[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 5, Chapters 18 - 20]
[Chapter 19. The Committee of the Whole]
[C. Motion to Recommend Striking Enacting Clause]
[Â§ 13. Debate]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 3376-3385]
 
                               CHAPTER 19
 
                       The Committee of the Whole
 
            C. MOTION TO RECOMMEND STRIKING ENACTING CLAUSE
 
Sec. 13. Debate

    Debate on a motion to rise and report with the recommendation that 
the enacting clause be stricken out is limited to five minutes in favor 
thereof and five minutes in opposition.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Sec. 13.1, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Where debate on an amendment and all amendments thereto has been 
fixed by a limitation of time for debate to a certain number of 
minutes, as distinguished from a limitation of debate on a bill and all 
amendments or a limitation to a time certain by the clock, the time 
used in debating the preferential motion to rise and report with the 
recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken out (five minutes 
for, five minutes against) does not come out of the 
limitation.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4.  See Sec. 13.5, infra.
            See also Sec. Sec. 12.8-12.10, supra, for precedents which 
        relate to offering this motion to secure debate time, and 
        Sec. 15, infra, for precedents which relate to consideration 
        and debate in the Committee generally.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On the other hand, where time for debate on an amendment is limited 
to a time certain, or where a time limitation is applied to debate on 
the bill itself and all amendments thereto, the 10 minutes permitted 
for debate on such preferential motion comes out of the time remaining 
under the limitation and reduces the time which may be allocated to 
Members wishing to speak.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See Sec. Sec. 13.6 and 13.7, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Although no time would be permitted for 
debate on the preferential motion after arrival of the time designated 
in an agreement limiting debate on a bill and all amendments 
thereto,(6) a full 10 minutes of debate on the preferential 
motion would be allowed as long as that much time remained under such 
an agreement. This amount of time would be available to the proponent 
and opponent of the preferential motion notwithstanding an allocation 
of less than five minutes' time to each Member who had sought
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. See Sec. 13.7, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3377]]

time to debate the bill and amendments under that agreement.

Duration

Sec. 13.1 Debate on a preferential motion that the Committee rise and 
    report with the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken 
    is limited to 10 minutes, five minutes to be apportioned among 
    those in favor and five minutes to be apportioned among those in 
    opposition.

    On May 6, 1970,(7) during consideration of H.R. 17123, 
the military procurement authorization for 1970, Chairman Daniel D. 
Rostenkowski of Illinois, ruled as to the time for debate on a 
preferential motion that the Committee of the Whole rise and report a 
bill to the House with a recommendation that the enacting clause be 
stricken.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 116 Cong. Rec. 14445, 14451, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. See 98 Cong. Rec. 
        1829, 1830, 82d Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 4, 1952, for another 
        example of this principle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas P.] O'Neill [Jr.] of Massachusetts: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer a preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. O'Neill of Massachusetts 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. [L. Mendel] Rivers [of South Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.

        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Rivers: How much time is allocated to the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts and do I have any time during which to discuss the 
    motion?
        The Chairman: Under the preferential motion the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Rivers: Do I get 5 minutes to speak in opposition to the 
    motion?
        The Chairman: The gentleman from South Carolina will be 
    recognized for 5 minutes to speak in opposition to the motion.
        Mr. [Sam M.] Gibbons [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Gibbons: Mr. Chairman, I just want to find out what my 
    rights are in this matter. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
    O'Neill) has submitted a preferential motion, and has received 5 
    minutes time to discuss it. Now, do all the opponents and 
    proponents on that motion have 5 minutes?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the opponents to the 
    motion are entitled to 5 minutes.
        Mr. Gibbons: They are entitled to 5 minutes each?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the opponents are 
    entitled to only one 5 minutes of rebuttal.

Sec. 13.2 On a motion to rise and report a bill with the rec

[[Page 3378]]

    ommendation that the enacting clause be stricken out in the 
    Committee of the Whole, two five-minute speeches are permitted, and 
    the Chair does not recognize extensions of this time.

    On Sept. 29, 1966,(8) during consideration of H.R. 
15111, the Economic Opportunity Act Amendments of 1966, Chairman Daniel 
J. Flood, of Pennsylvania, refused to entertain a unanimous-consent 
request for an extension of time on a motion to rise and report a bill 
with the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken out.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 112 Cong. Rec. 24442, 89th Cong. 2d Sess. See 107 Cong. Rec. 20298, 
        87th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 19, 1961; and 97 Cong. Rec. 8371, 
        8372, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., July 18, 1951, for other examples of 
        this principle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

        Mr. [William H.] Ayres [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent that the gentleman, in view of the interest in this, be 
    given 5 additional minutes.
        The Chairman: On a preferential motion, for which the proponent 
    has 5 minutes and for which one opponent has 5 minutes, at which 
    time the motion is put to the Committee, it is not in order.
        The gentleman from New York [Mr. Fino] is recognized for 5 
    minutes.

Sec. 13.3 On a motion to rise and report a bill with the recommendation 
    that the enacting clause be stricken out in the Committee of the 
    Whole, only two five-minute speeches may be permitted 
    notwithstanding the fact that the second Member, recognized in 
    opposition to the motion, spoke in favor thereof.

    On Mar. 18, 1960,(9) Chairman Francis E. Walter, of 
Pennsylvania, refused to recognize a Member to speak in opposition to a 
motion to strike out the enacting clause after two five-minute speeches 
had been made, although the second speaker, who had been recognized in 
opposition to the motion, spoke in favor of it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 106 Cong. Rec. 6026, 6027, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. [Paul C.] Jones of Missouri 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. Jones of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, this motion is made in all 
    sincerity. . . .
        Mr. [William M.] Colmer [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I rise 
    in opposition to the pro forma amendment.

[[Page 3379]]

        Mr. Chairman, of course I am not in opposition, but I wanted to 
    point out to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Jones] who has made a 
    very clear and concise statement about the confusion that we find 
    ourselves in that in these 7 days of debate we have not reached 
    consideration of the bill that the Committee on the Judiciary 
    reported out. We have been laboring over amendments that have been 
    offered, which were never considered or voted upon by the Committee 
    on the Judiciary. . . .
        The motion of the gentleman from Missouri should prevail.
        The Chairman: The time of the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. 
    Colmer] has expired.
        Mr. [Clark E.] Hoffman of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order. I seek recognition in opposition to the amendment on the 
    ground that the gentleman from Mississippi did not talk against the 
    motion.
        The Chairman: The 5 minutes for the preferential motion and the 
    5 minutes against the motion have expired.
        The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from 
    Missouri [Mr. Jones].
        [The motion was rejected.]

Limitation of Time for Debate on Amendments; Effects

Sec. 13.4 Despite a limitation of time for debate on an amendment and 
    all amendments thereto to a time certain and the subsequent 
    allocation of less than five minutes' time to each Member, a full 
    10 minutes of debate, five for and five against, may still be 
    demanded on a preferential motion that the Committee rise and 
    report with the recommendation that the enacting clause be 
    stricken.

    On May 6, 1970,(10) during consideration of H.R. 17123, 
the military procurement authorization, 1970, Chairman Daniel D. 
Rostenkowski, of Illinois, indicated that 10 minutes of debate on a 
preferential motion that the Committee of the Whole rise and report a 
bill with the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken may 
be demanded despite a limitation of time for debate on an amendment and 
all amendments thereto to a time certain and the subsequent allocation 
of less than five minutes to each Member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 116 Cong. Rec. 14445, 14451, 14452, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [L. Mendel] Rivers [of South Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    move that all debate on the Reid of New York amendment and all 
    amendments thereto close at 5 o'clock.
        The question was taken.
        Mr. Rivers: Mr. Chairman, I demand tellers.
        Tellers were ordered, and the Chairman appointed as tellers Mr. 
    Rivers and Mr. Burton of California.
        The Committee divided, and the tellers reported that there 
    were--ayes 147, noes 82.

[[Page 3380]]

        So the motion was agreed to.
        The Chairman: The Chair has noted the names of Members standing 
    and seeking recognition under the limitation of time.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Eckhardt). . 
    . .(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Note: Where a limitation on debate to a time certain is agreed to 
        under the five-minute rule, the Chair usually notes the names 
        of those Members who indicate their desire to speak by 
        standing, and equally divides the time between those Members, 
        although the division of time and recognition is largely in the 
        discretion of the Chair. See Ch. 29 Sec. Sec. 22, 79, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After debate by several Members under the allocated time the 
following proceedings occurred:

        Mr. [Thomas P.] O'Neill [Jr.] of Massachusetts: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer a preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. O'Neill of Massachusetts 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. Rivers: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Rivers: How much time is allocated to the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts and do I have any time during which to discuss the 
    motion?

        The Chairman: Under the preferential motion the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Rivers: Do I get 5 minutes to speak in opposition to the 
    motion?
        The Chairman: The gentleman from South Carolina will be 
    recognized for 5 minutes to speak in opposition to the motion.
        Mr. O'Neill of Massachusetts: Mr. Chairman, I do this in 
    protest to cutting off the debate. Under this procedure we are 
    allocated only 45 seconds. It takes more time than 45 seconds to 
    say ``Hello.''
        Mr. [Sam M.] Gibbons [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Gibbons: Mr. Chairman, I just want to find out what my 
    rights are in this matter. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
    O'Neill) has submitted a preferential motion, and has received 5 
    minutes' time to discuss it. Now, do all the opponents and 
    proponents on that motion have 5 minutes?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the opponents to the 
    motion are entitled to 5 minutes.
        Mr. Gibbons: They are entitled to 5 minutes each?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the opponents are 
    entitled to only one 5 minutes of rebuttal.

Sec. 13.5 Where the Committee has limited debate on an amendment to a 
    certain number of minutes, the time consumed on a motion to strike 
    the enacting clause is not taken from the time fixed for debate on 
    the amendment previously offered.

[[Page 3381]]

    On Apr. 28, 1953,(12) during consideration of H.R. 4828, 
the Department of the Interior appropriations bill, 1954, Chairman J. 
Harry McGregor, of Ohio, stated that the time consumed on a motion to 
strike the enacting clause is not taken from the time fixed for debate 
on a previously offered amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 99 Cong. Rec. 4125-28, 83d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Ben F.] Jensen [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent that all debate on this amendment, and all amendments 
    thereto, close in 1 hour.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Iowa?
        There was no objection.
        The Chairman: The Chair advises each Member will be allowed 
    approximately 3 minutes. . . .
        Mr. [Clark 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. . . .

    Following debate on the motion the following proceedings occurred:

        The Chairman: . . . All time has expired.
        Mr. [Herman P.] Eberharter [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Eberharter: The time on the preferential motion offered by 
    the gentleman from Michigan is not taken out of the time already 
    allotted for debate on this subject?
        The Chairman: That is correct.

Sec. 13.6 Where time for debate on an amendment is limited to a time 
    certain, the 10 minutes permitted for debate on a preferential 
    motion that the Committee rise and report with the recommendation 
    that the enacting clause be stricken comes out of the time 
    remaining under the limitation and reduces the time which may be 
    allocated to Members wishing to speak.

    On May 6, 1970,(13) the Committee of the Whole agreed to 
a motion that all debate on a pending amendment and amendments thereto 
close at a time certain, 5 o'clock. During debate under the limitation, 
Mr. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr., of Massachusetts, offered the preferential 
motion that the Committee rise and report back the bill with the 
recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken. Chairman Daniel D. 
Rostenkowski, of Illinois, stated in re

[[Page 3382]]

sponse to a parliamentary inquiry that regardless of the allocation by 
the Chair of time remaining under the limitation, the motion could be 
debated for 10 minutes, five in favor of and five against the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 116 Cong. Rec. 14452, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Chairman then answered a further parliamentary inquiry on the 
charging of the time on the motion to the time remaining under the 
limitation:

        Mr. [Robert L.] Leggett [of California]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Leggett: Mr. Chairman, considering the fact that a time 
    limitation has now been set in relation to today at 5 o'clock, does 
    the time of the debate on the motion that we have already heard, 
    come out of the time on the amendments?
        The Chairman: The time will come out of the time of those who 
    are participating in debate.
        Mr. Leggett: Mr. Chairman, a further parliamentary inquiry. If 
    we chose to rise right now and come back tomorrow, then would there 
    be any time limitation on debate?
        The Chairman: There would be no further debate.
        The time was set at 5 o'clock.
        The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts (Mr. O'Neill).
        The motion was rejected.

Limitation of Time for Debate on Bill and Amendments; Effect

Sec. 13.7 A preferential motion that the Committee of the Whole rise 
    with the recommendation that the en-acting clause be stricken out 
    is not debatable after all time for debate on the bill and all 
    amendments thereto has expired.

    On July 9, 1965,(14) during consideration of H.R. 6400, 
the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Chairman Richard Bolling, of Missouri, 
refused to permit a preferential motion to be made because the time to 
conclude all debate on the bill and amendments had arrived.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 111 Cong. Rec. 16280, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: All time has expired.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I was on the 
    list, but the time has expired. I have a preferential motion.
        The Chairman: All debate is concluded even with a preferential 
    motion. The agreement was that all debate would conclude at 7:20 
    p.m. The hour is now 7:20 p.m. There is no further time.
        The question is on the committee amendment, as amended.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Where debate on an amendment and all 
amendments thereto has been

[[Page 3383]]

fixed by a limitation of time for debate, and not a limitation to a 
time certain by the clock, the time used in debating the preferential 
motion to strike the enacting clause (five minutes for, five minutes 
against) does not come out of the limitation; but where the limitation 
of debate is on the bill and all amendments, time consumed on the 
preferential motion comes out of the remaining time in either case.

Scope of Debate

Sec. 13.8 On a motion that the Committee of the Whole rise and report 
    back to the House with the recommendation that the enacting clause 
    be stricken out, the merits of the entire bill are open to debate.

    On May 25, 1967,(15) during consideration of S. 1432, 
amending the Universal Military Training and Service Act, Chairman 
Robert L. F. Sikes, of Florida, stated that the entire bill is open for 
debate on a motion that the Committee of the Whole rise and report a 
bill back to the House with the recommendation that the enacting clause 
be stricken out.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 113 Cong. Rec. 14145-48, 90th Cong. 1st Sess. See 101 Cong. Rec. 
        5774, 84th Cong. 1st Sess., May 5, 1955; and 81 Cong. Rec. 373, 
        75th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 22, 1937, for other examples of this 
        principle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [L. Mendel] Rivers [of South Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    move that all debate on the pending amendment and all amendments 
    thereto close in 15 minutes.
        The Chairman: The question is on the motion of the gentleman 
    from South Carolina.
        The motion was agreed to. . . .
        Mr. [William F.] Ryan [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Ryan 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 Chair: The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
    minutes in support of his motion.
        Mr. Ryan: Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I rise to 
    support the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Rumsfeld], and to echo the 
    sentiments of Mr. Ottinger, of New York.
        Mr. [Craig] Hosmer [of California]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Hosmer: The gentleman has made a motion that the Committee 
    rise, and he was recognized to speak in support of his motion. He 
    now states that he is speaking in support of the amendment that is 
    before the House. My point of order is that his text is out of 
    order. It is not germane.
        The Chairman: The Chair is constrained to state that this 
    motion would open the entire field of the bill,

[[Page 3384]]

    and therefore the Chair holds that the gentleman is proceeding in 
    order.

Sec. 13.9 Debate on a motion to rise and report with the recommendation 
    that the enacting clause be stricken is not limited to the motion 
    but may go to the entire bill under consideration.

    On Nov. 15, 1967,(16) during consideration of S. 2388, 
the Economic Opportunity Act Amendments of 1967, Chairman John J. 
Rooney, of New York, ruled on the effect on debate of the preferential 
motion to rise and report a bill with a recommendation that the 
enacting clause be stricken.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 113 Cong. Rec. 32679, 90th Cong. 1st Sess. See, for example, 97 
        Cong. Rec. 8476, 8477, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., July 19, 1951; 95 
        Cong. Rec. 4402, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 12, 1949; 94 Cong. 
        Rec. 8679, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., June 17, 1948; and 93 Cong. 
        Rec. 4087, 80th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 25, 1947, for other 
        illustrations of this principle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Mr. Goodell 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 New York [Mr. Goodell] is 
    recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. [John E.] Moss [Jr., of California]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    gentleman is not proceeding in order--he is not discussing the 
    preferential motion.
        Mr. Goodell: I am leading up to that.
        Mr. Moss: Mr. Chairman, I ask that the gentleman be instructed 
    to proceed in order.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the preferential motion 
    opens up the whole bill for discussion, and the gentleman is in 
    order.

Sec. 13.10 Debate on a preferential motion that the Committee rise with 
    the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken may go to 
    any part of the bill and is not confined to the proposition pending 
    when the motion is offered.

    On June 18, 1970,(17) during consideration of H.R. 
17070, the Postal Reform Act of 1970, Chairman Charles M. Price, of 
Illinois, stated that debate on a motion that the Committee of the 
Whole rise with the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken 
may go to any part of the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 116 Cong. Rec. 20440, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Fletcher] Thompson of Georgia: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Thompson of Georgia moves that the Committee do now 
        rise and

[[Page 3385]]

        report the bill back to the House with the recommendation that 
        the enacting clause be stricken out.

        Mr. Thompson of Georgia: Mr. Chairman, I regret having to take 
    this maneuver in order to obtain this time. I certainly hope that 
    the Members will not vote in favor of this particular motion for 
    the House to rise and to strike the enacting clause.
        The subject we are considering today is something that does 
    require extensive debate. It is simply a question as to whether or 
    not we are going to have a fragmented country or a uniform country.
        The gentleman from Florida quoted the phrase, ``equal pay for 
    equal work.'' This certainly is the question, equal pay for equal 
    work.
        Mr. [Edward J.] Derwinski [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, a point 
    of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Derwinski: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the 
    gentleman is not directing his remarks to his amendment.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Georgia has offered a motion 
    to strike out the enacting clause. Therefore, the gentleman may 
    speak on the whole bill.

Pro Forma Amendments During Pendency of Motion to Rise and Recommend 
    Striking Enacting Clause

Sec. 13.11 Debate on a motion to rise and report with the 
    recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken out is limited 
    to those speaking in favor thereof or in opposition thereto, and no 
    pro forma amendments are recognized while such motion is pending.

    On May 5, 1955,(18) during consideration of H.R. 12, 
providing price supports for basic commodities, Chairman Robert L. F. 
Sikes, of Florida, indicated that debate on a motion to strike the 
enacting clause is limited to those in favor or in opposition, with no 
pro forma amendments being permitted during the pendency of such a 
motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 101 Cong. Rec. 5774, 84th Cong. 1st Sess. See 103 Cong. Rec. 13385, 
        13386, 85th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 1, 1957, for another example 
        of this principle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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. . . .
        For what purpose does the gentleman from New York [Mr. Anfuso] 
    rise?
        Mr. [Victor L.] Anfuso: To strike out the last word.
        The Chairman: The gentleman cannot be recognized for that 
    purpose; there is a preferential motion pending.

[[Page 3386]]