same limitation on debate that 
    prevailed before his motion obtain following it? Could that be done 
    by unanimous consent?
        The Chairman: (5) The Chair is unclear as to the 
    nature of the gentleman's inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).

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

[[Page 11273]]

        Mr. Hyde: I think what the chairman has said is that if the 
    gentleman from Georgia's motion is granted or his request is 
    granted, the limitation that has been set on debate would no longer 
    prevail; is that correct?
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman that the 
    limitation of debate applies only to debate on the amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
    Levitas) which is now pending.

        Mr. Hyde: I am asking the Chair if he made another motion 
    asking unanimous consent that the same limitation on debate that 
    has previously been entered apply, would that be in order?
        The Chairman: The gentleman could ask unanimous consent for a 
    limitation on the perfecting amendment. . . .
        Mr. [Elliott H.] Levitas [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    perfecting amendment. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I will seek recognition for debate on the 
    amendment if I may ask a parliamentary inquiry before I do.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Levitas: My parliamentary inquiry is this. The perfecting 
    amendment which I have just offered is now available for debate 
    under the 5-minute rule without any time constraints?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Levitas: The time limitation that was originally agreed to 
    for termination of debate on the pending substitute to end at 3 
    o'clock, that was the focus of the time limitation.
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Levitas: My parliamentary inquiry is this: Would it be in 
    order to request unanimous consent to preserve the time of those 
    Members who had time allocated to them under the original 
    limitation so that their time would be preserved at the conclusion 
    of the disposition of the pending amendment?
        The Chairman: The gentleman or any other Member could request 
    unanimous consent for that purpose.
        Mr. Levitas: A further parliamentary inquiry: Would it be in 
    order after this amendment is explained to seek a time limitation 
    on debate of the pending amendment?
        The Chairman: That would be in order.
        Mr. Levitas: Well, under the circumstances, Mr. Chairman, I 
    will make a unanimous-consent request that after the question is 
    put on the pending amendment, that the time remaining under the 
    original time limitation on the substitute will be made available 
    to the Members who have such time allocated to them.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Georgia?
        Mr. [C. W. Bill] Young of Florida: I make a parliamentary 
    inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Young of Florida: Those of us who had time under the 
    original reservation no longer have that time, and would be 
    precluded by this unanimous-consent request from debating the 
    perfecting amendment, which is an entirely different issue than the 
    substitute was. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair would ask the gentleman from Georgia

[[Page 11274]]

    whether it is his intent under the unanimous-consent request that 
    the time allocated to those who have not yet been recognized under 
    the limitation of time be the time originally allocated to them by 
    other Members or a pro rata reduction of the time that is now 
    remaining before 3 o'clock, the time originally set?
        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I would 
    hope that since the substitute and the so-called perfecting 
    amendment to House Joint Resolution 13 are practically identical, 
    certainly in substance, that we could limit the time to 15 minutes 
    after the gentleman from Georgia's 5-minute allocated time for 
    explaining his amendment.
        Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that----
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman that there is 
    now pending a unanimous-consent request by the gentleman from 
    Georgia to permit the Members who have not spoken under the 
    limitation of time their allocated time as originally allocated on 
    the amendment in the nature of a substitute. . . .
        Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
    Georgia?
        There was no objection.

Effect of Debate on Amendment Pending When Limitation Imposed

Sec. 79.134 Where a motion to limit debate has been made and agreed to 
    following the offering of an amendment but prior to recognition of 
    its proponent, the Chair may nevertheless allocate five minutes to 
    the proponent and in his discretion divide the remaining time among 
    other Members.

    A limitation on time for debate, in effect, abrogates the five-
minute rule. On one occasion, a Member who had offered an amendment but 
had not been recognized to debate the amendment was recognized, in the 
exercise of discretion by the Chair, for five minutes. The proceedings 
of Oct. 9, 1975,(6) in the Committee of the Whole, were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 121 Cong. Rec. 32600, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. [Leonor K.] Sullivan [of Missouri] (during the reading): 
    Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that title IV be considered 
    as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
        The Chairman: (7) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentlewoman from Missouri?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        Mrs. Sullivan: Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on the 
    pending amendment to title IV and all amendments thereto be limited 
    to 10 minutes.
        The Chairman: The Chair would prefer to wait until the 
    amendment has been offered.
        Mr. [Paul N.] McCloskey [Jr., of California]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment.

[[Page 11275]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. McCloskey: On page 77 at line 18 
        add a new section as follows:
            ``Sec. 407. The United States hereby consents to the 
        jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice with respect 
        to any claim or controversy arising as a result of the 
        enactment or the implementation of this Act.

        The Chairman: Does the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. 
    Sullivan) move to limit debate on this title and all amendments 
    thereto to 10 minutes?
        Mrs. Sullivan: I do, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Sullivan).
        The motion was agreed to.
        Mr. McCloskey: Mr. Chairman, may I ask if I will have 5 minutes 
    to explain my amendment?
        The Chairman: The gentleman from California is correct, he will 
    have 5 minutes.

Ordering of Amendments Un-der Limitation

Sec. 79.135 Where the Committee of the Whole had limited debate to a 
    time certain on a motion to strike a portion of pending text, the 
    Chair requested a Member to withhold offering a perfecting 
    amendment to the text until the expiration of the limitation since 
    the limitation 
    did not apply to perfecting amendments which could be offered, 
    debated, and voted upon prior to the vote on the motion to strike 
    and since debate on the perfecting amendment, if offered during the 
    limitation, would reduce time remaining under the limitation.

    On May 24, 1977,(8) during consideration of the 
International Security Assistance Act of 1977 (H.R. 6884) in the 
Committee of the Whole, the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 123 Cong. Rec. 16172, 16175, 16176, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (9) When the Committee of the Whole 
    House rose on Monday, May 2, 1977, the bill had been considered as 
    having been read and open to amendment at any point, and pending 
    was an amendment offered by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
    Ichord).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Don Fuqua (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Without objection, the Clerk will again report the amendment.
        There was no objection.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ichord: Page 8, line 17, strike 
        out ``$2,214,-700,000'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``$12,114,700,000''. . . .

        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: . . . I ask unanimous 
    consent that all debate on this amendment and all amendments 
    thereto end at 1:15 p.m. . . .
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Wisconsin?

[[Page 11276]]

        There was no objection. . . .
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I have an 
    amendment at the desk which has been printed in the Record.
        The Chairman: Would the gentleman withhold his amendment until 
    the limitation of time expires.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, will the amendment then be in order 
    and may it be offered prior to the vote on the Ichord amendment?
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman that the 
    amendment will be in order as a perfecting amendment prior to the 
    vote on the Ichord amendment.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, in that case, I will withhold the 
    amendment at this time.

Sec. 79.136 Where there was pending an amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute, a 
    substitute therefor and an amendment to the substitute, and debate 
    had been limited on the substitute and all amendments thereto but 
    not on the original amendment or amendments thereto, the Chair 
    indicated that: (1) further amendments to the substitute or 
    modifications of the substitute by unanimous consent must await 
    disposition of the pending amendment to the substitute; (2) 
    amendments to the original amendment could be offered and debated 
    under the five-minute rule and would be voted on before amendments 
    to the substitute; (3) amendments to the substitute could be 
    offered and voted upon without debate unless printed in the Record 
    pursuant to clause 6 of Rule XXIII; and (4) the question would not 
    be put on the substitute until all perfecting amendments to it and 
    to the original amendment were disposed of.

    During consideration of the Natural Gas Emergency Act of 1976 (H.R. 
9464) in the Committee of the Whole on Feb. 5, 1976,(10) the 
following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 122 Cong. Rec. 2646-48, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to 
    strike the requisite number of words.
        Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on the 
    Smith amendment and all amendments thereto terminate immediately 
    upon the conclusion of consideration of the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Eckhardt).
        The Chairman: (11) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Michigan?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection. . . .
        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, as I understood 
    it, the unanimous-consent request of the gentleman from Michigan 
    (Mr. Dingell)

[[Page 11277]]

    was that all debate on the Smith substitute amendment cease after 
    the disposition of the Eckhardt amendment. The Eckhardt amendment 
    would be the pending business then, and immediately after the 
    determination of the Eckhardt amendment, we would vote on the Smith 
    amendment. Is that not correct? . . .
        The Chairman: Let the Chair add this: the Chair has said it 
    once, and would like to say it again. Before we vote on the Smith 
    substitute, amendments to the Krueger amendment are debatable if 
    offered.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: I understand that, Mr. Chairman. My 
    questions were with reference only to how we get to the Smith 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: The point that the Chair is trying to make, 
    regardless of what agreements are reached, is that until the 
    Krueger amendment is finally perfected to the satisfaction of the 
    Committee, the Chair cannot put the question on the Smith 
    substitute. . . .
        There has been no limitation of debate on the Krueger amendment 
    or amendments thereto. The basic parliamentary situation is that we 
    have a substitute amendment for the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute, the Krueger amendment. Both of those are subject to 
    amendment, but both must be perfected before the Chair can put the 
    question on the substitute for the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: With respect to the unanimous-consent 
    request of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the Eckhardt 
    amendment is still to be voted upon, and then there are to be no 
    other amendments to the Smith amendment?
        The Chairman: There is to be no further debate on such 
    amendments. . . .
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, if my time still applies, I 
    would like to ask the Chair to state the circumstances. If I may, 
    before the Chair does that, I would like to ask the question this 
    way: As the situation stands at this moment, the Krueger amendment 
    is still perfectable by amendments under the normal course of time, 
    and there is no limitation on the Krueger amendment.
        The Smith amendment, however, can be perfected only by the vote 
    on the Eckhardt amendment, and then if there are other amendments 
    to the Smith amendment there is no debate time remaining on those 
    amendments.
        Is that correct?
        The Chairman: Unless they are printed in the Record.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: And if they are printed in the Record, the 
    debate time is 5 minutes per side pro and con. Is that correct?
        The Chairman: That is correct.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: And they must be printed as amendments to 
    the Smith amendment. Is that correct?
        The Chairman: That is correct. . . .
        Mr. [Robert] Krueger [of Texas]: . . . Mr. Chairman, my 
    question is this: We will vote first on the Eckhardt amendment to 
    the Smith substitute?
        The Chairman: That is right.
        Mr. Krueger: Following that, there will then be a vote without 
    further debate on the Smith substitute, or no?
        The Chairman: The Chair cannot say, because if there were 
    amendments printed in the Record, there can be both an amendment 
    offered and debate

[[Page 11278]]

    on the amendment. If there were no amendments that were qualified 
    for debate by being printed in the Record, they could not be 
    offered and voted on without debate.
        But if they are offered to the Krueger amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute, they would both be considered and would be 
    debatable under the 5-minute rule.
        Mr. Krueger: Mr. Chairman, does the 5-minute rule apply also to 
    any possible amendments to the Smith substitute?
        The Chairman: The 5-minute rule applies only to amendments to 
    the Smith amendment which has been printed in the Record. Other 
    amendments to the Smith amendment do not have debate time; they are 
    just voted on.

Sec. 79.137 Where debate has been limited on a pending section and all 
    amendments thereto and time allocated among those Members desiring 
    to offer amendments to that section, the Chair may decline to 
    recognize a Member to offer an amendment adding a new section and 
    therefore not covered by the limitation, until perfecting 
    amendments to the pending section have been disposed of under the 
    limitation.

    On June 26, 1979,(12) during consideration of H.R. 3930, 
the Defense Production Act Amendments of 1979, the Committee of the 
Whole was proceeding under a limitation on debate on section 3 and 
amendments thereto, when an amendment was offered by Mr. Morris K. 
Udall, of Arizona:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 125 Cong. Rec. 16679, 16680, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Udall: Page 8, after line 13 add the 
    following new section and renumber the subsequent sections 
    accordingly.
        Sec. 4. The Secretary of Energy is hereby authorized to 
    designate a proposed synthetic fuel or feedstock facility as a 
    priority synthetic project. . . .
        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, is this 
    amendment to section 3 or section 4? . . .
        The copy I have indicates that it is to section 4, Mr. 
    Chairman. Is that correct?
        Mr. Udall: I had modified it to apply to section 3.
        The Chairman: (13) The Clerk will cease reading the 
    amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair will advise the gentleman from Arizona that this 
    amendment currently being read adds a new section 4, and is not 
    covered by the limitation on time, and should not be offered at 
    this time. . . .
        Mr. Udall: I had intended--I had so instructed the Clerk to 
    change this to an amendment to section 3, not section 4. . . .
        The Chairman: . . . The Chair will advise the gentleman from 
    Arizona that he is within his rights to redraft the amendment as an 
    amendment to section 3, but the Chair understood that is not the 
    amendment currently being read.

[[Page 11279]]

        Mr. Udall: I so offer it as an amendment to section 3.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the amendment.

Where Debate Limitation Is on Motion To Strike

Sec. 79.138 Where the Committee of the Whole had limited debate to a 
    time certain on a motion to strike a portion of pending text, the 
    Chair requested a Member to withhold offering a perfecting 
    amendment to the text until the expiration of the limitation since 
    the limitation did not apply to perfecting amendments which could 
    be offered, debated, and voted upon prior to the vote on the motion 
    to strike and since debate on the perfecting amendment, if offered 
    during the limitation, would reduce time remaining under the 
    limitation.

    On May 24, 1977,(14) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration the International Security Assistance Act of 1977 
(H.R. 6884), the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 123 Cong. Rec. 16172, 16175, 16176, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (15) When the Committee of the Whole 
    House rose on Monday, May 2, 1977, the bill had been considered as 
    having been read and open to amendment at any point, and pending 
    was an amendment offered by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
    Ichord).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Don Fuqua (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Without objection, the Clerk will again report the amendment.
        There was no objection.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ichord: Page 8, line 17, strike 
        out ``$2,214,-700,000'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``$12,114,700,000''; on page 9, line 17, strike out 
        ``sections'' and insert in lieu thereof ``section''; strike out 
        line 18 on page 9 and all that follows through line 2 on page 
        11; and in line 3 on page 11, strike out ``534'' and insert in 
        lieu thereof ``533''. . . .

        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    wonder if 
    we could determine how many more speakers we have.
        I ask unanimous consent that all 
    debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto end at 1:15 
    p.m. . . .
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Wisconsin?
        There was no objection. . . .
        The Chairman: The time of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
    Bauman) has expired.
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I have an 
    amendment at the desk which has been printed in the Record.
        The Chairman: Would the gentleman withhold his amendment until 
    the limitation of time expires.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, will the amendment then be in order 
    and may it be offered prior to the vote on the Ichord amendment?

[[Page 11280]]

        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman that the 
    amendment will be in order as a perfecting amendment prior to the 
    vote on the Ichord amendment.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, in that case, I will withhold the 
    amendment at this time.

Protected Amendment Offered During Allocated Time

Sec. 79.139 While under clause 6 of Rule XXIII, five minutes of debate 
    in favor of an amendment and five minutes in 
    opposition is permitted notwithstanding a limitation on debate 
    where the amendment has been printed in the Record, if the 
    proponent of the amendment offers it during his allocated time 
    under the limitation and does not claim a separate five-minute 
    recognition under the rule, then a Member opposing the amendment to 
    whom time has been allocated under the limitation must consume that 
    time and cannot claim a separate five minutes under the rule.

    On Mar. 2, 1976,(16) the Chair ruled that, pursuant to 
Rule XXIII, clause 6, a separate ten minutes of debate on an amendment 
printed in the Record is in order only where the proponent of the 
amendment claims that time notwithstanding an imposed limitation; and 
where the amendment is offered and debated within the time allocated 
under the limitation, a separate five minutes in opposition is not 
available:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 122 Cong. Rec. 4994, 4995, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Philip H.] Hayes of Indiana: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Hayes of Indiana: Page 39, 
        immediately after line 12, insert the following new subsection:
            ``(c) Section 402(d) of the Act (30 U.S.C. 902(d)) is 
        amended by inserting immediately before the period at the end 
        thereof the following: `, including any individual who is or 
        was employed in any aboveground mining operation'.'' . . .

        Mr. [John N.] Erlenborn [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (17) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Sam Gibbons (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Erlenborn: Mr. Chairman, since this amendment was one of 
    the published amendments, 5 minutes in opposition to the amendment 
    is available not counting against the limit?
        The Chairman: The gentleman would be correct if debate on the 
    amendment were outside of the limitation. . . .
        Mr. Erlenborn: Mr. Chairman, may I have the 5 minutes, under 
    the rule?
        The Chairman: It will be counted against the gentleman's time 
    if the gentleman takes it at this time.

[[Page 11281]]

        Mr. Erlenborn: Mr. Chairman, I understand there are 5 minutes 
    in opposition that are available, under the rule; and I claim those 
    5 minutes.
        The Chairman: It is the Chair's understanding that at this 
    point debate on the amendment is under the limitation. The 
    gentleman could claim his 5 minutes under the rule if the amendment 
    were offered, notwithstanding the limitation, but not at this time. 
    . . .
        Mr. Erlenborn: Mr. Chairman, I have 5 minutes, under the time 
    limitation?
        The Chairman: That is correct.
        Mr. Erlenborn: Without using that, am I not entitled to 5 
    minutes to oppose a published or printed amendment?
        The Chairman: No, because the proponent of the amendment did 
    not take his time under the rule. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
    Hayes) had 5 minutes reserved under the limitation of time. The 
    Chair understands the gentleman from Indiana took his time under 
    the limitation and not under the rule.