[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 5, Chapters 18 - 20]
[Chapter 19. The Committee of the Whole]
[D. Consideration and Debate]
[Â§ 15. Generally]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 3391-3405]
 
                               CHAPTER 19
 
                       The Committee of the Whole
 
                      D. CONSIDERATION AND DEBATE
 
Sec. 15. Generally


    This division takes up the general rules relating to consideration 
and debate in the Committee of the Whole.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5203-5256 and 8 Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. Sec. 2548-2595 for earlier rulings. See also Ch. 29, 
        infra, for further discussion of particular rules on 
        consideration and debate in the Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When the House issues an order for the consideration of a 
particular bill and the manner in which it is to be considered, it 
absolutely binds the Committee of the Whole because the Committee does 
not possess authority to modify such an order (6) or to set 
aside a rule of procedure prescribed by the House.(7) 
Consequently, the Committee of the Whole may not consider a different 
bill after the House has agreed to a motion to go into the Committee to 
consider
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 4712, 4713; 7 Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. 786; and 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 2321, 2322.
 7. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4713
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3392]]

a particular revenue or appropriation bill.(8) Neither the 
Chairman nor the Committee may entertain requests to alter such 
orders.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4734.
 9. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 2550-2552.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the rare instances when the House does not designate business to 
be considered in the Committee of the Whole, business may be taken up 
in regular order, or in such order as the Committee may 
determine.(10)
    In the absence of a rule to the contrary, the practice governing 
debate in the House is followed in the Committee of the 
Whole.(11) Since 1841, general debate by a Member has been 
limited in the Committee to no more than one hour,(12) any 
portion of which may be yielded to another (13) who in turn 
may yield to a third with the consent of the Member originally holding 
the floor.(14) Of course, if the first Member retains 
control of the floor, but yields to a second Member for a question, it 
is the first Member who would subsequently yield to a third. On the 
other hand, where a bill is being considered under a typical special 
order providing that time be controlled by the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the committee reporting the bill, the first Member 
may yield a block of time to a second Member, in which case the second 
Member may yield to a third while remaining on his feet, and permission 
of the first Member is not necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 Rule XXIII clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 869 (1979). See 4 
        Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4729, for a discussion of the origin of 
        this rule.
11. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2553.
12. Note to Rule XXIII clause 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. 870 
        (1979).
13. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2553.
14. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2553.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following the close of general debate by order of the House any 
Member is allowed five minutes to explain any amendment he may offer 
after which the Member who first obtains the floor is allowed five 
minutes to oppose it.(15) A Member proposing an amendment 
may, by unanimous consent, offer an amendment to such amendment during 
the five minutes allotted him under the rule but may not thereby secure 
additional time for debate.(16) Following five minutes of 
debate on an amendment and five minutes in opposition, a Member may 
obtain five minutes for debate by offering the pro forma amendment ``to 
strike the last word'' where an actual amendment is not contemplated; 
(17) but a Member who
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Rule XXIII clause 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. 870 (1979).
16. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2562.
17. Note to Rule XXIII clause 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. 873 
        (1979); 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5778. See Sec. Sec. 15.9, 
        15.10, infra, which relate to speaking twice on an amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3393]]

has occupied five minutes on a pro forma amendment may not lengthen his 
time by making another pro forma amendment.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Note to Rule XXIII clause 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. 873 
        (1979); 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5222; and 8 Cannon's 
        Precedents Sec. 2560.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Only the Chairman may recognize Members for debate.(19) 
When time for debate under the five-minute rule is limited in Committee 
of the Whole without provision for its control, the Chairman divides 
the time, where practicable, between those favoring and those opposing 
the proposition,(1) or among all Members indicating a desire 
to speak. Nonetheless, on one occasion, when no one claimed the floor 
in opposition after a speech in favor of an amendment under the five-
minute rule, the Chairman recognized another Member favoring the 
amendment.(2) In recognizing for debate on an appeal in the 
Committee of the Whole the Chairman alternates between those favoring 
and those opposing.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5003.
 1. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2558. See also Sec. 16.6, infra.
 2. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2557.
 3. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3455. See also Sec. 15.13, infra, 
        relating to time and scope of debate on appeal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A Member recognized in the Committee of the Whole to debate an 
amendment under the five-minute rule may yield to another Member while 
remaining on his feet, but may not yield designated amounts of time to 
another Member.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Sec. 15.5, infra. See 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5035-5037.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee of the Whole by majority vote may close debate upon 
any section or paragraph or amendments thereto anytime after reading 
thereof has been completed and debate thereon under the five-minute 
rule has commenced. A1though agreement to the motion to close debate 
does not preclude further amendment, it does preclude further debate on 
those amendments.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Rule XXIII clause 6, House Rules and Manual Sec. 874 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The motion to close debate is not in order until debate has 
begun,(6) which means after one speech, however brief; 
(7) the motion may be made before expiration of the full 
five minutes.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Sec. 15.12, infra; note to Rule XXIII clause 6, House Rules and 
        Manual Sec. 874 (1979).
 7. 5 Hind's Precedents Sec. 5226; 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2573.
 8. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2573.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The House, as well as the Committee of the Whole, may close the 
five-minute debate after it has

[[Page 3394]]

begun although it rarely exercises this right.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Note to Rule XXIII clause 6, House Rules and Manual Sec. 874 
        (1979); 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 5229, 
        5231.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consideration of Unfinished Business

Sec. 15.1 Where the Committee of the Whole rises before the time for 
    debate expires, a limitation of a certain number of minutes (rather 
    than by the clock) having been imposed under the five-minute rule, 
    debate continues when the Committees resume its deliberations.

    On June 16, 1948,(10) during consideration of H.R. 6401, 
the Selective Service Act of 1948, Chairman Francis H. Case, of South 
Dakota, indicated that where time for debate has been fixed on an 
amendment in the Committee of the Whole and the Committee rises before 
the time expires, debate continues when the Committee resumes its 
deliberations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 94 Cong. Rec. 8521, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Walter G.] Andrews of New York: Mr. Chairman, in view of 
    the fact that two or three Members who have time are not here, I 
    move that the Committee do now rise.
        The Chairman: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from New York [Mr. Andrews].
        Mr. [George A.] Smathers [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I would 
    like to be heard on that.
        The Chairman: That is not a debatable motion. It is always 
    within the discretion of the gentleman handling the bill to move 
    that the Committee rise.
        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Marcantonio: Mr. Chairman, under the arrangement entered 
    into limiting debate on this amendment, will the Members who were 
    scheduled to be recognized be recognized when the Committee resumes 
    its deliberations?
        The Chairman: They will be recognized, if the Committee should 
    vote to rise, when the Committee meets again.
        Mr. Andrews of New York: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Andrews of New York: My understanding is that all those 
    gentlemen whose names are on the list will be recognized 
    immediately tomorrow.
        The Chairman: The statement of the gentleman from New York is 
    correct.

Sec. 15.2 A question as to the future day when the Committee will 
    continue the consideration of a bill is for the Speaker and the 
    House to decide and not the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole.

[[Page 3395]]

    On Apr. 26, 1948,(11) during consideration of H.R. 2245, 
to repeal the tax on oleomargarine, Chairman Leslie C. Arends, of 
Illinois, declined to rule on the time a particular bill would again be 
considered in the Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 94 Cong. Rec. 4873, 80th 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. August H. Andresen [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. August H. Andresen: Mr. Chairman, I understand that the 
    Committee will rise at 4 o'clock. It is also my understanding of 
    the rules that this Committee should meet tomorrow in order to have 
    continuous consideration of the pending legislation.
        I would like to have a ruling of the Chair as to whether or not 
    the rules provide that a day may intervene so that this legislation 
    may be taken up on Wednesday.
        The Chairman: The Chair may say that is a matter for the 
    Speaker of the House and the House itself to determine. It is not 
    something within the jurisdiction of the Chair to decide.

Debate on Point of Order

Sec. 15.3 Debate on a point of order raised in the Committee of the 
    Whole is within the discretion of the Chairman and must be confined 
    to the point of order.

    On Apr. 13, 1951,(12) during consideration of S. 1, 1951 
amendments to the Universal Military Training and Service Act, Chairman 
Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, stated the rule governing debate on a point 
of order raised in Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 97 Cong. Rec. 3909, 3910, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Antoni N.] Sadlak [of Connecticut]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the amendment, but the 
    Chair will state that all time for debate has been exhausted.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr.Sadlak:
            Page 26, following the amendment offered by Mr. Walter, 
        insert the following: ``Any citizen of a foreign country who. . 
        . .''

        Mr. [Carl] Vinson [of Georgia]: I make the point of order 
    against the amendment that it is not germane to the pending bill.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Connecticut desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Sadlak: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Sadlak: Mr. Chairman, how much time will be allotted to me 
    for that purpose?
        The Chairman: That is in the discretion of the Chair. The 
    gentleman's argument must be confined to the point of order.

Yielding in Debate by Floor Managers

Sec. 15.4 Where general debate on a bill is under control of the

[[Page 3396]]

    chairman and ranking minority member of a committee, they may yield 
    as many times as they desire to whom they desire.

    On July 11, 1946,(13) during consideration of Senate 
Joint Resolution 138, the British loan bill, Chairman William M. 
Whittington, of Mississippi, made reference to the power to yield where 
general debate on a bill is under the control of the chairman and 
ranking minority member of a committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 92 Cong. Rec. 8694, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Miss [Jessie] Sumner of Illinois: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry?
        The Chairman: The gentlewoman will state it.
        Miss Sumner of Illinois: The gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Hays] 
    and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Patman] have spoken two or three 
    times on this bill during general debate. Is that permissible under 
    the rules of the House?
        The Chairman: The time is within the control of the chairman 
    and the ranking minority member of the committee.
        Miss Sumner of Illinois: May the same person speak two or three 
    times in general debate on the same bill?
        The Chairman: General debate on this bill has been fixed at 16 
    hours, the time equally divided between the chairman and the 
    ranking minority member of the committee. They may yield, once, 
    twice, or as many times as they desire to whom they desire.

Yielding by Member Recognized to Debate

Sec. 15.5 A Member recognized in the Committee of the Whole to debate 
    an amendment may yield to another Member if he so desires while 
    remaining on his feet.

    On June 22, 1945(14) during consideration of House Joint 
Resolution 101, extending the Price Control and Stabilization Act, 
Chairman Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, stated the rule authorizing a 
Member recognized in Committee to debate an amendment to yield to 
another Member. At the time, the Committee was operating under an 
agreement limiting debate on amendments to one hour.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 91 Cong. Rec. 6548, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
15. Id. at p. 6543.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana 
    [Mr. Harness].
        Mr. [Forest A.] Harness of Indiana: Mr. Chairman, I am in favor 
    of this amendment because I believe it will force a more common-
    sense administration of this law. The distinguished gentleman from 
    Michigan [Mr. Crawford] has just made a most forceful argument in 
    favor of the amendment, and I yield to him for his further 
    observations.

[[Page 3397]]

        Mr. [Fred L.] Crawford: Continuing, Mr. Vinson said:

            That condition has been met for war production, and that 
        condition will be met for reconversion peace production.

        Mr. [Wright] Patman [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Patman: Mr. Chairman, I am not objecting to the gentleman's 
    talking, but I want to know what the policy will be. Can one Member 
    yield another Member this time?
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Harness] was 
    recognized and he yielded to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
    Crawford], which is certainly permissible.
        Mr. Patman: That is all right with me, Mr. Chairman, but I just 
    wanted to know what the policy is.
        The Chairman: Any Member can yield to another Member, or 
    decline to yield, as he desires.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Mr. Crawford had consumed his allotted time 
for debate; when Mr. Harness was recognized immediately thereafter, he 
yielded to Mr. Crawford to complete his remarks. Mr. Harness stood 
while Mr. Crawford continued.

Yielding by Member Recognized for Pro Forma Amendment

Sec. 15.6 A Member recognized to strike out the last word under the 
    five-minute rule may yield to another Member.

    On Mar. 21, 1960,(16) during consideration of amendments 
under the five-minute rule, Chairman Francis E. Walter, of 
Pennsylvania, made reference to the authority of a Member recognized to 
strike out the last word to yield to another Member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 106 Cong. Rec. 6162, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: The time of the gentleman from New York has 
    expired.
        Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent to proceed for 5 additional minutes.
        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman of Michigan: I object, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. [Sidney R.J] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I move to 
    strike out the last word.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
    Celler].
        Mr. Celler: I thank the gentleman.
        Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: Just a minute. I make a point of order 
    on this.
        Mr. Celler: Mr. Chairman, deprivation of the State's ballot is 
    wrong.
        Mr. Yates: Mr. Chairman, I am entitled to yield to the 
    gentleman from New York.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Illinois was recognized, and 
    he yielded to the gentleman from New York. The gentleman from New 
    York is continuing in order.

[[Page 3398]]

Extension of Time Under Hour Rule

Sec. 15.7 Where general debate in the Committee of the Whole is 
    proceeding under the hour rule, a request that a Member's hour be 
    extended is not in order.

    On Mar. 24, 1947,(17) during consideration under the 
hour rule of H.R. 2700, providing appropriations for the Department of 
Labor and the Federal Security Agency, Chairman Clifford R. Hope, of 
Kansas, declined to permit extension of time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 93 Cong. Rec. 2476, 80th Cong. 1 st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John J.] Rooney [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I yield the 
    balance of my time to the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. 
    Norton].
        Mrs. [Mary T.] Norton: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 
    proceed for 10 additional minutes.
        The Chairman: The Chair regrets that the request is not in 
    order at this time, as the time is under the control of the 
    gentleman from New York and is restricted under the rules of the 
    House.
        Mrs. Norton: Is it not possible to get that additional time by 
    unanimous consent? I have known it to be done in many, many other 
    cases.
        The Chairman: That would be true under the 5-minute rule, but 
    we are proceeding now in general debate, and under the rules of the 
    House that is not permitted.

Speaking More Than Once in General Debate

Sec. 15.8 Members may speak in general debate on a bill as many times 
    as they are yielded to by those in control of the debate.

    On July 11, 1946,(18) during consideration of Senate 
Joint Resolution 138, the British loan bill, Chairman William M. 
Whittington, of Mississippi, indicated that Members may speak as 
frequently in debate as they are yielded to by those controlling the 
floor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 92 Cong. Rec. 8694, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Miss [Jessie] Sumner of Illinois: May the same person speak two 
    or three times in general debate on the same bill?
        The Chairman: General debate on this bill has been fixed at 16 
    hours, the time equally divided between the chairman and the 
    ranking minority member of the committee. They may yield, once, 
    twice, or as many times as they desire to whom they desire.

Speaking More Than Once on Amendment

Sec. 15.9 While a Member may not speak twice on the same amendment, he 
    may speak in opposition to a pending amendment and subsequently 
    offer a pro forma amendment and debate that.

[[Page 3399]]

    On June 30, 1955,(19) during consideration of S. 2090, 
to amend the Mutual Security Act of 1954, Chairman Jere Cooper, of 
Tennessee, stated that a Member may in effect speak twice on the same 
amendment by opposing a pending amendment and subsequently offering a 
pro forma amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 101 Cong. Rec. 9614, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James P.] Richards [of South Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    move to strike out the last word. . . .
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman 
    yield?
        Mr. Richards: I cannot yield just now.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order. Is the 
    gentleman from South Carolina speaking twice on this? The gentleman 
    has offered an amendment to the amendment.
        Mr. Richards: I will yield to the gentleman in just a moment. I 
    have a few more minutes of time, and I would like to get an 
    agreement on time.
        Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this 
    amendment and all amendments thereto, close in 10 minutes.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from South Carolina?
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, do I 
    understand that the gentleman from South Carolina has offered an 
    amendment to this amendment; and, if so, has it been read?
        The Chairman: The gentleman from South Carolina offered an 
    amendment to the amendment by moving to strike out the last word, 
    which is a very common practice in the House.
        Mr. Gross: I thought the gentleman had moved to strike out the 
    last word on a previous occasion.
        The Chairman: No, the gentleman from South Carolina rose in 
    opposition to the pending amendment and now has the floor on a pro 
    forma amendment, which is entirely in order.

Sec. 15.10 Although a Member may not speak twice on the same amendment 
    he may rise in opposition to a pro forma amendment after debating a 
    substantive amendment, and accomplish that result.

    On July 20, 1951,(20) during consideration of H.R. 3871, 
amendments to the Defense Production Act of 1950, Chairman Wilbur D. 
Mills, of Arkansas, stated that a Member may in effect speak twice on 
the same amendment by opposing a pro forma amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 97 Cong. Rec. 8566, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jesse P.] Wolcott [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Wolcott: Mr. Chairman, is it in order for a Member to talk 
    twice on the same amendment?
        The Chairman: A Member may rise in opposition to a pro forma 
    amend

[[Page 3400]]

    ment and accomplish that result, if he desires to do so.

Time Limitation on Pro Forma Amendment

Sec. 15.11 A Member recognized for five minutes on a pro forma 
    amendment may not automatically extend his time by offering a 
    substantive amendment, because the Chair seeks to alternate 
    recognition and is constrained by other factors in his recognition.

    On July 28, 1965,(1) during consideration of H.R. 77, 
repealing section 14(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, Chairman 
Leo W. O'Brien, of New York, refused to entertain an amendment sought 
to be offered by a Member who was speaking on a pro forma amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 111 Cong. Rec. 18631, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William H.] Ayres [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I move to 
    strike out the last word.
        Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for an 
    additional 5 minutes.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Ohio?
        There was no objection.
        Mr. Ayres: Mr. Chairman, I am most gratified at the assurance 
    of Chairman Powell that a complete committee investigation of 
    National Labor Relations Board election procedures will be held. 
    Mr. Powell's House floor statement to me, just prior to a vote on 
    the repeal of section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act, means that we 
    can now delve into a part of labor relations that could have great 
    impact on the establishment of a good climate for labor industry 
    relations. . . .
        In order to have a cooling-off period, Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: The Chair has not recognized the gentleman for 
    that purpose.
        Does any other Member offer an amendment at this time?
        Mrs. [Edith S.] Green of Oregon: Mr. Chairman, I should like to 
    offer an amendment.
        The Chairman: The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Oregon 
    [Mrs. Green].

Timeliness of Motion to Close Debate

Sec. 15.12 A motion to close debate on an amendment in the Committee of 
    the Whole under the five-minute rule is not in order until there 
    has been some debate on such amendment.

    On Mar. 25, 1947,(2) during consideration of H.R. 2700, 
the Department of Labor and the Federal Security Agency appropria
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 93 Cong. Rec. 2557, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3401]]

tion bill of 1948, Chairman Clifford R. Hope, of Kansas, ruled on the 
timeliness of a motion to close debate on an amendment.

        Mr. [John J.] Rooney [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered hy Mr. Rooney: On page 2, line 6, strike 
        out ``$819,500'' and insert ``$1,190,000.''

        Mr. H. Carl Andersen [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that debate on this amendment close in 10 
    minutes.
        Mr. Rooney: I object, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. [Frank B.] Keefe [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I move that 
    all debate on the pending amendment and all amendments thereto 
    close in 10 minutes.
        Mr. [Jere] Cooper [of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the motion is not in order now, until some 
    debate is had on the amendment.
        The Chairman: The point of order is well taken. The motion is 
    not in order at this time, since there has been no debate on the 
    amendment.

Debate on Appeal of Chair's Ruling

Sec. 15.13 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, Calendar Wednesday,(3) during 
consideration of H.R. 4453, the Federal Fair Employment Practice Act, 
Chairman Francis E. Walter, of Pennsylvania, ruled on the time and 
scope of debate on an appeal in the Committee of the Whole. The Member 
in control of time, Mr. Adam C. Powell, of New  York, had yielded one 
minute to Mr. Howard W. Smith, of Virginia, for purposes of debate 
only. Mr. Smith, however, attempted to offer a motion to rise during 
that time. Following Mr. Powell's timely point of order, which the 
Chair sustained, Mr. Smith then sought recognition to offer the motion 
to rise on his own time, but the Chair advised him that he had no time, 
as time was in the control of Mr. Powell and Mr. Samuel K. McConnell, 
Jr., of Pennsylvania. After Mr. Hugo S. Sims, Jr., of South Carolina, 
had been yielded four minutes of time for debate, Mr. Sims then in turn 
yielded to Mr. Smith, who again tried to offer a motion to rise. The 
following proceedings then took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 96 Cong. Rec. 2178, 2179, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: The gentleman from South Carolina was yielded 4 
    minutes time for debate. He in turn yielded to the gentleman from 
    Virginia but he cannot yield to the gentleman from Virginia for the 
    purpose of offering that motion (i.e., the motion that the 
    Committee rise).
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: Mr. Chairman, I respectfully appeal from 
    the decision of the Chair.

[[Page 3402]]

        The Chairman: The question is, Shall the decision of the Chair 
    be sustained?
        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Chairman, is that appeal debatable?
        The Chairman: Under the 5-minute rule; yes.
        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Chairman, I would like to be heard.
        The Chairman: The gentleman is recognized. The Chair will say 
    that the discussion is now on the appeal.
        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Chairman, this is the first time that I ever 
    knew Members of the House to have to edge in in this way to be 
    recognized for a motion for the Committee to rise.
        In my opinion that motion is privileged, and any Member has a 
    right to make it at any time.
        I do not propose to discuss this monstrosity at the present 
    time. I will do that under the 5-minute rule. But I secured this 
    time to support the appeal of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
    Smith).
        In the first place, we are going to be here all night, if this 
    goes on.
        I am sure that Joe Stalin heard that applause, because you are 
    driving through here a piece of communistic legislation that Stalin 
    promulgated in 1920, and you could not pass it in a single county 
    in the United States by a popular vote, as was shown in California.
        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Marcantonio: I make the point of order that the gentleman 
    from Mississippi must direct his remarks to the question of the 
    appeal from the ruling of the Chair.
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct. . . .
        The question is, Shall the decision of the Chair be the 
    judgment of the Committee?
        The question was taken; and the Chair being in doubt, the 
    Committee divided and there were--ayes 123, noes, 77.
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: Mr. Chairman, I demand tellers.
        Tellers were ordered, and the Chairman appointed as tellers Mr. 
    Powell and Mr. Smith of Virginia.
        The Committee again divided; and the tellers reported that 
    there were-- ayes 148, noes 83.
        So the decision of the Chair stands as the judgment of the 
    Committee.

Debate by Speaker

Sec. 15.14 The Speaker sometimes takes the floor in debate in the 
    Committee of the Whole.

    As an example, on June 30, 1939,(4) during consideration 
of House Joint Resolution 306, the Neutrality Act of 1939, Speaker 
William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, took the floor in debate in the 
Committee of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Cong. Rec. 8509, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bankhead: Mr. Chairman, I have listened with very great 
    interest

[[Page 3403]]

    to the remarks just made by the ranking minority member of the 
    Committee on Foreign Affairs, in which he seemed to conclude his 
    argument with the proposition that his opposition to the pending 
    bill would keep the United States of America out of war. . . .
        After due consideration, one of the major reasons that I am 
    supporting the proposed bill in contradiction to the conclusions of 
    the gentleman from New York is that I honestly and fervently 
    believe that in adopting this law we will be making a great gesture 
    to keep the United States of America out of any world war. . . .
        I want to say to you, after a very careful and, I trust, 
    prudent observation and investigation of this whole question of 
    neutrality, that we made a supreme and colossal mistake in policy, 
    in national policy, if you please, when we departed a few years ago 
    from the time-honored and time-tested constitutional principle of 
    leaving the management of our foreign and diplomatic affairs in the 
    hands of the President of the United States and of the State 
    Department of this country. [Applause.] it had been lodged there 
    securely and definitely for 145 years. Every incursion that we have 
    attempted to make by these various neutrality laws in the last 3 or 
    4 years does but serve to teach us that it is absolutely impossible 
    for the genius even of the Congress of the United States to enact a 
    statute that contains real neutrality. . . .
        It is my earnest belief, and I assert it, after undertaking to 
    give to this proposition the sincerest and most earnest 
    consideration of which I am capable, that if we pass this law 
    tonight and lift this inhibition against the shipment of arms and 
    ammunition to those who need them-who need them, as the gentleman 
    from Texas pointed out--to defend their liberties, to defend their 
    homes, and to defend their principles of self-government and 
    personal liberty--and this is not a fight for the munitions makers, 
    although that argument has been made--I feel that the safest and 
    surest way for us to proceed is to remove the shackles and 
    impediments now resting on the President of the United States and 
    the Secretary of State and give them absolute freedom of action, as 
    the founders of our Constitution conceived they should have, to 
    govern from day to day and from hour to hour the incidents that may 
    occur in this storm-tossed and tempestuous world.

Sec. 15.15 The Speaker offered an amendment to a bill in the Committee 
    of the Whole and participated in debate thereon.

    On Apr. 27, 1956,(5) during consideration of H.R. 10660, 
the Federal Highway and Revenue Acts of 1956, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of 
Texas, offered and debated an amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 102 Cong. Rec. 7212, 84th Cong. 2d Sess. See 101 Cong. Rec. 3204, 
        3205, 84th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 18, 1955, in which Speaker Sam 
        Rayburn [Tex.], offered an amendment proposing an additional 
        House building.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rayburn: Mr. Chairman, offer an amendment.

[[Page 3404]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Rayburn:
            On page 14, line 20, strike out ``Committee on Public Works 
        of the.''
            On line 23, strike out ``on Public Works.''
            On line 24, after the word ``Representatives'', insert ``to 
        which referred.'' . . .
            On page 30, strike out lines 12 through 18 and insert 
        ``furnish to the Congress such information, books, records, 
        correspondence, memoranda, papers, and documents which are in 
        their possession relating to the construction of the Interstate 
        Sys
        tem. . . .''

        Mr. Rayburn: Mr. Chairman, this amendment has been very 
    carefully drawn--I hope. Its purpose is not to rob anybody of any 
    authority which they think they should have. But a short while ago 
    there began to grow up in the House the practice of including 
    provisions in bills saying that the departments should report to 
    committees of Congress. The only thing this amendment does is to 
    provide that they shall report to the Congress. Then whoever may be 
    Speaker of the House will refer them to the proper place. I just 
    feel that it would be a little more dignified if these matters were 
    referred to 435 Members instead of 25 or 30. . . .
        Mr. Rayburn: I might say also that before I offered this 
    amendment I conferred with the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
    Martin], the ex-Speaker, and it is agreeable to him.
        Mr. [Jere] Cooper [of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, will the 
    gentleman yield?
        Mr. Rayburn: I yield.
        Mr. Cooper: I merely want to point out that in title II of the 
    pending bill it is provided that reports are to be made to the 
    Congress.
        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Texas [Mr. Rayburn].
        The amendment was agreed to.

Use of Exhibits in Debate

Sec. 15.16 Where objection is made to the display of exhibits in debate 
    in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair puts the question to the 
    Committee for its decision.

    On Aug. 5, 1949,(6) during consideration of H.R. 1758, 
amending the Natural Gas Act, Chairman Howard W. Smith, of Virginia, 
put to the Committee of the Whole a question regarding display of a 
chart after objection had been raised to such display.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 95 Cong. Rec. 10859, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Oren] Harris [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike 
    out the last word, and ask unanimous consent to proceed for five 
    additional minutes, in order that I may help to clear up the 
    situation here about which so many people have come to me and 
    asked, and in order that I may show you on a chart just what this 
    legislation will do. . . .
        Mr. [Eugene D.] O'Sullivan [of Nebraska]: Mr. Chairman, a point 
    of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.

[[Page 3405]]

        Mr. O'Sullivan: Mr. Chairman, is it in order for an exhibit to 
    be presented to the Committee of the Whole or to the House of 
    Representatives? As I read the rules it is not in order to do so, 
    unless the permission of the Committee of the Whole or of the House 
    is first obtained.
        The Chairman: If the gentleman from Nebraska objects to the use 
    of the exhibit, the Chair will put the question to the Committee of 
    the Whole. Does the gentleman object?
        Mr. O'Sullivan: I object, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The question is: Shall the use of the exhibit be 
    permitted?
        The question was agreed to.