[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 5, Chapters 18 - 20]
[Chapter 19. The Committee of the Whole]
[D. Consideration and Debate]
[Â§ 16. Time Limitations]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 3405-3412]
 
                               CHAPTER 19
 
                       The Committee of the Whole
 
                      D. CONSIDERATION AND DEBATE
 
Sec. 16. Time Limitations

    Where five-minute debate has been limited to a certain number of 
minutes, and not to a time certain, the time consumed by reading 
amendments and quorum calls is not taken from that remaining for 
debate; but where debate has been limited to a time certain, time used 
on extraneous motions, quorum calls or votes comes out of the time 
remaining under the limitation and reduces the time that may be 
allocated to Members wishing to speak.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Sec. Sec. 16.2-16.6, infra. The Chair has stated that, where time 
        for debate on an amendment is limited to a time certain, the 
        time 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 such limitation. See Sec. 13.6, 
        supra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Computation of Time Limitations

Sec. 16.1 Where the Committee of the Whole fixes the time for debate on 
    an amendment at 20 minutes, such time is counted in minutes of 
    debate and not in minutes by the clock.

    On Feb. 8, 1950,(8) during consideration of H.R. 2945, 
to adjust postal rates, Chairman Chet Holifield, of California, 
indicated that the time period fixed for debate meant passage of time 
of debate as distinguished from passage of time on the clock.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 96 Cong. Rec. 1690, 1693, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas J.] Murray of Tennessee: Mr. Chairman, I move that 
    all debate on the committee substitute and all amendments thereto 
    close in 20 minutes.
        The Chairman: The question is on the motion.
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Sutton) there were--ayes 99, noes 76. . . .
        Mr. Murray of Tennessee: Mr. Chairman, how much more time 
    remains?
        The Chairman: There are 6 minutes remaining.

[[Page 3406]]

        Mr. [Donald W.] Nicholson [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    point of order. I raise the point of order that 20 minutes ago we 
    voted to close debate. The 20 minutes have gone.
        The Chairman: The Chair advises the gentleman that the 20 
    minutes for debate have not been used. The Chair will watch the 
    matter closely.

Sec. 16.2 Where time for debate is limited without reference to a time 
    certain, the time consumed by the reading of amendments is not 
    taken from that remaining for debate.

    On Oct. 3, 1969,(9) during consideration of H.R. 14000, 
the military procurement authorization for fiscal year 1970, Chairman 
Daniel D. Rostenkowski, of Illinois, stated that the time used to read 
amendments is not charged against a limitation of time in minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 115 Cong. Rec. 28459, 28460, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [L. Mendel] Rivers [of South Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    move that all debate on title V and all amendments thereto close in 
    15 minutes.
        The Chairman: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from South Carolina.
        The motion was agreed to.
        The Chairman: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana 
    (Mr. Dennis).
        Mr. [David W.] Dennis: Mr. Chairman, I will simply say that I 
    support my Democratic colleague from Indiana. This is one amendment 
    I am going to vote for. I cannot see any reason why we should not 
    study profits. That is all this asks us to do. We are not accusing 
    anybody of anything. We are studying profits, by the use of a 
    governmental organization to conduct that study, and I think the 
    people we represent, who pay the taxes, are for that, and I am for 
    it.
        Mr. [John B.] Anderson of Illinois: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    perfecting amendment to title V.
        The Clerk read as follows: . . .
        Mr. [Harold R.] Collier [of Illinois] (during the reading): Mr. 
    Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.

        Mr. Collier: Mr. Chairman, I would like to know whether the 
    reading of this amendment is charged against the limited time 
    allotment.
        The Chairman: It is not charged against the limited time.

Sec. 16.3 Time consumed by a quorum call does not come out of a 
    limitation of time for debate on a pending amendment and all 
    amendments thereto where that limitation specifies minutes of 
    debate rather than a time certain by the clock.

    On Nov. 9, 1971,(10) during consideration of H.R. 10729, 
to amend the Federal Insecticide,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 117 Cong. Rec. 40060, 40061, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3407]]

Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, Chairman William L. Hungate, of 
Missouri, indicated that time consumed on a quorum call would not be 
charged against a time limitation specifying minutes of debate.

        Mr. [William R.] Poage [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I move that 
    all debate on the Dow amendment in the nature of a substitute, the 
    Kyl substitute amendment, and all amendments thereto close in 20 
    minutes.
        The Chairman: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poage).
        The motion was agreed to.
        Mr. [John G.] Dow [of New York]: Mr. Chairman. I make the point 
    of order that a quorum is not present.
        The Chairman: The Chair will count.
        Mr. Dow: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Dow: Mr. Chairman, if there is a rollcall will this come 
    out of the time limitation?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state in response to the inquiry 
    of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Dow) that the motion that was 
    agreed to, that was offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poage) 
    was for 20 minutes of debate, and the Chair will advise the 
    gentleman from New York that there will be 20 minutes allotted for 
    debate.

Sec. 16.4 Where the Committee of the Whole agrees to a unanimous-
    consent request limiting debate on an amendment to a certain number 
    of minutes, the time consumed in two five-minute speeches on a 
    motion to rise and report a bill with the recommendation that the 
    enacting clause be stricken out is not taken from the time fixed 
    for debate on the previously offered amendment.

    On Oct. 17, 1945,(11) during consideration of H.R. 3615, 
the airport bill, Chairman Graham A. Barden, of North Carolina, stated 
that time consumed on the motion to rise and report a bill with the 
recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken out is not taken 
from the time fixed for debate on an amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 91 Cong. Rec. 9751, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Alfred L.] Bulwinkle: [of North Carolina]: 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 North Carolina?
        There was no objection.
        Mr. [Clarke E.] Hoffman [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Hoffman moves that the Committee rise and report the 
        bill back to the House with the recommenda

[[Page 3408]]

        tion that the enacting clause be stricken out.
            Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, a 
        parliamentary inquiry.

        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.

            Mr. McCormack: My understanding is that on the motion 
        offered by the gentleman from Michigan there may be 10 minutes 
        of debate, 5 minutes for and 5 minutes against, and that if the 
        motion is defeated the 10 minutes of debate on the amendment 
        still remain to be used. Is that correct?

        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.

Dividing Debate Time

Sec. 16.5 Where the Committee of the Whole has fixed the time for 
    debate on pending amendments, the Chair notes the names of the 
    Members seeking recognition and divides the time equally between 
    them.

    On Aug. 18, 1949,(12) during consideration of H.R. 5895, 
the Mutual Defense Assistance Act of 1949, Chairman Wilbur D. Mills, of 
Arkansas, noted the names of Members seeking recognition and divided 
the time equally among them after the Committee of the Whole fixed the 
time for debate on pending amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 95 Cong. Rec. 11760, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] Kee [of West Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that all debate on the pending amendments and all 
    amendments thereto close in l hour.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from West Virginia?
        There was no objection. . . .
        Mr. [Earl] Wilson of Indiana: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Wilson of Indiana: There were a certain number of us on our 
    feet when the unanimous-consent request was propounded. After the 
    time was limited, about twice as many people got on their feet to 
    be recognized.
        The Chairman: The Chair is endeavoring to ascertain those 
    Members who desire to speak, and has no disposition to violate any 
    rights of freedom of speech.
        Mr. Wilson of Indiana: Further pressing my point of order, is 
    it in order after the time is limited for others to get the time 
    that we have reserved for ourselves? I would like to object under 
    the present situation.
        The Chairman: Permit the Chair to answer the gentleman. If the 
    gentleman from Indiana will ascertain and indicate to the Chair the 
    names of the Members who were not standing at the time the 
    unanimous-consent request was agreed to, the gentleman will render 
    a great service to the Chair in determining how to answer the 
    gentleman.
        Mr. [Robert F.] Rich [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Rich: That is not the duty of the gentleman from Indiana. 
    That is the duty of the Clerk.

[[Page 3409]]

        The Chairman: The gentleman from Pennsylvania and the Chair 
    both understand that, but apparently all Members do not. The Chair 
    is endeavoring to do the best he can to ascertain those who desire 
    to speak under this limitation of time. Now permit the Chair to 
    ascertain that.
        Mr. [Clark E.] Hoffman of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: Will the Chair, with the assistance of 
    the Clerk, advise me how many Members have asked for time, and how 
    much time each Member will be allotted?
        The Chairman: Each of the Members whose names appear on the 
    list will be recognized for 2 minutes, there being 30 Members on 
    their feet at the time and debate having been limited to 1 hour

Sec. 16.6 Where debate on a bill and all amendments thereto is limited 
    to a time certain, the Chair may in his discretion choose to 
    disregard the five-minute rule and divide the available time 
    equally among Members wishing to offer an amendment and those 
    opposed thereto.

    On May 6, 1970,(13) during consideration of H.R. 17123, 
the military procurement authorization for fiscal year 1971, Chairman 
Daniel D. Rostenkowski, of Illinois, divided the time equally among 
Members wishing to offer amendments and those opposed to the 
amendments, debate having been limited to a time certain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 116 Cong. Rec. 14465, 14466, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [L. Mendel] Rivers [of South Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    move that all debate on the bill and all amendments to the bill 
    close at 7 o'clock.

        The Chairman: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from South Carolina.
        The motion was agreed to.
        Mr. [Glenn M.] Anderson of California: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Anderson of California:
            On page 2, preceding line 20, insert the following: Change 
        the period to a semicolon and add the following: ``and Provided 
        further, that the funds authorized herein for the construction 
        and conversion of naval vessels shall be equally distributed 
        between the Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf Coast shipyards unless 
        the President determines that another distribution will 
        maintain shipyards in each of the areas adequate to meet the 
        requirements of national defense.''

        The Chairman: The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
    minutes in support of the amendment.
        Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, will the 
    gentleman yield to me for a parliamentary inquiry?
        Mr. Anderson of California: Yes; if it is a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Stratton: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.

[[Page 3410]]

        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Stratton: Under the limitation of debate imposed by the 
    House, a moment ago, is there any restriction on those Members who 
    will be permitted to speak on amendments, either for or against, 
    between now and 7 o'clock?
        The Chairman: The Chair will endeavor to divide the time 
    equally among the proponents and the opponents of those who have 
    amendments.
        Mr. Stratton: I thank the Chair.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from California is recognized.

Effect of Expiration of Time

Sec. 16.7 Where the Committee of the Whole has agreed to close debate 
    on a title and all amendments thereto at a time certain (i.e., 8:20 
    p.m.) the Chair attempts to divide the time equitably among those 
    Members desiring recognition; but if all available time is 
    consumed, it may not be possible to recognize each Member on the 
    list and their right to speak may he lost.

    On Oct. 7, 1965,(14) during debate on S. 2084, the 
Highway Beautification Act of 1965, Chairman Phillip M. Landrum, of 
Georgia, stated that the right of a Member to speak was cut off when 
all time had been consumed by the first speaker.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 111 Cong. Rec. 26305, 26306, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John C.] Kluczynski [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I move 
    that all debate on title I and all amendments thereto close at 
    8:20. . . .
        The Chairman: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from Illinois.
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Gerald R. Ford) there were--ayes 121, noes 84.
        So the motion was agreed to.
        The Chairman: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida 
    [Mr. Cramer].
        Mr. [William C.] Cramer: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Cramer: On page 17, after line 19, 
        insert the following new subsection: . . .

        The Chairman: The time of the gentleman from Florida has 
    expired.
        The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Florida.
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Cramer) there were--ayes 73, noes 127.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I demand 
    tellers.
        Tellers were ordered, and the Chairman appointed as tellers Mr. 
    Wright and Mr. Gerald R. Ford.
        The Committee again divided, and the tellers reported that 
    there were--ayes 83, noes 142.
        So the amendment was rejected.
        Mr. [Thomas M.] Pelly [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state the parliamentary 
    inquiry.

[[Page 3411]]

        Mr. Pelly: Mr. Chairman, have I and those of us who are on our 
    feet entitled to 10 seconds lost that time to explain our 
    amendments?
        The Chairman: No, the gentleman is not correct in stating that 
    Members were entitled to 10 seconds. Before the first speaker in 
    behalf of the amendment had concluded, all time had expired. So the 
    gentleman is not entitled to 10 seconds.

Sec. 16.8 The Chair stated in response to a parliamentary inquiry that 
    where all debate on an amendment and all amendments thereto has 
    been limited to a time certain (i.e., 5 p.m. that day), and the 
    Committee of the Whole rises hefore that time without having 
    completed action on the amendments, no time would be considered as 
    remaining when the Committee, on a later day, again resumes 
    consideration of the amendments.

    On May 6, 1970,(15) during debate on H.R. 17123, the 
military procurement authorization for fiscal year 1971, Chairman 
Daniel D. Rostenkowski, of Illinois, indicated that no time would 
remain for debate on a subsequent day if the Committee rose before the 
hour designated (5 o'clock) for the closing of debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 116 Cong. Rec. 14452, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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.

Sec. 16.9 Where all time for debate on a portion of a bill has expired 
    under an agreement closing debate at a specified time, the Chair 
    still recognizes Members to offer amendments, but they are voted on 
    without debate.

    On Oct. 7, 1965,(16) during consideration of S. 2084, 
the Highway
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 111 Cong. Rec. 26300, 26306, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3412]]

Beautification Act of 1965, Chairman Phillip M. Landrum, of Georgia, 
stated that, following expiration of time under an agreement closing 
debate at a specified time, he would recognize Members to offer 
amendments but would not permit debate.

        Mr. [John C.] Kluczynski [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I move 
    that all debate on title I and all amendments thereto close at 
    8:20. . . .
        The Chairman: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from Illinois.
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Gerald R. Ford) there were--ayes 12], noes 84.
        So the motion was agreed to.
        The Chairman: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida 
    [Mr. Cramer].
        Mr. [William C.] Cramer: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Cramer: On page 17, after line 19, 
        insert the following new subsection:

        The Chairman: The time of the gentleman from Florida has 
    expired.
        The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Florida.
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Cramer) there were--ayes 73, noes 127.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I demand 
    tellers.
        Tellers were ordered, and the Chairman appointed as tellers Mr. 
    Wright and Mr. Gerald R. Ford.
        The Committee again divided, and the tellers reported that 
    there were--ayes 83, noes 142.
        So the amendment was rejected.
        Mr. [Thomas M.] Pelly [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state the parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Pelly: Mr. Chairman, have I and those of us who are on our 
    feet entitled to 10 seconds lost that time to explain our 
    amendments?
        The Chairman: No, the gentleman is not correct in stating that 
    Members were entitled to 10 seconds. Before the first speaker in 
    behalf of the amendment had concluded, all time had expired. So the 
    gentleman is not entitled to 10 seconds.
        Mr. [Richard H.] Ichord [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, a further 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state the parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. [Edmond] Edmondson [of Oklahoma]: Does that apply to 
    Members who have amendments at the desk and want to offer 
    amendments?
        The Chairman: Members can offer amendments. The amendment will 
    be read by the Clerk and the amendment will be voted upon. But 
    there will be no debate on the amendment.
        Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state the parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Halleck: I understood the limitation of time was for 10 
    minutes rather than for a fixed time.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Indiana is not correct in his 
    understanding. The motion to close debate was that debate close at 
    8:20 p.m.

[[Page 3413]]