[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 12, Chapter 29 (Sections 1-34), Volume 13, Chapter 29 (Sections 35-end, plus index)]
[Chapter 29. Consideration and Debate]
[A. Introductory; Initiating Consideration and Debate]
[Â§ 7. Opening and Closing Debate; Right To Close]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 9565-9599]
 
                               CHAPTER 29
 
                        Consideration and Debate
 
        A.  INTRODUCTORY;  INITIATING  CONSIDERATION  AND DEBATE
 
Sec. 7. Opening and Closing Debate; Right To Close

    Rule XIV clause 3 of the House rules provides:

        The Member reporting the measure under consideration from a 
    committee may open and close, where general debate has been had 
    thereon; and if it shall extend beyond one day, he shall

[[Page 9566]]

    be entitled to one hour to close, notwithstanding he may have used 
    an hour in opening.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. House Rules and Manual Sec. 759 (1995). See also Rule XIV clause 6, 
        House Rules and Manual Sec. 762 (1995) (mover, proposer, or 
        introducer entitled to speak in reply to pending matter).
            In some instances, one-third of the debate time on a 
        proposition may be allotted to a Member opposed to the 
        proposition if the majority and minority party Members who 
        would ordinarily divide the time are both supporters of the 
        proposition. The right to close debate where the time has been 
        divided three ways is discussed in Sec. 26, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The opening and closing of debate on any proposition depends on the 
procedure under which the proposition was brought to the floor and who 
was recognized to move or offer the proposition. For example, a Member 
bringing a matter before the House, and recognized for that purpose, is 
entitled to control one hour of debate under the rules of the House, 
and to close debate on his proposition.(7) Generally, the 
proponent of a bill (the Member who calls it up) or the mover of a 
motion have the right to open and close debate thereon.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. See Sec. 68, infra, for the hour rule in House debate. See also, 
        e.g., Sec. Sec. 8 et seq., infra, discussing recognition, and 
        Sec. Sec. 24 et seq., infra, discussing control and 
        distribution of time.
 8. See Sec. 7.1, infra. The right to close twenty-minute debate on a 
        motion to discharge a committee is reserved to the proponents 
        of the motion. See 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 1010a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Where the Committee of the Whole considers a bill or resolution 
pursuant to a resolution from the Committee on Rules, the manager 
designated in the resolution opens and closes general 
debate.(9) In one instance pursuant to a special rule 
reported from the Committee on Rules providing for immediate 
consideration of an unreported measure in Committee of the Whole and 
dividing control of general debate between a Member supporting and a 
Member opposing the measure, the Chair recognized the opponent (the 
chairman of the discharged committee) to close general debate, 
reasoning that the proponent had no responsibility as ``manager'' of 
the bill.(10) The better practice is to permit the proponent 
of the bill, rather than the chairman of the discharged committee, to 
close debate. It would seem proper that the proponent of the measure be 
permitted to close general debate, and not an opponent, since the House 
by discharging the com

[[Page 9567]]

mittee has agreed to permit consideration of the measure, even though 
the proponent has no ``management'' responsibility to make any motions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. See Sec. 7.2, infra. The proponent of the question, the first 
        Member named in the Committee on Rules resolution, opens and 
        closes debate (see Sec. 7.3, infra).
10. See 128 Cong. Rec. 27202, 97th Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 1, 1982.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proponent of a proposition may cut off debate, even before the 
expiration of allotted time, by moving the previous question in the 
House (11) and in the House as in the Committee of the 
Whole,(12) or by moving that the Committee rise or to limit 
five-minute debate in the Committee of the Whole.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See Sec. 7.8, infra. See, generally, Sec. 72, infra, discussing the 
        closing of debate in the House.
12. See Sec. 7.6, infra.
13. See Sec. 7.12, infra. See, generally, Sec. 78, infra, for 
        discussion of closing or limiting debate in Committee of the 
        Whole.
            Under the five-minute rule in the Committee of the Whole 
        (or in the House as in the Committee of the Whole), recognition 
        for debate is within the discretion of the Chair. A Member 
        recognized to offer an amendment controls five minutes of 
        debate thereon, and then another Member in opposition thereto 
        is recognized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Resolutions from the Committee on Rules providing for the 
consideration of a bill in the Committee of the Whole commonly provide 
that when the Committee rises the previous question shall be ordered, 
thereby precluding further debate in the House.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See Sec. 7.9, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Where the pending text includes a provision recommended by a 
committee of sequential referral, a member of that committee is 
entitled to close debate against an amendment thereto.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 135 Cong. Rec. 12084-87, 101st Cong. 1st Sess., June 15, 1989.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By recommending an amendment in the nature of a substitute, a 
reporting committee implicitly opposes a further amendment that could 
have been included therein, such that a committee representative who 
controls time in opposition may close debate thereon.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 138 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 102d Cong. 2d Sess., June 4, 1992; 141 
        Cong. Rec. p. ____, 104th Cong. 1st Sess., June 13, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under certain circumstances, however, the proponent of the 
amendment may close debate, as where he represents the reporting 
committee position; (17) where no committee representative 
opposes the amendment; (18) where no representative from the 
reporting committee opposes an amendment to a multi-jurisdictional 
bill; (19) or where an unreported measure is being 
considered and there is no ``manager'' under the terms of a special 
rule.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 132 Cong. Rec. 21718, 99th Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 14, 1986.
18. 132 Cong. Rec. 22057, 99th Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 15, 1986.
19. See Sec. 7.39, infra.
20. 131 Cong. Rec. 9206, 99th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 24, 1985.

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

[[Page 9568]]

                                 Forms
    Form of resolution providing for control of time for general debate 
in the Committee of the Whole, providing that the Committee rise 
(closing debate) after the consideration of amendments and providing 
that the previous question be ordered (closing further debate in the 
House).

            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. 10710) . . . . After 
        general debate, which shall be confined to the bill and shall 
        continue not to exceed seven hours, six hours to be equally 
        divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
        member of the Committee on Ways and Means, and one hour to be 
        controlled by Representative John H. Dent, of Pennsylvania, the 
        bill shall be considered as having been read for amendment. No 
        amendment shall 
        be in order to said bill except amendments . . . . 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.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 119 Cong. Rec. 40489, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 10, 1973.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Form of unanimous-consent request to close House debate.

            Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that debate on the 
        bill be limited to two hours, one-half to be 
        controlled by the gentleman from -------- and one-half by the 
        gentleman from --------, and at the end of that time [the 
        gentleman from -------- shall have leave to offer a substitute 
        for --------] [it shall be in order to --------] [and the] 
        previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
        [and the substitute] to final passage.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Cannon's Procedure in the House of Representatives 161, H. Doc. No. 
        122, 86th Cong. 1st Sess. (1959).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Form of motion to close general debate in Committee of the Whole.

            Mr. Speaker, pending the motion to go into the Committee of 
        the Whole for further consideration of . . . I move that 
        general debate in the Committee of the Whole House [on the 
        State of the Union] be now closed.
    Note: The motion is not in order in the House until some debate has 
been had in the Committee and the Committee has risen.(3) 
Prior to some general debate on a measure in Committee of the Whole, 
the House may limit that debate by unanimous consent only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. For general discussion of closing debate in the House, see Sec. 72, 
        infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            Cross References
Control passing to opposition where manager fails to close debate, see 
    Sec. 34, infra.
Effect of special orders on opening and closing debate, see Sec. 28, 
    infra.
Management by reporting committee and opening and closing debate, see 
    Sec. 26, infra.
Role of manager as to opening and closing debate, see Sec. 24, 
    infra.                          -------------------

Member Making Motion Opens

Sec. 7.1 Where a question is called up for consideration or a mo

[[Page 9569]]

    tion is made, and the motion or question is in order and is 
    debatable, the Member so moving or proposing is recognized to open 
    debate.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. See, for example, 114 Cong. Rec. 30217, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 
        8, 1968 (special order from Committee on Rules); 113 Cong. Rec. 
        14, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 10, 1967 (prior to adoption of 
        rules); 111 Cong. Rec. 23608, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 13, 
        1965 (motion to reconsider); 105 Cong. Rec. 11599, 86th Cong. 
        1st Sess., June 23, 1959 (conference report); 96 Cong. Rec. 
        1514, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 6, 1950 (question of 
        privilege); 89 Cong. Rec. 7051, 78th Cong. 1st Sess., July 2, 
        1943 (override of veto); 87 Cong. Rec. 3917, 77th Cong. 1st 
        Sess., May 12, 1941 (District of Columbia bills); 80 Cong. Rec. 
        7025-27, 74th Cong. 2d Sess., May 11, 1936 (motion to discharge 
        a committee); 78 Cong. Rec. 4931, 73d Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 20, 
        1934 (unanimous-consent consideration of bill); and Sec. 18.9, 
        infra (motion to discharge committee from further consideration 
        of resolution disapproving a reorganization plan).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Special Rule Designating Member To Control General Debate

Sec. 7.2 Where the House resolves into the Committee of the Whole to 
    consider a bill pursuant to a resolution designating who shall 
    control general debate, the designated Member, committee chairman, 
    or ranking committee member is recognized to open general debate in 
    the Committee of the Whole.

    On Apr. 26, 1955,(5) the House adopted House Resolution 
214 for the consideration of a bill in the Committee of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 101 Cong. Rec. 5119, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee 
    of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration 
    of the bill (H.R. 5645) to authorize the Atomic Energy Commission 
    to construct a modern office building in or near the District of 
    Columbia to serve as its principal office, and all points of order 
    against said bill are hereby waived. After general debate, which 
    shall be confined to the bill and continue not to exceed 1 hour, to 
    be equally divided and controlled by the vice chairman and ranking 
    House minority member of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, the 
    bill shall be read for amendment under the 5-minute rule. . . .

    Carl T. Durham, of North Carolina, the committee Vice Chairman 
designated in the resolution, moved that the House resolve itself into 
the Committee of the Whole to consider the bill. When the Committee of 
the Whole commenced sitting, Mr. Durham was immediately recognized to 
open debate.

[[Page 9570]]

    On July 23, 1942,(6) the House adopted House Resolution 
528, providing for the consideration of a bill in the Committee of the 
Whole and dividing control of debate between the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Election of the President, Vice 
President, and Representatives in Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 88 Cong. Rec. 6542-46, 77th Cong. 2d Sess. In current practice, the 
        chairman and ranking minority member indicated in the 
        resolution may designate other Members--typically the chairman 
        and ranking minority member of the relevant subcommittee--to 
        control debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, raised a parliamentary inquiry 
as to recognition to open and control debate, since the chairman and 
ranking minority member so designated were absent. Speaker Sam Rayburn, 
of Texas, stated as follows:

        The Chair thinks the Chair has a rather wide range of latitude 
    here. The Chair could hold and some future Speaker might hold that 
    since the chairman and ranking minority member of the committee are 
    not here there could be no general debate because there was nobody 
    here to control it, but the present occupant of the chair is not 
    going to rule in such a restricted way.
        The Chair is going to recognize the next ranking majority 
    member and the next ranking minority member when the House goes 
    into the Committee of the Whole.

Manager of Bill May Close General Debate

Sec. 7.3 The majority floor manager can always close general debate in 
    the Committee of the Whole.

    During debate on the Department of Defense authorization for fiscal 
1989 (H.R. 4264) in the Committee of the Whole on May 5, 
1988,(7) the Chair responded to a parliamentary inquiry, as 
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 134 Cong. Rec. 9948, 9949, 100th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jon] Kyl [of Arizona]: . . . First of all, who has the 
    opportunity to close debate? . . .
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (8) . . . Under the rule, 
    the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) upholding the 
    [majority] committee position will have the right to close.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Kenneth J. Gray (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 7.4 The chairman of the committee reporting and calling up a 
    measure has the right to close general debate thereon.

    On Mar. 26, 1985,(9) the following exchange occurred in 
the Committee of the Whole during consideration of House Joint Reso

[[Page 9571]]

lution 180 (authorizing release of funds for MX missile):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 131 Cong. Rec. 6283, 99th Cong. 1st Sess. See Rule XIV, clause 3, 
        House Rules and Manual Sec. 759 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William L.] Dickinson [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (10) The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Dickinson: Just for clarification purposes, if I might, Mr. 
    Chairman, am I correct in my belief that the proponents will have 
    the closing debate on this matter?
        The Chairman: The Chair would like to advise the gentleman from 
    Alabama (Mr. Dickinson) that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
    Aspin) will close debate.
        Mr. Dickinson: He is controlling the time and if he has yielded 
    part of that time to me, he would still determine who would close 
    the debate?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.

Proponents of Bill Close Debate

Sec. 7.5 The proponents of a bill before the House have the right to 
    close debate thereon and opponents have no right to be recognized 
    immediately prior to the Member closing debate.

    On Nov. 13, 1941,(11) the House discussed division of 
time for debate on a bill and Speaker Pro Tempore Jere Cooper, of 
Tennessee, stated in response to a parliamentary inquiry that the 
proponents of a bill in the House had the right to close debate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 87 Cong. Rec. 8880, 8881, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Hamilton] Fish [Jr., of New York]: Mr. Speaker, we have 
    two speakers on our side in opposition to this important measure. I 
    am informed there are two speakers on the other side. I recognize, 
    of course, that the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs 
    has the right to close the debate, but I insist on the right of the 
    minority that the opposition should be given the next to the last 
    speech on this important measure.
        My inquiry is, if I have not correctly stated the situation?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state in response to 
    the parliamentary inquiry that under the rules of the House the 
    gentleman from New York [Mr. Bloom], chairman of the committee in 
    charge of the bill, is entitled to close the debate. With reference 
    to recognition of Members prior to close of debate, of course, that 
    is under the control of the gentleman in charge of the time.
        Mr. [Earl C.] Michener [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a further 
    parliamentary inquiry.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Michener: With all due respect to the Speaker pro tempore, 
    may I call his attention to the fact that if his ruling is 
    construed literally it will permit the chairman of the committee 
    controlling the time----
        Mr. [Sol] Bloom [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I shall yield to 
    the gentleman

[[Page 9572]]

    from New York, and will put on a speaker, then he can put on a 
    speaker.
        Mr. Michener: May I finish my parliamentary inquiry?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is entitled to complete 
    his parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Michener: Reverting to my question before I was interrupted 
    by the gentleman from New York: If the chairman of the committee 
    controlling the time is permitted to close the debate and is not 
    limited to one speaker in closing the debate, would it not be 
    possible for such a chairman to open the debate, for instance, and 
    then compel the opposition to use all of its time before the 
    proponent used any more time?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Michener: That right to close debate means one speech. If 
    it meant two, it might mean three, and if it meant three it might 
    mean four. It might be within the power of the proponents of any 
    bill to compel the other side to put on all their speakers, then 
    wind up with only the speeches of the proponents. Such a precedent 
    should not be set. Am I correct?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct in the 
    statement that the proponents of the bill have the right to close 
    debate. That has been the holding of the Chair and it is in line 
    with an unbroken line of precedents of the House. The Chair has no 
    way of knowing how many different Members the gentlemen in charge 
    of the time on the two sides may desire to yield time to. The Chair 
    holds that the proponents of the bill are entitled to close 
    debate.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See also Sec. 18.9, infra (discharge motion on resolution 
        disapproving reorganization plan). See generally, for the right 
        of the manager to close debate, Sec. 24, infra (role of 
        manager) and Sec. 26, infra (management by reporting 
        committee).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Previous Question as Closing Debate

Sec. 7.6 Debate in the House as in the Committee of the Whole may be 
    closed by ordering the previous question.

    On July 28, 1969,(13) a bill (H.R. 9553) amending the 
District of Columbia Minimum Wage Act was being considered in the House 
as in the Committee of the Whole. Mr. John Dowdy, of Texas, moved the 
previous question on the bill and Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, answered parliamentary inquiries on the effect of 
ordering the previous question:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 115 Cong. Rec. 20855, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Phillip] Burton of California: Mr. Speaker, is the motion 
    before us to close debate or will there be a vote subsequent to the 
    pending motion so that those of us who want a rollcall on this 
    matter can obtain a rollcall vote.
        The Speaker: The pending question is on ordering the previous 
    question.
        Mr. Burton of California: This is to close debate and not on 
    the passage of the matter? Will this be our last opportunity to 
    receive a rollcall on this matter?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the question on the 
    passage of the

[[Page 9573]]

    bill will come later, if the previous question is ordered.
        The question is on ordering the previous question.

Member Controlling Debate May Move Previous Question

Sec. 7.7 The Member controlling debate on a proposition in the House 
    may move the previous question and cut off further debate.

    On Mar. 11, 1941,(14) the House was considering House 
Resolution 131 under the terms of a unanimous-consent request providing 
two hours of debate and dividing control of debate between Mr. Sol 
Bloom, of New York, and Mr. Hamilton Fish, Jr., of New York. Mr. Bloom 
moved the previous question prior to the expiration of the two hours' 
time. Mr. Martin 
J. Kennedy, of New York, then 
objected on the ground that 
the unanimous-consent agreement was not being complied with 
in that the previous question 
had been demanded prematurely. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled 
that the previous question could be moved at any time in the discretion 
of the Members controlling debate on the resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 87 Cong. Rec. 2177, 2178, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
            See also Sec. 7.8, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 7.8 The Member controlling debate on a proposition in the House 
    may close debate by moving the previous question.

    On Jan. 4, 1965,(15) at the convening of the 89th 
Congress and before the adoption of rules, Mr. Carl Albert, of 
Oklahoma, offered a resolution and after some debate moved the previous 
question to close debate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 111 Cong. Rec. 20, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Albert: Mr. Speaker, I offer a resolution (H. Res. 2) and 
    ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read as follows:

                                   H. Res. 2

            Resolved, That the Speaker is hereby authorized and 
        directed to administer the oath of office to the gentleman from 
        New York, Mr. Richard L. Ottinger.

        Mr. Albert: Mr. Speaker, again this is a resolution involving a 
    Member whose certificate of election in due form is on file in the 
    Office of the Clerk. I ask for the adoption of the resolution.
        Mr. [James C.] Cleveland [of New Hampshire]: Mr. Speaker, will 
    the gentleman yield for a parliamentary inquiry?
        Mr. Albert: I yield for a parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Cleveland: If this resolution is adopted, will it be 
    impossible for me to offer my own resolution pertaining to the same 
    subject matter, either as an amendment or a substitute?
        The Speaker: (16) If the resolution is agreed to, it 
    will not be in order for the

[[Page 9574]]

    gentleman to offer a substitute resolution or an amendment, 
    particularly if the previous question is ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Cleveland: Is it now in order, Mr. Speaker?
        The Speaker: Not unless the gentleman from Oklahoma yields to 
    the gentleman for that purpose.
        Mr. Cleveland: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Albert: The gentleman from Oklahoma does not yield for that 
    purpose.
        Mr. Cleveland: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry. Will there 
    be any opportunity to discuss the merits of this case prior to a 
    vote on the resolution offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma?
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Oklahoma has control over the 
    time. Not unless the gentleman from Oklahoma yields for that 
    purpose.
        Mr. Cleveland: Will the gentleman from Oklahoma yield for that 
    purpose?
        Mr. Albert: Mr. Speaker, I yield for a question and a very 
    brief statement. I do not yield for a speech.
        Mr. Cleveland: May I inquire if the gentleman will yield so 
    that I may ask for unanimous consent that certain remarks of mine 
    pertaining to this matter be incorporated in the Record?
        Mr. Albert: No. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.
        Mr. [Thomas G.] Abernethy [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: Does the gentleman from Oklahoma yield to the 
    gentleman from Mississippi for the purpose of submitting a 
    parliamentary inquiry?
        Mr. Albert: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
    resolution.
        The Speaker: The question is on the motion.
        The previous question was ordered.
        The resolution was agreed to.

Previous Question Considered as Ordered

Sec. 7.9 When the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole reports a bill 
    to the House pursuant to a resolution providing that the previous 
    question shall be considered as ordered, further debate or 
    amendments in the House are thereby precluded.

    On Aug. 31, 1960,(17) there being no amendments offered 
to S. 2917 under consideration in the Committee of the Whole, the 
Committee rose and the bill was reported back to the House. Pursuant to 
the resolution under which the bill was being considered, Speaker Sam 
Rayburn, of Texas, stated that the previous question was ordered. In 
response to a parliamentary inquiry by Mr. H. Carl Andersen, of 
Minnesota, the Speaker stated that the previous question having been 
ordered by the resolution, no further debate or amendments were in 
order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 106 Cong. Rec. 18748, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Previous Question Vacated

Sec. 7.10 The House by unanimous consent vacated the or

[[Page 9575]]

    dering of the previous question in order to permit further debate.

    On Aug. 26, 1960,(18) the House was considering Senate 
amendments to H.R. 12619, making appropriations for the mutual security 
program. Mr. Silvio O. Conte, of Massachusetts, arose to discuss a 
Senate amendment, but Mr. Otto E. Passman, of Louisiana, moved the 
previous question, and Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, advised Mr. Conte 
that no further debate was in order. The House then agreed to a 
unanimous-consent request by Mr. Passman that ``the action of the House 
by which the previous question was ordered be vacated.'' Mr. Passman 
then yielded two minutes of debate to Mr. Conte.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 106 Cong. Rec. 17869, 17870, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Motion To Table as Closing Debate

Sec. 7.11 In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Speaker indicated 
    that adoption of the nondebatable motion to lay a resolution on the 
    table would result in the final adverse disposition of the 
    resolution (and close further debate).

    On Dec. 14, 1970,(19) the previous question was demanded 
on House Resolution 1306, asserting the privileges of the House in 
printing and publishing a report of the Committee on Internal Security. 
Mr. Louis Stokes, of Ohio, then offered the preferential motion to lay 
on the table. Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, responded as 
follows to a parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 116 Cong. Rec. 41372, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Albert W.] Watson [of South Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, if the 
    motion to table prevails, there can be no further consideration at 
    all of this matter. Is that not correct? Does it not apply the 
    clincher?
        The Speaker: If the motion to table is agreed to, then the 
    resolution is tabled.

        Mr. Watson: Then that ends it.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The motion to lay on the table takes 
precedence over the previous question and may be used to close all 
debate and adversely dispose of a proposition.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See Rule XVI clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 782 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Motion To Rise as Interrupting Five-minute Debate

Sec. 7.12 The motion that the Committee of the Whole rise is not 
    debatable and may

[[Page 9576]]

    have the effect of interrupting debate until the Committee meets 
    again.

    On June 16, 1948,(1) Mr. George W. Andrews, of Alabama, 
was handling the consideration of H.R. 6401 in the Committee of the 
Whole under the five-minute rule. He moved that the Committee rise, and 
Chairman Francis H. Case, of South Dakota, ruled that the motion, which 
was within 
Mr. Andrews' discretion to offer, would, if adopted, effectively 
terminate further debate at that time, although Members scheduled to be 
recognized would be recognized when the Committee meets again.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 94 Cong. Rec. 8521, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Motion To Suspend Rules

Sec. 7.13 The Member recognized to offer a motion to suspend the rules 
    has the right to close debate thereon.

    The following exchange occurred in the House on Sept. 21, 
1981,(2) during consideration of House Concurrent Resolution 
183 (expressing the sense of Congress that the national rugby team of 
South Africa should not play in the United States):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 127 Cong. Rec. 21420, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, I have 
    only one remaining speaker.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (3) The gentleman from 
    Michigan (Mr. Broomfield) has 1 minute remaining, and the gentleman 
    from Wisconsin (Mr. Zablocki) has 2 minutes remaining.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Wisconsin has declared that he has only one 
    remaining speaker to close debate.
        Mr. [William S.] Broomfield [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    desire to reserve that one until debate has concluded.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Wisconsin has the 
    right to close debate.
        Mr. Broomfield: Mr. Speaker, in view of that, I yield back the 
    balance of my time.
        Mr. Zablocki: Mr. Speaker, I yield the remaining 2 minutes to 
    the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Bedell).

Sec. 7.14 While the Member who (under a former rule) demanded a second 
    on a motion to suspend the rules was recognized for 20 minutes of 
    debate, it was still customary for the Speaker to recognize the 
    Member making the motion to conclude the debate.

    On Dec. 30, 1970,(4) Mr. Wright Patman, of Texas, moved 
to suspend the rules and pass S. 4268, to amend the Export-Import Bank 
Act of 1945. Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, recognized 
Mr. H. R. Gross, of

[[Page 9577]]

Iowa, to demand a second and thereby to gain recognition for the 20 
minutes of debate in opposition to the motion. At the conclusion of Mr. 
Gross' remarks, the Speaker recognized Mr. Patman to conclude the 
debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 116 Cong. Rec. 44170, 44176, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Prior to the 102d Congress, certain motions 
to suspend the rules were required to be seconded, if demanded, by a 
majority by tellers, but this requirement was eliminated from the rule 
in the 102d Congress. (See H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1991, 102d Cong. 1st 
Sess.)

Sec. 7.15 While the manager of a motion to suspend the rules has the 
    right to close debate thereon, the Chair attempts to evenly 
    alternate recognition between the majority and minority in order 
    that a comparable amount of time remains for closing speakers on 
    both sides.

    On Oct. 2, 1984,(5) during consideration of the balanced 
budget bill (H.R. 6300) in the House, the following proceedings 
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 130 Cong. Rec. 28517, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Judd] Gregg [of New Hampshire]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        I have 9 minutes remaining. The chairman of the Committee on 
    the Budget has 13 more minutes remaining. After I yield this next 
    point, I will have 7 minutes remaining.
        I would request the Chair, in fairness, to proceed with the 
    other side until the time is in more balance as we get closer to 
    the closing of debate.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (6) The Chair would 
    announce that the Chair is not trying to have this debate conducted 
    in an unfair manner. The Chair will allow the gentleman from 
    Oklahoma to have the chance to yield to a speaker to close debate 
    and, therefore, the Chair will try to keep the division of time as 
    near even as possible, given the consideration that the gentleman 
    from Oklahoma have the opportunity to end the debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

House Conferee in Opposition to Motion To Reject Portion of Conference 
    Report

Sec. 7.16 The House conferee who has been recognized for 20 minutes in 
    opposition to a motion to reject a nongermane portion of a 
    conference report is entitled to close debate on the motion to 
    reject.

    On Jan. 29, 1976,(7) the House had under consideration 
the conference report on H.R. 5247, the Local Public Works Capital 
Development and Investment Act of 1975. Mr. James C. Wright, Jr., of

[[Page 9578]]

Texas, was the chairman of the conference committee that had brought 
the bill to the floor. Mr. Jack Brooks, of Texas, made the point of 
order that title II of the conference report constituted a nongermane 
Senate amendment to the bill in violation of Rule XXVIII clause 4. The 
Chair sustained the point of order, whereupon Mr. Brooks offered the 
motion that the House reject title II. Time for debate on the motion 
was divided as prescribed in the rule, the Chair stating in response to 
a parliamentary inquiry that the ``division of time is between those in 
favor and those opposed to the motion.'' Mr. Wright, in opposition to 
the motion, made the following inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 122 Cong. Rec. 1582, 1584, 1594, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Wright: Mr. Speaker, I have one other speaker, the majority 
    leader. I do not know what the courtesy is, or the appropriate 
    protocol, in a matter of this kind.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (8) The Chair will rule 
    that the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wright] may close debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proponent of Motion To Instruct Conferees

Sec. 7.17 The proponent of a motion to instruct conferees has the right 
    to close debate thereon.

    On July 28, 1994,(9) the Speaker Pro Tempore addressed 
the issue of the right to close debate on a motion to instruct 
conferees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 140 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 103d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Julian C.] Dixon [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 
    4619) making appropriations for the government of the District of 
    Columbia and other activities chargeable in whole or in part 
    against the revenues of said District for the fiscal year ending 
    September 30, 1995, and for other purposes, with Senate amendments 
    thereto, disagree to the Senate amendments, and agree to the 
    conference asked by the Senate. . . .
        There was no objection. . . .
        Mr. [James T.] Walsh [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion to instruct conferees.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Walsh of New York moves that the managers on the part 
        of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
        two Houses on the bill H.R. 4619, be instructed to insist on 
        the House position on amendment numbered 16, reducing the D.C. 
        budget by $150 million.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (10) The gentleman from New 
    York (Mr. Walsh) will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the 
    gentleman from California (Mr. Dixon) will be recognized for 30 
    minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Ted Strickland (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh).
        Mr. Walsh: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry. . . .

[[Page 9579]]

        Mr. Speaker, do we have the right to close debate?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The proponents of the motion will have 
    the right to close the debate.

Debate on Amendments--Manager of Bill May Close

Sec. 7.18 The manager of a bill in Committee of the Whole, or another 
    Member, who is controlling time in opposition to an amendment, and 
    not the proponent of an amendment, has the right to close debate on 
    the amendment, whether debate is proceeding under the five-minute 
    rule or under a special procedure whereby debate has been limited 
    and equally divided between 
    the proponent of the amendment and a Member opposed thereto (the 
    Chair indicating further that he could not anticipate who would 
    obtain recognition to control the time in opposition to every 
    amendment).

    On Apr. 4, 1984,(11) the following proceedings occurred 
in the Committee of the Whole during consideration of the first budget 
resolution for fiscal year 1985 and revising the budget resolution for 
fiscal year 1984 (H. Con. Res. 280):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 130 Cong. Rec. 7829, 7834, 7837, 7840, 7841, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William E.] Dannemeyer [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Chairman: (12) The Clerk will designate the 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. John Joseph Moakley (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
    follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Dannemeyer: Strike everything after the resolving clause and 
        insert in lieu thereof the following:
            (a) The following budgetary levels are appropriate for the 
        fiscal years beginning on October 1, 1983, October 1, 1984, 
        October 1, 1985 and October 1, 1986:
            (1) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as 
        follows: . . .

        The Chairman: Pursuant to House Resolution 476, the amendment 
    is considered as having been read.

        The gentleman from California (Mr. Dannemeyer) will be 
    recognized for 30 minutes, and a Member opposed will be recognized 
    for 30 minutes.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. 
    Dannemeyer). . . .
        Mr. [James R.] Jones of Oklahoma: Mr. Chairman, I rise in 
    opposition to the Dannemeyer amendment, and I yield myself such 
    time as I may consume. . . .
        Mr. Dannemeyer: Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. 
    Do I have the privilege of closing, since it is my budget 
    alternative?

[[Page 9580]]

        The Chairman: No, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Jones) has 
    the privilege of closing debate. . . .
        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, does 
    that mean we are going to operate from here on with the idea that 
    on all budgets that the opposition to them are going to have the 
    right to close?
        The Chairman: Under the rule, these are amendments made in 
    order by the Rules Committee. As under the 5-minute rule, the 
    opponents have the right to close debate.
        Mr. Walker: Further parliamentary inquiry. So I understand 
    then, that on all the budget presentations that will be out here, 
    that the opposition to those budgets will have the opportunity to 
    close debate?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct. . . .
        Mr. Dannemeyer: Mr. Chairman, are we operating under the 5-
    minute rule right now?
        The Chairman: We are operating under a special procedure, but 
    it is under the principle of the 5-minute rule. . . .
        Mr. Dannemeyer: Under that procedure, I, as the proponent of 
    this measure, with the burden of going forward, am not entitled to 
    close? Is that what is being disclosed?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct. As the gentleman may 
    remember, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Michel) was opposed to 
    the last amendment and he closed debate. . . .
        Mr. Walker: Then I understand that under the process, because 
    the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Jones) will be opposing most of 
    the amendments that come out here other than the committee 
    amendment, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Jones), the committee 
    chairman, is going to be virtually given the chance to close all 
    debate on all amendments out here?
        The Chairman: The Chair is not aware of who is going to rise in 
    opposition to all the amendments. Those who rise in opposition to 
    the amendments will be the persons who will be entitled to close 
    the debates. . . .
        Mr. Walker: On the minority side, if we are in opposition to 
    some of the budgets that are going to come out, and the gentleman 
    from Oklahoma (Mr. Jones) is in opposition to the budgets that come 
    out, which side will be given the opportunity to close at that 
    point?
        The Chairman: It all depends upon who is controlling the time, 
    like all the other amendments. The rule specifically states that it 
    is a person opposed who is controlling the time. . . .
        Mr. Walker: When the minority side has a half hour of time, as 
    I assume we will have on some of these amendments, then we will get 
    a chance to close the debate, rather than 
    the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Jones)?
        The Chairman: If the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Jones) offers 
    an amendment, then the minority has the right to close the debate.

Sec. 7.19 The manager of a bill in the Committee of the Whole, and not 
    the proponent of the pending amendment, is entitled to close debate 
    on an amendment on which debate (by unanimous consent) has

[[Page 9581]]

    been equally divided and controlled.

    On July 9, 1965,(13) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 6400, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, under the terms 
of a unanimous-consent agreement providing two hours' debate on an 
amendment, to be divided and controlled by the chairman, Emanuel 
Celler, of New York, and the ranking minority member, William M. 
McCulloch, of Ohio, of the Committee on the Judiciary, which had 
reported the bill. Chairman Richard Bolling, of Missouri, ruled that 
Mr. Celler, as manager of the bill, and not Mr. McCulloch, the 
proponent of the pending amendment, had the right to close debate on 
the amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 111 Cong. Rec. 16228, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Celler: Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time remains on 
    this side?
        The Chairman: The gentleman from New York has 4 minutes 
    remaining and the gentleman from Ohio 1 minute.
        Mr. Celler: Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman from Ohio yield 
    the 1 minute he has remaining so that we can close debate on this 
    side?
        Mr. McCulloch: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state the parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. McCulloch: Mr. Chairman, since the debate at this time is 
    on the substitute amendment, pursuant to the rule, would not the 
    privilege of closing debate come to this side of the aisle?
        The Chairman: The closing of debate, the Chair will inform the 
    gentleman from Ohio, would be in the hands of the manager of the 
    bill.

Sec. 7.20 The right to recognition to close debate under a limitation 
    of debate on an amendment in Committee of the Whole belongs to the 
    manager of the bill and not to the proponent of the amendment.

    The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on 
July 21, 1982,(14) during consideration of H.R. 6030 (the 
military procurement authorization for fiscal year 1983):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 128 Cong. Rec. 17363, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, may I 
    ask, how many minutes do we have remaining?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (15) The gentleman from 
    New York (Mr. Stratton) has 7 minutes remaining, and the gentleman 
    from Washington (Mr. Dicks) has 9\1/2\ minutes remaining.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Les AuCoin (Oreg.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Stratton: Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the gentleman from 
    Washington consume his time because the Committee wants to reserve 
    the final 7 minutes for a windup, as is the proper procedure.

[[Page 9582]]

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Does the gentleman from Washington 
    (Mr. Dicks) wish to use or yield additional time?
        Mr. [Norman D.] Dicks [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, is it not 
    the proper procedure that the Member who offers the amendment gets 
    the last portion of time to close debate?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair will advise the gentleman 
    that the usual and customary procedure, and the procedure we are 
    following, is for the Committee to have the prerogative and the 
    right to close.

Sec. 7.21 The manager from the committee reporting a bill has the right 
    to close debate on an amendment under the five-minute rule, and not 
    the sponsor of the amendment.

    On July 29, 1982,(16) during consideration of H.R. 6030 
(military procurement authorization for fiscal year 1983) in the 
Committee of the Whole, the Chair responded to a parliamentary inquiry 
regarding the conclusion of debate, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 128 Cong. Rec. 18582, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Edward J.] Markey [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I have 
    a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (17) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Les AuCoin (Oreg.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Markey: Mr. Chairman, is it not my right as the maker of 
    the amendment to make the concluding statement on the pending 
    amendment?
        The Chairman: The Committee has the right to close.

Sec. 7.22 The member of the committee managing a bill, and not the 
    proponent of a pending amendment, has the right to close the debate 
    thereon.

    The following exchange occurred in the Committee of the Whole on 
Sept. 16, 1982,(18) during consideration of House Joint 
Resolution 562 (urgent supplemental appropriation for the Department of 
Labor for fiscal year 1982):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 128 Cong. Rec. 23975, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William H.] Natcher [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, we only 
    have one speaker on this side who will close debate. The balance of 
    the time will be yielded to the majority leader.
        Mrs. [Lynn] Martin of Illinois: May I ask a question of the 
    Chair? As the sponsor of the amendment, I reserved time so that I 
    could close the debate on this side of the aisle. Certainly if it 
    is the wish of the majority leader to close, I wish to do what is 
    appropriate, however, and I bow to the wishes of the Chair.
        The Chairman: (19) The Committee has the right to 
    close, and so the gentlewoman will proceed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Norman Y. Mineta (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 7.23 The manager of a bill has the right to close debate on an 
    amendment and amendments thereto in Committee of the Whole under a

[[Page 9583]]

    time limitation, although he may also be the proponent of a pending 
    amendment to the amendment.

    The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on 
Mar. 16, 1983,(20) during consideration of House Joint 
Resolution 13 (nuclear freeze resolution):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 129 Cong. Rec. 5792, 5793, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I move 
    that all debate on the pending amendment and amendment thereto end 
    at 9:15 p.m.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Mr. Zablocki was the manager of the bill and the proponent of the 
        amendment to the amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (2) The question is on the motion 
    offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Zablocki). . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        So the motion was agreed to. . . .
        The Chairman: Under the motion just agreed to, debate has been 
    limited to 9:15. The Chair will exercise discretion and apportion 
    the remaining time.
        The Chair will recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
    Zablocki) for 3 minutes, and the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
    Stratton) for 3 minutes. Each of those gentlemen may apportion 
    their 3 minutes as they wish. . . .
        The Chair will inquire, does the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
    Zablocki) wish to exercise his right to allot time?
        Mr. Zablocki: The gentleman from Wisconsin reserves his time. I 
    reserve the balance of my time.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Wisconsin has the right to 
    terminate debate.

Sec. 7.24 Where a special rule equally divides debate on an amendment 
    between the proponent and an opponent, and the manager of the bill 
    (the chairman of the committee reporting the bill) has been 
    recognized to control debate in opposition, he has the right to 
    close debate on the amendment.

    On Oct. 24, 1985,(3) during consideration of H.R. 3500 
(Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985) in the Committee of the 
Whole, the following exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 131 Cong. Rec. 28824, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (4) The gentleman from Pennsylvania 
    has requested to utilize the balance of his time in closing, which 
    under the precedents he would have the right to do.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. E de la Garza (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Delbert L.] Latta [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I have the 
    right under the procedures of the House, since it is my amendment, 
    to close the debate.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state to the gentleman that the 
    manager of the bill, under the precedents, has that right, and the 
    Chair so rules.

--Representative of Committee Position

Sec. 7.25 The manager of the bill or other representative of the 
    committee position and not the proponent of the

[[Page 9584]]

    amendment has the right to close debate on an amendment on which 
    debate has been limited and allocated in the Committee of the 
    Whole.

    On May 2, 1988,(5) the following proceedings occurred in 
the Committee of the Whole during debate on the Department of Defense 
authorization for fiscal year 1989 (H.R. 4264):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 134 Cong. Rec. 9633, 9637, 9638, 100th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (6) . . . It is now in order to 
    consider the amendments relating to Central America printed in 
    section 1 of the House Report 100-590, by, and if offered by, the 
    following Members or their designees, which shall be considered in 
    the following order only:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (A) By Representative Foley, which is not subject to amendment 
    except for an amendment offered by Representative Hunter;
        (B) By Representative Lowry of Washington; and
        (C) By Representative Markey.
        Mr. [Thomas S.] Foley [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will designate the amendment.
        The text of the amendment is as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Foley: At the end of title IX of 
        division A (page 163, after line 6), insert the following new 
        section: . . .

        Mr. [Mike] Lowry of Washington: Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the 
    rule, I offer an amendment.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will designate the amendment.
        The text of the amendment is as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Lowry of Washington: Page 167, 
        strike out lines 6 and 7.
            Page 170, line 20, insert ``, minus $3,050,000'' before 
        ``as follows''. . . .

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (7) Pursuant to the rule, 
    the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Lowry) will be recognized for 5 
    minutes and a Member opposed will be recognized for 5 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Thomas J. Downey (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [G. V.] Montgomery [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I oppose 
    the amendment.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. 
    Montgomery) will be recognized for 5 minutes. . . .
        The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Montgomery) has 2 minutes 
    remaining and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Lowry) has 30 
    seconds remaining.
        Mr. Montgomery: Mr. Chairman, is it not appropriate that a 
    member of the committee, and I being a representative of the 
    committee, would have the opportunity to close debate?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct.

Sec. 7.26 The minority manager of a bill representing the committee 
    position on an amendment has the right to close debate in lieu of 
    the proponent of the amendment.

    On May 5, 1988,(8) during consideration of the 
Department of

[[Page 9585]]

Defense authorization for fiscal 1989 (H.R. 4264) in the Committee of 
the Whole, the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 134 Cong. Rec. 9962, 100th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Nicholas] Mavroules [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, 
    pursuant to the rule, I offer an amendment.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (9) The Clerk will 
    designate the amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Kenneth J. Gray (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The text of the amendment is as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Mavroules: Page 19, after line 11, 
        insert the following new section: . . .

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Under the rule, the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts (Mr. Mavroules) will be recognized for 5 minutes and 
    a member in opposition will be recognized for 5 minutes. . . .
        Does the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Dickinson) desire to speak 
    in opposition?
        Mr. [William L.] Dickinson [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, it is my 
    understanding I have the right to close.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Is the gentleman upholding the 
    committee position?
        Mr. Dickinson: I am opposing the amendment of the gentleman 
    from Massachusetts which would, I assume, make me in the position 
    of upholding it.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The question of who has the right to 
    close would depend on who is espousing the cause of the committee.
        Mr. Dickinson: I would assume that the Chair would rule the 
    same on this issue as it did the last time I asked the question and 
    that would mean I have the right to close.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The manager of the bill always has 
    the right to close. In this case, since the gentleman is upholding 
    the committee position, he would be entitled to close.
        Mr. Dickinson: I am in the same position as the chairman was on 
    the last amendment. I am opposing the amendment to the committee 
    bill.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair will assume the gentleman 
    is representing the committee position. He is recognized for 5 
    minutes.

--Position of Sequential Committee That Reported Text Being Amended

Sec. 7.27 Where the Member controlling time in opposition to an 
    amendment on which debate is limited represents the position of the 
    sequential committee that reported the original text being amended, 
    that Member qualifies as the manager of the pending portion of the 
    bill and is enti-tled to close debate on the amendment, even over 
    the proponent of the amendment representing the primary committee 
    whose reported version had been replaced 
    in the original text by the sequential committee's version.

[[Page 9586]]

    On June 15, 1989,(10) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration H.R. 1278, the Financial Institutions Reform, 
Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989. The pending text had been 
reported as a Judiciary Committee amendment on sequential referral and 
by special rule was made original text. Thus, members of the Judiciary 
Committee defending the pending text, rather than members of the 
Banking Committee seeking by amendments to return to the pre-sequential 
text, were managers entitled to close controlled debate at this point.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 135 Cong. Rec. 12080, 12081, 12084, 12085, 12087, 101st Cong. 1st 
        Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Doug] Barnard [Jr., of Georgia] [of the Committee on 
    Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: (11) The Clerk will designate the 
    amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. G. V. (Sonny) Montgomery (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The text of the amendment is as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Barnard:
            Page 655, before line 21, insert the following new section 
        (and redesignate subsequent sections and amend the table of 
        contents accordingly):

        sec. 965. criminal division fraud section regional offices. . . 
                                       .

        The Chairman: Under the rule, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
    Barnard) will be recognized for 20 minutes in support of his 
    amendment, and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kastenmeier [of 
    the Committee on the Judiciary] will be recognized for 20 minutes 
    in opposition to the amendment. . . .

    Subsequently the Chair stated:

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
    Barnard) has 4 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
    Kastenmeier) has 9 minutes remaining.
        The Chair will rule that because this section of the bill did 
    come from the Judiciary Committee that the gentleman from Wisconsin 
    (Mr. Kastenmeier) in effect is managing this part of the 
    legislation, so the gentleman from Wisconsin will be allowed to 
    close debate. . . .
        The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Georgia (Mr. Barnard).
        The amendment was agreed to.

        Mr. [Frank] Annunzio [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Clerk will designate the 
    amendment.
        The text of the amendment is as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Annunzio: Page 637, strike out 
        line 22 and all that follows through page 638, line 9, and 
        insert in lieu thereof the following (and redesignate the 
        subsequent paragraph accordingly):
            (b) Amount of Penalty.--
            (1) Generally.--The amount of 
        the civil penalty shall not exceed $1,000,000. . . .

        Mr. Annunzio: . . . The Subcommittee on Financial Institutions, 
    which I Chair, did everything in its

[[Page 9587]]

    power to ensure that such crooks got their due--we imposed long 
    prison terms and large penalties for taking advantage of the 
    American taxpayer. The Full Banking Committee, by a 49-to-2 vote, 
    strongly endorsed these provisions. However, the Judiciary 
    Committee has decided to lessen some of these penalties.  . . .
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    Annunzio) has 7 minutes remaining and the gentleman from New Jersey 
    (Mr. Hughes) [from the Committee on the Judiciary] has 13 minutes 
    remaining.
        The Chair will inform the two managers of the time that under a 
    ruling of the Chair, because this section was handled by the 
    Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from New Jersey will have 
    the privilege of closing the debate.

--Member Controlling Time in Opposition

Sec. 7.28 Where debate time has been limited on an amendment and all 
    amendments thereto and equally divided between proponents and 
    opponents, the manager of the bill if he controls time in 
    opposition to the amendments has the right to close debate.

    During consideration of the Legal Services Corporation Act 
Amendments of 1981 (H.R. 3480) in the Committee of the Whole on June 
18, 1981,(12) an amendment was offered to the bill, as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 127 Cong. Rec. 12969, 12970, 12976, 12977, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Abraham] Kazen [Jr., of Tex-as]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Kazen: Page 12, strike out lines 
        10 through 16 and insert in lieu thereof the following:
            ``(11) to provide legal assistance for or on behalf of any 
        alien who has not been lawfully admitted for permanent 
        residence in the United States unless the residence of the 
        alien in the United States is authorized by the Attorney 
        General; or . . .

        The Chairman: (13) Under the prior agreement, by 
    unanimous consent, the Chair allocates 15 minutes to the gentleman 
    from New Jersey (Mr. Rodino) in opposition to this amendment. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair will advise that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Kazen) 
    has 2 minutes remaining. . . .
        The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rodino) has 1 minute 
    remaining.
        The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rodino) has the right to 
    conclude debate.

Sec. 7.29 The Member controlling the time in opposition to an 
    amendment, and not the proponent thereof, is entitled to close 
    debate on the amendment in the Committee of the Whole, under a 
    special rule allocating control of time.

    During consideration of House Concurrent Resolution 280 (the first 
budget resolution for fiscal year 1985 and revising the budget

[[Page 9588]]

resolution for 1984) in the Committee of the Whole on Apr. 5, 
1984,(14) the following exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 130 Cong. Rec. 7908, 7911, 7913, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Julian C.] Dixon [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute, designated No. 4, 
    consisting of the text of House Concurrent Resolution 281.
        The Chairman: (15) The Clerk will designate the 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. John J. Moakley (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
    follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Dixon: Strike out all after the resolving clause and insert in 
        lieu thereof the following: . . .

        The Chairman: Pursuant to House Resolution 476, the amendment 
    is considered as having been read.
        The gentleman from California (Mr. Dixon) will be recognized 
    for 1 hour and a Member opposed will be recognized for 1 hour.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. 
    Dixon) for 1 hour. . . .
        Mr. Dixon: Mr. Chairman, I inquire of the Chair as to what time 
    is left on both sides.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from California (Mr. Dixon) has 14 
    minutes remaining; the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Fiedler) 
    has 21 minutes remaining.
        Mr. Dixon: Mr. Chairman, I believe I am entitled to close. I do 
    not know if the other side intends to use all of their time.
        The Chairman: The gentleman is incorrect. The opposition is 
    entitled to close.

Sec. 7.30 The minority manager of a bill recognized to control the time 
    on behalf of the committee in opposition to an amendment (where 
    debate has been limited and divided) has the right to close the 
    debate on the amendment.

    On June 29, 1984,(16) during consideration of H.R. 3678 
(Water Resources, Conservation, Development, and Infrastructure 
Improvement and Rehabilitation Act of 1983) in the Committee of the 
Whole, Chairman Sam B. Hall, of Texas, responded to a parliamentary 
inquiry regarding closing debate. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 130 Cong. Rec. 20250, 20253, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Bob] Edgar [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, if the 
    gentleman would yield, I would suggest that we could probably do it 
    in 30 minutes equally divided, 15 minutes for the gentleman from 
    Kentucky (Mr. Hopkins) and 15 minutes for the gentleman from 
    Kentucky (Mr. Snyder) by dividing up the time I think we could 
    probably cover the speakers who wish to speak.
        Mr. [Robert A.] Roe [of New Jersey]: I would have no objection 
    to that.

[[Page 9589]]

        Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the debate conclude 
    at 5:30 and the time be equally divided between Mr. Snyder and Mr. 
    Hopkins.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from New Jersey?
        There was no objection.
        Mr. [Larry J.] Hopkins [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Hopkins: Mr. Chairman, since it is my amendment, would it 
    be improper for me to close out the debate on this issue?
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Snyder), closes 
    on behalf of the committee.

Sec. 7.31 Where debate under the five-minute rule in Committee of the 
    Whole has been limited, and controlled by the proponent and an 
    opponent, the opponent of an amendment has the right to close 
    debate if he represents the committee managing the bill.

    During consideration of H.R. 1460 (expressing United States 
opposition to the system of apartheid in South Africa) in the Committee 
of the Whole on June 5, 1985,(17) the following proceedings 
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 131 Cong. Rec. 14293, 14302, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (18) Under the rule, the gentleman 
    from California (Mr. Dellums) will be recognized for 30 minutes and 
    a Member opposed to the amendment will be recognized for 30 
    minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. E de la Garza (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Is the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Siljander) opposed to the 
    amendment?
        Mr. [Mark] Siljander [of Michigan]: I am, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Siljander) will 
    be recognized for 30 minutes.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. 
    Dellums). . . .
        Mr. [Ronald V.] Dellums [of California]: Mr. Chairman, is it 
    customary that the offeror of the amendment close the debate?
        The Chairman: The Chair would advise the gentleman that the 
    gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Siljander) is in fact representing the 
    committee which opposes the gentleman's amendment, so, therefore, 
    he would have a procedural right to close debate on the amendment.

Sec. 7.32 Where debate has been limited on an amendment in Committee of 
    the Whole and control allocated between a proponent and an opponent 
    who represents the committee majority reporting the bill, the 
    Member controlling the time in opposition has the right to close 
    debate.

    On July 10, 1985,(1) during consideration of H.R. 1555 
(International Security and Develop

[[Page 9590]]

ment Cooperation Act of 1985) in the Committee of the Whole, the 
following exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 131 Cong. Rec. 18496, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William S.] Broomfield [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, if I 
    may pose a parliamentary inquiry. I thought I had the right to 
    close the debate on this side; is that not right?
        The Chairman: (2) The Chair will state that the 
    gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Wolpe) has the right to close debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Les AuCoin (Oreg.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Broomfield: It is our amendment, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: It may be the gentleman's amendment, but the 
    committee that is managing the bill has the right to close debate.

--Member of Committee

Sec. 7.33 A member of the committee in charge of a bill is entitled to 
    close debate on an amendment under consideration in the Committee 
    of the Whole.

    On May 22, 1956,(3) Chairman Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, 
ruled that a member of the Committee on Appropriations, which reported 
and was in charge of the pending bill, H.R. 11319, was entitled to 
close debate on a pending amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 102 Cong. Rec. 8741, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: Under the unanimous-consent agreement, the Chair 
    recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Cole) [to open debate].
        Mr. [W. Sterling] Cole: Mr. Chairman, I understood that I was 
    to have 5 minutes to close the debate on this amendment.
        The Chairman: The Chair was not of that understanding. It is 
    the understanding of the Chair that the gentleman from New York 
    (Mr. Taber) would have 5 minutes to close the debate.
        Mr. Cole: The request was that the gentleman from New York will 
    close the debate. I also qualify under that characterization, being 
    in support of the amendment; and, under the rules of the House, it 
    is my understanding that I would be recognized to close the debate.
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman from New York 
    that a member of the committee is entitled to close the debate if 
    he so desires.
        Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Taber) desire to be 
    recognized to close the debate?
        Mr. [John] Taber: I desire to close.
        The Chairman: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York 
    (Mr. Cole).

Sec. 7.34 A member of the committee reporting a bill who supports the 
    committee position and has been recognized to control the time in 
    opposition to an amendment has the right to close the debate 
    thereon.

    On Aug. 14, 1986,(4) during consideration of the 
Department of

[[Page 9591]]

Defense authorization for fiscal 1987 (H.R. 4428) in the Committee of 
the Whole, Chairman Pro Tempore Marty Russo, of Illinois, responded to 
a parliamentary inquiry, as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 132 Cong. Rec. 21714, 21718, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Under the rule, the gentleman from 
    Illinois (Mr. Savage) will be recognized for 20 minutes, and a 
    Member in opposition will be recognized for 20 minutes.
        The Chair will recognize the distinguished gentleman from 
    Alabama (Mr. Dickinson) for 20 minutes.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Savage). 
    . . .
        Mr. [William L.] Dickinson [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Dickinson: Mr. Chairman, does not the gentleman have the 
    right to close, as the proponent?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that under the 
    rules, a member of the committee supporting the committee's 
    position has the right to close. The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. 
    Dickinson) has the right to close.

Sec. 7.35 The chairman of the committee managing the bill representing 
    the committee position has the right to close debate on an 
    amendment in the Committee of the Whole.

    The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on 
May 5, 1988,(5) during consideration of the Department of 
Defense authorization for fiscal 1989 (H.R. 4264):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 134 Cong. Rec. 9961, 100th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William L.] Dickinson [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, I have 
    the right to close debate, it is my understanding, since this is my 
    amendment and it is not against the committee position.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (6) The gentleman from 
    Wisconsin (Mr. Aspin) has the right to close debate on behalf of 
    the committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Kenneth J. Gray (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Dickinson: He is not representing the committee position, 
    Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. [Les] Aspin [of Wisconsin]: On this amendment, the 
    gentleman from Wisconsin is representing the committee position, 
    which is to be against the Dickinson amendment.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
    Aspin), chairman of the committee, does have the right to close 
    debate.

--Member of Committee Offering Amendment Representing Committee 
    Position

Sec. 7.36 Under Rule XIV, clause 6, a member of the committee reporting 
    a bill offering an amendment thereto which represents the committee 
    position, and not another member of the committee recognized in 
    opposition thereto, is entitled to close debate thereon.

    During consideration of the Department of Defense authorization

[[Page 9592]]

for fiscal year 1987 (H.R. 4428) in the Committee of the Whole on Aug. 
14, 1986,(7) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 132 Cong. Rec. 21660, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [G. V.] Montgomery [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (8) The Clerk will 
    designate the amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Marty Russo (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The text of the amendment is as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Montgomery: At the end of title V 
        of division A (page 103, after line 6), add the following new 
        section: . . .

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Under the rule, the gentleman from 
    Mississippi (Mr. Montgomery) will be recognized for 5 minutes, and 
    a Member of the Committee opposed to the amendment will be 
    recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mrs. [Patricia] Schroeder [of Colorado]: Mr. Chairman, I am 
    opposed to the amendment.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. 
    Schroeder) will be recognized for 5 minutes.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. 
    Montgomery).
        Mr. Montgomery: Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes, and I 
    would like to reserve the last minute of the debate for my closing 
    argument.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair will state to the gentleman 
    from Mississippi that under the procedure adopted by the Committee, 
    a Member of the committee who is in opposition to the amendment has 
    been recognized to close the debate. . . .
        Mr. Montgomery: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Montgomery: Mr. Chairman, the Member that is opposing this 
    amendment is not reflecting the committee's position. That is not 
    the will of the committee. I am on the committee myself, and I 
    think it is my amendment and I have the right to close the debate. 
    This is not the committee's position at all.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair will inform the gentleman 
    from Mississippi that the Member who is entitled to close the 
    debate would be a member of the committee who supports the 
    committee's position. Is the gentleman in support of the 
    committee's position?

        Mr. Montgomery: Yes, Mr. Chairman; I support the committee 
    position. I am for the amendment, so, therefore, I think I have the 
    right to close debate.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: If there is no committee position on 
    the amendment, then the gentleman is entitled to close debate.
        Mr. Montgomery: . . . Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes 
    and 30 seconds, and I reserve the balance of my time.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. 
    Montgomery) is recognized for 2\1/2\ minutes.

--Proponent of Amendment Where There Is No Manager

Sec. 7.37 Where an unreported joint resolution was being

[[Page 9593]]

    considered under a special ``modified closed'' rule in Committee of 
    the Whole permitting no general debate and the consideration of 
    only two amendments in the nature of a substitute with debate 
    thereon divided between a proponent and an opponent, the proponents 
    of the amendments were permitted to open and close debate pursuant 
    to clause 6 of Rule XIV, since there was no ``manager'' of the 
    joint resolution.

    The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on 
Apr. 24, 1985,(9) during consideration of House Joint 
Resolution 247 (to promote United States assistance in Central 
America):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 131 Cong. Rec. 9206, 9228, 9230-32, 9253, 9255, 99th Cong. 1st 
        Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (10) No amendments are in order except 
    the following amendments, which shall be considered as having been 
    read, shall be considered only in the following order, and shall 
    not be subject to amendment: First, the amendment in the nature of 
    a substitute printed in the Congressional Record of April 22, 1985, 
    by, and if offered by, Representative Hamilton of Indiana; and said 
    amendment shall be debatable for not to exceed 2 hours, to be 
    equally divided and controlled by Representative Hamilton and a 
    member opposed thereto; and second, the amendment in the nature of 
    a substitute printed in the Congressional Record of April 22, 1985, 
    by, and if offered by, Representative Michel or his designee, and 
    said amendment shall be debatable for not to exceed 2 hours, to be 
    equally divided and controlled by Representative Michel or his 
    designee and a Member opposed thereto.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For what purpose does the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hamilton) 
    rise?
        Mr. [Lee H.] Hamilton [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, pursuant to 
    the rules, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will designate the amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute.
        The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
    follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Hamilton: Strike out all after the resolving clause and insert 
        in lieu thereof the following: . . .

        The Chairman: The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Broomfield) has 
    6 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hamilton) 
    has 6 minutes remaining.
        Mr. [William S.] Broomfield [of Michigan]: . . . I yield my 
    remaining time to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Lott). . . .
        Mr. Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining time, 6 
    minutes, to the chairman of the Subcommittee on Central America and 
    Latin America, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Barnes). . . .
        Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, pursuant to 
    the rule, I

[[Page 9594]]

    offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will designate the amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute. . . .
        Pursuant to House Resolution 136, the amendment is considered 
    as having been read.
        The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Michel) will be recognized for 
    1 hour, and a Member opposed will be recognized for 1 hour. . . .
        Mr. Michel: Mr. Chairman, I should like to designate the 
    gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Broomfield) to make the allocation of 
    time on our side of the aisle.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Broomfield) is 
    designated to control the time for the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    Michel). . . .
        The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Broomfield) has 7 minutes 
    remaining, and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Barnes) has 6\1/4\ 
    minutes remaining.
        Mr. [Michael D.] Barnes [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, we have 
    three very brief speakers. . . .
        Mr. Broomfield: Mr. Chairman, I would like at this time now to 
    yield the balance of our time to the minority leader, the gentleman 
    from Illinois (Mr. Michel). . . .
        The Chairman: The time of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    Michel) has expired. All time has expired.
        The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Michel).

    Parliamentarian's Note: Ordinarily in Committee of the Whole under 
the five-minute rule, notwithstanding clause 6 of Rule XIV which 
permits the proponent of a proposition to close debate, the manager of 
the bill under the precedents is given the right to close debate on an 
amendment and clause 6 applies only to debate in the House. But in the 
above instance, there was no manager of the bill under the special 
rule.

--No Committee Position in Opposition to Amendment

Sec. 7.38 Where no representative from the reporting committee opposes 
    an amendment to a multi-jurisdictional bill, the proponent of the 
    amendment may close debate.

    On Mar. 9, 1995,(11) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration H.R. 956, the Common Sense Legal Standards Reform 
Act of 1995. A parliamentary inquiry arose concerning the right to 
close debate on an amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 141 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (12) The Chair will inform the 
    committee that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) is entitled to 
    close debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. David Dreier (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Melvin L.] Watt of North Carolina: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.

[[Page 9595]]

        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his inquiry.
        Mr. Watt of North Carolina: My inquiry has to do with why the 
    gentleman on that side has the right to close debate. We are 
    defending the committee position on this side this time.
        The Chairman: If the Chair might respond to the inquiry, the 
    gentleman from Ohio is the author of the amendment and there is no 
    official committee position that is being represented here by 
    opposition to the amendment. So the gentleman from Ohio is entitled 
    to close debate on the amendment.

--Proponent of Amendment Where Manager Does Not Oppose Amendment

Sec. 7.39 While the member of the managing committee controlling debate 
    in opposition to an amendment and substitute therefor, if opposed 
    by the committee, has the right to close debate thereon, the 
    proponent of an amendment (consistent with clause 6, Rule XIV) has 
    the right to close debate if the committee manager does not oppose 
    the amendment or substitute.

    The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on 
Aug. 15, 1986,(13) during consideration of the Department of 
Defense authorization for fiscal 1987 (H.R. 4428):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 132 Cong. Rec. 22056, 22057, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (14) The gentleman from 
    Vermont (Mr. Jeffords) has 4 minutes remaining, the gentleman from 
    Alabama (Mr. Dickinson) has 5 minutes remaining, and 
    the gentleman from California (Mr. 
    Hawkins) has 10\1/2\ minutes remaining. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Marty Russo (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Because there is no committee position on this amendment, under 
    the rules of the House, the proponent of the amendment has the 
    right to close debate.
        So, on this amendment, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
    Hawkins), will have the right to close debate.
        When we get to the Dickinson substitute, again, there is no 
    committee position, and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Dickinson), 
    would have the right to close debate.
        So, in fairness to both sides, the gentleman from California 
    (Mr. Hawkins) will have the right to close on this amendment, and 
    the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Dickinson) will have the right to 
    close on his amendment.

Sec. 7.40 While ordinarily the manager of a bill and not the proponent 
    of an amendment has the right to close debate on an amendment on 
    which debate time has been limited and allocated under the five-
    minute rule in the Committee of the Whole, the proponent of an 
    amendment

[[Page 9596]]

    may close, pursuant to clause 6 of Rule XIV, where the manager of 
    the bill or his designee is not controlling time in opposition.

    On June 12, 1985, the Committee of the Whole had under 
consideration H.R. 2577, supplemental appropriations for fiscal 1986, 
pursuant to a ``modified closed'' rule which limited and 
divided debate on a specified amendment and two amendments thereto. Mr. 
Joseph M. McDade, of Pennsylvania, offered an amendment (15) 
under the rule, to which Mr. Edward P. Boland, of Massachusetts, rose 
in opposition.(16) Subsequently, in response to Mr. McDade's 
inquiry, the Chair (17) indicated that Mr. McDade would be 
allowed to close debate.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 131 Cong. Rec. 15380, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
16. Id. at p. 15383.
17. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
18. 131 Cong. Rec. 15432, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Boland could not be identified as the ``manager'' of the bill 
in this context since he had been 
the proponent of an unsuccessful amendment (19) to the 
McDade amendment under the rule, and had not been designated by the 
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, Mr. Jamie L. Whitten, of 
Mississippi, as the manager of the bill during debate on the McDade 
amendment, but was merely an opponent of the amendment. The proceedings 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Id. at pp. 15408, 15420.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Whitten: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself 
    into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for 
    the further consideration of the bill (H.R. 2577) making 
    supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 
    30, 1985, and for other purposes. . . .
        The motion was agreed to. . . .
        The Chairman: . . . Pursuant to House Resolution 186 and 
    today's unanimous-consent agreement, no amendments are in order 
    except the following amendments which shall be considered in the 
    following order only, shall be considered as having been read, 
    shall not be subject to amendment except as specified, and shall be 
    in order even if amending a portion of the bill already passed in 
    the reading of the bill for amendment:
        First. The amendment printed in the Congressional Record of 
    June 5, 1985, by Representative Michel, if offered by 
    Representative Michel or Representative McDade, which shall be 
    debatable for 2 hours and 20 minutes, to be equally divided and 
    controlled by the proponent and a Member opposed thereto, and after 
    2 hours of debate shall be subject to the following two amendments:
        Second. The amendment printed in the Congressional Record of 
    June 5, 1985, by, and if offered by, Representative Boland, which 
    shall be debatable

[[Page 9597]]

    for 1 hour, to be equally divided and controlled by Representative 
    Boland and a Member opposed thereto; . . .
        Mr. McDade: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. . . .

            Amendment offered by Mr. McDade: Page 44, after line 23, 
        insert the following:
            For an additional amount for humanitarian assistance . . . 
        to the Nicaraguan democratic resistance, $27,000,000. . . .

        The Chairman: For what purpose does the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts (Mr. Boland) rise?
        Mr. Boland: Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: Under the rule, the gentleman from Massachusetts 
    (Mr. Boland) is recognized for 1 hour. . . .
        Mr. McDade: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. McDade: Mr. Chairman, I believe that I have the right to 
    close debate. May I say to the Chair that it is my amendment, and I 
    believe as author of the amendment, I have the right to close 
    debate.
        The Chairman: Under the present circumstances, the Chair agrees 
    with the gentleman that he should be allowed to close.

Sec. 7.41 Normally the manager of the bill, and not the proponent of an 
    amendment under the five-minute rule, has the right to close debate 
    on the amendment; but where a special rule adopted by the House 
    permits the manager of the bill or his designee to offer an 
    amendment consisting of the text of another bill reported from the 
    reporting committee, and that amendment is not opposed by the 
    manager, the proponent has the right to close debate.

    On Aug. 5, 1986,(20) the following proceedings occurred 
in the Committee of the Whole during consideration of H.R. 4428 
(Department of Defense authorization for fiscal 1987):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 132 Cong. Rec. 19031, 19039, 19053, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (1) . . . Pursuant to the rule, the 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
    Committee on Armed Services . . . is considered by titles as an 
    original bill for the purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Kenneth J. Gray (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Before the consideration of any other amendments, it shall be 
    in order to consider the amendments designated in section 2 of 
    House Resolution 523. . . .
        First, an amendment inserting a new Division D in the committee 
    substitute, as modified, containing the text of the committee 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
    Committee on Armed Services now printed in H.R. 4370 if offered by 
    the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services or his designee. . 
    . .
        Mr. [William] Nichols [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, I have been 
    des

[[Page 9598]]

    ignated by the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services to offer 
    an amendment made in order under the rule.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will designate the amendment.
        The text of the amendment is as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Nichols: Page 353, after line 10, 
        insert the following new division (and redesignate division D 
        as division E):

            DIVISION D--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE REORGANIZATION. . . .

        The Chairman: Pursuant to House Resolution 523, the gentleman 
    from Alabama (Mr. Nichols) will be recognized for 1 hour, and a 
    Member opposed will be recognized for 1 hour. . . .
        Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I am 
    opposed to the legislation.
        The Chairman: The Chair will then recognize the gentleman from 
    New York (Mr. Stratton) for 1 hour. . . .
        Mr. Nichols: Mr. Chairman, I would request that 30 minutes of 
    my time be yielded to the ranking minor-ity member of my 
    subcommittee, the 
    gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Hopkins). . . .
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair wishes to state that the 
    gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Hopkins) has 4 minutes remaining; the 
    gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Nichols) has 6\1/2\ minutes remaining; 
    and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Nichols) is entitled to close 
    the debate. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Stratton) has 36\1/2\ 
    minutes remaining.

--Unanimous Consent To Vary Regular Order

Sec. 7.42 By unanimous consent the Committee of the Whole may vary the 
    regular order of recognition to close debate on an amendment; thus, 
    although the manager of a bill has the right to close controlled 
    debate on an amendment thereto, the Committee of the Whole has by 
    unanimous consent varied that practice.

    During consideration of the Defense Savings Act of 1988 (H.R. 4481) 
in the Committee of the Whole on July 12, 1988,(2) the 
following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 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. . . .

[[Page 9599]]

        The Chairman: (3) The gentleman . . . has made a 
    motion. He has moved. But the gentleman should make a unanimous-
    consent request to allocate time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 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.
        Mr. Montgomery: Mr. Chairman, I will not object. I withdraw my 
    reservation of objection. The chairman has no problem with it.
        The Chairman: Then without objection the unanimous-consent 
    request is granted. All time on the amendment of the gentleman from 
    Texas (Mr. Armey) and all amendments thereto will expire 30 minutes 
    from now; that under the unanimous-consent request the gentleman 
    from Michigan (Mr. Hertel) will be recognized to control time for 
    15 minutes as an opponent of the amendment and the gentleman from 
    Texas (Mr. Armey) will be recognized for 15 minutes as the 
    proponent of the amendment.