[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 5, Chapters 18 - 20]
[Chapter 19. The Committee of the Whole]
[C. Motion to Recommend Striking Enacting Clause]
[Â§ 12. Procedures; Qualification to Offer or Oppose]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 3361-3376]
 
                               CHAPTER 19
 
                       The Committee of the Whole
 
            C. MOTION TO RECOMMEND STRIKING ENACTING CLAUSE
 
Sec. 12. Procedures; Qualification to Offer or Oppose

Qualification to Offer Motion

Sec. 12.1 A Member offering a motion to strike out the enacting clause 
    is required upon request of another Member to qualify as being 
    opposed to the bill.

    On May 6, 1950,(3) during consideration of H.R. 7786, 
the general appropriation bill of 1951, Chairman Jere Cooper, of 
Tennessee, required a Member who offered a motion to strike the 
enacting clause to qualify as being opposed to the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  3. 96 Cong. Rec. 6571, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: The time of the gentleman from Texas has expired. 
    All time on this amendment has expired.
        Mr. [Hale] Boggs of Louisiana: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Boggs of Louisiana 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. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    further point of order that the gentleman has not stated that he is 
    opposed to the bill.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from New York makes the point of 
    order that the gentleman from Louisiana is not qualified to offer 
    the motion. The Chair will endeavor to qualify the gentleman.
        Is the gentleman from Louisiana opposed to the bill?
        Mr. Boggs of Louisiana: I am, Mr. Chairman.

[[Page 3362]]

        The Chairman: The gentleman qualifies.
        The gentleman from Louisiana is recognized for 5 minutes.

Sec. 12.2 It is not in order for a Member in favor of a bill to offer a 
    motion to rise and report with the recommendation that the enacting 
    clause be stricken.

    On Mar. 6, 1958,(4) during consideration of H.R. 8002, 
providing for improved methods of stating budget estimates and 
estimates for deficiency and supplemental appropriations, Chairman 
Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas, stated that a Member who favors a bill 
may not offer a motion to rise and report the bill back to the House 
with instructions to strike out the enacting clause.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 104 Cong. Rec. 3614, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Hoffman: Would a motion be in order from a Member who is in 
    favor of the bill, to recommit the bill with in structions that the 
    enacting clause be stricken?
        The Chairman: That would not be in order from a Member in favor 
    of the bin.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. A Member rising to make a parliamentary inquiry may not under that 
        guise offer a motion to strike out the enacting clause but must 
        have the floor in his own right for that purpose. 8 Cannon's 
        Precedents Sec. 2625.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 12.3 The Chair overruled the point of order that a motion to 
    strike out the enacting clause of a bill was dilatory where the 
    Member offering the motion stated his opposition to the bill.

    On Mar. 30, 1950,(6) during consideration of H.R. 7797, 
to provide foreign economic assistance, Chairman Oren Harris, of 
Arkansas, ruled on a point of order that a motion to strike out the 
enacting clause was dilatory:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 96 Cong. Rec. 4424, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James G.] Fulton [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    a preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Fulton moves that the Committee do now rise and that 
        the bill be reported to the House with the enacting clause 
        stricken.

        Mr. [Frank B.] Keefe [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.

        Mr. Keefe: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order against the 
    preferential motion that it is dilatory. The gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania is not opposed to this bill and is not in good faith 
    asking that the enacting clause

[[Page 3363]]

    be stricken out; he is advocating this bill vehemently and is 
    simply taking this means to get 5 minutes time when many others of 
    us have been waiting for 2 days trying to get time, but in vain.
        The Chairman: The Chair would like to inquire of the gentleman 
    from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fulton] if he is opposed to the bill?
        Mr. Fulton: In its present form I would be opposed to it.
        The Chairman: The Chair must accept the statement of the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania.
        The Chair overrules the point of order and recognizes the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania in support of his preferential motion.

Presumptions as to Proponent's Qualification

Sec. 12.4 Where a motion is made that the Committee of the Whole rise 
    and report a bill back to the House with the recommendation that 
    the enacting clause be stricken, the Chair assumes that the 
    proponent favors the motion.

    On May 5, 1955,(7) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 12, providing price supports for basic commodities, 
under Chairman Robert L. F. Sikes, of Florida. A point of order was 
raised as to the qualification of the proponent of a motion to strike 
the enacting clause of the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 101 Cong. Rec. 5774, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas G.] Abernethy [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer a preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Abernethy 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 Mississippi is recognized for 
    5 minutes in support of his motion.
        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: The gentleman from Mississippi has 
    made a motion to strike out the enacting clause and report the bill 
    back to the House with that recommendation. I challenge his right 
    to speak unless he is in favor of his motion.
        The Chairman: The Chair assumes the gentleman is in favor of 
    his motion.

Sec. 12.5 In recognizing a Member for a motion to strike out the 
    enacting clause the Chair will accept the statement of that Member 
    that he is opposed to the bill.

    On Mar. 30, 1950,(8) during consideration of H.R. 7797, 
to provide foreign economic assistance, Chairman Oren Harris, of 
Arkansas, ruled on a point of order that
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 96 Cong. Rec. 4424, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3364]]

a Member seeking recognition on a motion to strike the enacting clause 
was not acting in good faith.

        Mr. [James G.] Fulton [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    a preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Fulton moves that the Committee do now rise and that 
        the bill be reported to the House with the enacting clause 
        stricken.

        Mr. [Frank B.] Keefe [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Keefe: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order against the 
    preferential motion that it is dilatory. The gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania is not opposed to this bill and is not in good faith 
    asking that the enacting clause be stricken out; he is advocating 
    this bill vehemently and is simply taking this means to get 5 
    minutes time when many others of us have been waiting for 2 days 
    trying to get time, but in vain.
        The Chairman: The Chair would like to inquire of the gentleman 
    from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fulton] if he is opposed to the bill?
        Mr. Fulton: In its present form I would be opposed to it.
        The Chairman: The Chair must accept the statement of the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania.
        The Chair overrules the point of order and recognizes the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania in support of his preferential motion.

Effect of Closed Rule

Sec. 12.6 Where a bill is being considered in the Committee of the 
    Whole under a rule permitting only committee amendments, any Member 
    may offer a motion during the stage of amendment that the Committee 
    of the Whole rise and report the bill back to the House with the 
    recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken out.

    On June 29, 1951,(9) a motion that the Committee of the 
Whole rise and report to the House with the recommendation that the 
enacting clause be stricken out was offered during consideration of 
House Joint Resolution 278, to continue for a temporary period the 
Defense Production Act of 1950 and the Housing and Rent Act of 1947. 
The joint resolution was being considered under House Resolution 294, 
which permitted only committee amendments and one other specified 
amendment.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 97 Cong. Rec. 7498, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
10. See id. at p. 7482, for the text of this resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The proceedings were as follows:
        Mr. [Harold D.] Cooley [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer the amendment authorized by the resolution.
        The Clerk read as follows: . . .
        [Debate ensued on the Cooley amendment.]
        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    preferential motion.

[[Page 3365]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

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

        Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, the parliamentary 
    procedure here which we have just gone through is about on a par 
    with the way in which the price- and wage-control law which we gave 
    the President on September 8, 1950, has been interpreted and 
    administered by the administration; and I say that with all due 
    respect to the rulings of the Chairman.

        It was my understanding when the gentleman from North Carolina 
    [Mr. Cooley] rose and asked consent to present an amendment that 
    what he was doing was getting permission to offer his amendment to 
    the amendment which is printed in the resolution. I now discover 
    that I apparently have been negligent and did not know what was 
    going on, because, as I understand the ruling of the Chair, all we 
    get now is one vote on the amendment set forth in the resolution as 
    amended by the Cooley amendment, and that we do not have an 
    opportunity to vote on the amendment to the amendment; otherwise, 
    of course, I would have objected. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
    preferential motion.
        The Chairman [Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas]: Is there objection 
    to the request of the gentleman from Michigan?
        There was no objection.
        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Cooley].
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Spence) there were--ayes 143, noes 87.
        Mr. [Jacob K.] Javits [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I demand 
    tellers.
        Tellers were ordered, and the Chairman appointed as tellers Mr. 
    Cooley and Mr. Deane.
        The Committee again divided; and the tellers reported that 
    there were--yeas 165, noes 106.
        So the amendment was agreed to.

    Parliamentarian's Note: No point of order was made against Mr. 
Hoffman's motion, but, if the point was made, the motion would have 
been held in order under Rule XXIII clause 7.

Committee Chairman as Proponent

Sec. 12.7 The chairman of the legislative committee from which a bill 
    was reported, having expressed his objections to the bill and 
    relinquished control of it, offered a motion to strike the enacting 
    clause of the bill.

    On July 5, 1956,(11) immediately after the House 
resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole for further 
consideration of H.R. 7535, to authorize federal assistance to the 
states and local com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11.  102 Cong. Rec. 11859, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3366]]

munities in financing to eliminate the national shortage of classrooms, 
legislative committee Chairman Graham A. Barden, of North Carolina, 
expressed his objections, relinquished control of the bill, and later 
offered a motion to strike out the enacting clause.

        Mr. Barden: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word.
        Mr. Chairman, I have a brief statement I should like to make to 
    the House.
        For 22 years I have done my best to be sincere and frank with 
    the membership of this House. I propose to continue that, both in 
    attitude and in practice.
        I have very definitely reached the conclusion that the American 
    people do not want this legislation in its present form. Certain 
    things have happened to the bill that make it very, very obnoxious 
    and objectionable to the people I represent.
        I never have claimed to be an expert when advocating something 
    that I was sincerely and conscientiously for. I have always felt I 
    would be a complete flop in trying to advocate something I did not 
    believe in and did not advocate. This bill is objectionable to me. 
    It has so many bad features and so many things have been given 
    priority over the consideration of the objective that we set out to 
    accomplish that I must say, in all frankness, to the House I cannot 
    continue in the position here of directing this bill. I feel that 
    someone who can be fairer to the bill in its present shape than I, 
    should handle the bill. I would have to be a much better actor than 
    I now am to proceed in the position of handling this piece of 
    legislation which I cannot support and do not want to pass. For 
    that reason, I want the House to understand my very definite 
    position in the matter. So, with that, I think the House will 
    understand my position and those in a position on the committee to 
    handle the bill will have my cooperation to a certain extent, but 
    no one need to expect any assistance from me or any encouragement 
    for the bill. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I offer a preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Barden 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. Chairman, I offer this motion to strike the enacting clause 
    because I think it proper and in the interest of good legislation. 
    I think it is something the majority of the Members of this House 
    want to do, for I think the bill is now in such shape that it will 
    in the final analysis be defeated. So, without consuming 5 minutes, 
    I say to the House that I hope you will adopt this motion and save 
    a lot of time. . . .
        The Chairman: (12) The question is on the 
    preferential motion offered by the gentleman from North Carolina, 
    Mr. Barden.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12.  Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Martin] Dies [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I demand 
    tellers on this vote.
        Tellers were ordered, and the Chairman appointed as tellers Mr. 
    Barden and Mr. McConnell.
        The Committee divided; and the tellers reported that there 
    were--ayes 130, noes 148.

[[Page 3367]]

        So the motion was rejected.

Offering Motion to Secure Debate Time

Sec. 12.8 When because of a time limitation on debate a Member is 
    unable to speak during the stage of amendment, a motion to strike 
    out the enacting clause is sometimes used to secure time for 
    debate.

    On Feb. 23, 1940,(13) during consideration of House 
Joint Resolution 407, regarding trade agreements, Chairman Clifton A. 
Woodrum, of Virginia, indicated that a Member may offer a motion to 
strike out the enacting clause and thereby secure time for debate when 
he is unable to obtain time to speak during the stage of amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13.  86 Cong. Rec. 1883, 76th Cong. 2d Sess. See also 91 Cong. Rec. 
        5149, 79th Cong. 1st Sess., May 26, 1945.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Frank] Crowther [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Crowther 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. [Lindsay C.] Warren [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Warren: Mr. Chairman, I hope that the present occupant of 
    the chair, with the long experience he has had in presiding over 
    the Committee of the Whole, will now come to the conclusion that 
    the motion offered by the gentleman from New York is out of order.
        The motion for the Committee to rise and strike out the 
    enacting clause is one of the highest preferential motions that can 
    be offered in this body. We have seen the time fixed for the 
    closing of the debate on this particular amendment. The gentleman 
    from New York [Mr. Crowther] had full opportunity to get 
    recognition, or to ask for recognition, within the time fixed by 
    the Committee itself for closing debate. In 9 cases out of 10, when 
    this motion is offered, it is done for a frivolous purpose, and 
    such a high motion, privileged as it is, should not be offered for 
    this purpose; and I hope the Chair, of his own accord, will rule it 
    out of order. . . .

        The Chairman: The Chair appreciates the fundamental proposition 
    involved in the point of order raised by the gentleman from North 
    Carolina [Mr. Warren]. Undoubtedly, under a strict construction of 
    the rules of the House, the motion that the Committee rise and 
    report the bill back to the House with the recommendation that the 
    enacting clause be stricken out is a motion of high order and 
    should not be resorted to as a frivolous motion. The Chair, 
    however, cannot blot out of his memory 17 years of service in the 
    House in which, almost without exception, so far as the Chair 
    knows, Members of both parties on both sides of the aisle have 
    resorted to the motion when, because of a limitation of debate, 
    they were unable to get time. In the particular instance the 
    gentleman

[[Page 3368]]

    from New York [Mr. Crowther], the ranking minority member on the 
    committee, who is opposed to the bill, sought to get time and the 
    Chair had committed himself and the debate was limited. The Chair 
    certainly does not think this would be an appropriate time to 
    depart from the universal custom of the House, and the Chair, 
    therefore, overrules the point of order and recognizes the 
    gentleman from New York [Mr. Crowther].

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Member making the motion must on 
request qualify as being opposed to the bill.

Sec. 12.9 Debate on a paragraph of a bill having been exhausted in the 
    Committee of the Whole, it is in order, to secure time for debate, 
    to move that the Committee rise and report the bill back to the 
    House with the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken 
    out if the proponent of the motion is opposed to the bill.

    On Mar. 13, 1942,(14) during consideration of the 
agriculture appropriations bill, 1943, Chairman Robert Ramspeck, of 
Georgia, overruled a point of order to the effect that a Member cannot 
be recognized on a motion to strike out the enacting clause if the 
intent in offering the motion is merely to obtain time for debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 88 Cong. Rec. 2439, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Andrew J.] May [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. May 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 Kentucky is recognized for 5 
    minutes in support of his motion.
        Mr. May: When I am through talking at the end of 5 minutes, of 
    course, I expect to withdraw this motion, or if that permission is 
    refused me I expect the House to vote it down.
        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Missouri will state the point 
    of order.
        Mr. May: Mr. Chairman, I have not yielded for a point of order.
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order 
    that under the unanimous-consent agreement all time for debate has 
    expired and the gentleman cannot be recognized on a motion to 
    strike out the enacting clause . . . offered merely to secure time 
    for debate.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Kentucky desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. May: Yes, Mr. Chairman. . . . I stated that I offered the 
    motion to strike out the enacting clause, but that I expected at 
    the end of my remarks to withdraw it, or if permission was not

[[Page 3369]]

    granted me to withdraw it, that I expected the Committee would vote 
    it down. I did not ask them to vote it down. I said I would 
    exercise a right which I have under the rules of the House to ask 
    to withdraw a motion.
        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, a further 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Michigan will state his 
    further point of order.
        Mr. Hoffman: The gentleman from Kentucky has not said that he 
    was opposed to the bill.
        The Chairman: Is the gentleman from Kentucky opposed to the 
    bill?
        Mr. May: I am in favor of the two amendments, and I am in favor 
    of all the reductions that have been made in these appropriations.
        The Chairman: The gentleman has not answered the Chair's 
    question. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
        Mr. May: Does the Chairman mean the entire bill?
        The Chairman: Yes.
        Mr. May: I am opposed to the bill in its present form.
        The Chairman: The gentleman qualifies.
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: If the Chair will indulge me further, 
    we are now operating under a special order of the Committee of the 
    Whole under which debate was closed at the end of an hour. The 
    gentleman now proposes to violate the special order and concedes 
    that is his purpose by announcing that, at the close of his 
    remarks, he will withdraw the motion. But the gentleman is 
    obviously out of order even had he not made that admission, as no 
    one seriously offers a motion to strike out the enacting clause of 
    a bill of this character and the Chair should take judicial notice 
    of that self-evident fact.
        The proposal of the motion at this time also violates another 
    rule of the House--a universal rule of debate in every 
    parliamentary body in the world--that the committee shall have the 
    right to close debate.
        The proposal of my good friend the gentleman from Kentucky with 
    whom I have served for many years and for whom I have the highest 
    regard, is all the more flagrant in view of the fact that he could 
    have secured time when the order was made, but made no effort to do 
    so.
        Nothing could be more unfair and more conducive of disorder or 
    more at variance with parliamentary equity than the proposal to 
    disrupt the program agreed upon by order of the Committee of the 
    Whole.
        The gentleman is not entitled to recognition on such a patent 
    subterfuge.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Kentucky qualifies. The point 
    of order is overruled.

Sec. 12.10 The practice of offering motions to strike out the enacting 
    clause of a bill merely to obtain time for debate has been 
    criticized as an invasion of the right of the Committee of the 
    Whole to close debate.

    On Feb. 26, 1940,(15) during consideration of H.R. 8641, 
a supple
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 86 Cong. Rec. 2017-19, 76th Cong. 3d Sess. See 88 Cong. Rec. 2439, 
        2441, 2442, 77th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 13, 1942, for other 
        statements by Mr. Cannon on this subject.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3370]]

mental appropriations bill, Mr. Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, stated 
his objections to the use of the motion to strike out the enacting 
clause to obtain time for debate.

        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: . . . One practice, however, has grown 
    up, and is being resorted to with increasing frequency of late, 
    which, if continued, will require some change, either in the rules 
    themselves or preferably through the decision of some able and 
    experienced chairman. It is the unwarranted practice of using, on 
    every occasion and any occasion, the motion to strike out the 
    enacting clause for the purpose of obtaining the floor for debate. 
    Of late, there is rarely an instance in which a consent agreement 
    is secured to limit debate in the Committee of the Whole but what 
    some Member nullifies the agreement and disregards the established 
    rules of debate by moving to strike out the enacting clause. The 
    Member could have asked to be included at the time debate was 
    agreed on and have had his quota of time in regular order, but he 
    waits until all time has expired and the Committee has closed 
    debate, as is its right, and then disrupts the proceedings by again 
    opening the question to debate in disregard of the understanding to 
    which all interested Members on both sides of the aisle have 
    agreed, or by vitiating the right of those in charge of the bill to 
    close debate. Such misuse of the motion is unwarranted and is in 
    bad taste and verges on bad faith. If my warm, personal friend from 
    New York will indulge me by permitting me to use his recent motion 
    as an example, in answer to my point of order, he said he had made 
    the motion in good faith. . . .
        Mr. [Karl E.] Mundt [of South Dakota]: Mr. Chairman, will the 
    gentleman yield?
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: I yield to the gentleman from South 
    Dakota.
        Mr. Mundt: Will the gentleman advise me, a new Member of the 
    House, what other course a Member may take to get access to the 
    floor if a situation arises such as occurred last Friday, when 
    debate was ruthlessly closed and no time was permitted, except 
    about 34 minutes out of the day, for Members other than committee 
    members to introduce amendments? What other recourse does a Member 
    have except to offer such a motion?
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: That would not give a Member an 
    opportunity to introduce an amendment, it would merely give him 5 
    minutes to interfere with the orderly program of the House.
        Mr. Mundt: It would give him 5 minutes to present the viewpoint 
    of his constituents.
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: If the rules permitted every Member of 
    the House time in which to present the views of his constituents, 
    we would never be able to dispose of the business of the House in 
    an ordinary session. Gentlemen may extend their remarks, and in 
    full, on any bill under consideration and still keep within 
    legitimate procedure. . . .
        The right of the House to close debate is indispensable. 
    Without it, debate would proceed endlessly. And the

[[Page 3371]]

    right of the Committee or the proponent to close debate is 
    axiomatic. To interfere with either right is disorderly and should 
    be held by the Chair. . . .
        . . . Whenever the motion [recommending that the enacting 
    clause be stricken] is offered it should raise in the mind of the 
    Chair and of the Members of the Committee the question: ``What is 
    the purpose of the gentleman in offering the motion; is the motion 
    proposed for the purpose of discontinuing consideration of the 
    bill, or is it offered for the purpose of securing time and 
    disrupting the order of debate?'' And when obviously offered for 
    the latter purpose it should never be recognized.

Qualification to Oppose Motion

Sec. 12.11 To obtain recognition to oppose a motion to strike out the 
    enacting clause, a Member must qualify by stating that he is 
    opposed to the motion.

    On July 20, 1951,(16) during consideration of H.R. 3871, 
amendments to the Defense Production Act of 1950, Chairman Wilbur D. 
Mills, of Arkansas, stated the qualifications necessary for a Member 
seeking recognition to oppose a motion to strike out the enacting 
clause.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 97 Cong. Rec. 8539, 82d Cong. 1st Sess. See 95 Cong. Rec. 5531, 
        81st Cong. 1st Sess., May 3, 1949, for another example of this 
        principle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles W.] Vursell [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Vursell 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. [Clare E.] Hoffman of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, I rise in 
    opposition to the motion.
        The Chairman: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
        Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    rise in opposition to the motion.
        The Chairman: The Chair would have to hold that he had already 
    recognized the gentleman from Michigan. . . .
        Mr. McCormack: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. McCormack: The point is that the gentleman from Michigan, 
    on at least two occasions, has made the same motion. . . .
        Furthermore, the gentleman from Michigan has not stated that he 
    is, in fact, opposed to the motion offered by the gentleman from 
    Illinois.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Michigan now qualify as 
    being in opposition to the motion offered by the gentleman from 
    Illinois?
        Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: I certainly do.
        Mr. McCormack: Under those circumstances, I do not seek 
    recognition.

Recognition of Opponent

Sec. 12.12 In recognizing a Member in the Committee of the

[[Page 3372]]

    Whole in opposition to a motion to strike out the enacting clause, 
    the Chair extends such recognition on the basis of the Member's 
    opposition to the motion, and the Member's position on an amendment 
    pending when the motion is offered is not determinative.

    On Nov. 29, 1945,(17) during consideration of H. R. 
4805, the first defense appropriations bill, 1946, Chairman R. Ewing 
Thomason, of Texas, indicated that the Chair would not anticipate the 
argument a Member might make when he seeks recognition to debate a 
motion to strike the enacting clause.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 91 Cong. Rec. 11204, 11206, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Albert J.] Engel of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

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

        The Chairman: Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
        Mr. Engel of Michigan: I am, Mr. Chairman, in its present form.
        The Chairman: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
        Mr. Engel of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, in speaking against this 
    appropriation I want it distinctly understood that I am not opposed 
    to flood control. . . .
        Mr. [Clifton A.] Woodrum of Virginia: Mr. Chairman, I am 
    opposed to the motion offered by the gentleman from Michigan, and I 
    ask recognition.
        Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.

        Mr. Tarver: Mr. Chairman, the technical motion to strike out 
    the enacting clause of course entitles its proponent to 5 minutes 
    and its opponent to 5 minutes, but if the gentleman from Virginia 
    is recognized the entire 10 minutes will be consumed in argument 
    against the amendment which is now pending, while other members of 
    the committee are limited to a minute and a half each. At least 
    half of that 10 minutes, 5 minutes, ought to be given to the 
    proponents of the amendment.
        The Chairman: The Chair cannot anticipate what the gentleman's 
    argument will be. Besides, the gentleman from Virginia has said he 
    is opposed to the motion offered by the gentleman from Michigan.
        Mr. Tarver: He is opposed to the motion and also to the 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
    minutes.

Recognizing Committee Member as Opponent

Sec. 12.13 In recognizing a Member in opposition to a motion that the 
    Committee of the Whole rise and report a bill

[[Page 3373]]

    back to the House with the recommendation that the enacting clause 
    be stricken, the Chair extends preference to a member of the 
    committee handling the bill.

    On Mar. 1, 1950,(18) during consideration of H.R. 4846, 
relating to the National Science Foundation, Chairman Clark W. 
Thompson, of Texas, indicated that a member of the committee handling 
the bill is extended preference to oppose a motion to strike the 
enacting clause.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 96 Cong. Rec. 2597, 2598, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

        Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: . . . Now to save time, I ask 
    unanimous consent to withdraw my motion.
        Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, I object, 
    and claim time in opposition to the motion.
        Mr. [Carl] Hinshaw [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I rise in 
    opposition to the motion.
        Mr. [Oren] Harris [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Harris: This is a preferential motion to strike out the 
    enacting clause, and I believe a committee member is entitled to 
    recognition.
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct. The Chair recognizes 
    the gentleman from California [Mr. Hinshaw].

Recognizing Member of Opposition Party

Sec. 12.14 When no member of the committee from which a bill is 
    reported seeks recognition in opposition to a motion to strike the 
    enacting clause, the Chair recognizes a member of a political party 
    other than that of the proponent of the motion.

    On Aug. 2, 1955,(19) during consideration of H.R. 7718, 
authorizing the Capital Transit Company to surrender its franchise, 
Chairman Aime J. Forand, of Rhode Island, recognized a member from the 
Democratic Party, Elijah L. Forrester, of Georgia, to speak in 
opposition to a motion to strike the enacting clause. The Member who 
offered the motion, Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, and the Member who 
sought but was denied recognition, Donald W. Nicholson, of 
Massachusetts, were Republicans. No member of the committee which 
reported the bill sought recognition to oppose the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 101 Cong. Rec. 12997, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, I offer a motion.

[[Page 3374]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

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

    After Mr. Hoffman spoke in support of his motion and asked 
unanimous consent to withdraw his motion, the following proceedings 
occurred:

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I object, and I rise 
    in opposition to the preferential motion.
        Mr. Forrester rose and Mr. Nicholson rose.
        The Chairman: For what purpose does the gentleman from Georgia 
    rise?
        Mr. Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a point of order. 
    Two of us were seeking recognition here.
        The Chairman: The Chair is inclined to be fair. One Member on 
    the Republican side had just spoken and therefore the Chair 
    considered the gentleman on the other side of the aisle was 
    entitled to recognition.
        Mr. Nicholson: I am glad the Chairman is willing to be fair.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Forrester] is 
    recognized.

Speaker as Opponent

Sec. 12.15 The Speaker took the floor in opposition to a motion to 
    strike out the enacting clause of a bill.

    On Mar. 4, 1952,(20) during consideration of H.R. 5904, 
the National Security Training Corps Act, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of 
Texas, took the floor to debate a motion to strike the enacting clause 
of a bill. Speaker Rayburn opposed the motion on the ground that it 
would ultimately result in recommittal of the bill to committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 98 Cong. Rec. 1829, 1830, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (1) The Clerk will report the motion 
    of the gentleman from Massachusetts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. [William H.] Bates of Massachusetts moves that the 
        Committee on now rise and report the bill back to the House 
        with the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken 
        out. . . .
            [After debate in favor of the motion]

        Mr. Rayburn: Mr. Chairman, I trust that you will not think I am 
    speaking out of turn because I am trying to bring you the counsel 
    of a very old friend. . . .
        How many years of study have we had on this subject? I think I 
    appointed Mr. Cliff Woodrum, of Virginia, some years ago to begin 
    the study of this matter. The present Committee on Armed Services 
    has taken thousands of pages of testimony and heard everybody pro 
    and con who wanted to be heard. Why send this back for further 
    study? Do we not have the fortitude, do we not have the courage to 
    meet the issue today? Now is the time to meet this issue, because 
    probably we shall never have an opportunity this year or maybe in 
    several years to come.

[[Page 3375]]

        Strike the enacting clause out. Of course, as the gentleman 
    from Massachusetts said, it is a parliamentary move to get back 
    into the House of Representatives and then to make a motion to 
    recommit. '
        Are we not willing, do we not have judgment enough, do we doubt 
    our ability to pass on amendments and pass on the fundamental 
    issues here presented? If we are not ready today, when will we be 
    ready? . . .
        So let us vote down the motion in committee. Let us proceed in 
    an orderly way and try to amend this bill. Let us not escape our 
    responsibility, and that is what we would be doing, and whether it 
    is amended or not, when it is adopted and the final outcome is 
    before us, then is the time for men of judgment, men of reason, men 
    of capacity to vote on this bill and not until that time.
        The Chairman: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Bates].
        Mr. [Carl] Vinson [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, on that I demand 
    tellers.
        Tellers were ordered, and the Chairman appointed as tellers Mr. 
    Kilday and Mr. Bates of Massachusetts.
        The Committee divided; and the tellers reported that there 
    were--ayes 167, noes 196.
        So the motion was rejected.

Effect of Recognizing Objection to Withdrawal of Motion

Sec. 12.16 Recognition of a Member to object to a unanimous consent 
    request for the withdrawal of a motion in the Committee of the 
    Whole to strike out the enacting clause does not extend recognition 
    to speak in opposition to the motion.

    On Mar. 1, 1950,(2) during consideration of H.R. 4846, 
regarding the National Science Foundation, Chairman Clark W. Thompson, 
of Texas, ruled on the effect of extending recognition to object to a 
unanimous-consent request to withdraw a motion to strike the enacting 
clause.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 96 Cong. Rec. 2597, 2598, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

        Mr. Hoffman: . . . Now, to save time, I ask unanimous consent 
    to withdraw my motion.
        Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, I object, 
    and claim time in opposition to the motion.
        Mr. [Carl] Hinshaw [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I rise in 
    opposition to the motion.
        Mr. [Oren] Harris [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Harris: This is a preferential motion to strike out the 
    enacting

[[Page 3376]]

    clause, and I believe a committee member is entitled to 
    recognition.
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct. The Chair recognizes 
    the gentleman from California [Mr. Hinshaw].
        Mr. Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Case of South Dakota: The gentleman from South Dakota was 
    recognized, was he not?
        The Chairman: The gentleman was recognized by the Chair to make 
    an objection, but not to speak.