[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 12, Chapter 29 (Sections 1-34), Volume 13, Chapter 29 (Sections 35-end, plus index)]
[Chapter 29. Consideration and Debate]
[E. Relevancy in Debate]
[Â§ 38. Debate Under Five-minute Rule]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 10504-10519]
 
                               CHAPTER 29
 
                        Consideration and Debate
 
                         E. RELEVANCY IN DEBATE
 
Sec. 38. Debate Under Five-minute Rule

Relevancy Requirement

Sec. 38.1 Debate in the Committee of the Whole under the five-minute 
    rule must be confined to the pending amendment.

    On Jan. 23, 1936,(1) during debate on a supplemental 
appropriations bill, Mr. Hamilton Fish, Jr., of New York, arose to move 
to strike out the last word and stated that he was using the motion 
``merely as a vehicle for my remarks.'' He then commenced to discuss 
the failure to appropriate

[[Page 10505]]

compensation to the widow of a former Congressman. Mr. William B. 
Bankhead, of Alabama, arose to state a point of order that Mr. Fish's 
remarks did not relate to the amendment then pending. Chairman Jere 
Cooper, of Tennessee, ruled as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 80 Cong. Rec. 963, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The gentleman is aware, of course, that certain practices 
    are sometimes indulged in by general consent but if a point of 
    order is made against them, the point of order must be sustained. 
    Debate under the 5-minute rule must be confined to the paragraph 
    under consideration. The paragraph here under consideration relates 
    to the National Labor Relations Board. The gentleman's remarks do 
    not, apparently, refer to this subject matter. The point of order 
    is, therefore, sustained.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See also 110 Cong. Rec. 755, 88th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 21, 1964; 96 
        Cong. Rec. 1734, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 9, 1950; and 90 
        Cong. Rec. 421, 78th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 19, 1944.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 38.2 Although debate on an amendment under the five-minute rule in 
    Committee of the Whole must be confined to the subject matter of 
    the amendment, enforcement of the rule requires that a point of 
    order be made, since the Chair does not normally enforce the rule 
    on his or her own initiative and may even allow some latitude in 
    debate, at the sufferance of the Committee of the Whole.

    On this occasion, the Speaker Pro Tempore had refused to recognize 
for one-minute speeches before the legislative business.(3) 
The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole stated his intention to 
allow, with the sufferance of the Committee of the Whole, the rule of 
relevancy in debate to be relaxed, in order to allow Members to address 
the subject of one-minute speeches. The proceedings in the Committee of 
the Whole on July 25, 1980,(4) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. For further discussion of the Chair's discretion with regard to 
        recognizing Members for one-minute speeches, see Sec. 9, supra.
 4. 126 Cong. Rec. 19766, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [E. G.] Shuster [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Shuster as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Mitchell of New York:
            None of the funds appropriated for the emergency 
        preparedness and mobilization program may be used to purchase 
        oil that originated in Libya, where evidence has been presented 
        that said oil did in fact originate in Libya. . . .

        Mr. Shuster: Mr. Chairman, I use this as a mechanism to focus 
    on an

[[Page 10506]]

    issue of great importance to the minority and junior Members of 
    both parties. By way of background leading up to the Libyan-HUD 
    relationship, I wish to inform the House that this morning I 
    delivered to the Speaker of the House a letter expressing our shock 
    and disappointment with the sudden reversal of a many year custom 
    in this House where the Chair refused to recognize Members for 1-
    minute speeches at the beginning of the day's session. . . .
        Fifth, 1-minute speeches are especially important for new 
    Members on both sides of the aisle, because they must often wait 
    for hours or days to express themselves in committee or on floor 
    debate, since the seniority system puts them at the bottom of the 
    ladder. Sometimes, they are allocated. . . .
        Mr. John L. Burton [of California]: The gentleman from 
    California rises to inquire of the Chair if the gentleman is 
    speaking on the HUD appropriation bill or has got an amendment to 
    the House rules.
        The Chairman: (5) The gentleman from Pennsylvania is 
    addressing the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Elliott H. Levitas (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. John L. Burton: . . . We have an agreement to let him talk 
    out of order?
        The Chairman: The Chair, with the sufferance of the Committee 
    and at this point in the proceedings, is personally willing to 
    allow the gentleman from Pennsylvania broad leeway. . . .
        Mr. [William M.] Thomas [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I thank 
    the gentleman for yielding.
        The old political saying was, ``If you can't stand the heat, 
    get out of the kitchen.''
        Apparently, the Democratic leadership has changed that to say, 
    ``If you can't stand the heat, move the kitchen.''
        Mr. John L. Burton: Mr. Chairman, a point of order. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, these people are not talking about a relevant, 
    germane amendment to this bill, and I think it is outrageous that 
    these dilatory tactics go on in the people's House. . . .
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from California make a point 
    of order?
        Mr. John L. Burton: Yes. He is out of order. Would you rule on 
    my point of order?
        The Chairman: The gentleman must proceed in order.

Sec. 38.3 While debate under the five-minute rule must be confined to 
    the pending portion of the bill, the Chair cannot anticipate 
    whether debate on a particular issue might be related to what a 
    pending portion of the bill contains or does not contain, or to a 
    germane amendment thereto.

    The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole 
during consideration of H.R. 2969 (the Department of Defense 
authorization for fiscal year 1984) on June 15, 1983: (6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 129 Cong. Rec. 15803, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Ed] Bethune [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, I am not trying 
    to get the debate off on something that is ir

[[Page 10507]]

    relevant. I am now satisfied, based on the letter from the 
    Secretary dated today in response to my announcement that I 
    intended to call a secret session, that I can discuss the details 
    concerning the Big Eye bomb. I intend to do that whether the 
    gentleman wishes to have me do that or not. . . .
        Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Bethune) has 
    indicated that he intends to discuss the Big Eye bomb under title I 
    of the armed services procurement bill of 1984. My inquiry is, 
    Would not such a discussion be ruled out of order, since there are 
    no procurement funds in title I for the Big Eye bomb?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (7) The Chair will state 
    that the question would only be whether it is relevant to the 
    matter under consideration in title I of the procurement bill, if 
    the debate were in open session in the Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Marty Russo (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Stratton: Mr. Chairman, there are no procurement funds for 
    the Big Eye, and there are no production funds, so then it would be 
    out of order, I take it, Mr. Chairman.
        Let me advise the Chair, however, that we do have money in the 
    R&D title II section, but not in title I.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that the debate 
    may advocate that production money be included for the Big Eye 
    bomb. The Chair does not know what the amendment or debate would 
    advocate.

Indulging in Personalities

Sec. 38.4 Debate under the five-minute rule in the Committee of the 
    Whole must be confined to the pending amendment and a Member may 
    not indulge in personalities.

    On Apr. 17, 1936,(8) during consideration of a District 
of Columbia rent bill in the Committee of the Whole, Mr. Marion A. 
Zioncheck, of Washington, offered an amendment and during debate stated 
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 80 Cong. Rec. 5647, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chairman, there has been a bad rumor running around the 
    town that the reason the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Blanton] objects 
    to this bill is that he is a landlord.

    Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, made a point of order against 
those remarks, and Chairman William B. Umstead, of North Carolina, 
ruled as follows:

        . . . The gentleman from Washington will confine his remarks to 
    the amendment which he offered and avoid personalities, and please 
    proceed in order.

    Following another personal remark by Mr. Zioncheck, the Chairman 
again reminded him that he could not indulge in personalities.

Confining Remarks to Pending Amendment

Sec. 38.5 Where a Member has been recognized under the

[[Page 10508]]

    five-minute rule in the Committee of the Whole to propose an 
    amendment, he must confine his remarks to the pending amendment and 
    discussion of subjects which may be addressed later in the reading 
    is not in order.

    On Jan. 21, 1964,(9) Mr. Adam C. Powell, of New York, 
arose to offer an amendment, under the five-minute rule, to a bill 
amending the Library Services Act. Mr. Powell proceeded to state major 
differences between House practice and Senate practice with respect to 
striking language from a bill. Mr. Peter H. B. Frelinghuysen, Jr., of 
New York, rose to state the point of order that Mr. Powell was not 
confining himself to the present amendment but was stating major 
differences in all the amendments that Mr. Powell could offer to later 
parts of the bill. Chairman William S. Moorhead, of Pennsylvania, ruled 
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 110 Cong. Rec. 755, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman must confine himself to the discussion of the 
    amendment. It may be to explain it he will have to be broader than 
    just the narrow amendment itself, but it must be to the subject of 
    the pending amendment.
        Mr. Frelinghuysen: And he must confine himself, Mr. Chairman, 
    to the significance of the amendment which he has offered?
        The Chairman: The gentleman will proceed in order.

Sec. 38.6 Only one amendment to a substitute may be pending at one 
    time, and amendments which might be subsequently offered may not be 
    debated while another amendment is pending.

    On May 15, 1979,(10) during consideration of the Alaska 
National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1979 (H.R. 39), the 
following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 125 Cong. Rec. 11178, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (11) The question is on the amendments 
    offered by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Huckaby) to the 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the Committee on 
    Merchant Marine and Fisheries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Paul Simon (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    were agreed to.
        Mr. [Peter H.] Kostmayer [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    have two amendments.
        The Chairman: Are these amendments to the Merchant Marine 
    Committee amendment?
        Mr. Kostmayer: To Udall-Anderson.
        The Chairman: There is already an amendment pending to the 
    Udall substitute. Another amendment to the Udall substitute is not 
    in order at this point.

[[Page 10509]]

        Mr. Kostmayer: Well, Mr. Chairman, they can be spoken on now 
    and voted on later; is that correct?

        The Chairman: They are not in order at this time.

Sec. 38.7 It is relevant in debate under the five-minute rule to 
    discuss what weapons could be funded by a pending portion of a bill 
    containing general, unallocated authorizations for weapons 
    production and procurement, particularly where an amendment is 
    pending to prohibit use of the funds for the type of weapon under 
    discussion.

    On June 15, 1983,(12) the following proceedings occurred 
in the Committee of the Whole during consideration of H.R. 2969 (the 
Department of Defense authorization for fiscal year 1984):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 129 Cong. Rec. 15817, 15818, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Ed] Bethune [of Arkansas]: . . . Now, let us get to the 
    Big Eye bomb, which is the only thing left before us here today. . 
    . . The Big Eye bomb has an interesting history. Nineteen years ago 
    . . . they started working on the Big Eye bomb. . . .
        In October 1982, in the test chamber at Aberdeen, Md., . . . 
    they tested a Big Eye bomb . . . and at 60 degrees Fahrenheit it 
    blew up. . . .
        I do not think, from what I know about this bomb, that they can 
    make it work, based on this information. . . .
        So I do not think you have got a situation here where you have 
    got the bugs out of this bomb, frankly. In fact, all of the 
    evidence is to the contrary.
        Nineteen years they have been working on this bomb, and they 
    finally decided to test it under something similar to what they 
    might actually face in the modern combat world, and it blew up on 
    them. . . .
        Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the gentleman from Arkansas. The gentleman 
    is discussing a munition that is not funded in this section of the 
    bill, and he is spending considerable time of the Committee in 
    discussing that, although there are no funds for the production of 
    the weapon that he refers to. I think he is proceeding out of 
    order.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (13) The gentleman from 
    Arkansas is discussing chemical weapons, and it is difficult to 
    restrict the gentleman to a narrow interpretation of that in the 
    comments he is making.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Marty Russo (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Stratton: Mr. Chairman, if I may be heard further on the 
    point of order, there are a number of things that are funded in the 
    bill. Binary systems is the basic issue which the gentleman from 
    Wisconsin addressed himself to. But the particular one that the 
    gentleman from Arkansas is debating is something that is not funded 
    in this portion of the bill, and it seems to me that this is a 
    proceeding out of order and abusing the time of the Committee.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Does the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. 
    Bethune) wish to be heard on the point of order?

[[Page 10510]]

        Mr. Bethune: Mr. Chairman, is my time protected while the 
    gentleman from New York makes his point of order?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman's time is protected.
        Mr. Bethune: I thank the Chair.
        Mr. Chairman, I would just simply say that the bill does ask 
    for moneys to build buildings, facilities, to do tooling work, to 
    build the casings for the Big Eye bomb. I do not know what could be 
    more relevant than to discuss whether or not it works before we 
    start building facilities and the QL mix that would go in the bomb. 
    . . .
        Mr. Stratton: Mr. Chairman, the thrust of the gentleman's 
    argument in discussing an item that is not funded in the 
    legislation is to create the impression that all of the activities 
    of the Department of the Army in dealing with chemical weapons, and 
    particularly the binary weapons which are funded in this section, 
    is defective. But the item which he is constantly referring to, and 
    with all of its mistakes, is not included; and the problems that it 
    had led the committee to remove the money for that particular 
    weapon. If the gentleman wants to discuss it, it ought to be 
    discussed in the research and development title of the bill rather 
    than in the procurement and production title with which we are 
    engaged now.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (14) The Chair will rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. John P. Murtha (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The money in the bill is unearmarked and the arguments of the 
    gentleman from Arkansas are considered relevant to the debate on 
    his amendment which is pending and which addresses the issues being 
    debated.
        The Chair will overrule the point of order.

Debate Under Pro Forma Amendment

Sec. 38.8 Debate in the Committee of the Whole under the five-minute 
    rule must be confined to the pending amendment and, if a point of 
    order is raised, a Member may not under a pro forma amendment 
    discuss a section of the bill not immediately pending.

    On Feb. 9, 1950,(15) Mr. Cecil 
F. White, of California, arose to make the point of order that Mr. Reid 
F. Murray, of Wisconsin, who had gained the floor through offering a 
motion to strike the last word, was not discussing the deficiency 
appropriation bill (H.R. 7200) then under consideration, nor had he 
asked for unanimous consent to proceed out of order. Mr. Murray 
replied:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 96 Cong. Rec. 1753, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California is too hasty 
    because I am talking on this bill and the things that I am talking 
    about are leading up to this question of food for the Indians which 
    has to do with this particular bill.
        The Chairman: (16) The matter under consideration at 
    the moment

[[Page 10511]]

    happens to be the Tennessee Valley Authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Mike Mansfield (Mont.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Murray of Wisconsin: Mr. Chairman, that may be true, but I 
    moved to strike out the last word. I am talking in connection with 
    this bill. In this bill we have surplus foods for the Indians.
        The Chairman: The gentleman should discuss that matter which is 
    pending at the present time. The part of the bill to which he 
    refers has not been reached yet.

Sec. 38.9 Debate on a motion to strike out the last word in the 
    Committee of the Whole must relate to the matter contained in the 
    pending section or amendment.

    On Jan. 23, 1936, Chairman Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, ruled that 
where a point of order was made against a Member who had moved to 
strike out the last word of a pending amendment and then discussed 
matters irrelevant to the amendment, the Chair was required to order 
the Member with the floor to confine his remarks to the pending 
amendment.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 80 Cong. Rec. 963, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 38.10 Debate on a pro forma amendment must be confined to the 
    portion of the bill to which the pro forma amendment has been 
    offered.

    An example of the proposition stated above occurred on June 21, 
1974,(18) during consideration of H.R. 15472 (agriculture, 
environment and consumer appropriations for fiscal year 1975) in the 
Committee of the Whole. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 120 Cong. Rec. 20595, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Pierre S.] du Pont [IV, of Delaware]: Mr. Chairman, I move 
    to strike the requisite number of words.
        (Mr. du Pont asked and was given permission to revise and 
    extend his remarks.)
        Mr. du Pont: Mr. Chairman, I am taking this time now for fear 
    that when we get down to the end of the bill there will be a 
    limitation of time, and I will not have the opportunity to explain 
    the amendment that I intend to offer on the last page of the bill.
        Mr. Chairman, I intend to offer an amendment to set a maximum 
    limit on the appropriations under this bill to $12.7 billion. . . .
        Mr. [John E.] Moss [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I insist on 
    the regular order, and the regular order is the point of the bill 
    where we are now reading. It is not a point to be reached at a 
    later time. I insist upon the regular order.
        The Chairman: (19) The gentleman is correct. The 
    gentleman in the well received permission to strike out the last 
    word and then proceeded to discuss an amendment to be offered to 
    the last section of the bill. The gentleman from [Delaware] is not 
    discussing a part of the bill that is pending.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Sam Gibbons (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The point of order is sustained.

[[Page 10512]]

Sec. 38.11 Debate in Committee of the Whole on a pro forma amendment 
    offered under the five-minute rule must be confined to the subject 
    of the pending bill.

    During consideration of an appropriation bill (H.R. 7631) in the 
Committee of the Whole on July 24, 1980,(20) a point of 
order was sustained relative to the scope of debate on an amendment. 
The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 126 Cong. Rec. 19442, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James T.] Broyhill [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    move to strike the last word. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Danielson) has 
    a bill in his committee, and I know I wrote some of the early 
    language of that bill. I just wanted to ask the gentleman if that 
    committee will be reporting that regulatory reform bill anytime 
    soon.
        In his remarks the gentleman said that the Congress legislates, 
    the executive will execute the law, and the judiciary will 
    interpret it. The problem is that we have been turning over 
    lawmaking powers to the executive, and that is wrong. . . .
        Mr. [Bob] Traxler [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, with due respect 
    and with due deference to my colleagues, I must rise to a point of 
    order.
        October 1 is coming, and I feel we will not have this bill 
    completed by that time. I would ask that we return to general 
    order.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (1) The debate must be 
    confined to the subject of the bill. For that reason, the point of 
    order is sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. D. Douglas Barnard, Jr. (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Broyhill) will proceed 
    in order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: While general debate in Committee of the 
Whole need not be confined to the subject matter of the pending bill in 
the absence of a special rule so providing, debate under the five-
minute rule must be relevant to the pending bill or amendment.

Sec. 38.12 While normally under the five-minute rule debate on a pro 
    forma amendment may relate either to a pending amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute or to a perfecting amendment thereto (as not 
    necessarily in the 3rd degree), where a special rule permitted both 
    the offering of perfecting amendments in the 2nd degree and of pro 
    forma amendments to the substitute when perfecting amendments were 
    not pending, the Chair permitted 
    pro forma amendments during pendency of perfecting amendments but 
    in response to a point of order required that debate be related 
    solely to the perfecting amendment.

    During consideration of the first concurrent resolution on the bud

[[Page 10513]]

get for fiscal year 1983 (H. Con. Res. 345) in the Committee of the 
Whole on May 26, 1982,(2) the following exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 128 Cong. Rec. 12088, 12090, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Les] AuCoin [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike 
    the requisite number of words.
        (Mr. AuCoin asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
    his remarks.)
        Mr. AuCoin: Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the requisite number 
    of words not because I intend to speak to the amendment of the 
    gentleman from Michigan, but instead to take this time in concert 
    with colleagues who care very much about what the Latta amendment 
    does to housing. Not for housing, but to housing.
        Because of the extent of the confusion in the House over this 
    issue some time needs to be taken tonight before we ultimately vote 
    on the Latta amendment. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 5 
    additional minutes.
        Mr. [James H.] Quillen [of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    understood we were debating the Conyers amendment, and I did not 
    hear permission to speak out of order.
        Mr. AuCoin: Mr. Chairman, my remarks go to the Latta 
    substitute, and I believe that is pending before the committee.
        The Chairman: (3) The Chair will have to state that 
    the matter that is pending is the Conyers amendment, and that 
    debate should be germane to the Conyers amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 38.13 Debate under the five-minute rule in Committee of the Whole 
    must be confined to the pending amendment when that point of order 
    is raised, even if a Member is attempting to respond to previous 
    extraneous remarks in debate against which no point of order was 
    raised.

    During consideration of the Defense Industrial Base Revitalization 
Act (H.R. 5540) in the Committee of the Whole on Sept. 23, 
1982,(4) the following exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 128 Cong. Rec. 24967, 24968, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Ed] Bethune [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike 
    the requisite number of words, and I rise in support of the 
    Erlenborn amendment.
        Mr. Chairman, I would associate myself with the remarks made by 
    the 
    gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Erlenborn). . . .
        We just passed a tax bill, and in that tax bill were all kinds 
    of provisions to encourage investment, to encourage businesses to 
    expand, and we have heard speech after speech about how those 
    provisions that we passed in the tax bill were to favor----
        Mr. [James J.] Blanchard [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, a point 
    of order.

[[Page 10514]]

        The Chairman: (5) The gentleman will state his point 
    of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Wyche Fowler, Jr. (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Blanchard: I believe the gentleman from Arkansas is out of 
    order, Mr. Chairman, in the fact that he is not speaking on the 
    amendment or anything related to the amendment.
        I respect his views and we will fully air those, but this 
    amendment is the Davis-Bacon amendment; it is not related to the 
    debate.
        Mr. Bethune: Mr. Chairman, may I respond?
        The Chairman: The gentleman may respond.
        The Chair will say that the gentleman should address the 
    amendment.
        Mr. Bethune: The gentleman would be glad to address the 
    amendment except that the subject that the gentleman is now 
    treating was raised by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ford), not 
    the gentleman from Arkansas.
        It seems to me only fair that I be permitted to take some of my 
    time to rebut the statements made.
        The Chairman: The Chair will simply observe that the debate 
    should relate to the amendment. The gentleman will continue with 
    his time. . . .
        Mr. Bethune: Mr. Chairman, when a subject is raised by another 
    Member and then a Member is subsequently recognized under the 5-
    minute rule, may the Member use whatever portion of his 5 minutes 
    he desires to rebut the statements made in the course of the 
    proceeding of the debate?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that if extraneous debate 
    occurred at a previous time, then a point of order would lie to 
    object to that at that time. Since the point of order was not 
    raised, the gentleman from Arkansas is under obligation to confine 
    his remarks to the amendment.

Sec. 38.14 Debate under the five-minute rule must be confined to the 
    pending portion of the bill if a point of order is made, but a 
    Member may speak out of order by unanimous consent.

    During consideration of H.R. 3132 (the Treasury and Postal Service 
appropriations for fiscal year 1984) in the Committee of the Whole on 
June 8, 1983,(6) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 129 Cong. Rec. 14860, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Abraham] Kazen [Jr., of Tex-as]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        I intend to have a colloquy with the distinguished chairman of 
    the subcommittee on a matter that was contained in title I. I do 
    not have an amendment to offer. I just want to clarify some of the 
    language in the report.
        Do I have to ask unanimous consent to go back to title I or am 
    I privileged under my privilege to strike the last word? May I 
    enter into that colloquy without asking for unanimous consent?
        The Chairman: (7) The Chair will advise the 
    gentleman he may move to strike the last word and then ask

[[Page 10515]]

    unanimous consent to speak out of order if challenged.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (By unanimous consent, Mr. Kazen was allowed to speak out of 
    order.)

Debate on Appeals

Sec. 38.15 An appeal in the Committee of the Whole is debatable under 
    the five-minute rule and such debate is confined to the appeal.

    On Feb. 22, 1950,(8) Chairman Francis E. Walter, of 
Pennsylvania, ruled that where the Member who had the floor yielded 
time in debate to a second Member, the second Member could not yield 
time to a third Member for the purpose of moving that the Committee of 
the Whole rise and report to the House. Mr. Howard W. Smith, of 
Virginia, appealed from the decision of the Chair and the Chairman 
stated that the appeal was debatable for five minutes but that the 
discussion was required to be on the appeal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 96 Cong. Rec. 2178, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, was recognized and described 
the proposition then under consideration (H.R. 4453, to prohibit 
discrimination in employment because of race, color, religion, or 
national origin) as ``communistic legislation that Stalin promulgated 
in 1920.'' Mr. Vito Marcantonio, of New York, arose to the point of 
order that ``the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Rankin] must direct 
his remarks to the question of the appeal from the ruling of the 
Chair.'' The Chairman sustained the point of order.

Unanimous Consent To Speak Out of Order

Sec. 38.16 Since debate under the five-minute rule is confined to the 
    subject matter of the bill, unanimous consent is required for a 
    Member to propose a question of personal privilege under the guise 
    of a pro forma amendment.

    On Sept. 4, 1969,(9) Mr. Edward I. Koch, of New York, 
stated a question of personal privilege in the Committee of the Whole. 
Chairman Cornelius E. Gallagher, of New Jersey, stated that a point of 
personal privilege could not be raised in the Committee of the Whole 
but that Mr. Koch could offer a pro forma amendment to be heard on his 
question. Mr. Koch then did as the Chairman suggested. Mr. Joe D. 
Waggonner, Jr., of Louisiana, made a point of order that Mr. Koch could 
not proceed out of order by debating mat

[[Page 10516]]

ters extraneous to the subject matter of the bill under consideration 
(H.R. 12085, extending the Clean Air Act) without requesting unanimous 
consent to proceed out of order. The Chairman sustained the point of 
order and Mr. Koch was granted unanimous consent to speak out of order 
on the question of personal privilege on a pro forma amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 115 Cong. Rec. 24372, 24373, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 38.17 Debate under the five-minute rule in Committee of the Whole 
    must be confined to the subject matter then pending, but a Member 
    may speak out of order by unanimous consent, regardless of whether 
    the Committee is proceeding pursuant to the provisions of a special 
    order permitting only designated amendments to be offered.

    On Aug. 3, 1977,(10) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration the National Energy Act (H.R. 8444) when the 
following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 123 Cong. Rec. 26483, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Mario] Biaggi [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I move to 
    strike the last word.
        Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to be permitted to speak 
    out of order. . . .
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Reserving the right to 
    object, Mr. Chairman, may we know what the purpose is?
        Mr. Biaggi: . . . I am asking for permission to speak out of 
    order because on this day Archbishop Makarios of Cyprus passed 
    away. I would like, for the record, to make some appropriate 
    comments.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, is this request in order under the rule which 
    allows no amendments and no Members the opportunity to offer any 
    changes in the bill?
        The Chairman: (11) The Chair will respond that by 
    unanimous consent, it would be in order to speak out of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Edward P. Boland (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Motion To Strike Enacting Clause

Sec. 38.18 On a motion to strike out the enacting clause of a bill in 
    the Committee of the Whole, there is great latitude in debate and a 
    Member having the floor may discuss the entire bill.

    On Apr. 25, 1947,(12) Chairman Earl C. Michener, of 
Michigan, overruled a point of order that the gentleman with the floor, 
discussing the motion that the Committee of the Whole rise and report 
the bill back to the House with the recommendation that the

[[Page 10517]]

enacting clause be stricken, must confine his remarks to the motion:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 93 Cong. Rec. 4087, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Case of South Dakota: It has always been my understanding 
    that when a preferential motion to strike out the enacting clause 
    was used, that the debate had to be upon that motion. I submit to 
    the Chair that the gentlewoman is not speaking on the motion.
        The Chairman: On a motion to strike out the enacting clause of 
    a bill, the whole bill is before the House; therefore, there is 
    great latitude in debate.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. The Chair has repeatedly ruled that the motion opens up the entire 
        scope of the bill for discussion. See, for example, 113 Cong. 
        Rec. 32679, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 15, 1967; 113 Cong. Rec. 
        14145, 14147, 14148, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., May 25, 1967; 104 
        Cong. Rec. 16718, 16719, 85th Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 8, 1958; and 
        79 Cong. Rec. 3744, 74th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 15, 1935.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 38.19 Debate in opposition to a preferential motion to strike out 
    the enacting clause may relate to any portion of the bill, 
    including the merits of an amendment pending when the preferential 
    motion was offered.

    During consideration of the military procurement authorization 
(H.R. 6674) in the Committee of the Whole on May 20, 
1975,(14) the proposition described above was demonstrated 
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 121 Cong. Rec. 15458, 15465, 15466, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Melvin] Price [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I move that all 
    debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto, and on further 
    amendments to the bill, end in 20 minutes.
        The Chairman: (15) The question is on the motion 
    offered by the gentleman from Illinois.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

[[Page 10518]]

    expand a little bit more on some of these ridiculous spending 
    programs that waste the taxpayers' dollars.
        If the offices of other Members are like mine, whenever they 
    get one of these letters they begin to wonder, and people begin to 
    ask the Members, just what it is we do to take care of these 
    situations. If we pass this routine authorization bill for the 
    Defense Department for $32 billion in the usual manner, we will 
    have to answer to our constituents if we choose to be honest about 
    it.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, I demand regular order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman speaks on the preferential motion.
        The Chair would like to make the observation that any portion 
    of the bill is open to [debate].

Sec. 38.20 Since the preferential motion that the Committee rise and 
    report with the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken 
    applies to the entire bill, debate may be directed to any part of 
    the bill, and the motion may be used by a Member to secure five 
    minutes to debate a pending amendment notwithstanding a limitation 
    of time for debate on the pending amendment and all amendments 
    thereto.

    On June 20, 1975,(16) during consideration of H.R. 3474 
(17) in the Committee of the Whole, the following 
proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 121 Cong. Rec. 19941, 19951, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
17. A bill authorizing appropriations for the Energy Research and 
        Development Administration for fiscal year 1976.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] Young of Texas: Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate 
    on this amendment and all amendments thereto cease in 30 minutes.
        The Chairman: (18) The gentleman from Texas moves 
    that all debate on the McCormack amendment and all amendments 
    thereto cease in 30 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. J. Edward Roush (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from Texas (Mr. Young).
        The motion was agreed to. . . .
        Mr. [Robert W.] Edgar [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    a preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

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

        Mr. Edgar: Mr. Chairman, I make this motion to get more time to 
    talk about this very important matter. . . . We rise in support of 
    the Coughlin amendment. We feel very strongly that the gentleman 
    from Iowa (Mr. Harkin) has pointed out many of the important 
    features of this program that have to be taken into consideration 
    and we feel very strongly that we should delete this item from the 
    budget.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield the continuation of my time to the 
    gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Harkin). . . .
        Mr. [Steven D.] Symms [of Idaho]: Mr. Chairman, I demand 
    regular order.

[[Page 10519]]

        The Chairman: The Chair is following regular order. . . .
        Mr. Symms: Is it regular order to seek recognition under a 
    preferential motion?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that under the parliamentary 
    procedure the entire bill is under debate. The Chair is following 
    regular order.