[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 12, Chapter 29 (Sections 1-34), Volume 13, Chapter 29 (Sections 35-end, plus index)]
[Chapter 29. Consideration and Debate]
[C. Recognition on Particular Questions]
[Â§ 22. Where Five-minute Debate Has Been Limited]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 10083-10123]
 
                               CHAPTER 29
 
                        Consideration and Debate
 
                 C. RECOGNITION ON PARTICULAR QUESTIONS
 
Sec. 22. Where Five-minute Debate Has Been Limited

    A limitation of debate on a bill and all amendments thereto in 
effect abrogates the five-minute rule; and decisions regarding the 
division of the remaining time and the order of recognition of those 
Members desiring to speak are largely within the discretion of the 
Chair.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. See, e.g., Sec. Sec. 22.7, 22.12, and 22.19, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Notwithstanding a limitation on debate and the allocation of the 
remaining time by the Chair, ten minutes of debate is permitted on an 
amendment which has been printed in the Record, under Rule XXIII, 
clause 6.(5) The Chair in his discretion may defer 
recognition of listed Members whose amendments have been printed in the 
Record until after others have been recognized in the division of 
time.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See, e.g., Sec. Sec. 22.32, 22.36, and 22.38, infra.
 6. See Sec. 22.19, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            Cross References
Closing and limiting five-minute debate, see Sec. 78, infra.
Effect of limitation on five-minute debate (obtaining and using time) 
    and distribution of remaining time following limitation, see 
    Sec. 79, infra.
Recognition under the five-minute rule, see Sec. 21, supra.
Rights of committee manager of bill to move to close five-minute 
    debate, see Sec. 7, supra.
Use of motion to strike enacting clause under limitation on five-minute 
    debate, see Sec. 79, infra.
Yielding time under limitation on five-minute debate, see Sec. 31, 
    infra.                          -------------------

Motion To Limit Debate Disposed of Before Further Recognition

Sec. 22.1 When the motion to limit debate on an amendment is pending, 
    that motion must be disposed of prior to further recognition by the 
    Chair.

    On June 5, 1962,(7) Mr. Adam C. Powell, of New York, 
asked unanimous consent that debate on a pending amendment close. Mr. 
H. R. Gross, of Iowa, interrupted Mr. Powell to object to the request. 
Mr. Powell then moved that debate close at 2 o'clock. Mr. Gross then 
sought recognition to offer the preferential motion that the Committee 
rise and report back the bill with the recommendation that the enacting

[[Page 10084]]

clause be stricken. Chairman Jack B. Brooks, of Texas, ruled that 
recognition for that purpose was not in order pending the motion to 
limit debate, which must be first disposed of.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 108 Cong. Rec. 9713, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
 8. The rule governing the closing of debate under the five-minute rule 
        in the Committee of the Whole is Rule XXIII clause 6, House 
        Rules and Manual Sec. 874 (1995). The rule was amended by H. 
        Res. 5 in the 92d Congress to allow five minutes' debate for 
        and against an amendment, regardless of a time limitation, 
        which has been printed in the Congressional Record at least one 
        day prior to its floor consideration.
            The language of the time limitation, whether to a time 
        certain or for a total time for debate, determines whether time 
        for reading amendments, for quorum calls, for points of order 
        and for votes is to be taken out of the remaining time. See 
        Sec. 79, infra.
            Debate may also be closed instantly, precluding further 
        recognition; see Sec. 22.51, infra.
            For the priority of recognition of the bill manager to move 
        to close debate, see, e.g., Sec. 21.30, supra, and Sec. 22.50, 
        infra.
            See generally Sec. Sec. 78, 79, infra, for closing and 
        limiting five-minute debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Where Committee of the Whole Fixes Debate Time, Time Extended by 
    Unanimous Consent Only

Sec. 22.2 Where the Committee of the Whole has fixed the time for 
    debate on amendments, such time may be extended only by unanimous 
    consent.

    On Aug. 18, 1949,(9) the Committee of the Whole agreed 
to a request that all debate on pending amendments close in one hour. 
Chairman Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas, then advised Members that since 
30 Members wished to speak, each would be entitled to two minutes. Mr. 
Cecil F. White, of California, inquired whether it would be in order to 
move that the time be extended in view of the fact that so many Members 
had requested time. The Chairman responded that such an extension would 
require unanimous consent, debate already having been limited.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 95 Cong. Rec. 11760, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proponent of Amendment Was Recognized for Five Minutes After Motion To 
    Limit Debate Agreed to

Sec. 22.3 Where a motion to limit debate has been made and agreed to 
    following the offering of an amendment but prior to recognition of 
    its proponent, the Chair may nevertheless allocate five minutes to 
    the proponent and in his discretion divide

[[Page 10085]]

    the remaining time among other Members.

    A limitation on time for debate, in effect, abrogates the five-
minute rule. On one occasion, a Member who had offered an amendment but 
had not been recognized to debate the amendment was recognized, in the 
exercise of discretion by the Chair, for five minutes. The proceedings 
of Oct. 9, 1975,(10) in the Committee of the Whole, were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 121 Cong. Rec. 32600, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. [Leonor K.] Sullivan [of Missouri] (during the reading): 
    Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that title IV be considered 
    as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
        The Chairman: (11) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentlewoman from Missouri?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

Recognition of Members Not in Chamber When Limitation Is Agreed to

Sec. 22.4 While a limitation of debate in the Committee of the Whole on 
    a pending amendment and on all amendments thereto normally 
    abrogates the five-minute rule, the Chair may, in his discretion, 
    announce his intention to recognize each Member offering an 
    amendment for five minutes where it is apparent that all Members 
    who might offer amendments are not in the Chamber at the time the 
    limitation is imposed.

[[Page 10086]]

    On Dec. 14, 1973,(12) Chairman Richard Bolling, of 
Missouri, stated in response to a parliamentary inquiry that where 
there was pending an amendment in the nature of a substitute for a 
bill, a motion to close all debate on the substitute and all amendments 
thereto at a time certain would be in order. He indicated the procedure 
to be followed in recognition by the Chair should five-minute debate be 
limited:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 119 Cong. Rec. 41712, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James T.] Broyhill of North Carolina: Mr. Chairman, my 
    parliamentary inquiry is this: If the time is limited, would only 
    those Members who are presently standing and would be listed--would 
    they be the only Members who could be recognized either to propose 
    an amendment or to oppose an amendment?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state any motion that the Chair 
    can conceive of would involve enough time so that the Chair would 
    feel that he could reserve that right to recognize Members under 
    the 5-minute rule.
        The Chair will explain that if needed.
        The gentleman is talking about limiting debate on the amendment 
    in the nature of a substitute, and all amendments thereto?
        Mr. Broyhill of North Carolina: That is correct, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The Chairman would presume that there will be a 
    substantial block of amendments, and the Chair would feel that the 
    Chair should not fail to protect the Members who are not in the 
    Chamber at the moment who might have amendments that they sought to 
    offer.

Members To Indicate Wish To Speak Under Limitation

Sec. 22.5 The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, af-ter a 
    limitation of time for debate had been agreed to and the list of 
    Members to be recognized had been fixed, requested the Members on 
    the list who wished to speak to the pending amendment to so 
    indicate.

    On May 21, 1959,(13) the Committee of the Whole agreed 
to a motion closing debate on a pending amendment at a time certain. 
Chairman Francis E. Walter, of Pennsylvania, indicated, in response to 
parliamentary inquiries, that those Members who were standing seeking 
recognition at the time the limitation was agreed to and who were noted 
by the Chair would be entitled to recognition under the limitation. The 
Chairman then requested Members so entitled and on the Clerk's list to 
indicate whether they wished to speak.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 105 Cong. Rec. 8828-31, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.

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

[[Page 10087]]

Chair's Discretion as to Recognition and Division of Time Under 
    Limitation

Sec. 22.6 Where the Committee of the Whole agrees to terminate all 
    debate on an amendment at a certain time, the Chair may divide the 
    time remaining among those Members who indicate a desire to speak; 
    and if free time remains after these Members have been recognized, 
    the Chair may at his discretion recognize Members who have not 
    spoken to the amendment or Members who were recognized for less 
    than five minutes under the limitation of time.

    On Mar. 17, 1960,(14) the Committee of the Whole agreed 
to a request that all debate on the pending amendment close at 3:50 
p.m. Chairman Francis E. Walter, of Pennsylvania, recognized then those 
Members who had indicated they wished to speak. When those Members had 
spoken, time still remained and the Chairman recognized for debate 
Members who were not standing seeking recognition when the limitation 
was agreed to. The Chair answered a parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 106 Cong. Rec. 5911, 5914, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Sec. 22.7 Where the Committee of the Whole has, by motion, agreed to 
    limit all debate on a section and all amendments thereto, the Chair 
    generally divides the time equally among those who indicate, by 
    standing when the motion is made, that they desire recognition, or 
    who have submitted their names to be listed among those wishing to

[[Page 10088]]

    speak; but the matter of recognition is largely within the 
    discretion of the Chair and he may simply recognize each Member who 
    seeks recognition for five minutes un-til the time for debate has 
    been exhausted.

    On July 22, 1965,(15) the Committee of the Whole agreed 
to a motion, offered by Mr. Sam M. Gibbons, of Florida, to close all 
debate on the pending section 
and all amendments thereto (H.R. 8283, Economic Opportunity Act 
Amendments of 1965). Chairman John J. Rooney, of New York, answered a 
parliamentary inquiry on recognition under the limitation:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 111 Cong. Rec. 17961, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gerald R. Ford [of Michigan]: Will the Chair announce who 
    has time in the 10 minutes we have for the discussion of four or 
    five or six amendments?
        The Chairman: The Chair has not the slightest idea who has 
    amendments.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: Does not the Chair have a list of who has 
    time?
        The Chairman: The Chair does not have a list.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: May I ask, is it not the usual procedure 
    that such a list is available when time is limited?
        The Chairman: Not necessarily.

Sec. 22.8 Where the Committee of the Whole fixed debate at an hour and 
    a half, the Chair did not note the names of the Members seeking 
    recognition and divide the time at less than five minutes each, as 
    is the practice when a shorter period is fixed.

    On Feb. 22, 1950,(16) Mr. John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, moved that debate close on pending amendments at 2:30 
a.m. and the Committee of the Whole agreed thereto. Chairman Francis E. 
Walter, of Pennsylvania, then answered a parliamentary inquiry on 
division of the time:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 96 Cong. Rec. 2240-46, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Sec. 22.9 Pending a unanimous-consent request that debate on pending 
    amendments be limited to a time certain, 
    the Chair indicated that all Members standing would be recognized 
    under the limi

[[Page 10089]]

    tation although they might 
    already have debated the amendments.

    On July 28, 1970,(17) Mr. B. F. Sisk, of California, 
made a unanimous-consent request that all 
debate on pending amendments close at a time certain. Reserving the 
right to object, Mr. Alphonzo Bell, of California, asked whether a 
Member who had already spoken on the amendments could speak again under 
the time limitation. Chairman William H. Natcher, of Kentucky, 
responded as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 116 Cong. Rec. 26032, 26033, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair would like to inform the gentleman from California 
    that all Members standing would be recognized.

    Mr. Bell withdrew his reservation of objection.

Sec. 22.10 Where the Committee of the Whole has fixed the time for 
    debate on pending amendments, the Chair may prepare a list of names 
    of those Members seeking recognition at the time the limitation was 
    agreed to and 
    divide the time equally between them.

    On Aug. 18, 1949,(18) Mr. John Kee, of West Virginia, 
asked unanimous consent that debate on pending amendments close in one 
hour. There was no objection. Chairman Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas, 
then responded to points of order and parliamentary inquiries on the 
procedure to be followed by the Chair in recognizing Members under the 
limitation:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 95 Cong. Rec. 11760, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Earl] Wilson of Indiana: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Wilson of Indiana: There were a certain number of us on our 
    feet when the unanimous-consent request was propounded. After the 
    time was limited, about twice as many people got on their feet to 
    be recognized.
        The Chairman: The Chair is endeavoring to ascertain those 
    Members who desire to speak, and has no disposition to violate any 
    rights of freedom of speech.
        Mr. Wilson of Indiana: Further pressing my point of order, is 
    it in order after the time is limited for others to get the time 
    that we have reserved for ourselves? I would like to object under 
    the present situation.
        The Chairman: Permit the Chair to answer the gentleman. If the 
    gentleman from Indiana will ascertain and indicate to the Chair the 
    names of the Members who were not standing at the time the 
    unanimous-consent request was agreed to, the gentleman will render 
    a great service to the Chair in determining how to answer the 
    gentleman.
        Mr. [Robert F.] Rich [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.

[[Page 10090]]

        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Rich: That is not the duty of the gentleman from Indiana. 
    That is the duty of the Clerk.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Pennsylvania and the Chair 
    both understand that, but apparently all Members do not. The Chair 
    is endeavoring to do the best he can to ascertain those who desire 
    to speak under this limitation of time. Now permit the Chair to 
    ascertain that.
        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: Will the Chair, with the assistance of 
    the Clerk, advise me how many Members have asked for time, and how 
    much time each Member will be allotted?
        The Chairman: Each of the Members whose names appear on the 
    list will be recognized for 2 minutes, there being 30 Members on 
    their feet at the time and debate having been limited to 1 hour.

Sec. 22.11 Where the Committee of the Whole had separately limited 
    debate on the remaining titles of a committee amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute which was open to amendment at any point, 
    the Chair indicated that he would give preference in recognition to 
    all Members who had amendments to the title being debated, and that 
    Members who had printed amendments in the Record should offer them 
    at the conclusion of debate under the limitation on that title.

    When consideration of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation 
Act of 1974 (19) resumed in 
the Committee of the Whole on 
July 24, 1974,(20) Chairman Neal Smith, of Iowa, made an 
explanatory statement of the pending situation as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. H.R. 11500.
20. 120 Cong. Rec. 25009, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Accordingly the House resolved it-self into the Committee of 
    the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further 
    consideration of the bill H.R. 11500, with Mr. Smith of Iowa in the 
    chair.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        The Chairman: The Chair will attempt to explain the situation.
        Before the Committee rose on yesterday, it had agreed that the 
    remainder of the substitute committee amendment titles II through 
    VIII, inclusive, would be considered as read and open to amendment 
    at any point.
        The Committee further agreed that the time for debate under the 
    5-minute rule would be limited to not to exceed 3 hours and 
    allocated time to titles II through VIII as follows: 50 minutes for 
    title II, 20 minutes for title III, 50 minutes for title IV, 5 
    minutes for title V, 5 minutes for title VI, 40 minutes for title 
    VII, and 10 minutes for title VIII.
        In an attempt to be consistent with the unanimous-consent 
    agreement en

[[Page 10091]]

    tered into on yesterday, the Chair will endeavor to recognize all 
    Members who wish to offer or debate amendments to title II during 
    the 50 minutes of time for debate on that title.
        If Members who have printed their amendments to title II in the 
    Record would agree to offer those amendments during the 50-minute 
    period and to be recognized for the allotted time, the Chair will 
    recognize both Committee and non-Committee members for that 
    purpose.
        Members who have caused amendments to title II to be printed in 
    the Record, however, are protected under clause 6, rule XXIII, and 
    will be permitted to debate for 5 minutes any such amendment which 
    they might offer to title II at the conclusion of the 50 minutes of 
    debate thereon.
        The Chair will now compile a list of those Members seeking 
    recognition to offer or debate amendments to title II and will 
    allocate 50 minutes for debate accordingly.
        The Chair will give preference where possible to those Members 
    who have amendments to offer to title II.
        Members who were standing at the time of the determination of 
    the time allocation will be recognized for 1 minute and 20 seconds 
    each.

--Guidelines Used in Recognition

Sec. 22.12 Where all debate on a bill and amendments thereto has been 
    limited, the order in which the Chair recognizes Members desiring 
    to speak is subject to his discretion; and he may in determining 
    the order of recognition use several guidelines, such as seniority, 
    committee status, Members having amendments at the desk.

    On Oct. 14, 1966,(1) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering under five-minute debate S. 3708, the Demonstration Cities 
Act of 1966. A motion offered by Mr. Wright Patman, of Texas, to close 
debate on the bill and all amendments thereto after a certain amount of 
time, was pending. Chairman Daniel Flood, of Pennsylvania, answered 
parliamentary inquiries on the order of recognition under the 
limitation if agreed to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 112 Cong. Rec. 26976, 26977, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas L.] Ashley [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state the parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Ashley: Mr. Chairman, I was in the cloakroom at the time 
    this request motion was made. I have an amendment. Am I counted 
    among those who have amendments at the desk?
        The Chairman: We have not counted anyone. The Chair has just 
    stated that there are so many amendments at the Clerk's desk. And 
    if the gentleman has an amendment at the Clerk's desk it has been 
    included in the number. . . .
        The motion was agreed to.

[[Page 10092]]

        The Chairman: I am sure that all Members who are standing are 
    not seeking recognition. Will those seeking recognition remain 
    standing so that the Clerk can note their names.
        Mr. [Thomas P.] O'Neill [Jr.], of Massachusetts: Mr. Chairman, 
    a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. O'Neill of Massachusetts: Mr. Chairman, in what order will 
    the Chair recognize Members to offer their amendments?
        The Chairman: That is up to the Chairman. The Chair always 
    recognizes Members in a difficult situation like this by seniority 
    and, of course, going from one side to the other, naturally.
        Mr. [Donald J.] Irwin [of Connecticut]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Irwin: Mr. Chairman, will Members who have amendments at 
    the desk be recognized before other Members?
        The Chairman: Oh, yes. As far as the Chair is concerned, any 
    Member who has an amendment here--and, of course, this is not a 
    necessary procedure--but the Chair assures you that the Chair will 
    recognize Members who have an amendment at the desk before 
    recognizing Members to strike out the last word. It is not 
    necessary but I will so rule.
        Mr. Del Clawson [of California]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Del Clawson: Will members of the committee be recognized 
    before other Members?
        The Chairman: Members of the Committee on Banking and Currency 
    under the rules, will be recognized before any other Member.
        Mr. Del Clawson: I thank the Chair.
        The Chairman: If they have amendments at the desk.

Sec. 22.13 While a motion to limit debate on a portion of a bill and 
    all amendments thereto was pending, the Chair advised that in the 
    event the motion carried: (1) the Chair would first recognize those 
    Members standing, each for five minutes, then any other Members 
    seeking recognition, also for five minutes, until the time expired 
    or there were no other requests for recognition; and (2) if 
    requests for recognition did not consume the time set, the Chair 
    would direct the Clerk to read.

    On Aug. 1, 1966,(2) while the Committee of the Whole was 
considering under the five-minute rule H.R. 14765, the Civil Rights Act 
of 1966, Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, moved that all debate on 
title I and amendments

[[Page 10093]]

thereto close in one and one-half hours. Chairman Richard Bolling, of 
Missouri, then answered a parliamentary inquiry stated by Mr. Gerald R. 
Ford, of Michigan, on the order of recognition and time for debate 
should the motion be agreed to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 112 Cong. Rec. 17759, 17760, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: Mr. Chairman, I notice that there are 
    relatively only a few standing. How will the Chair determine under 
    that process those who will be eligible to speak? The lack of those 
    standing does not necessarily mean that Members will not wish to 
    speak.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that if the time is fixed at 
    1\1/2\ hours and there are no other gentlemen to be recognized or 
    who desire to be heard, the Chair will proceed to ask the Clerk to 
    read the next title.
        If, however, there are 1\1/2\ hours, each Member standing now 
    will be recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: A further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. 
    Chairman. If there are not a sufficient number of Members standing 
    at the present time, will the Chair proceed under the 5-minute rule 
    during the 1\1/2\ hours?
        The Chairman: The Chair will see to it that each of those 
    Members now standing will be recognized in an orderly fashion. If 
    there are others desiring to speak within the time limitation, the 
    Chair will then recognize them. Those now standing will receive a 
    priority from the Chair.

--Five-minute Rule Abrogated Where Debate Limited

Sec. 22.14 Where the Committee of the Whole has imposed a limitation of 
    debate on an amendment, the five-minute rule is abrogated and the 
    Chair may, in his discretion, either permit continued debate under 
    the five-minute rule, divide the remaining time among those 
    desiring to speak or divide the time between a proponent and 
    opponent to be yielded by them.

    On May 25, 1982,(3) during consideration of House 
Concurrent Resolution 345 (the first concurrent resolution on the 
budget for fiscal year 1983) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair 
responded to an inquiry regarding recognition for debate, as indicated 
below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 128 Cong. Rec. 11672, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Elliott H.] Levitas [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, further 
    reserving the right to object, as I understand it, the Chair's 
    stated intention, in the event the unanimous-consent request is not 
    agreed to, is to continue to go from one side to the other 
    recognizing Members who have been on their feet. Is that the 
    Chair's intention?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (4) The Chair has the 
    prerogative to do one of several things. He may continue the same 
    process under the five-minute rule, or the Chair can apportion the 
    remaining time based upon the number of people who are standing or 
    to one

[[Page 10094]]

    proponent and opponent to be yielded by them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. David E. Bonior (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 22.15 Where debate on a bill and all amendments thereto is limited 
    to a time certain, the five-minute rule is abrogated, and the Chair 
    may choose either to allocate the time among those Members standing 
    and desiring to speak, or choose to recognize only Members wishing 
    to of-fer amendments and to oppose amendments; the Chair may 
    decline to recognize Members more than once under the limitation 
    and may refuse to permit Members to divide their allotted time so 
    as to speak to several of the amendments which are to be offered.

    On May 6, 1970,(5) the Committee of the Whole agreed to 
a motion, offered by Mr. L. Mendel Rivers, of South Carolina, that all 
debate on the pending bill and amendments thereto close at a certain 
hour. Chairman Daniel D. Rostenkowski, of Illinois, stated his 
intention to follow certain procedures in recognizing Members offering 
or opposing amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 116 Cong. Rec. 14466, 14467, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: Under the limitation of 
    debate imposed by the House, a moment ago, is there any restriction 
    on those Members who will be permitted to speak on amendments, 
    either for or against, between now and 7 o'clock?
        The Chairman: The Chair will endeavor to divide the time 
    equally among the proponents and the opponents of those who have 
    amendments. . . .(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. See also 118 Cong. Rec. 16862, 92d Cong. 2d Sess., May 11, 1972 
        (under limitation on five-minute debate, Chair may give 
        priority of recognition to those Members seeking to offer 
        amendments).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Sec. 22.16 Where the Committee of the Whole fixes the time for debate 
    on amendments, the Chair may divide such time equally between 
    Members seeking recognition without regard to the five-minute rule.

[[Page 10095]]

    On May 11, 1949,(7) Mr. Brent Spence, of Kentucky, made 
a unanimous-consent request that all debate on a pending section of a 
bill, and amendments thereto, close in 30 minutes. Chairman 
Albert A. Gore, of Tennessee, 
then answered a parliamentary 
inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 95 Cong. Rec. 6055, 6056, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Earl C.] Michener [of Michigan]: Under the consent request 
    of the gentleman from Kentucky, the time would be limited to 30 
    minutes. There is nothing in the request as to a division of that 
    time. Under the rules, therefore, would not the first Member 
    recognized be entitled to 5 minutes and each succeeding Member 
    recognized be entitled to 5 minutes until the 30 minutes was used 
    up? In other words, during the reading of a bill for amendment 
    under the rules of the House, unless other arrangement is made by 
    unanimous consent, each Member as recognized is entitled to 5 
    minutes.
        The Chairman: As a matter of parliamentary fact, while it might 
    perhaps be within the discretion of the Chair, if the rules were 
    insisted upon the Chair would have to recognize the first Member 
    for 5 minutes, and other Members likewise. But it has long been the 
    practice of the Committee of the Whole when a limitation of debate 
    is imposed to divide the time equally between the Members seeking 
    recognition.

Sec. 22.17 Where there was pending in Committee of the Whole an 
    amendment and a substitute therefor, the Chair stated in response 
    to a parliamentary inquiry that if debate on the pending amendments 
    were limited, the five-minute rule would be abrogated, and Members 
    who had already spoken on an amendment could be recognized again 
    under the limitation.

    On July 28, 1970,(8) an amendment and a substitute 
therefor were pending to a bill being considered under the five-minute 
rule in the Committee of the Whole. Parliamentary inquiries were raised 
on the rights of Members to speak twice on the same amendment. Mr. Joe 
D. Waggonner, 
Jr., of Louisiana, then inquired whether a time limitation for debate 
on the pending amendment and substitute would abrogate the five-minute 
rule so that a Member who had already spoken to the amendments could 
speak again. Chairman William H. Natcher, of Kentucky, responded in the 
affirmative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 116 Cong. Rec. 26027, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 22.18 A limitation of time for debate abrogates the five-minute 
    rule and allocation of the time remaining to Members seeking 
    recognition is within the discretion of the

[[Page 10096]]

    Chair, except that Members who had caused amendments to be printed 
    in the Record under Rule XXIII clause 6 would receive the full five 
    minutes.

    On June 26, 1975,(9) an illustration of the proposition 
described above was demonstrated in the Committee of the Whole, as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 121 Cong. Rec. 20951, 20957, 94th Cong. 1st Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 8121, the Departments of State, Justice, 
        and Commerce, the Judiciary and related agencies appropriation 
        bill for fiscal year 1976.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Neal] Smith of Iowa: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
    that all debate on the bill and all amendments thereto cease in 60 
    minutes.
        The Chairman: (10) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Iowa?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Charles A. Vanik (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair will further add that all Members who 
    were standing at the time the limitation of debate was made will be 
    recognized for approximately 2 minutes each. . . .
        Mr. [Robert F.] Drinan [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, will 
    the time be allotted according to the three amendments now pending 
    at the desk?
        The Chairman: All Members who were listed, who were standing at 
    the time the limitation of time was granted, will be accorded the 
    same amount of time.

        Mr. Drinan: Mr. Chairman, will the time be limited with regard 
    to the amendments offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
    Heinz) so that the other Members who have filed amendments will 
    also have a certain amount of time?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania (Mr. Heinz) will be recognized, and then all other 
    Members will be allotted 2 minutes, except for such amendments as 
    were printed in the Congressional Record. Every Member who has an 
    amendment that was printed in the Congressional Record will be 
    guaranteed a full 5 minutes.

Sec. 22.19 A limitation of debate on a bill and all amendments thereto 
    to a time certain in effect abrogates the five-minute rule; and 
    decisions regarding the division of the remaining time and the or-
    der of recognition of those Members desiring to speak are largely 
    within the discretion of the Chair, who may defer recognition of 
    listed Members whose amendments have been printed in the Record and 
    who are therefore guaranteed five minutes notwithstanding the 
    limitation.

    The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on 
June 4, 1975,(11) during

[[Page 10097]]

consideration of the Voting Rights Act Extension (H.R. 6219):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 121 Cong. Rec. 16899, 16901, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Don] Edwards of California: Mr. Chairman, I move that all 
    debate on the bill and all amendments thereto terminate at 6:45 
    p.m.
        The Chairman: (12) The question is on the motion 
    offered by the gentleman from California.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

--Chair May Continue Under Five-minute Rule

Sec. 22.20 Where debate under the five-minute rule on a bill and all 
    amendments thereto has been limited by motion to a time certain 
    (with approximately 90 minutes remaining) the Chair may in his 
    discretion continue to recognize Members under the five-minute 
    rule, according priority to members of the committee reporting the 
    bill, instead of allocating time between proponents and opponents 
    or among all Members standing, where it cannot be determined what 
    amendments will be offered.

    On July 29, 1983,(13) during consideration of the 
International Monetary Fund authorization (H.R. 2957) in the Committee 
of the Whole, the Chair responded to several parliamentary inquiries 
regarding recognition following agreement to a motion to limit debate 
to a time certain:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 129 Cong. Rec. 21649, 21650, 21659, 21660, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                  TITLE IV--INTERNATIONAL LENDING SUPERVISION

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

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

[[Page 10098]]

        Mr. Chairman, the parliamentary inquiry is for the Chair to 
    please state the process by which we will do our business from now 
    until the time is cut off. . . .
        Mr. [Stephen L.] Neal [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, would 
    it not be in order at this time to ask that the time be divided 
    between the proponents and the opponents of this measure, since 
    there is a limitation on the time?
        The Chairman: (14) The Chair believes not, because 
    the time has been limited on the entire bill. It would be very 
    difficult to allocate time to any one particular party or two 
    parties when the Chair has no knowledge of the amendments that will 
    be offered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Donald J. Pease (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

--Effect on Recognition of Extension of Time

Sec. 22.21 A limitation on time for debate on a pending amendment and 
    all amendments thereto in effect abrogates the five-minute rule and 
    the Chair, at his discretion, may allocate time to all Members 
    desiring to speak, whether or not they have previously spoken on 
    the amendment; and where time for debate has been limited and the 
    time remaining allocated to those Members wishing to speak, an 
    extension of time for debate by unanimous consent would increase 
    the time allotted to individual Members but would not allow 
    additional Members to seek recognition.

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

        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I move to 
    strike the requisite number of words.
        Mr. Chairman, I had misjudged before the desire of the House at 
    an earlier time to try to limit debate to 30 minutes. I want to be 
    sure that no one is denied the opportunity to speak. I ask 
    unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment and all 
    amendments thereto conclude in 15 minutes.
        The Chairman: (16) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Texas?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection. . . .

[[Page 10099]]

        Mr. [Burt L.] Talcott [of California]: Mr. Chairman, may I 
    inquire whether or not the Members who have already spoken on this 
    amendment may speak again during limited time?
        The Chairman: When time is limited, Members are permitted to 
    speak again under the allocation of time.
        Mr. Talcott: And they can yield their time to other Members?
        The Chairman: That is a unanimous-consent request. . . .
        Mr. [Barry] Goldwater [Jr., of California]: . . . I ask 
    unanimous consent that the time be extended another 15 minutes.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from California?
        Mr. [Andrew J.] Hinshaw [of California]: Mr. Chairman, 
    reserving the right to object, if we were to accede to the 
    unanimous-consent request, would that open the door for additional 
    Members to stand up to seek additional time?
        The Chairman: The Chair has already announced his allocation of 
    time.

--Recognition of Member To Speak a Second Time

Sec. 22.22 An agreement to limit debate on a pending amendment has the 
    effect of abrogating the five-minute rule and a Member previously 
    recognized to speak on the amendment may be recognized again under 
    the limitation.

    On Nov. 14, 1967,(17) the Committee of the Whole agreed 
to a request that all debate on a pending amendment close at a certain 
hour. Chairman John J. Rooney, of New York, answered a parliamentary 
inquiry on the rights of Members who had already spoken to the 
amendment to speak again under the time limitation:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 113 Cong. Rec. 32343, 32344, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John N.] Erlenborn [of Illinois]: I have noticed in the 
    past, and again at this time, that when a unanimous-consent request 
    to limit debate has been made, Members who have already been 
    recognized to debate the issue are again recognized under the 
    unanimous-consent limitation. I wonder if this is in order. . . .
        . . . The Chairman just announced that the gentleman from 
    Kentucky, the chairman of the committee, would be recognized again, 
    though he has already debated on this amendment. I wonder if 
    Members can be recognized for a second time to debate the same 
    amendment merely because a unanimous-consent request is made to 
    limit time.
        The Chairman: The Chair must say to the gentleman that when the 
    unanimous-consent request was made and agreed to it abrogated the 
    5-minute rule.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. For the prohibition against speaking twice on the same question, 
        see Rule XIV clause 6, House Rules and Manual Sec. 762 (1995). 
        The use of pro forma amendments under the five-minute rule 
        allows Members to speak twice; see Sec. Sec. 21.15, 21.16, 
        21.18, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 22.23 A limitation to a time certain on debate on an

[[Page 10100]]

    amendment in Committee of the Whole in effect abrogates the five-
    minute rule; recognition is in the discretion of the Chair under 
    such limitation and the Chair may recognize under the limitation 
    a Member who has already spoken on the amendment.

    On Aug. 4, 1977,(19) during consideration of the 
National Energy Act (H.R. 8444) in the Committee of the Whole, a motion 
was made to limit debate on a pending amendment and the following 
proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 123 Cong. Rec. 27006, 27007, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas L.] Ashley [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I move that 
    debate on this amendment conclude at 2 o'clock.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The question is on the motion offered 
    by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ashley).
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Ashbrook) there were--ayes 37, noes 20.
        So the motion was agreed to. . . .
        The Chairman: (20) . . . The Chair recognizes the 
    gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Howard).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order. . . .
        Under the rules of the House, are not Members who have already 
    spoken to wait until all other Members are recognized until they 
    speak again on a pending amendment?
        The Chairman: No one was up at the time the Chair rapped the 
    gavel, and the gentleman from New Jersey was standing at the time 
    the Chair recognized him. We will be going back and forth, but of 
    course, the limitation abrogates the 5-minute rule.

Sec. 22.24 In the Committee of the Whole the Member in charge of the 
    bill having spoken on an amendment may speak again on the amendment 
    after debate thereon under the five-minute rule has been limited.

    On June 25, 1952,(1) during consideration of amendments 
to a bill in the Committee of the Whole, a motion was adopted to close 
debate on a pending amendment and all amendments thereto at a certain 
time. Chairman Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas, answered a parliamentary 
inquiry as to the right, under the limitation, of the Member in charge 
of the bill to be recognized a second time:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 98 Cong. Rec. 8028, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 10101]]

        The Chairman: Yes; under the limitation.

--Same Committee Member Recognized in Opposition to Each Amendment

Sec. 22.25 The time for debate having been fixed on amendments to a 
    committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, the Chair may 
    without objection recognize the same committee member in opposition 
    to each amendment offered where no other member of the committee 
    seeks such recognition.

    On Feb. 8, 1950,(2) Chairman Chet Holifield, of 
California, answered a parliamentary inquiry after the Committee of the 
Whole had agreed to a motion limiting debate on amendments to a 
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 96 Cong. Rec. 1691, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 10102]]

    time is divided among those who are seeking to offer amendments, 
    and unless the motion specifically reserves time to the committee, 
    it has been the precedent to divide the time among those who are 
    seeking to offer amendments.
        The Chairman: The Chair feels that the committee is entitled to 
    a rebuttal on any amendment that is offered, and has so announced, 
    and there was no point of order made at the time. The Chair 
    sustains its present position.

--Proponent of Amendment Recognized Before Committee Chairman in 
    Opposition

Sec. 22.26 Where all time for debate on an amendment and all amendments 
    thereto is limited and, by unanimous consent, placed in control of 
    the proponent of the amendment and of the chairman of the committee 
    (in opposition), the Chair first recognizes the proponent of the 
    amendment.

    On July 9, 1965,(3) the unfinished business in the 
Committee of the Whole was H.R. 6400, the Voting Rights Act of 1965. 
Chairman Richard Bolling, of Missouri, made the following statement on 
the order of recognition, the Committee having limited, on the prior 
day, time for debate on a pending amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 111 Cong. Rec. 16207, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Parliamentarian's Note: The time limitation coupled with the 
unanimous-consent agreement on control of time abrogated the five-
minute rule. Under the agreement, the two Members controlling debate 
could yield for debate or for amendments. Amendments could also be 
offered by Members not yielded time, after the expiration of the time 
limitation, but such amendments would be considered without debate.

--Chair May Permit Reservation of Time Where Debate Limited to Specific 
    Number of Minutes

Sec. 22.27 Where time for debate is limited to a specific number of 
    minutes rather than a

[[Page 10103]]

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

    On Oct. 3, 1975,(4) the proposition described above was 
demonstrated in the Committee of the Whole, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 121 Cong. Rec. 31602-04, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas S.] Foley [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw 
    my request and now I ask unanimous consent that all debate on the 
    Brown amendment and all amendments thereto end in 20 minutes.
        The Chairman: (5) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Washington?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. William L. Hungate (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

[[Page 10104]]

--Remaining Time Allocated Equally Among Three Members

Sec. 22.28 Following an agreement to limit debate on an amendment and 
    an amendment thereto to a time certain, the Chairman of the 
    Committee of the Whole may exercise his discretion and allot the 
    remaining time in three equal parts; in this case time was 
    controlled by the offeror of the amendment (Brown), the offeror of 
    the amendment to the amendment (Leach), and the floor manager of 
    the bill (Zablocki).

    The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on 
Apr. 13, 1983,(6) during consideration of House Joint 
Resolution 13 (nuclear weapons freeze):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 129 Cong. Rec. 8425, 8426, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: . . . I ask unanimous 
    consent that debate close at 6:05.
        The Chairman: (7) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Wisconsin?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jack] Kemp [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I object.
        The Chairman: Objection is heard.
        Mr. Zablocki: 6:15?
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Wisconsin?
        There was no objection.
        The Chairman: The unanimous-consent request is agreed to and 
    debate is limited to 6:15.
        The Chair is going to exercise discretion and allot the time in 
    three equal parts to the gentleman from Iowa 
    (Mr. Leach), the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Brown) and the 
    gentleman 
    from Wisconsin (Mr. Zablocki) and, of course, those Members can 
    yield for purposes of debate.
        Mr. [Newt] Gingrich [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Gingrich: Mr. Chairman, if I may express my ignorance for a 
    moment, is it, in fact, the prerogative of the Chair in that sort 
    of unanimous-consent request to then design whatever system seems 
    workable?
        The Chairman: Yes, it is. The Chair has exercised its 
    discretion in light of the circumstances and allocates 6 minutes to 
    the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach); 6 minutes to the gentleman 
    from Colorado (Mr. Brown); and 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
    Wisconsin (Mr. Zablocki).

--Equal Allocation Between Two Members on Opposing Sides of Question

Sec. 22.29 Where the Committee of the Whole has limited debate under 
    the five-minute rule to a time certain and an

[[Page 10105]]

    equal division of the remaining time among all the Members seeking 
    recognition would severely restrict each Member in his 
    presentation, the Chair may in his discretion equally allocate the 
    time between two Members on opposing sides of the question to be 
    yielded by them.

    On June 14, 1977,(8) it was demonstrated that a 
limitation of debate on amendments in the Committee of the Whole to a 
time certain in effect abrogates the five-minute rule; and decisions 
regarding the division of the remaining time and the order of 
recognition are largely within the discretion of the Chair.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 123 Cong. Rec. 18826, 18833, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Tom] Bevill [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, I move that all 
    debate on these amendments and all amendments thereto, cease at 4 
    o'clock and 45 minutes p.m.
        The Chairman: (9) The question is on the motion 
    offered by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bevill).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The motion was agreed to. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair has before him a list of more than 25 
    Members to occupy the next 10 minutes. It has been suggested that 
    it would be possible for the Chair to recognize the gentleman from 
    Alabama (Mr. Bevill) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
    Conte) to allocate those 10 minutes.
        Accordingly, the Chair will recognize the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts (Mr. Conte) for 5 minutes, and the gentleman from 
    Alabama (Mr. Bevill) for 5 minutes.
        Mr. John T. Myers [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. John T. Myers: How did the Chair make that decision?
        The Chairman: The Chair has the authority to allocate time 
    under a limitation, and it is obvious to the Chair that this is the 
    most rational way to handle the 10 minutes.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
    Conte).

Sec. 22.30 Where the Committee of the Whole has limited to 5 minutes 
    the remaining time for debate on an amendment, the five-minute rule 
    is in effect abrogated and the Chair may in his discretion 
    recognize two Members to equally control the time in support of and 
    in opposition to the amendment, granting priority of recognition to 
    control the time in opposition to a member of the committee 
    handling the bill; but where no committee member seeks recognition 
    for that purpose, the Chair may recognize any Member to control the 
    time.

[[Page 10106]]

    On June 22, 1977,(10) during consideration of H.R. 7797 
(the foreign assistance and related agencies appropriation bill for 
fiscal 1978) in the Committee of 
the Whole, the Chair made an 
announcement regarding debate under the five-minute rule. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 123 Cong. Rec. 20291, 20292, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clarence D.] Long of Maryland: Mr. Chairman, I move that 
    all debate on this amendment and any amendments thereto close in 5 
    minutes.
        The motion was agreed to.
        The Chairman: (11) Let the Chair make this 
    announcement. There is no way that the Chair can divide 5 minutes 
    among all who wish to speak. Therefore, under the prerogative of 
    the Chair, the Chair will recognize one proponent and one opponent 
    each for 2\1/2\ minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Abraham Kazen, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

--Chair May Reallocate Time

Sec. 22.31 Where the Committee of the Whole has agreed that debate 
    under the five-min-ute rule close at a certain 
    time on an amendment and 
    all amendments thereto, the Chair attempts to divide the time 
    equally among the Members desiring recognition; but where part of 
    the fixed time is consumed by voting, it may not be possible for 
    the Chair to reach each Member on his list before the time expires, 
    and no point of order lies against the inability of the Chair to 
    recognize each Member on the list.

    On June 27, 1977,(12) the situation described above 
occurred in the Committee of the Whole, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 123 Cong. Rec. 20916, 20918, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert W.] Kastenmeier [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    move that all debate on this amendment and all other amendments to 
    the bill close at 5:40 p.m.
        The Chairman: (13) The question is on the motion 
    offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kastenmeier).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Bill D. Burlison (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Ashbrook) there were--ayes 46, noes 20. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin 
    (Mr. Kastenmeier) to close debate.
        Mr. Kastenmeier: Mr. Chairman, this is, of course, the Legal 
    Services

[[Page 10107]]

    Liquidation Act of 1977, as proposed by the gentleman from Ohio 
    (Mr. Ashbrook). It must be rejected. . . .
        The Chairman: All time has expired.
        Mr. [Robert] McClory [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, the Chair has 
    not recognized me yet. The Chair read my name, but the Chair has 
    not recognized me yet.
        The Chairman: The Chair would advise the gentleman from 
    Illinois that we have run out of time.
        Mr. McClory: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. McClory: Mr. Chairman, when there is a time limitation and 
    Members are standing, it is my understanding that the Chair must 
    divide the time equally among the Members standing.
        Mr. Chairman, I was standing and my name was read.
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman that 
    according to the motion, which limited all debate to 5:40 p.m., we 
    are bound by the clock. Time consumed by voting has required the 
    Chair to reallocate time. Therefore, the Chair overrules the point 
    of order.

Protection of Right To Debate Amendment Which Has Been Printed in 
    Record

Sec. 22.32 Notwithstanding a limitation of debate to a time certain and 
    the allocation of the remaining time by the Chair, a Member who has 
    inserted the text of his amendment in the Record is entitled, under 
    Rule XXIII clause 6, to be recognized for five minutes upon 
    offering that amendment during the limitation.

    On Apr. 19, 1973,(14) the Committee of the Whole agreed 
to 
a unanimous-consent request, offered by Mr. James C. Wright, Jr., of 
Texas, that all debate on the pending title and amendments, being 
considered under the five-minute rule, close at a certain time. 
Chairman Morris K. Udall, of Arizona, allotted the remaining time to 
Members seeking recognition, each Member being entitled to 45 seconds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 119 Cong. Rec. 13253, 13254, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Thomas F. Railsback, of Illinois, was recognized and offered an 
amendment. At the conclusion of 45 seconds the Chairman stated that his 
time had expired. Mr. Railsback objected that he had printed his 
amendment in the Congressional Record prior to floor consideration 
thereof, and was therefore entitled to debate his amendment for five 
minutes pursuant to Rule XXIII clause 6. The Chairman, who had not been 
aware the amendment was printed in the Record, ruled that Mr. Railsback 
was entitled to five minutes.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Rule XXIII clause 6 was amended in the 92d Congress to allow the 
        proponent of the amendment five minutes of debate, regardless 
        of a limitation, on an amendment printed in the Record. See 
        House Rules and Manual Sec. 874 (1995).

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

[[Page 10108]]

Sec. 22.33 Where all debate in the Committee of the Whole on 
    a bill and on amendments thereto has been terminated, a Member 
    offering an amendment which has been printed in the Record on a 
    preceding day may nevertheless, pursuant to Rule XXIII clause 6, 
    debate that amendment for five minutes, and another Member opposing 
    the amendment may then speak for five minutes.

    On Aug. 2, 1973,(16) Chairman William H. Natcher, of 
Kentucky, answered a parliamentary inquiry on the right of Members with 
amendments printed in the Record to debate them for five minutes, after 
the Committee had agreed to a unanimous-consent agreement closing all 
debate on the pending bill and amendments thereto at a time certain:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 119 Cong. Rec. 27712, 27715, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] Dellenback [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Dellenback: May I ask whether under the rules of the House 
    for every amendment that has been published in the Record is it not 
    true the sponsor has 5 minutes?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct. . . .
        Mr. Dellenback: Do I understand that those 5 minutes as 
    accumulated will come out of the deadline time rather than be 
    subsequent time?
        The Chairman: The Chair would like to advise the gentleman all 
    debate on the bill and all amendments thereto is limited to 9:30.
        Mr. Dellenback: I thank the Chairman.

    At the expiration of the time agreed to, the following ensued:

        The Chairman: The Chair desires to announce at this time that 
    all time under the limitation has expired. This does not apply to 
    those Members who had their amendments previously printed in the 
    Record. Those Members whom the Chair observed standing who have 
    amendments, those amendments will be reported and voted upon.
        Are there amendments from the members of the committee who were 
    standing at the time the limitation was set? If not, the Chair 
    recognizes the Members who have had their amendments printed in the 
    Record.
        Mr. [John F.] Seiberling [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows: . . .
        Mr. [Sam] Steiger of Arizona: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Steiger of Arizona: Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding 
    that the proponent of the amendment is entitled to be recognized 
    for 5 minutes.

[[Page 10109]]

        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Steiger of Arizona: And also any Member opposing the 
    amendment is entitled to 5 minutes?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.

--Chair May Recognize Member With Amendment Printed in Record After 
    Member's Recognition Under Limitation

Sec. 22.34 The Committee of the Whole having agreed to a limitation on 
    debate under the five-minute rule on a section of a bill and all 
    amendments thereto, distribution of the time under the limitation 
    is within the discretion of the Chair, who may recognize under the 
    limitation first those Members offering amendments which have not 
    been printed in the Congressional Record, and Members speaking in 
    opposition to such amendments, and recognize after the limitation 
    has expired those Members with amendments printed in the Record, 
    since printed amendments are debatable for 10 minutes, 5 for and 5 
    against, notwithstanding the expiration of the limitation.

    On June 26, 1979,(17) during consideration of the 
Defense Production Act Amendments of 1979 (H.R. 3930) in the Committee 
of the Whole, it was demonstrated that priority of recognition under a 
limitation of time for debate under the five-minute rule is in the 
complete discretion of the Chair. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 125 Cong. Rec. 16677, 16678, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William S.] Moorhead of Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman, I move 
    that all debate on section 3 and all amendments thereto cease at 
    6:40 p.m. . . .
        A recorded vote was ordered.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 
    209, noes 183, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 41, as follows: . 
    . .
        The Chairman: (18) The Chair will attempt to explain 
    the situation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Committee has just voted to end all debate on section 3 and 
    all amendments thereto at 6:40. The Chair in a moment is going to 
    ask those Members wishing to speak between now and then to stand. 
    The Chair will advise Members that he will attempt, once that list 
    is determined, to recognize first those Members on the list with 
    amendments which are not protected by having been printed in the 
    Record. . . .
        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, did I understand 
    the Chair correctly that Members who are

[[Page 10110]]

    protected by having their amendments printed in the Record will not 
    be recognized until the time has run so that those Members will 
    only have 5 minutes to present their amendments, but that other 
    Members will be recognized first for the amendments which are not 
    printed in the Record?
        The Chairman: Those Members who are recognized prior to the 
    expiration of time have approximately 20 seconds to present their 
    amendments. Those Members whose amendments are printed in the 
    Record will have a guaranteed 5 minutes after time has expired. . . 
    .
        The Chair will now recognize those Members who wish to offer 
    amendments which have not been printed in the Record.
        The Chair will advise Members he will recognize listed Members 
    in opposition to the amendments also for 20 seconds. . . .
        Mr. [Richard] Kelly [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, is it not 
    regular order that the Members of the Committee with amendments be 
    given preference and recognition?
        The Chairman: The Chair would advise the gentleman once the 
    limitation of time has been agreed to and time divided, that 
    priority of recognition is within the complete discretion of the 
    Chair.

--Priority in Recognition for Opposition to Amendment Printed in Record

Sec. 22.35 The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole gives priority in 
    recognition, in opposition to an amendment printed in the Record 
    and offered after debate is limited, to senior members of the 
    committee reporting the bill regardless of party affiliation.

    On June 7, 1977,(19) during consideration of the Federal 
Employees' Political Activities Act of 1977 (H.R. 10) in the Committee 
of the Whole, Chairman James R. Mann, of South Carolina, responded to a 
parliamentary inquiry, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 123 Cong. Rec. 17700, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Edward J.] Derwinski [of Illinois]: The Chairman just 
    referred to the situation whereby debate was limited, which is 
    under clause 6, rule XXIII, and under that procedure any Member who 
    has filed and published an amendment is protected in his right to 
    call up the amendment and is entitled to 5 minutes to explain the 
    amendment.
        My parliamentary inquiry is: How will the Chair determine the 
    appropriate Member to speak in opposition to the amendment? In 
    other words, what will qualify a Member to speak in opposition to 
    these pending amendments?
        The Chairman: The Chair will endeavor to recognize committee 
    members who are opposed, and if there is more than one committee 
    member desiring to speak in opposition to the amendment, the Chair 
    will seek to recognize the most senior of the committee members. 
    The matter of party affiliation will not be controlling.

[[Page 10111]]

--Member Permitted To Debate in Opposition Notwithstanding Prior 
    Allocation of Time Under Limitation

Sec. 22.36 Pursuant to Rule XXIII clause 6, a Member may be recognized 
    for five minutes in opposition to an amendment which had been 
    printed in the Record and debated by its proponent for five 
    minutes, notwithstanding a prior allocation of time to that Member 
    under a limitation on the pending proposition and all amendments 
    thereto.

    On July 25, 1974,(20) during consideration of the 
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1974 (H.R. 11500) in the 
Committee of the Whole, the Chair overruled a point of order, as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 120 Cong. Rec. 25221, 25222, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: Mr. Chairman, I move to 
    strike the requisite number of words, and I rise in opposition to 
    the amendment.
        Mr. [Craig] Hosmer [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: (1) The gentleman will state his point 
    of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hosmer: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Arizona has spoken 
    for a minute and 20 seconds already.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that under the rule, when 
    the amendment has been printed in the Record, the author of the 
    amendment gets 5 minutes in support of his amendment and an 
    opponent gets 5 minutes in opposition to the amendment, regardless 
    of a time limitation.
        The Chair overrules the point of order.

--Recognition in Opposition Both to Amendment and to Substitute Printed 
    in Record

Sec. 22.37 Where under a time limitation only five minutes of debate is 
    available in opposition both to an amendment and to a substitute 
    therefor printed in the Record, one Member cannot simultaneously be 
    recognized for 10 minutes in opposition to both amendments, but 
    must be separately recognized on each amendment, with preference of 
    recognition being accorded to members of the committee reporting 
    the bill.

    The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on 
June 27, 1985,(2) during consideration of H.R. 1872 
(Department of Defense authorization for fiscal 1986):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 131 Cong. Rec. 17799-802, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Markey: Insert the following new 
    section at the

[[Page 10112]]

    end of title X (page 200, after line 4): . . .

            (a) Limitation of Funds Authorized for Fiscal Year 1986.--
        None of the funds appropriated pursuant to the authorizations 
        of appropriations in this or any other Act may be used for the 
        production of the 155-millimeter artillery-fired, atomic 
        projec-tile. . . .

        Mr. [Vic] Fazio [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Fazio as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Markey: Insert the following new 
        section at the end of title X (page 200, after line 4): . . .

        Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I move to 
    strike the requisite number of words.
        Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and the 
    amendment to the amendment.
        Mr. [Robert E.] Badham [of California]: Mr. Chairman, at this 
    time, I would ask a parliamentary inquiry of the Chair. . . .
        My inquiry is that since there were two offerings, an amendment 
    and an amendment to the amendment in the form of a substitute, 
    would the opposition now be exercising its prerogative in using 10 
    minutes in opposition to both?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (3) That is correct, 
    except that the gentleman from New York rose in opposition to the 
    Markey amendment. There would be 5 minutes of debate left in 
    opposition to the Fazio substitute. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Marty Russo (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Stratton: Mr. Chairman, I rose in opposition to both 
    amendments, both the Markey amendment and the Fazio amendment.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that the 
    gentleman can only rise in opposition to one amendment at a time, 
    and when he rose, the Chair understood him to rise first in 
    opposition to the Markey amendment. That leaves only 5 minutes in 
    opposition to the Fazio substitute amendment.
        Any Member wishing to rise in opposition to the Fazio 
    substitute amendment may, and a member of the committee is 
    recognized before other Members.

--Where Proponent of Amendment Did Not Claim Time Under Rule XXIII

Sec. 22.38 While under clause 6 of Rule XXIII, five minutes of debate 
    in favor of an amendment and five minutes in 
    opposition is permitted notwithstanding a limitation on debate 
    where the amendment has been printed in the Record, if the 
    proponent of the amendment offers it during his allocated time 
    under the limitation and does not claim a separate five-minute 
    recognition under the rule, then a Member opposing the amendment to 
    whom time has been allocated under the limitation must consume that 
    time and cannot claim a separate five minutes under the rule.

[[Page 10113]]

    On Mar. 2, 1976,(4) the Chair ruled that, pursuant to 
Rule XXIII, clause 6, a separate ten minutes of debate on an amendment 
printed in the Record is in order only where the proponent of the 
amendment claims that time notwithstanding an imposed limitation; and 
where the amendment is offered and debated within the time allocated 
under the limitation, a separate five minutes in opposition is not 
available:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 122 Cong. Rec. 4994, 4995, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

        Mr. [John N.] Erlenborn [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (5) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Sam Gibbons (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

May Not Reserve or Allocate Time by Motion

Sec. 22.39 Under the five-minute rule, the time for debate may be 
    fixed, but control of the

[[Page 10114]]

    time may not be allotted to certain Members by motion if a point of 
    order is made.

    On May 11, 1949,(6) Chairman Albert A. Gore, of 
Tennessee, stated in response to a parliamentary inquiry that where the 
Committee of the Whole fixes by consent the time for debate, the 
Chairman divides such time equally between Members seeking recognition. 
Mr. Brent Spence, of Kentucky, therefore made the following motion, 
which the Chairman ruled out of order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 95 Cong. Rec. 6055, 6056, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Spence: Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on section 1 
    and all amendments thereto conclude at 3:30 and that the time be 
    equally divided among those Members who asked for time and that the 
    last 5 minutes be assigned to the committee.
        Mr. [Francis H.] Case [of South Dakota]: Mr. Chairman, the same 
    point of order. The Committee of the Whole cannot allot time that 
    way. That is in the discretion of the House of Representatives and 
    not the committee. It must be by unanimous consent.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.
        Mr. Spence: Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on section 1 
    and all amendments thereto conclude at 3:30.
        The Chairman: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from Kentucky.
        The motion was agreed to.

Sec. 22.40 Where there was pending an amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute for a 
    bill, the Chair indicated in 
    response to a parliamentary 
    inquiry that debate on all amendments to said amendment could be 
    limited and allocated only by unanimous consent.

    On Dec. 14, 1973,(7) there was pending an amendment in 
the nature of a substitute for a bill in the Committee of the Whole. 
Mr. Harley O. Staggers, of West Virginia, made the following unanimous-
consent request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 119 Cong. Rec. 41711, 41712, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that each amendment to 
    the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered be considered 
    for not more than 5 minutes on each side. . . .

    The request was objected to by Mr. Robert D. Price, of Texas, and 
Chairman Richard Bolling, of Missouri, then answered a parliamentary 
inquiry as to whether he could entertain a motion on the matter.

        Mr. [Lawrence G.] Williams [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Why cannot the Chair accept a motion from the chairman of the 
    committee to limit debate on each amendment to 10 minutes?

[[Page 10115]]

        The Chairman: A motion to control debate can neither divide the 
    time nor allocate or reserve the time. A unanimous-consent request, 
    if agreed to, can do that, but a motion to allocate and break up 
    time is not entertainable.

Reserving or Yielding Time

Sec. 22.41 The Chair stated that he would not recognize Members for 
    requests that time, allotted them under a limitation for debate on 
    an amendment, be given to other Members; and that under such a 
    limitation for debate, those who actually desired to utilize the 
    time should have it equally divided among them.

    On July 19, 1951,(8) the Committee of the Whole agreed 
to a motion limiting debate on pending amendments to a time certain. 
Mr. Noah M. Mason, of Illinois, then inquired of Chairman Wilbur D. 
Mills, of Arkansas, whether a Member who had reserved time, by 
indicating he wished to be recognized, could award or yield his time to 
another Member. The Chairman responded:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 97 Cong. Rec. 8479, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair stated a few days ago he would not recognize anyone 
    for the purpose of asking unanimous consent that his time be given 
    to another Member. The Chair may say that it was the thought of the 
    Chair that when Members are seeking to be recognized under a 
    limitation of time those who actually desire to utilize the time 
    should have the time equally divided among them.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Under recent precedents, where time under a 
limitation is equally divided, a Member allocated time may reserve a 
portion or yield his time to another Member only by unanimous consent.

Use of Time Reserved Under Limitation

Sec. 22.42 When debate on a bill and all amendments thereto had been 
    limited, a Member allotted time pursuant to the limitation was 
    permitted by the Chair to use whatever part thereof he desired in 
    support of each of the various amendments he might offer.

    On July 22, 1958,(9) the Committee of the Whole agreed 
to a request that debate close in 30 minutes on a pending bill and 
amendments thereto, the last five minutes to be reserved to the 
reporting committee. Chairman James J. Delaney, of New York, answered a 
parliamentary inquiry by Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 104 Cong. Rec. 14659-64, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chairman, I have three amendments and under the limitation 
    of time

[[Page 10116]]

    I have 4 minutes. Is it possible to offer an amendment and reserve 
    time following each amendment pending the disposition of the 
    amendment?
        The Chairman: The gentleman may take whatever time he desires 
    on each amendment.

Unused Time Under an Allocation

Sec. 22.43 Where the Committee of the Whole has limited debate on an 
    amendment to a time certain and the time allocated by the Chair 
    among those initially desiring to speak is not totally consumed, 
    the Chair may either reallocate the remaining time among other 
    Members in his discretion or may proceed again under the five-
    minute rule.

    On Aug. 4, 1977,(10) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration the National Ener-gy Act (H.R. 8444) and had lim-
ited debate on an amendment 
when the following proceedings 
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 123 Cong. Rec. 27021, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gary A. Myers [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        The parliamentary inquiry is, Mr. Chairman, did the House not 
    limit itself to debate until 2 o'clock?

        The Chairman: (11) The gentleman is correct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Edward P. Boland (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gary A. Myers: Under that limitation, I would like to ask 
    unanimous consent to speak on the unclaimed time of the gentleman 
    from Ohio (Mr. Whalen).
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania may claim his own time. . . .
        Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania desire to strike the 
    requisite number of words and be recognized?
        Mr. Gary A. Myers: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
    number of words.
        The Chairman: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania.
        Mr. Kazen: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Kazen: Supposing there are 20 of us who want to do the same 
    thing.
        The Chairman: If there are 20 who want to do the same thing, 
    and they can all do it before 2 o'clock, they will all be 
    recognized, or if feasible, the Chair could divide the remaining 
    time among other Members seeking recognition who were not included 
    in the original limitation.
        The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gary A. Myers) has now 
    been recognized.

Procedure Where Limitation Vacated; Recognition Under Subsequent 
    Limitation

Sec. 22.44 Where a Member has been allotted time under a

[[Page 10117]]

    limitation on five-minute debate, and that limitation is vacated, 
    he must reindicate his desire to speak in order to be recognized 
    under any subsequent limitation which is imposed.

    On Sept. 30, 1971,(12) the Committee of the Whole agreed 
to a unanimous-consent request that debate under the five-minute rule 
close at 2:30 p.m. Chairman John J. Rooney, of New York, noted the 
Members standing and desiring to be heard under the limitation. Before 
the limitation had expired, Mr. Carl D. Perkins, of Kentucky, stated 
that the limitation, requested by him, had been misstated, and he asked 
unanimous consent to vacate the limitation, which was agreed to. He 
then requested a new limitation, which was agreed to, to close debate 
only on his amendment and not on others.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 117 Cong. Rec. 34289, 34290, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When the time under the limitation expired, the Chairman answered 
an inquiry:

        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Perkins) to the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Brademas).
        Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I question 
    whether all time has expired. I thought the distinguished Chairman 
    read my name as one standing when time was limited.
        The Chairman: The Chair read the name of the gentleman from 
    Missouri with regard to the first request. However, he was not 
    standing at the time of the second request, which is the one under 
    which we are now operating. However, there is still time if the 
    gentleman wishes to be recognized. The Chair recognizes the 
    gentleman from Missouri.

Where Committee Rises and Resumes Sitting

Sec. 22.45 Prior to rising for the day, the Committee of the Whole 
    limited debate on a title of a bill and all amendments thereto to 
    one hour and the Chair advised that upon again resolving into the 
    Committee, Members would be recognized during the time limit under 
    the five-minute rule.

    On Aug. 2, 1966,(13) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering for amendment title III of H.R. 14765, the Civil Rights Act 
of 1966. Prior to rising for the day, the Committee agreed to a request 
by Mr. Peter W. Rodino, Jr., of New Jersey, that all debate on the 
title and amendments

[[Page 10118]]

thereto terminate in one hour. Chairman Richard Bolling, of Missouri, 
stated in response to a parliamentary inquiry that under the 
limitation, when the Committee again took up the bill on a following 
day, Members would be recognized under the five-minute rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 112 Cong. Rec. 17856, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Debate Limited on Motion To Strike--Perfecting Amendment Offered After 
    Expiration of Limitation

Sec. 22.46 Where the Committee of the Whole had limited debate to a 
    time certain on a motion to strike a portion of pending text, the 
    Chair requested a Member to withhold offering a perfecting 
    amendment to the text until the expiration of the limitation since 
    the limitation 
    did not apply to perfecting amendments which could be offered, 
    debated, and voted upon prior to the vote on the motion to strike 
    and since debate on the perfecting amendment, if offered during the 
    limitation, would reduce time remaining under the limitation.

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

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

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

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

        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    wonder if 
    we could determine how many more speakers we have.
        I ask unanimous consent that all 
    debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto end at 1:15 
    p.m. . . .
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Wisconsin?
        There was no objection. . . .
        The Chairman: The time of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
    Bauman) has expired.
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I have an

[[Page 10119]]

    amendment at the desk which has been printed in the Record.
        The Chairman: Would the gentleman withhold his amendment until 
    the limitation of time expires.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, will the amendment then be in order 
    and may it be offered prior to the vote on the Ichord amendment?
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman that the 
    amendment will be in order as a perfecting amendment prior to the 
    vote on the Ichord amendment.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, in that case, I will withhold the 
    amendment at this time.

Amendment Adding New Section Not Covered by Limitation on Pending 
    Section

Sec. 22.47 Where debate has been limited on a pending section and all 
    amendments thereto and time allocated among those Members desiring 
    to offer amendments to that section, the Chair may decline to 
    recognize a Member to offer an amendment 
    adding a new section and 
    therefore not covered by 
    the limitation, until perfecting amendments to the pending section 
    have been disposed of under the limitation.

    On June 26, 1979,(16) during consideration of H.R. 3930, 
the Defense Production Act Amendments of 1979, the Committee of the 
Whole was proceeding under a limitation on debate on section 3 and 
amendments thereto, when an amendment was offered by Mr. Morris K. 
Udall, of Arizona:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 125 Cong. Rec. 16679, 16680, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Udall: Page 8, after line 13 add the 
    following new section and renumber the subsequent sections 
    accordingly.
        Sec. 4. The Secretary of Energy is hereby authorized to 
    designate a proposed synthetic fuel or feedstock facility as a 
    priority synthetic project . . . .
        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, is this 
    amendment to section 3 or section 4? . . .
        The copy I have indicates that it is to section 4, Mr. 
    Chairman. Is that correct?
        Mr. Udall: I had modified it to apply to section 3.
        The Chairman: (17) The Clerk will cease reading the 
    amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 10120]]

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

Motion To Strike Enacting Clause Offered During Time Limitation

Sec. 22.48 Where debate under the five-minute rule has been limited to 
    terminate at a time certain, time consumed on a preferential 
    motion, that the Committee rise and report the bill to the House 
    with the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken, comes 
    out of the limitation and may prevent recognition of Members 
    initially allotted time under the limitation.

    On Sept. 18, 1979,(18) during consideration of the 
Department of Transportation appropriations for fiscal year 1980 (H.R. 
4440) in the Committee of the Whole, Chairman Gerry E. Studds, of 
Massachusetts, responded to a parliamentary inquiry concerning time for 
debate. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 125 Cong. Rec. 25078, 25084, 25091, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert] Duncan of Oregon: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent that all debate on this amendment and all amendments 
    thereto end at 1:55 p.m.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Oregon?
        There was no objection.
        The Chairman: Members standing at the time the unanimous 
    consent request was granted will be recognized for approximately 2 
    minutes. . . .
        Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    a preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

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

        The Chairman: The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized 
    for five minutes in support of his motion. . . .
        The question is on the preferential motion offered by the 
    gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Conte).
        The preferential motion was rejected.
        The Chairman: All debate on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and all amendments thereto 
    has expired.
        Mr. John L. Burton [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. John L. Burton: Mr. Chairman, I believe my name was on the 
    list and I was not recognized.
        The Chairman: All time has expired.
        Mr. John L. Burton: How did my time get eaten up, if I may ask?
        The Chairman: I will inform the gentleman that his time and 
    that of several other Members on the list was consumed by the 
    offering of the pref

[[Page 10121]]

    erential motion by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Conte).

Debate and Vote on Motion To Strike Enacting Clause Take Precedence

Sec. 22.49 Debate on a preferential motion in Committee of the Whole to 
    strike the enacting clause, and a vote on that motion, takes 
    precedence over remaining debate on a pending amendment on which 
    time has been limited and allocated; thus, where a Member offers a 
    preferential motion to strike the enacting clause in order to 
    obtain 
    five minutes of debate on 
    the pending amendment on which debate has been limited and 
    allocated, the Chair must put the question on the preferential 
    motion immediately after debate thereon, unless unanimous consent 
    is given to combine that debate with time remaining under the 
    allocation on the amendment.

    The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on 
June 25, 1986,(19) during consideration of H.R. 5052 
(military construction appropriations for fiscal 1987):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 132 Cong. Rec. 15500-502, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [W. G.] Hefner [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment and all 
    amendments hereto end in 20 minutes.
        The Chairman: (20) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from North Carolina?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. William J. Hughes (N.J.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        The Chairman: Members standing at the time the unanimous-
    consent request was agreed to will be recognized for 2 minutes 
    each. . . .
        Mr. [Ronald V.] Dellums [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I move 
    that the Committee do now rise and report the bill back to the 
    House with the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from California (Mr. Dellums) is 
    recognized for 5 minutes in support of his preferential motion.
        Mr. Dellums: Mr. Chairman, I will not insist upon my motion 
    that the Committee do now rise. I simply use this extraordinary 
    tactic in order to gain some opportunity to speak on this terribly 
    important matter. I think that we ought to limit debate only on 
    issues that are noncontroversial . . . .
        The Chairman: The time of the gentleman from California (Mr. 
    Dellums) has expired.
        Mr. Dellums: Mr. Chairman, I still have 1 minute on the earlier 
    request.
        The Chairman: The preferential motion takes preference over the 
    1 minute.

[[Page 10122]]

        Mr. Dellums: Mr. Chairman, I still have 1 minute after the 
    preferential motion is voted up or down; is that not correct, Mr. 
    Chairman.
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct. Does the gentleman 
    desire to take that now?
        Mr. Dellums: That is my request, and then I would logically 
    conclude my discussion, Mr. Chairman, if I may.
        The Chairman: Without objection, the gentleman may proceed for 
    1 additional minute, on the preferential motion, in lieu of his 1 
    minute allocated on the pending amendment.
        There was no objection.

Recognition To Close Debate Under Limitation

Sec. 22.50 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,(1) during consideration of H.R. 6030 (the 
military procurement authorization for fiscal year 1983):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 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: (2) The gentleman from New 
    York (Mr. Stratton) has 7 minutes remaining, and 
    the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) has 9\1/2\ minutes 
    remaining.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 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.
        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.

Chair Puts Question on Amendment After Debate Closed

Sec. 22.51 Where debate on a pending amendment has been closed 
    instantly by motion, the Chair puts the question on the amendment 
    and does not recognize Members who seek to debate the amendment 
    further.

    On Nov. 25, 1970,(3) Mr. John C. Kluczynski, of 
Illinois, the man

[[Page 10123]]

ager of the pending bill in the Committee of the Whole, moved that all 
debate on the pending amendment close instantly. The Committee agreed 
to the motion by division vote. Mr. Andrew Jacobs, Jr., of Indiana, and 
Mr. Jonathan B. Bingham, of New York, then sought recognition to debate 
the amendment. Chairman Chet Holifield, of California, ruled that no 
further debate was in order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 116 Cong. Rec. 38990, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Jacobs: What about those of us who were on our feet when 
    debate was choked off? Will we be recognized?
        The Chairman: There was no count made of Members standing for 
    time, and the motion of the gentleman from Illinois was to close 
    debate, and that motion was agreed to.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. The manager of a bill has priority of recognition to move to close 
        debate instantly on an amendment, even if other Members seek to 
        debate it further or to offer amendments thereto; see 
        Sec. 21.30, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------