[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§ 39. General Debate in Committee of the Whole]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 10519-10523]
 
                               CHAPTER 29
 
                        Consideration and Debate
 
                         E. RELEVANCY IN DEBATE
 
Sec. 39. --General Debate in Committee of the Whole

Relevancy Not Required in General Debate Under General Rules

Sec. 39.1 A Member is not required to confine himself to the subject 
    matter of the pending bill during general debate in the Committee 
    of the Whole unless a special rule provides otherwise.

    On Apr. 9, 1957,(19) Mr. Noah M. Mason, of Illinois, 
rose to make a point of order that Mr. Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, 
who was addressing the Committee of the Whole, was speaking about the 
Postmaster General and not confining his remarks to the bill then under 
discussion, H.R. 6700, the Department of Commerce and related agencies 
appropriation bill. Mr. Cannon countered that there was no rule 
confining debate to the subject matter of the pending bill in general 
debate in the Committee. Chairman Brooks Hays, of Arkansas, ruled as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 103 Cong. Rec. 5360, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The Chair is not aware of any rule that requires 
    discussion during general debate to be restricted to the bill. It 
    is only where a special rule limits debate to the subject of the 
    bill that the speaker is restricted to the provisions of the bill.
        Mr. Mason: Then we are considering this bill without a rule 
    from the Rules Committee which would limit debate to the bill; is 
    that it?
        The Chairman: That is correct, the Chair will advise the 
    gentleman; consequently, there is no limitation in general debate 
    on an appropriation bill.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Where a special rule confines debate in the Committee of the Whole 
        to the bill under consideration, unanimous consent is required 
        to speak to another subject (see Sec. Sec. 37.3, 37.4, supra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 13, 1948,(21) while the Committee of the Whole 
was sitting, the following ruling by Chairman Charles B. Hoeven, of 
Iowa, was made in response to a point of order by Mr. Leon H. Gavin, of 
Pennsylvania:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. 94 Cong. Rec. 5802, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        I wish to ask the Chairman what legislation we are discussing. 
    What good bill is before the House?
        The Chairman: The House is in the Committee of the Whole in 
    general de

[[Page 10520]]

    bate on the bill H.R. 6500 [legislative branch appropriation bill 
    of 1949]. The gentleman from Missouri has been recognized for 5 
    minutes and his time has not expired.
        Mr. Gavin: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the 
    gentleman is not discussing the bill under consideration. It is 
    time we got back to a discussion of this bill. We have taken too 
    much time on extraneous matters.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that under general debate, 
    the debate is not confined to the bill.
        The point of order is overruled.

Sec. 39.2 General debate in Committee of the Whole House on the State 
    of the Union need not relate to the bill under consideration in the 
    absence of a special rule or a unanimous-consent agreement 
    requiring general debate to be confined to the bill; thus, during 
    general debate on a general appropriation bill in Committee of the 
    Whole, a Member may discuss any subject relating to the state of 
    the Union.

    On June 28, 1974,(1) during consideration of the 
District of Columbia appropriation bill,(2) the Chair 
overruled a point of order as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 120 Cong. Rec. 21743, 21744, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
 2. H.R. 15581.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [C. W.] Young of Florida: Mr. Chairman, it is my intention 
    to speak out of order at this time. I regret that I must use this 
    procedure to continue a debate that was begun earlier, but the 2 
    minutes that were offered to me at that time were just not 
    sufficient to cover the material.
        Mr. [Bill D.] Burlison of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (3) The gentleman from Missouri will 
    state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Dante B. Fascell (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Burlison of Missouri: I do not believe the gentleman is 
    speaking on the matter under consideration.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. Under the 
    precedents and under present unanimous-consent agreement governing 
    the general debate on the pending bill, there is no limitation on 
    matters which may be discussed in the Committee of the Whole. If 
    the Committee of the Whole, operating under a rule from the 
    Committee on Rules which limited debate to consideration of the 
    subject matter of the bill, the gentleman's point of order would be 
    in order.
        The point of order at this time is not in order, and the Chair 
    overrules the point of order.
        Mr. Young of Florida: Mr. Chairman, I rise as one Member of 
    this House, one of a very few, in fact, maybe the only one who has 
    ever been personally involved in an impeachment procedure from the 
    time that it was first initiated in a State House of 
    Representatives until the time that it was disposed of in the State 
    Senate.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Because general appropriation bills are 
privileged for consideration in Committee of the Whole under

[[Page 10521]]

Rule XI, and since the unanimous-consent request limiting and dividing 
control of general debate did not confine debate to the bill, the 
principle of wide latitude for debate as established in 8 Cannon's 
Precedents Sec. 2590 was applicable in this instance.

On District of Columbia Day

Sec. 39.3 General debate in the Committee of the Whole House on the 
    State of the Union on District of Columbia Day is not limited to 
    the subject matter of the pending bill.

    On June 14, 1937,(4) while the Committee of the Whole 
was considering District of Columbia legislation on cosmetology (H.R. 
6869), and Mr. Howard W. Smith, of Virginia, had the floor, Mr. Everett 
M. Dirksen, of Illinois, rose to a point of order that Mr. Smith was 
addressing himself to a matter that had already been disposed of and 
was not confining his remarks to the bill then under consideration. 
Chairman Sam D. McReynolds, of Tennessee, ruled as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 81 Cong. Rec. 5670, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman is mistaken. We are not under unanimous consent. 
    We are under the general rules of the House, and the gentleman from 
    Maryland has 1 hour and he has yielded 5 minutes to the gentleman 
    from Virginia, who can talk about whatever he 
    pleases.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. For the consideration of District of Columbia business on second 
        and fourth Mondays, see Rule XXIV clause 8, House Rules and 
        Manual Sec. 899 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Apr. 22, 1940,(6) the Committee of the Whole House on 
the State of the Union was considering on District of Columbia Day H.R. 
8980, a tax bill for the District of Columbia. During debate on the 
bill, Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, had the floor and was 
discussing matters related to the civil service, the coming war, and 
the decisions of the Supreme Court. Mr. Jack Nichols, of Oklahoma, 
arose to make a point of order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 86 Cong. Rec. 4871, 4872, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the gentleman is 
    not proceeding in order. I presume the gentleman is entitled to 
    this hour by reason of the fact that he is in opposition to the 
    bill which is being considered. If I am not correct in that I would 
    like to have the Chair correct me, but if I am correct, then I 
    think the gentleman's remarks should be confined to the subject 
    matter of the bill.
        The Chairman: (7) The point of order is overruled. 
    The gentleman will proceed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. R. Ewing Thomason (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Budget Resolution

Sec. 39.4 During the four hours of general debate on economic

[[Page 10522]]

    goals and policies provided for on a concurrent resolution on the 
    budget by section 305(a)(3) of the Congressional Budget Act of 
    1974, the debate must be confined to the subject of such goals and 
    policies.

    On Apr. 23, 1980,(8) during consideration of the 
congressional budget for fiscal years 1981, 1982, and 1983 (H. Con. 
Res. 307) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair responded to 
parliamentary inquiries relating to the scope of debate on the matter. 
The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 126 Cong. Rec. 8809, 8815, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (9) Pursuant to section 305(a), title 
    3, of Public Law 93-344, as amended, of the Congressional Budget 
    Act of 1974, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Giaimo) will be 
    recognized for 5 hours, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta) 
    will be recognized for 5 hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        After opening statements by the chairman and ranking minority 
    member of the Committee on the Budget, the Chair will recognize the 
    gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Giaimo) and the gentleman from Ohio 
    (Mr. Latta) for 2 hours each to control debate on economic goals 
    and policies. After these 4 hours of debate have been consumed or 
    yielded back, the Chair will recognize the chairman and ranking 
    minority member of the Committee on the Budget to control the 
    remainder of their 10 hours of debate.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
    Giaimo). . . .
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman has consumed 45 
    minutes. The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from 
    Connecticut (Mr. Giaimo) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta) 
    for 2 hours each to control debate on economic goals and policies.
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, as I understand the statutory 
    requirements, the debate now will be confined to economic policy 
    and goals; is that correct?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: That is correct.
        Mr. Bauman: What if a Member strays from that and starts 
    talking about other things, should other Members make points of 
    order and point out that they are out of order? I mean, I do want 
    to do this under the rule.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair would have to interpret at 
    that time whether they were within the bounds of the rule or not, 
    and the rules relating to relevancy in debate would apply.

Under Special Rule Confining Debate ``to the Bill''

Sec. 39.5 Where a special rule provided for the chairman of the 
    Committee on International

[[Page 10523]]

    Relations to designate Members to equally divide and control two 
    extra hours of general debate on a bill in Committee of the Whole, 
    the chairman of said committee informed the Chairman of the 
    Committee of the Whole of his designation of himself, another 
    Member of the majority party and two Members of the minority party 
    to control one-half hour each; and the Chairman of the Committee of 
    the Whole advised that such debate was not required by the rule to 
    be confined to any particular issue, but to the bill as a whole.

    On July 31, 1978,(10) Mr. Clement J. Zablocki, of 
Wisconsin, the Chairman of the Committee on International Relations, 
made a statement as to the division of control of time for debate 
pursuant to a special rule providing for two extra hours of debate on 
H.R. 12514, foreign aid authorizations for fiscal 1979. The intent 
behind requesting the extra hours had been to afford debate directed at 
the Turkish arms embargo issue, but the rule properly omitted any 
reference to the scope of debate, other than the requirement that all 
general debate be confined to the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 124 Cong. Rec. 23456, 23457, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Zablocki: Mr. Chairman, under the rule, it is my 
    understanding that the 1 hour for general debate on the entire 
    bill, that that hour is equally divided between myself and the 
    ranking minority member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
    Broomfield).
        Then the 2 hours that the rule provides for the Greek-Turkey-
    Cyprus issue, that there be 1 hour in support of lifting the 
    embargo and 1 hour in opposition, and that the hour in support 
    would be divided between myself and the gentleman from Michigan 
    (Mr. Broomfield), and those in opposition to lifting the embargo 
    would be managed by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Fascell) and 
    the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Derwinski).
        The Chairman: (11) The Chair will respond to the 
    gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Zablocki) that the Chair has been 
    informed that the gentleman from Wisconsin has designated the 
    gentleman from Florida (Mr. Fascell) for 1 hour, and also the 
    gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Derwinski) for 1 hour. The rule, of 
    course, does not confine any such debate to the embargo issue 
    alone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Don Fuqua (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. DISORDER IN DEBATE