[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 5, Chapters 18 - 20]
[Chapter 19. The Committee of the Whole]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 3243-3251]
 
                               CHAPTER 19
 
                       The Committee of the Whole


[[Page 3243]]



---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Commentary and editing by Thomas J. Nicola, J.D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. In General

    Sec. 1. Jurisdiction; House as in Committee of the Whole 
            Distinguished
    Sec. 2. Motions and Requests Generally
    Sec. 3. Remarks in the Congressional Record
    Sec. 4. Resolving Into Committee of the Whole

B. The Chairman

    Sec. 5. Speaker's Appointment of Chairman
    Sec. 6. Chairman's Role; Jurisdiction
    Sec. 7. --Limitations on the Chairman's Jurisdiction
    Sec. 8. --Rulings Relating to Amendments
    Sec. 9. --Appeals of Rulings

C. Motion to Recommend Striking Enacting Clause

   Sec. 10. Generally
   Sec. 11. When in Order
   Sec. 12. Procedures; Qualification to Offer or Oppose
   Sec. 13. Debate
   Sec. 14. Renewal of Motion

D. Consideration and Debate

   Sec. 15. Generally
   Sec. 16. Time Limitations
   Sec. 17. Calling Members to Order
   Sec. 18. Reading Papers

[[Page 3244]]

E. Points of Order

   Sec. 19. Generally
   Sec. 20. Timeliness

F. Rising of the Committee of the Whole

   Sec. 21. Generally
   Sec. 22. Motions to Rise
   Sec. 23. --When in Order
   Sec. 24. --Offering the Motion
   Sec. 25. --Proceedings Subsequent to Action on Motion
   Sec. 26. Resumption of Business After Committee Resumes Sitting

  





                          INDEX TO PRECEDENTS
                                     

Adjourn, motion to, Sec. 2.4
Amend, precedence of motion to, over motion to rise with 
    recommendation, Sec. Sec. 2.3, 23.14
Amendments considered in the Committee
    adoption of amendment in nature of substitute, effect of, on motion 
        to strike enacting clause, Sec. Sec. 11.6, 11.7
    ambiguity of amendment ruled on by Chairman, Sec. 8.5
    authority of Chairman to allocate debate time on amendments, 
        Sec. 8.11
    consistency of amendments ruled on by Chairman, Sec. Sec. 8.6-8.8
    constitutionality of proposed amendment ruled on by Chairman, 
        Sec. 8.10
    interpretation of, Sec. 8.4
    propriety of considering amendment identical to previously passed 
        bill, Sec. 8.9
Appeals from rulings of the Chairman
    debate on appeal, Sec. 9.6
    issue on appeal, Sec. 9.3
    power to overrule decision on appeal, Sec. 9.5
    propriety of appeal, Sec. Sec. 9.1, 9.2
    rulings as to support for teller vote, Sec. 9.4
    table, appeal as subject to motion to, Sec. 9.8
    teller vote, effect of refusal of, ruling on, Sec. 9.4
    timeliness of points of order, as to, Sec. 20.9
    vacating chair to put appeal, Sec. 9.7
Automatic call of House on motion to resolve into Committee, Sec. 4.9
Bills, motion to dispense with first reading of, Sec. 2.11
Calendar Wednesday, proceedings after rising of Committee on, Sec. 25.5
Calling Members to order for objectionable words in debate
    automatic resolution into Committee after Speaker's ruling, 
        Sec. 17.5

[[Page 3245]]

    expungement of words, Sec. 17.3
    rise of Committee to report objectionable words, Sec. 17.2
    scope of ruling by Speaker, Sec. 17.4
    seating of Member, Sec. 17.1
    withdrawal of demand for, Sec. 17.6
    withdrawal of objectionable words after Speaker's ruling, Sec. 17.7
Chairman, appeals of rulings by
    debate on appeal, Sec. 9.6
    issue to be voted on, Sec. 9.3
    power to overrule decision on appeal, Sec. 9.5
    propriety of appeal, Sec. Sec. 9.1, 9.2
    table, appeal as subject to motion to, Sec. 9.8
    teller vote, effect of refusal of, ruling on, Sec. 9.4
    vacating chair to put appeal, Sec. 9.7
Chairman, limits on jurisdiction of
    committee reports, sufficiency or legal effect of, Sec. Sec. 7.16, 
        7.17
    constitutional questions, Sec. Sec. 7.1-7.3
    executive session, sitting in, Sec. 7.18
    existing law, consistency of proposal with, Sec. 7.5
    House action, anticipating, Sec. Sec. 7.9-7.11
    hypothetical questions, Sec. Sec. 7.6-7.8
    merits of proposed legislation, Sec. 7.4
    Senate procedure, interpretation of, Sec. 7.19
    time limitation, rescinding, Sec. 7.12
    unfinished business, time to resume, Sec. Sec. 7.14, 7.15
    vote required in House, ruling as to, as prerogative of Speaker, 
        Sec. 7.13
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole
    generally, Sec. 5.1
    appeal of Chair's ruling, debate on, Sec. 15.13
    appreciation expressed to Chairman, Sec. 6.5
    Chairman pro tempore, Sec. 5.2
    constitutional questions, ruling on, Sec. Sec. 7.1-7.3
    debate, interruption by Chair of, Sec. 6.4
    debate on appeal of Chair's ruling, Sec. 15.13
    enacting clauses, time to offer motions relating to, 
        Sec. Sec. 11.1-11.3
    existing law, consistency of proposal with, Sec. 7.5
    House action, anticipating, Sec. Sec. 7.9-7.11
    interpretations of Senate procedure by, Sec. 7.19
    ``Madam Chairman,'' use of the term, Sec. 5.3
    point of order, ruling on points not in issue, Sec. 6.1
    recognition by, to oppose motion, Sec. Sec. 12.12-12.14
    rescinding time limitation, Sec. 7.12
    rulings to follow precedents, Sec. 6.2
    sitting in executive session, Sec. 7.18
Chairman pro tempore of the Committee, Sec. 5.2
Chairman, rulings on
    ambiguity of amendment, Sec. 8.5
    application or effect of proposed amendment, Sec. Sec. 8.1-8.3
    consistency of amendments, Sec. Sec. 8.6-8.8
    constitutionality of proposed amendment, Sec. 8.10
    debate time on amendments, authority to allocate, Sec. 8.11
    earlier rulings, clarification of, Sec. 6.3
    hypothetical questions, Sec. Sec. 7.6-7.8
    interpretation of amendment by, Sec. 8.4
    legal effect of committee reports, Sec. 7.16
    merits of proposed legislation, Sec. 7.4
    points of order not in issue, Sec. 6.1

[[Page 3246]]

    precedence, rulings to follow, Sec. 6.2
    propriety of considering amendment identical to adopted bill, 
        Sec. 8.9
    sufficiency of committee reports, Sec. 7.17
Close debate, timeliness of motion in Committee to, Sec. 15.12
Committee reports
    Chair's rulings on legal effect of, Sec. 7.16
    Chair's rulings on sufficiency of, Sec. 7.17
Congressional Record
    expungement of objectionable words in, Sec. 3.2
    extension and revision of remarks in, Sec. 3.1
Constitutional question, Chair's rulings on, Sec. Sec. 7.1-7.3
Constitutionality of proposed amendment, rulings by Chairman on, 
    Sec. 8.10
Debate and consideration in
    appeal of Chair's ruling, debate on, Sec. 15.13
    calling Members to order, generally, Sec. 17
    Chairman's authority to allocate debate time on amendment, 
        Sec. 8.11
    Chair's ruling, debate on appeal of, Sec. 15.13
    close debate, timeliness of motion to, Sec. 15.12
    enacting clauses, duration of debate on motion to strike, 
        Sec. Sec. 11.12, 13.1-13.3
    enacting clause, yielding time during debate on motion to strike, 
        Sec. 10.13
    exhibits, use in debate of, Sec. 15.16
    floor manager, yielding in debate by, Sec. 15.4
    hour rule, extension of time under, Sec. 15.7
    Member recognized for pro forma amendment. yielding by. Sec. 15.6
    Member recognized to debate, yielding by, Sec. 15.5
    motion to limit debate, effect of pendency of, Sec. Sec. 11.10, 
        11.11
    motion to rise offered during time for debate, Sec. 23.11
    offering motion to secure debate time, Sec. Sec. 12.8-12.10
    point of order, debate on, Sec. 15.3
    pro forma amendments during pendency of motion to rise and 
        recommend striking enacting clause, Sec. 13.10
    pro forma amendment, yielding by Member recognized for, Sec. 15.6
    rising of Committee, debate continuing after interruption for, 
        Sec. 26.1
    scope on motions relating to enacting clauses, Sec. Sec. 13.7-13.9
    Speaker, debate by, Sec. Sec. 15.14, 15.15
    speaking more than once in general debate, Sec. 15.8
    speaking more than once on amendment, Sec. Sec. 15.9, 15.10
    time, computation of limitation on, Sec. Sec. 16.1-16.4
    time, dividing debate, Sec. Sec. 16.5, 16.6
    time, effect of expiration of, Sec. Sec. 16.7-16.9
    time limitations on duration of debate, effect of, on motions 
        relating to enacting clauses, Sec. Sec. 13.4-13.6
    timeliness of motion to close debate, Sec. 15.12
    unfinished business, consideration of, Sec. Sec. 16.1, 15.2
    yielded time, offering motion to rise during, Sec. 24.2
    yielding by Member recognized for pro forma amendment, Sec. 15.6
    yielding by Member recognized to debate, Sec. 15.5
    yielding in debate by floor manager, Sec. 15.4

[[Page 3247]]

Discharge, resolving into Committee after motion to, Sec. 4.7
Division vote in Committee, offering motion to rise during, Sec. 23.11
Enacting clause, effect of House rejection of Committee recommendation 
    to strike, Sec. 10.9
Enacting clause, motion to recommend striking
    adoption of amendment, in nature of substitute, effect of, 
        Sec. Sec. 11.6, 11.7
    amendment of bill, renewal of motion after, Sec. Sec. 14.4, 14.6
    amendment, renewal of motion after rejection of, Sec. 14.5
    Chairman's vote on, Sec. 10.8
    closed rule, effect on qualification of, Sec. 12.6
    committee chairman as proponent, qualification of, Sec. 12.7
    debate, duration of, Sec. Sec. 11.12, 13.1-13.3
    debate, effect of pendency of motion to limit, Sec. Sec. 11.10, 
        11.11
    debate on, as affected by time limitations on debate on amendments, 
        Sec. Sec. 13.4-13.6
    debate, pro forma amendments during pendency of motion to rise and 
        recommend striking enacting clause, Sec. 13.10
    debate, scope of, Sec. Sec. 13.7-13.9
    debate time, offering motion to secure, Sec. Sec. 12.8-12.10
    debate, yielding time during, Sec. 10.13
    divisibility of motion, Sec. 10.5
    form of motion, Sec. Sec. 10.1-10.3
    House action on Committee recommendation to strike, Sec. 10.6
    motion to rise and recommend passage, after defeat of, Sec. 11.9
    motion to rise, strike the enacting clause, and recommit bill to 
        committee, Sec. Sec. 10.10-10.12
    previous question, after ordering of, Sec. 11.8
    privileged nature of motion, Sec. 10.4
    pro forma amendments offered during pendency of motion to rise and 
        recommend striking, Sec. 13.10
    qualification, effect of closed rule on, Sec. 12.6
    qualification of committee chairman as proponent, Sec. 12.7
    qualification of Speaker as opponent, Sec. 12.15
    qualification, presumptions as to proponent's, Sec. Sec. 12.4, 12.5
    qualification to offer motion, generally, Sec. Sec. 12.1-12.3
    qualification to oppose motion, Sec. 12.11
    recognition by Chair of committee member as opponent, Sec. 12.13
    recognition by Chair of member of opposition party, Sec. 12.14
    recognition by Chair of opponent, Sec. 12.12
    recommit, precedence of motion to, Sec. 11.14
    rejection of Committee recommendation to strike, effect of, 
        Sec. 10.9
    renewal of motion, generally, Sec. Sec. 14.1-14.3
    renewal of motion after amendment, Sec. 14.4
    renewal of motion after amendment of bill, Sec. Sec. 14.4, 14.6
    renewal of motion after rejection of amendment, Sec. 14.5
    renewal of motion, effect of withdrawal of prior motion on, 
        Sec. 14.7
    renewal of motion on another legislative day, Sec. 14.8
    resolution of disapproval, resolving clauses in, Sec. 10.7

[[Page 3248]]

    resolutions, general applicability of motion to, Sec. 10.7
    rising of Committee of the Whole, precedence of motion for, 
        Sec. 11.13
    rule permitting only committee amendments, motion offered under, 
        Sec. Sec. 11.4, 11.5
    Senate bill, striking enacting clause of, Sec. 10.14
    Speaker as opponent, Sec. 12.15
    strike, resumption of consideration in Committee of the Whole after 
        House refusal to, Sec. 26.2
    withdrawal of motion, Sec. 10.15
    withdrawal of motion, effect of recognizing objection to, 
        Sec. 12.16
    withdrawal of prior motion, effect on renewal of motion of, 
        Sec. 14.7
Executive session, decision to sit in, by Chairman of the Committee, 
    Sec. 7.18
Floor manager, yielding in Committee in debate by, Sec. 15.4
Hour rule, extension of time under, Sec. 15.7
House as in Committee of the Whole, consideration of measures in, 
    Sec. Sec. 1.4, 1.5
Hypothetical questions, Chairman of the Committee ruling on, 
    Sec. Sec. 7.6-7.8
Mace, significance of, Sec. 1.1
``Madam Chairman,'' use of term, Sec. 5.3
Motions and requests in Committee
     generally, Sec. 2
    adjourn, motion to, Sec. 2.4
    close debate, timeliness of motion to, Sec. 15.12
    division vote, motion to rise offered during, Sec. 2.12
    previous question, motion for, Sec. 2.6
    reading, motion to dispense with, Sec. 2.11
    reconsider, motion to, Sec. 2.5
    return to section of bill for amendment, motion to, Sec. 2.10
    rise and recommend, motion to, Sec. 2.2
    table, motion to, Sec. Sec. 2.7, 2.8
    unanimous-consent request, Sec. 2.9
Objectionable words, expungement from Congressional Record of, Sec. 3.2
Papers or letters, reading of
    putting question to Committee of the Whole, Sec. Sec. 18.1, 18.2
    time to read, Sec. 18.3
Parliamentary situations, Speaker's anticipation of, Sec. 1.2
Personal privilege, Members rising in Committee to questions of, 
    Sec. 1.3
Points of order in the Committee
    debate on, Sec. 15.3
    disposing of, before consideration of amendments, Sec. Sec. 19.6, 
        19.7
    failure to raise point of order, effect of, Sec. 20.12
    legislation on appropriation bill, Sec. Sec. 20.11, 20.12
    motion to rise offered pending decision on, Sec. Sec. 23.7, 23.8
    Ramseyer rule, based on violation of, Sec. Sec. 19.3, 19.4
    reserving point of order of legislation on appropriation bill, 
        timeliness of, Sec. 20.11
    rising of Committee pending decision on, Sec. 19.5
    scope of debate on, Sec. 19.2
    scope of ruling on, Sec. 19.1
Points of order in the Committee, timeliness of
    appeal of Chair's ruling on, Sec. 20.9
    appropriation bill, against, Sec. 20.10
    appropriation bill, reserving point of order based on legislation 
        in, Sec. 20.11

[[Page 3249]]

    conference, as to measure committed to, Sec. 20.17
    debate, effect of commencement of, Sec. Sec. 20.6, 20.7
    debate, effect of failure to obtain recognition to, Sec. 20.8
    funds, as to diversion of appropriated, Sec. 20.13
    germaneness, as to, Sec. 20.14
    legislation on appropriation bill, reserving point of order 
        against, Sec. 20.11
    printing of bill and hearings, lack of, Sec. 20.4
    quorum in standing committees, based on lack of, Sec. 20.5
    Ramseyer rule, based on, Sec. Sec. 20.1-20.3
    reading, as to effect of agreement to dispense with, Sec. 20.15
    report on striking language from Senate bill, as to, Sec. 20.16
    reserving point of order of legislation on appropriation bill, 
        Sec. 20.11
Previous question, motion for, Sec. 2.6
Previous question, motion to strike enacting clause offered after 
    ordering of, Sec. 11.8
Pro forma amendment, time limitation on debate on, Sec. 15.11
Pro forma amendment, yielding in Committee by Member recognized for, 
    Sec. 15.6
Pro forma amendments during pendency of motion to rise and recommend 
    striking enacting clause, Sec. 13.10
Questions of personal privilege, rising to, Sec. 1.3
Quorum in the Committee
    motion to rise, quorum requirement, Sec. 22.7
    motion to rise offered pending quorum count, Sec. 23.5
Quorum, resolving back into Committee after reporting of, Sec. 25.4
Ramseyer rule, point of order in the Committee based on
    generally, Sec. Sec. 19.3, 19.4
    timeliness of, Sec. Sec. 20.1-20.3
Reading, motion to dispense with, Sec. 2.11
Reconsider, motion to, Sec. 2.5
Requirement that motions be written, Sec. 2.1
Resolution of disapproval, motions relating to resolving clauses in, 
    Sec. 10.7
Resolution of disapproval, resolving into Committee to consider, 
    Sec. Sec. 4.5, 4.6
Resolution, resolving into Committee pursuant to, Sec. 4.1
Resolving into Committee
    automatic call of House on motion to, Sec. 4.9
    consideration, motion to resolve as related to question of, 
        Sec. 4.10
    discharge, after motion to, Sec. 4.7
    motion to resolve as related to question of consideration, 
        Sec. 4.10
    motion to resolve, automatic call of House on, Sec. 4.9
    motions to resolve, recognition for, provided for by resolution, 
        Sec. 4.2
    motions to resolve, Speaker's discretion in recognizing for, 
        Sec. 4.3
    refusal to resolve, effect of, Sec. 4.4
    resolution, resolving pursuant to, Sec. 4.1
    resolutions of disapproval, resolving to consider, Sec. Sec. 4.5, 
        4.6
    withdrawing motion to resolve, Sec. Sec. 4.11, 4.12
    words taken down, resolving after ruling on, Sec. 4.8
Rise and recommend, motion to, Sec. 2.2
Rise, precedence of motion to amend over motion to, Sec. 2.3

[[Page 3250]]

Rising of Committee
    amendments, effect of motion to rise on, Sec. 21.4
    automatic rise pursuant to agreement, Sec. 21.3
    ceremonial occasions, Sec. Sec. 21.6, 21.7
    formal and informal rise, Sec. Sec. 21.1, 21.2
    objectionable words, rise of Committee to report, Sec. Sec. 17.2, 
        21.5
Rising of Committee, motion for
    debatability of, Sec. 22.4
    division on amendment after rejection of motion, Sec. 25.3
    enacting clause, precedence over motion to strike, Sec. 23.13
    floor manager, control by, Sec. 22.5
    form of motion, Sec. 22.1
    motion to rise and resume on day certain, Sec. 22.2
    precedence of motion to amend over, Sec. 23.14
    privileged nature of, Sec. Sec. 23.1-23.4
    quorum requirement as affecting, Sec. 22.7
    requirement that motion be written, Sec. 22.3
    time to rise, establishing, Sec. 22.6
    voting on the motion, Sec. 22.8
    withdrawal of motion, Sec. 22.9
Rising of Committee, offering of motion for
    before commencement of teller vote, Sec. 23.9
    during consideration of bill under special rule, Sec. 23.12
    during offering of amendments, Sec. 24.1
    during time for debate, Sec. 23.10
    during yielded time, Sec. 24.2
    quorum, pending count of, Sec. 23.5
    point of order, pending decision on, Sec. Sec. 23.7, 23.8
    privileged nature of, Sec. Sec. 23.1-23.4
    while another Member has floor, Sec. 23.6
Rising of Committee, proceedings after action on motion for
    Calendar Wednesday, on, Sec. 25.5
    quorum, point of order based on lack of, Sec. 25.2
    reporting to House, Sec. 25.1
    resolving back into Committee after reporting a quorum, Sec. 25.4
    vacating vote to rise, Sec. 2a.6
Rising of Committee, proceedings after resolving back into Committee
    continuation of debate interrupted by rise, Sec. 26.1
    resumption of consideration of bill after House refusal to strike 
        enacting clause, Sec. 26.2
    teller vote, resumption of proceedings on, Sec. Sec. 26.3-26.5
Senate bill, Committee of the Whole recommendation to strike enacting 
    clause of, Sec. 10.14
Senate procedure, interpretation by Chairman of the Committee of the 
    Whole of, Sec. 7.19
Speaker
    anticipation of parliamentary situation by, Sec. 1.2
    motion to resolve, Speaker's discretion in recognizing for, 
        Sec. 4.3
Special rule, offering motion to rise during consideration of bill in 
    Committee under, Sec. 23.12
Strike enacting clause, Committee of the Whole recommendation to
    debate on, Sec. 13
    divisibility of, Sec. 10.5
    form of motion, Sec. Sec. 10.1-10.3
    privileged nature of, Sec. 10.4
    procedure for, Sec. 12

[[Page 3251]]

    qualification to offer or oppose, Sec. 12
    renewal of motion, Sec. 14
    when in order, Sec. 11
Table, motion to
    appeal from ruling of Chairman as subject to, Sec. 9.8
    availability of motion in Committee, Sec. Sec. 2.7, 2.8
Teller vote in the Committee
    motion to rise offered before a count begins, Sec. 23.10
    refusal of tellers, effect of, Sec. 9.4
    resumption after rising of the Committee of the Whole, 
        Sec. Sec. 26.3-26.5
Time, power of House to rescind limitations on, Sec. 7.12
Unanimous-consent requests, availability in Committee of, Sec. 2.9
Union Calendar legislation, consideration by House as in Committee of 
    the Whole of, Sec. 1.5
Vacating chair to put appeal from ruling by Chairman of the Committee 
    of the Whole, Sec. 9.7
Vacating vote for rising of Committee, Sec. 25.6
Vote, division, motions offered during, Sec. 2.12
Withdrawal of motion, effect of recognizing of objection to, Sec. 12.16
Withdrawing motion to resolve into Committee, Sec. Sec. 4.11. 4.12
Words taken down
    expungement from Congressional Record of objectionable words, 
        Sec. 3.2
    resolving into Committee after ruling on, Sec. 4.8
Written, requirement that motions be, Sec. 2.1

[[Page 3253]]


 
                               CHAPTER 19
 
                       The Committee of the Whole
 
                             A. IN GENERAL
 
Sec. 1. Jurisdiction; House as in Committee of the Whole Distinguished



    This chapter deals with the practice and procedure followed by the 
House when it resolves itself into the Committee of the 
Whole.(1) Discussed elsewhere are the requirements of a 
quorum in the Committee of the Whole,(2) procedures for 
acting on amendments in Committee of the Whole, including amendments to 
a concurrent resolution on the budget,(3) consideration and 
debate in Committee of the Whole,(4) and voting in Committee 
of the Whole.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. For pre-1936 precedents: see 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 4704-
        4791 and 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 2318-2380 for 
        precedents relating to the Committee of the Whole; 4 Hinds' 
        Precedents Sec. Sec. 4792-4868 and 8 Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. Sec. 2381-2416, relating to subjects requiring 
        consideration in the Committee of the Whole; 4 Hinds' 
        Precedents Sec. Sec. 4869-4922 and 8 Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. Sec. 2417-2430 relating to reports from the Committee of 
        the Whole.
 2. Ch. 20, infra.
 3. See Ch. 27, infra as to amendments, generally. For procedures 
        relating to resolutions on the budget, see Ch. 13, supra.
 4. Ch. 29, infra. See also Sec. Sec. 15-18, infra.
 5. Ch. 30, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The term Committee of the Whole technically applies to two 
Committees, the Committee of the Whole House, which formerly considered 
business on the Private Calendar, and the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union, which considers business on the Union 
Calendar [that is, public bills].(~6) There was little 
difference in the work of the two Committees except in the character of 
bills considered.(7) Since 1935,(8) bills on the 
Private Calendar have been considered in the House as in Committee of 
the Whole, not, strictly speaking, in the Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. See 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4705 for the distinction between the 
        two Committees of the Whole.
 7. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4705; Deschler's Procedure (93d Cong.), 
        Ch. 19 Sec. 1.1.
 8. 79 Cong. Rec. 4480--89, 74th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 27, 1935. See 
        Rule XXIV clause 6, House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 893, 894 
        (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When the House sits as in Committee of the Whole, it does not

[[Page 3254]]

actually resolve into the Committee; it sits ``as in'' Committee of the 
Whole to allow consideration of bills under the five-minute rule 
without general debate.(9) This practice is permitted for 
the consideration of public bills by unanimous consent or by special 
order from the Committee on Rules.(~10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. See 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 4923-4935 and 8 Cannon's 
        Precedents Sec. Sec. 2431-2435 for pre-1936 precedents relating 
        to the House as in Committee of the Whole; and Jefferson's 
        Manual, House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 424-427 (1979) for 
        actions which may or may not be taken in the House as in 
        Committee of the Whole.
10. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4923 and Jefferson's Manual, House Rules 
        and Manual Sec. 424 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the Committee of the Whole House for the consideration of 
private bills is no longer of practical application, the term 
``Committee of the Whole'' is used in this chapter to refer to the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union unless otherwise 
indicated.
    Rule XXIII clause 3 (11~) provides that, ``All motions 
or propositions involving a tax or charge upon the people, all 
proceedings touching appropriations of money, or bills making 
appropriations of money or property, or requiring such appropriation to 
be made, or authorizing payments out of appropriations already made, or 
releasing any liability to the United States for money or property, or 
referring any claim to the Court of Claims, shall be first considered 
in a Committee of the Whole. . . .''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. House Rules and Manual Sec. 865 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This rule is applied not only to bills, but to amendments 
(12) and Senate amendments to House measures as well. As to 
the latter, Rule XX clause 1 (13~) provides that, ``Any 
amendment of the Senate to any House bill shall be subject to the point 
of order that it shall first be considered in the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union, if, originating in the House, it 
would be subject to that point. . . .''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 4793, 4794.
13. House Rules and Manual Sec. 827 (1979). See Ch. 32 Sec. 5, infra, 
        for discussion and precedents regarding House action on Senate 
        amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A view of long standing was that, to require consideration in a 
Committee of the Whole, a measure must have shown on its face that it 
fell within the requirements of Rule XXIII clause 3; (14) 
where the expenditure was a mere matter of speculation,(15) 
or where

[[Page 3255]]

the bill might have involved a charge, but did not necessarily do 
so,(16) the rule did not apply. In ruling on a point of 
order as to whether a proposition involved a charge on the Treasury, 
the Speaker was confined to the provisions of the text and could not 
take into consideration personal knowledge not directly deducible 
therefrom.(17) In modern practice, a measure goes on the 
Union Calendar for consideration in the Committee of the Whole House on 
the state of the Union if an expenditure under the measure is probable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 4811-4817.
15. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 4818-4821; 8 Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. 2388.
16. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 4809, 4810.
17. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 2386, 2391.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee of the Whole observes the rules of proceeding in the 
House as far as applicable.(18) However, the procedure in 
the Committee of the Whole differs from procedures in the House in 
certain respects. In the Committee, (1) a quorum consists of 100 
Members instead of a majority of the House membership; (19~) 
(2) tellers may be requested by 20 Members instead of by 44 (one-fifth 
of a quorum of the House); (20) (3) a recorded vote may be 
requested by 25 (formerly 20) Members instead of by 44 (one-fifth of a 
quorum of the House); (21) (4) the constitutional yea and 
nay vote demanded by one fifth of the Members present,(22) 
or an ``automatic'' yea and nay vote as provided under Rule XV clause 
4,(23) may not be taken; (5) amendments may not be withdrawn 
except by unanimous consent; (1) (6) debate may both be 
general and under the five-minute rule for amendments; (2) 
and (7) leave to extend remarks may be given only to the Member making 
the request, and not for the inclusion of extraneous material, general 
leaves being granted only by the House.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Rule XXIII clause 9, House Rules and Manual Sec. 877 (1979); 4 
        Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4737.
19. Rule XXIII clause 2(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 863 (1979). See 
        also Jefferson's Manual, House Rules and Manual Sec. 329 Note 
        (1979).
20. Rule I clause 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. 630 (1979); 5 Hinds' 
        Precedents Sec. Sec. 5985, 5986.
21. Rule XXIII clause 2(b) (adopted in the 96th Congress; see H. Res. 
        5, Jan. 15, 1979), House Rules and Manual (1979).
22. U.S. Cong. art. I, Sec. 5, clause 3, House Rules and Manual Sec. 76 
        Note (1979); 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 4722, 4723.
23. House Rules and Manual Sec. 773 (1979).
 1. Rule XXIII clause 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. 870 (1979); Rule 
        XIX, House Rules and Manual Sec. 824 Note (1979); 5 Hinds' 
        Precedents Sec. Sec. 5221, 5753 (ftn.).
 2. Rule XXIII clause 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. 870 (1979).
 3. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 7009, 7010, 8 Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. 3488.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3256]]

    Certain powers may not be exercised by the Committee of the Whole. 
For example, the Committee may not modify orders of the 
House,(4) raise the question of consideration,(5) 
transact proceedings regarding words demanded to be taken down in 
debate,(6~) appoint, authorize, or discharge 
committees,(7) extend, even by unanimous consent, time for 
debate fixed by the House (8) suspend the rule relating to 
admission to the floor,(9) recess without permission of the 
House,(10) instruct conferees,(11) or consider 
questions of privilege.(~12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 4712, 4713; 7 Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. 786; and 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 2321, 2323.
 5. 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 952 (on Calendar Wednesday); see also 5 
        Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 4973-4976.
 6. 2 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 1257-1259, 1348; 8 Cannon's 
        Precedents Sec. Sec. 2533, 2538, 2539. See Rule XIV clause 5, 
        House Rules and Manual Sec. 761 (1979), which states that 
        objectionable words are taken down and read to the House. See 
        also Sec. 17, infra, for a discussion of Committee procedure 
        when a Member objects to certain language.
 7. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 4697, 4710.
 8. Note to Rule XXIII clause 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. 871 
        (1979); 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 5212-5216; 8 Cannon's 
        Precedents Sec. Sec. 2321, 2550.
 9. Note to Rule XXXII clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 919 
        (1979); 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 7285.
10. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 6669-6671.
11. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2320.
12. Note to Rule IX, House Rules and Manual Sec. 666 (1979); 2 Hinds' 
        Precedents Sec. 1657.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee of the Whole may rise informally to receive 
messages.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. House Rules and Manual Sec. 330 (1979); 4 Hinds' Precedents 
        Sec. 4786.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Significance of Mace

Sec. 1.1 The position of the mace signifies whether the House is in 
    session or whether it has resolved itself into the Committee of the 
    Whole. When the mace is in the higher position at the Speaker's 
    right the House is in regular session. When the Members begin 
    deliberations in the Committee of the Whole, the mace is placed on 
    the lower pedestal next to the desk of the Sergeant at Arms.

    On July 13, 1966, the 125th anniversary year of the use of the 
present mace,(14) Mr. Frank Horton, of New York, discussed 
the position of the mace as it relates to whether the House meets in 
regular session or in the Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 112 Cong. Rec. 15403, 15404, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Horton: Mr. Speaker, today I should like to remind my 
    distinguished

[[Page 3257]]

    colleagues of a historic anniversary. The year 1966 marks 125 years 
    of consecutive use of the present mace in the House of 
    Representatives. . . .
        The position of the mace signifies whether the House is in 
    session or whether it has resolved itself into the Committee of the 
    Whole House on the State of the Union. Visitors in the galleries 
    today will notice that the mace is now in position at the Speaker's 
    right, meaning that we are now in regular session. When we begin 
    our deliberations in the Committee of the Whole, the mace will be 
    placed on the lower pedestal next to the desk of the Sergeant at 
    Arms. Any Member or visitor entering the House can tell at a glance 
    if the House is in session or in committee.

Anticipation of Parliamentary Situations by Speaker

Sec. 1.2 The Speaker does not anticipate parliamentary situations which 
    might arise in Committee of the Whole.

    On June 29, 1973,(15) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
refused to anticipate parliamentary situations which might arise in the 
Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 119 Cong. Rec. 22336, 22337, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Richard] Boiling [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, by direction 
    of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 479 and ask 
    for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 479

            Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
        shall be in order to move, clause 6, rule XXI to the contrary 
        notwithstanding, that the House resolve itself into the 
        Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the 
        consideration of the bill (H.R. 9055) making supplemental 
        appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973, and 
        for other purposes, and all points of order against said bill 
        for failure to comply with the provisions of clauses 2 and 5, 
        rule XXI are hereby waived. It shall be in order to consider 
        without the intervention of any point of order the following 
        amendment in the nature of a substitute for section 307 of the 
        bill H.R. 9055.
            ``Sec. 307. None of the funds herein appropriated under 
        this Act or heretofore appropriated under any other Act may be 
        expended to support directly or indirectly combat activities 
        in, over, or from off the shores of Cambodia or in or over Laos 
        by United States forces.''. . . .

        Mr. [James J.] Pickle [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, is it my 
    understanding that this is an open rule? Do I further understand 
    that the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Flynt) intends to offer the 
    Eagleton amendment as a substitute which we had voted on in the 
    last few days?
        I understand from conversations which I have had at the Chair 
    that it would be in order then to offer amendments to the 
    substitute which will be offered by the gentleman from Georgia, and 
    if any of those amendments were passed, it would be an amendment to 
    that substitute.
        If that substitute passes, there can be no more amendments and 
    the vote will be up or down on that issue. Thus, if I am correct, 
    then, Mr. Speaker, if

[[Page 3258]]

    the substitute is passed, then there will be a vote on that up or 
    down, and there can be no amendment beyond that point, is that 
    correct?
        The Speaker: The Chair will answer that this is a matter for 
    the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
    the Union.
        The Chair is not able at this time to take over the 
    responsibility of making parliamentary rulings from the Chairman of 
    the Committee of the Whole House.
        Mr. [Delbert L.] Latta [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, the Speaker is 
    absolutely correct. This is something that can be taken up in the 
    Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union.

Consideration of Questions of Personal Privilege

Sec. 1.3 Members may not rise to a question of personal privilege in 
    the Committee of the Whole.

    On Apr. 18, 1944,(16) during consideration of H.R. 4254, 
extension of ``Lend Lease,'' Chairman Warren G. Magnuson, of 
Washington, refused to permit a Member to raise a question of persona] 
privilege because that issue may not be raised in the Committee of the 
Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 90 Cong. Rec. 3558, 78th Cong. 2d Sess. See also 115 Cong. Rec. 
        24372, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 4, 1969 (during 
        consideration of H.R. 12085, extending the Clean Air Act); 106 
        Cong. Rec. 11289, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., June 18, 1959; and 
        Deschler's Procedure (93d Cong.), Ch. 11 Sec. 13.6, for other 
        instances of this principle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clark E.] Hoffman [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, can I raise 
    a question of personal privilege in the Committee of the Whole, or 
    do I have to wait until we go back into the House?
        The Chairman: That cannot be done in the Committee of the 
    Whole.(l7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Note: Under the modern practice, points of personal privilege may 
        not be raised in the Committee of the Whole. The opposite was 
        formerly true. See 3 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 2540 et seq., 
        which indicate that a matter of personal privilege could be 
        claimed with reference to unparliamentary words. This former 
        practice has been superseded by the procedure for taking down 
        words in Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consideration of Measures in House as in Committee of the Whole

Sec. 1.4 Where a joint resolution requiring consideration in the 
    Committee of the Whole is called up by unanimous consent, it is 
    considered in the House as in the Committee of the Whole and is 
    subject to debate and amendment under the five-minute 
    rule.(l8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. For more detailed discussion of consideration and procedure in the 
        House as in Committee of the Whole, see Ch. 29 Sec. Sec. 4, 70.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3259]]

    On Sept. 26, 1968,(19) by unanimous consent House Joint 
Resolution 1461 was considered in the House as in Committee of the 
Whole and subject to debate and amendment under the five-minute rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 114 Cong. Rec. 28374, 90th Cong.2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent for the immediate consideration of the joint resolution 
    (H.J. Res. 1461) making continuing appropriations for the fiscal 
    year 1969, and for other purposes.
        The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
        The Speaker:(20) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Texas?. . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Frank T.] Bow [of Ohio:. . . I should like to make a 
    parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Bow: If this joint resolution is now called before the 
    House, will it be in order, when it is before the House, to offer a 
    substitute in the manner in which I have discussed it?
        The Speaker: The answer is that it would be in order. . . .
        Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas?
        There was no objection.
        The Clerk read the joint resolution as follows:

                                 H.J. Res. 1461

            Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
        United States of America in Congress assembled, That clause (c) 
        of section 102 of the joint resolution of June 29, 1968 (Public 
        Law 90-366), is hereby further amended by striking out 
        ``September 30, 1968'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``October 
        12, 1968''.

        Mr. Mahon: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the joint 
    resolution be considered in the House as in the Committee of the 
    Whole.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Texas?
        There was no objection.
        Mr. Mahon: Mr. Speaker, I move to strike out the last word. May 
    I just add a few words. There are a number of agencies of the 
    Government for which regular appropriations for 1969 have not been 
    finally enacted by the Congress.

Sec. 1.5 A motion that a Union Calendar bill called up be considered in 
    the House as in the Committee of the Whole is not in order, 
    although unanimous consent may be granted for that purpose; if such 
    consent is not obtained, the House automatically resolves itself 
    into the Committee of the Whole on Calendar Wednesday.

    On July 12, 1939,(1) during consideration of H.R. 985, 
to author
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 84 Cong. Rec. 8945, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3260]]

ize the Secretary of War to furnish markers for certain graves, Speaker 
William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, stated that a unanimous-consent 
request, but not a motion, to consider a Union Calendar bill in the 
House as in Committee of the Whole would be in order. After an 
objection was raised to the unanimous-consent request, the House 
automatically resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole.

        Mr. [Andrew J.] May [of Kentucky] (when the Committee on 
    Military Affairs was called): Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
    Committee on Military Affairs, I call up the bill (H.R. 985) to 
    authorize the Secretary of War to furnish certain markers for 
    certain graves, and ask unanimous consent that the bill be 
    considered in the House as in Committee of the Whole.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        Mr. [Joseph W.] Martin [Jr.] of Massachusetts: Mr. Speaker, 
    reserving the right to object, will the gentleman explain the bill 
    before we grant this request?
        Mr. May: This is a bill to authorize the Secretary of War to 
    furnish certain markers for graves of persons who are entitled to 
    have them. Under the statute they are bronze markers or stone 
    markers.
        Mr. [Sam] Hobbs [of Alabama] Mr. Speaker, I object.
        Mr. May: To what is the gentleman objecting?
        Mr. Hobbs: I am objecting to the consideration of the bill.
        Mr. May: Then I move, Mr. Speaker, that the bill be considered 
    in the House as in Committee of the Whole.
        The Speaker: The Chair is of the opinion that could not be 
    permitted under the rules of the House. The gentleman may submit a 
    unanimous consent request, but not a motion.
        The gentleman from Kentucky asks unanimous consent to consider 
    the bill in the House as in Committee of the Whole. Is there 
    objection to the request of the gentleman from Kentucky?
        Mr. Hobbs: I object, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: This bill is on the Union Calendar.
        Accordingly, the House resolved itself into Committee of the 
    Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the 
    bill (H.R. 985) to authorize the Secretary of War to furnish 
    certain markers for certain graves, with Mr. Tarver in the chair.


 
                               CHAPTER 19
 
                       The Committee of the Whole
 
                             A. IN GENERAL
 
Sec. 2. Motions and Requests Generally

    Particular motions which may be entertained in the Committee of the 
Whole include certain motions relating to the enacting 
clause,(2) motions to amend, and motions to 
rise;(3) the Committee of the Whole may not entertain 
motions involving functions properly performed by the House such as 
motions to (1) adjourn,(4) (2) lay on the 
table,(5) (3) lay on the table
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See Sec. Sec. 10-14, infra.
 3. See Sec. Sec. 22-25, infra.
 4. Sec. 2.4, infra.
 5. Sec. 2.7, infra. However, after general debate on a bill has been 
        closed, a motion that the Committee of the Whole rise and 
        report with a recommendation that the bill be laid on the table 
        may be offered. See 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4778.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3261]]

an appeal of the Chair's ruling,(6) (4) limit general 
debate,(7) (5) close general debate,(8) (6) order 
the previous question,(9) (7) recess without permission of 
the House,(10) (8) recommit,(11) (9) 
reconsider,(12) (10) order a call of the 
House,(13) (11) effect a conference or instruct 
conferees,(14) or (12) expunge remarks from the 
Record.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Sec. 2.8, infra.
 7. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2554. However, debate under the five-
        minute rule may be limited (5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5224), and 
        general debate may be limited by unanimous consent in the 
        absence of an order by the House (5 Hinds' Precedents 
        Sec. 5232; 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 2553, 2554). The 
        terms ``limit'' and ``close'' with reference to debate are 
        frequently used interchangeably.
 8. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5217.
 9. Sec. 2.6, infra.
10. Jefferson's Manual, House Rules and Manual Sec. 586 (1979); 5 
        Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 6669-6671; and 8 Cannon's 
        Precedents Sec. Sec. 3357, 3362.
11. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4721 and 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2326. 
        However, the Committee of the Whole may move to rise and report 
        with the recommendation that a bill be recommitted, unless that 
        motion is precluded by the terms of a special rule (see 
        Sec. 23.12, infra); such motion is only in order at the 
        completion of reading the bill for amendment (4 Hinds' 
        Precedents Sec. Sec. 4761, 4762), and takes precedence over a 
        motion to rise and report with the recommendation that a bill 
        pass (8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2329).
12. Sec. 2.5, infra.
13. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2369.
14. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2320. The subject of conferences is 
        discussed more fully in Ch. 33, infra.
15. Sec. 3.2, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Requirement That Motions Be Written

Sec. 2.1 All motions must be in writing, if the demand is made, even a 
    motion that the Committee of the Whole do now rise.

    On June 13, 1947,(16) during consideration of H.R. 3342, 
the cultural relations program of the State Department, Chairman Thomas 
A. Jenkins, of Ohio, sustained a point of order against a motion to 
rise:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 93 Cong. Rec. 6998, 80th Cong. 1st Sess. See 96 Cong. Rec. 1693, 
        81st Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 8, 1950, for another illustration of 
        this principle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Daniel A.] Reed of New York: Mr. Chairman, I move that the 
    Committee do now rise.
        Mr. [Karl E.] Mundt [of South Dakota]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the motion has not been submitted in writing.
        Mr. Reed of New York: Mr. Chairman, a preferential motion of 
    this

[[Page 3262]]

    character does not have to be submitted in writing.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.

Motion to Rise and Recommend

Sec. 2.2 After defeat of a motion that the Committee of the Whole rise 
    and report a bill to the House with the recommendation that it 
    pass, a motion that the Committee rise and report the bill with the 
    recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken out is in 
    order.

    On May 12, 1941,(17) during consideration of H.R. 3490, 
fixing the amount of annual payment by the United States toward 
defraying expenses of the District of Columbia government, Chairman 
William M. Whittington, of Mississippi, ruled that it would be in order 
to move that the Committee of the Whole rise and report a bill with the 
recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken out after defeat of 
a motion that the Committee rise and report a bill to the House with 
the recommendation that it pass:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 87 Cong. Rec. 3917, 3938, 3939, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jennings] Randolph [of West Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I move 
    that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House 
    on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
    3490) to fix the amount of the annual payment by the United States 
    toward defraying the expenses of the government of the District of 
    Columbia; and pending that, I ask unanimous consent that debate be 
    limited to 2 hours.

    After completion of general debate and reading of the bill for 
amendment under the five-minute rule, the manager of the bill, Mr. 
Randolph, moved as follows:

        Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise and report 
    the bill back to the House with an amendment with the 
    recommendation that the amendment be agreed to and that the bill as 
    amended do pass. . . .

        Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Tarver: If this motion to report the bill favorably does 
    not carry, it would then be in order to offer a motion to report 
    the bill with the recommendation that the enacting clause be 
    stricken out.
        The Chairman: The bill would still be in the Committee, and 
    such a motion would be in order.

Precedence of Motion to Amend Over Motion to Rise and Report

Sec. 2.3 A motion to amend in the Committee of the Whole takes 
    precedence over a mo

[[Page 3263]]

    tion to rise and report a bill with recommendations.

    On July 27, 1937,(18) during consideration of H.R. 7730, 
to authorize the President to appoint certain administrative 
assistants, Chairman Wright Patman, of Texas, stated that a motion to 
amend in the Committee of the Whole takes precedence over a motion to 
rise and report a bill with recommendations:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 81 Cong. Rec. 7699, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [J.W.] Robinson of Utah and Mr. [Ross A.] Collins [of 
    Mississippi] rose.
        Mr. Robinson of Utah: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee 
    do now rise and report the bill back to the House with the 
    recommendation that the bill do pass.
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the motion that it is not in order at this stage 
    of the proceedings.
        The Chairman: The Chair may state that motions to amend take 
    precedence over a motion that the Committee rise.
        The gentleman from Mississippi offers an amendment, which the 
    Clerk will report.

Motion to Adjourn

Sec. 2.4 A motion to adjourn is not in order in the Committee of the 
    Whole.

    On Feb. 7, 1964,(19) during consideration of H.R. 7152, 
the Civil Rights Act of 1963, Chairman Eugene J. Keogh, of New York, 
held that the motion to adjourn would not lie while the House was in 
the Committee of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 110 Cong. Rec. 2505, 88th Cong. 2d Sess. See also 107 Cong. Rec. 
        9619, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., June 6, 1961; 96 Cong. Rec. 2162, 
        2218, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 22, 1950; and 95 Cong. Rec. 
        5616, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., May 4, 1949, for other examples of 
        this principle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I wonder 
    if it would be in order to move that the House do now adjourn, 
    while the coalition works out the substitute amend-ment? Would it 
    be in order to move that the House do now adjourn?
        The Chairman: A motion to adjourn, of course, does not lie 
    while the House is in the Committee of the Whole House.
        Mr. Whitten: I merely wished to know if it were possible under 
    the circumstances.
        Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise, while the 
    coalition works out a settlement of the differences.
        The Chairman: The question is on the motion of the gentleman 
    from Mississippi [Mr. Whitten].
        The motion was rejected.

Motion to Reconsider

Sec. 2.5 The motion to reconsider is not in order in the Committee of 
    the Whole; however, proceedings may be vacated by unanimous consent

[[Page 3264]]

    after business has been transacted.

    On Mar. 12, 1945,(20) during consideration of H.R. 2023, 
to continue the Commodity Credit Corporation, Chairman R. Ewing 
Thomason, of Texas, ruled that a motion to reconsider is not in order 
in the Committee of the Whole. However, after the transaction of 
business, the Committee agreed to a unanimous consent request to vacate 
certain proceedings:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 91 Cong. Rec. 2042, 2043, 79th Cong 1st Sess. See. also 112 Cong. 
        Rec. 18416, 89th Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 5, 1966, for another 
        example of this procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jesse P.] Wolcott [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment, which is at the Clerk's desk.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Wolcott: On page 1, lines 5 and 6, 
        after the word ``thereof'' in line 5, strike out the sign and 
        figure ``$5,000,000,000'' and insert in lieu thereof the sign 
        and figure ``$4,000,000,000.''

        Mr. [Brent] Spence [of Kentucky]: . . . The Commodity Credit 
    Corporation agrees to it. I think it should be adopted. I am sure 
    there will be no objection to it.
        The Chairman: The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
        The amendment was agreed to.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 2. Subsection (c) of section 381 of the Agricultural 
        Adjustment Act of 1938 (52 Stat. 67) is amended to read as 
        follows:
            ``(c) During the continuance of the present war and until 
        the expiration of the 2-year period. . . .''

        Mr. Spence: Mr. Chairman, I misunderstood the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from Michigan. I had no right to agree to that 
    amendment. The amendment which I thought the gentleman from 
    Michigan [Mr. Wolcott] submitted, and the only one that he ever 
    submitted to me, was an amendment to increase dairy payments to 
    $568,000,000, and to increase the noncrop program from $60,000,000 
    to $120,000,000. That was a clear misunderstanding on my part. . . 
    .
        Mr. Chairman, I ask the committee, under the circumstances, to 
    reconsider its action.
        Mr. Wolcott: There will be no objection on my part.
        The Chairman: Without objection, the action by which the 
    amendment was agreed to will be vacated.
        Mr. [Robert F.] Rich [of Pennsylvania]: Reserving the right to 
    object, I want to ask the gentleman a question.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Pennsylvania reserves the 
    right to object. . . .
        Is there objection?
        Mr. Rich: Mr. Chairman, I object--until we can get some 
    information on the subject.
        Mr. [Roy O.] Woodruff of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, I demand the 
    regular order.
        The Chairman: The regular order is that the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania has objected to the consent request of the gentleman 
    from Kentucky.
        Mr. Spence: Mr. Chairman, I move to reconsider the action of 
    the Com

[[Page 3265]]

    mittee by which the amendment was agreed to.
        The Chairman: Such a motion is not in order in the Committee of 
    the Whole.
        Mr. Wolcott: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Wolcott: Inasmuch as business has been transacted since the 
    original request was submitted by the gentleman from Kentucky, 
    would it be in order for me to propound a consent request that the 
    proceedings by which the amendment was adopted be vacated?
        The Chairman: Such a request would be in order, and the Chair 
    recognizes the gentleman for that purpose.
        Mr. Wolcott: Then, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 
    the proceedings by which the amendment was adopted reducing the 
    amount from $5,000,000,000 to $4,000,000,000 be vacated. . . .
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Michigan?
        There was no objection.

Motion for Previous Question

Sec. 2.6 The motion for the previous question is not in order in the 
    Committee of the Whole.

    On Nov. 17, 1967,(1) during consideration of H.R. 13893, 
foreign aid appropriations, fiscal 1968, Chairman Charles M. Price, of 
Illinois, held that the motion for the previous question is not in 
order in the Committee of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 113 Cong. Rec. 32964, 90th Cong. 1st Sess. See 112 Cong. Rec. 
        18115, 89th Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 3, 1966; and 110 Cong. Rec. 
        457, 88th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 16, 1964, for other examples.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Paul C.] Jones of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, reserving the 
    right to object, is it in order to move the previous question on 
    this amendment now, inasmuch as we have had considerable debate on 
    it, and I have been trying to receive recognition for approximately 
    half an hour, but now I am willing to forgo my time.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the moving of the 
    previous question is not in order in the Committee of the Whole.

Motion to Table

Sec. 2.7 The motion to table is not in order in the Committee of the 
    Whole.

    On Oct. 6, 1966,(2) during consideration of H.R. 13161, 
the elementary and secondary education bill, Chairman Daniel D. 
Rostenkowski, of Illinois, ruled that the motion to table is not in 
order in the Committee of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 112 Cong. Rec. 25583, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Albert W.] Watson [of South Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

[[Page 3266]]

            Amendment offered by Mr. Watson: On page 76, line 15, after 
        ``1967'' change the period to a semicolon and insert: 
        ``Provided, however, That no funds shall be expended hereunder 
        so long as the present United States Commissioner of Education 
        occupies that office.''

        Mr. [Carl D.] Perkins [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order. The amendment is not germane and is subject to a point of 
    order. . . .
        The Chairman: . . . The Chair is of the opinion that the 
    amendment is germane to the bill, and overrules the point of order.
        The gentleman from South Carolina is recognized in support of 
    his amendment.
        Mr. Perkins: Mr. Chairman, I move that the amendment be tabled.
        The Chairman: That motion is not in order in the Committee of 
    the Whole.

Sec. 2.8 The motion to lay on the table an appeal from a decision of 
    the Chair is not in order in the Committee of the Whole.

    On Oct. 19, 1945,(3) after ruling that a proposed 
amendment was not germane to H.R. 4407, reducing appropriations, 
Chairman Fritz G. Lanham, of Texas, held that a motion to table a 
decision of the Chair is not in order in the Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 91 Cong. Rec. 9870, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, with all 
    the deference in the world for the distinguished Chairman, whom we 
    all love, I respectfully appeal from the ruling of the Chair.
        Mr. [Emmet] O'Neal [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I move to lay 
    the appeal on the table.
        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Chairman, the appeal cannot be laid on the 
    table. The Committee has a right to vote on it.

        The Chairman: The motion to lay on the table is not in order in 
    the Committee. . . .
        The question is: Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the 
    judgment of the Committee of the Whole?
        The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the 
    ``ayes'' had it.
        So the decision of the Chair stands as the judgment of the 
    Committee of the Whole.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. See also 81 Cong. Rec. 7700, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., July 27, 1937, 
        for another illustration of this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unanimous-consent Requests

Sec. 2.9 A unanimous-consent request that the Clerk of the House, in 
    the engrossment of the bill, be instructed to correct section 
    numbers is not in order in the Committee of the Whole; such 
    permission must be obtained in the House.

    On Oct. 3, 1962,(5) during consideration of H.R. 13273, 
the riv
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 108 Cong. Rec. 21884, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3267]]

ers and harbors authorization bill, Chairman Francis E. Walter, of 
Pennsylvania, declared that a unanimous-consent request to instruct the 
Clerk to correct section numbers in the engrossment of a bill would 
have to be done in the House rather than the Committee of the Whole:

        Mr. [James C.] Wright [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, so as to 
    avoid any possible confusion in the numbering of these sections, I 
    ask unanimous consent that the Clerk of the House be instructed so 
    to number these sections serially that they are all in proper 
    sequence.
        The Chairman: The gentleman's request will have to be made in 
    the House.

Motion to Return to Section for Amendment

Sec. 2.10 In the Committee of the Whole a Member must obtain unanimous 
    consent to return to a section of a bill to offer an amendment; a 
    motion to do so is not in order.

    On Aug. 18, 1944,(6) during consideration of H.R. 5125, 
the surplus property bill, Chairman R. Ewing Thomason, of Texas, stated 
that a Member must obtain unanimous consent to return to a section of a 
bill after that section has been passed, and indicated that such action 
cannot be taken by motion:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 90 Cong. Rec. 7122, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Carter] Manasco [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment on the ground that we have passed 
    the section to which the amendment applies.
        Mr. [Ben F.] Jensen [of Iowa]: Then, Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that we return to section 7 for the purpose of 
    offering an amendment.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Iowa asks unanimous consent to 
    return to section 7 for the purpose of offering an amendnent. Is 
    there objection?
        Mr. Manasco: I object, because we returned to that once and we 
    want to finish this bill this week if we can.
        Mr. Jensen: Mr. Chairman, I would have offered this amendment 
    earlier but I call attention to the fact that the reading of the 
    bill was very rapid and I did not have a chance; I did not have the 
    opportunity.
        The Chairman: The gentleman can return to a former section only 
    with the unanimous consent of the Committee and the Committee has 
    not given it.
        Mr. Jensen: Then, Mr. Chairman, I plead with the chairman of 
    the committee to let this amendment be considered. It is an 
    important amendment. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Jensen: What course can I take now to get this amendment 
    before the House? I am throwing myself on the mercy of the Chair?

[[Page 3268]]

        The Chairman: The gentleman has asked unanimous consent to 
    return to the section; the Committee has declined to grant it. The 
    Chair does not know what further the gentleman can do.

Motion to Dispense With Reading

Sec. 2.11 A motion to dispense with the full reading of a bill in the 
    Committee of the Whole is not in order.

    On June 4, 1951,(7) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the consideration of the District of 
Columbia Law Enforcement Act of 1951 (H.R. 4141). The Chairman 
(8) stated that without objection the first [full] reading 
of the bill would be dispensed with. Objection was heard from Mr. 
Herman P. Eberharter, of Pennsylvania, and the Chairman ordered the 
Clerk to read the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 97 Cong. Rec. 6099-6101, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
 8. Herbert C. Bonner (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During the reading of the bill a parliamentary inquiry was raised:

        Mr. [W. Sterling] Cole of New York (interrupting the reading of 
    the bill): Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Cole of New York: Mr. Chairman, is it possible under the 
    rules of the Committee of the Whole to by motion dispense with the 
    further reading of a bill?
        The Chairman: The Chair will say that it requires unanimous 
    consent to suspend the further reading of the bill.
        Mr. Cole of New York: It is not possible to do that by motion?

        The Chairman: That motion is not privileged.(9) 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Parliamentarian's Note: In this instance the Committee of the Whole 
        directed the reading in full of the bil1 on its first reading. 
        The bill was read by title only on the next day when the 
        Committee of the Whole reconvened to resume consideration of 
        it. Although the procedure followed was somewhat unorthodox, it 
        illustrates the point that any Member may demand a full reading 
        of a bill before general debate thereon begins, provided the 
        bill has not previously been read in full. The motion to 
        dispense with the full reading could be made privileged, 
        however, by means of a special rule reported from the Committee 
        on Rules, for example; or the reading in full could be 
        dispensed with by such a rule. Moreover, the motion to rise 
        would be in order, to permit the House, by motion, to dispense 
        with reading.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Motions Offered During Vote

Sec. 2.12 The motion that the Committee of the Whole rise is not 
    preferential while the Committee is dividing on a question.

    On Dec. 8, 1944,(10) during consideration in Committee 
of the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 90 Cong. Rec. 9066, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3269]]

Whole of H.R. 5587, the first supplemental appropriations bill, several 
actions were taken in rapid succession:

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]:
        Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on this amendment do now 
    close.
        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I trust 
    the gentleman will not press that motion.
        The Chairman: (11) The question is on the motion 
    offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Taber].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Herbert C. Bonner (N.C.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken, and the Chair announced that the ayes 
    had it.
        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I ask for a 
    division.
        The Chairman: Those in favor of the motion will rise and be 
    counted.
        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now 
    rise.
        The Chairman: The Chair calls the attention of the gentleman to 
    the fact that we are in the middle of a vote.
        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Chairman, I am offering a preferential motion. 
    I move that the Committee do now rise.
        The Chairman: The Chair will ask the gentleman to reconsider, 
    because we are in the midst of taking a vote on a motion at this 
    time.
        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Chairman, I am offering a preferential motion 
    now.
        The Chairman: The Chair cannot recognize the gentleman at this 
    time for that purpose.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The preferential motion to rise is in order 
until the count has commenced. See 88 Cong. Rec. 2374, 77th Cong. 2d 
Sess., Mar. 12, 1942; 88 Cong. Rec. 5169, 77th Cong. 2d Sess., June 11, 
1942.


 
                               CHAPTER 19
 
                       The Committee of the Whole
 
                             A. IN GENERAL
 
Sec. 3. Remarks in the Congressional Record

Extension and Revision of Remarks

Sec. 3.1 The House and not the Committee of the Whole controls the 
    Congressional Record; for this reason the Committee can neither 
    hold the Record open for later insertions nor permit inclusion of 
    extraneous material. Thus, a request that all Members be permitted 
    five days to revise and extend their remarks on a particular 
    subject is not in order in the Committee of the Whole.

    On Sept. 19, 1967,(12) during consideration of H.R. 
6418, Partnership for Health Amendments, 1967, Chairman Jack B. Brooks, 
of Texas, stated that the Committee of the Whole cannot hold the 
Congressional Record open for later insertions because that authority 
is exercised by the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 113 Cong. Rec. 26032, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Andrew] Jacobs [Jr., of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman . . . I ask 
    unani

[[Page 3270]]

    mous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to 
    revise and extend. . . .
        Mr. [Burt L.] Talcott [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I object.
        The Chairman: That request is properly made in the House and 
    not in Committee of the Whole. Objection is not 
    necessary.(l3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Although general leave to print may be granted only by the House, a 
        Member, by unanimous consent, may be given leave to extend his 
        remarks in the Committee of the Whole. 5 Hinds' Precedents 
        Sec. Sec. 7009, 7010 and 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3488. See 
        also Ch. 5, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Expungement of Objectionable Words

Sec. 3.2 A motion to expunge words from the Congressional Record is not 
    in order in the Committee of the Whole.

    On Feb. 18, 1941,(14) Chairman Warren G. Magnuson, of 
Washington, stated that the House, not the Committee of the Whole, 
determines whether to expunge words which have been objected to by a 
Member in the Committee.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 87 Cong. Rec. 1126, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
15. Compare 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 6987 for a holding that while the 
        Committee of the Whole does not control the Record, the 
        Chairman, in the preservation of order, may direct the 
        exclusion of disorderly words spoken by a Member after he has 
        been called to order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman [of Michigan]: All we ask in this case 
    is what we do not expect to get, that you stick by the rules of the 
    game you established last year. That is not too much to expect if 
    we adhere to the agreement of last year. This would give us in 
    Michigan the Representative to which we are entitled. But we know 
    what you are going to do. You know what is going to happen. You are 
    going to skin us, are you not? And we have no way to prevent it.
        Mr. [Robert F.] Rich [of Pennsylvania]: I demand that the 
    gentleman's words be taken down.
        The Chairman: . . . The Clerk will read the words objected to.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            You know what is going to happen. You are going to skin us, 
        are you not; and we have not any way to

        Mr. Rich: Mr. Chairman, I ask that those words be expunged from 
    the Record. They are not going to skin anybody around here.
        The Chairman: That is a matter for the House to decide. The 
    Committee will rise.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The words could have been withdrawn by 
unanimous consent, but not by motion.


 
                               CHAPTER 19
 
                       The Committee of the Whole
 
                             A. IN GENERAL
 
Sec. 4. Resolving Into Committee of the Whole

    The House may resolve into the Committee of the Whole pursuant

[[Page 3271]]

to a standing rule, a resolution (i.e., a special rule from the 
Committee on Rules) (16) or on motion.(17) The 
House automatically resolves into the Committee of the Whole in certain 
situations.(18) Thus, when a bill on the Union Calendar is 
called up at the proper time on Calendar Wednesday, the House 
automatically resolves into the Committee of the Whole. (1) 
And when a Union Calendar

[[Page 3272]]

bill is the unfinished business on Calendar Wednesday the Speaker 
declares the House in Committee of the Whole without 
motion.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Sec. 4.1, infra. See 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 3214, and 7 Hinds' 
        Precedents Sec. Sec. 783, 794 for earlier precedents on 
        resolving into the Committee of the Whole pursuant to special 
        order.
17. Rule XVI clause 9, House Rules and Manual Sec. 802 (1979), permits 
        a motion to resolve into the Committee of the Whole to consider 
        bills raising revenue or general appropriation bills anytime 
        after the Journal is read.
            Prior to the amendment to Rule XI clause 4(a) [House Rules 
        and Manual Sec. 726 (1979)] effective Jan. 3, 1975 (H. Res. 
        988, 93d Cong. 2d Sess., 120 Cong. Rec. 34469, 34470), to 
        eliminate the authority of the Committee on Ways and Means to 
        report as privileged bills raising revenue, the motion to 
        resolve into the Committee of the Whole to consider a general 
        appropriation bill were of equal privilege (4 Hinds' Precedents 
        Sec. Sec. 3075, 3076). However, the privileged nature of the 
        motion under Rule XVI clause 9 with respect to revenue bills 
        was derived from and was dependent upon the former privilege 
        conferred upon the Committee on Ways and Means under Rule XI 
        clause 4(a) to report revenue measures to the House at any time 
        (4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 3076).
            Rule XXIV clause 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. 891 (1979), 
        permits entertainment of a motion to resolve into the Committee 
        of the Whole after one hour of consideration of bills from 
        committees. See 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 3072 et seq. and 
        6 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 716 et seq. for earlier 
        precedents relating to timeliness of the motion to resolve into 
        the Committee of the Whole for consideration of revenue or 
        general appropriation measures, and Jefferson's manual, House 
        Rules and Manual Sec. 328 (1979), for the form of a motion to 
        resolve into the Committee of the Whole.
            Although it is the usual practice to designate the subject 
        to be considered, the House on occasion has resolved into the 
        Committee without designating a specific subject. See 8 
        Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2318.
            The motion to go into the Committee of the Whole is in 
        order on District Mondays. House Rules and Manual Sec. 802 
        (1979); 6 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 716-718; and 7 Cannon's 
        Precedents Sec. Sec. 876, 1123.
18. See Sec. 4.8, infra, for discussion of resolving into Committee 
        after a ruling by the Speaker on words taken down in Committee; 
        and see Sec. 10.9, infra, for a discussion of procedure in the 
        House after rejecting a recommendation of the Committee to 
        strike the enacting clause.
 1. House Rules and Manual Sec. 898 (1979); 7 Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. 939.
 2. House Rules and Manual Sec. 898 (1979); 7 Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. Sec. 940, 942.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The motion to resolve into the Committee of the Whole is neither 
debatable (3) nor amendable; (4) it may not be 
laid on the table or indefinitely postponed,(5) and the 
previous question may not be demanded on it.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. House Rules and Manual Sec. 802 (1979); 4 Hinds' Precedents 
        Sec. 3078; and 6 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 716.
 4. House Rules and Manual Sec. 802 (1979); and Sec. 725.
 5. House Rules and Manual Sec. 802 (1979); 6 Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. 726.
 6. House Rules and Manual Sec. 802 (1979); 4 Hinds' Precedents 
        Sec. Sec. 3077-3079.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The motion to resolve into the Committee of the Whole is listed 
seventh in the daily order of business, but the motion is usually given 
more preferential status by the adoption of a special order reported 
from the Committee on Rules providing for the consideration of a bill 
``upon adoption of this resolution.'' (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Rule XXIV clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 878 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Resolving Pursuant to Resolution

Sec. 4.1 Where the House adopts a resolution providing for the 
    immediate consideration of a measure in Committee of the Whole, the 
    House resolves itself into Committee without a motion being made 
    from the floor.

    On Mar. 17, 1970,(8) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole without a motion from the floor after adoption 
of a resolution providing for consideration of a measure in the 
Committee:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 116 Cong. Rec. 7690, 7691, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. See also 118 Cong. 
        Rec. 28829, 28834, 92d Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 17, 1972, for 
        another illustration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [B. F.] Sisk [of California]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of 
    the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 874 and ask for 
    its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 874

            Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this 
        resolution the House shall resolve itself into the Committee of 
        the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration 
        of the bill (S. 858) to amend the Agricultural Adjustment Act 
        of 1938 with respect to wheat. After general debate, which 
        shall be confined to the bill and shall continue not to exceed 
        one hour, to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman 
        and ranking minority member of the Committee on Agriculture, 
        the bill shall be read for amendment under the five-minute 
        rule. At the

[[Page 3273]]

        conclusion of the consideration of the bill for amendment the 
        Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such 
        amendments as may have been adopted, and the previous question 
        shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments 
        thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one 
        motion to recommit.

        The Speaker: (9) The gentleman from California (Mr. 
    Sisk) is recognized for 1 hour. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Sisk: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
    resolution.
        The previous question was ordered.
        The resolution was agreed to.
        A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
        The Speaker: Pursuant to House Resolution 874, the House 
    resolves itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State 
    of the Union for the consideration of the bill (S. 858) to amend 
    the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 with respect to wheat.
        Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
    Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
    bill S. 858, with Mr. Flynt in the chair.

Recognition for Motions to Resolve Provided for by Resolution

Sec. 4.2 The recognition by the Speaker of a designated Member to move 
    that the House resolve into the Committee of the Whole to consider 
    a particular bill may be provided for by resolution.

    On Sept. 27, 1965,(10)~ after the House agreed to a 
motion discharging a resolution from the Committee on Rules, Speaker 
John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, recognized a Member who had been 
designated by the resolution to move that the House resolve itself into 
the Committee of the Whole for consideration of H. R. 4644, the 
District of Columbia home rule bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 111 Cong. Rec. 25185-87, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the resolution. [H. Res. 
    515].
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution the 
        Speaker shall recognize Representative Abraham J. Multer, or 
        Representative Carlton R. Sickles, or Representative Charles 
        McC Mathias, Junior, or Representative Frank J. Horton to move 
        that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole 
        House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
        bill (H.R. 4644) to provide an elected mayor, city council, and 
        nonvoting Delegate to the House of Representatives for the 
        District of Columbia, and for other purposes, and all points of 
        order against said bill are hereby waived. After general 
        debate, which shall be confined to the bill and continue not to 
        exceed five hours, to be equally divided and controlled by one 
        of the aforementioned Members and a Member who is opposed to 
        said bill to be designated by the Speaker, the bill shall be 
        read for amendment under the five-minute rule by titles instead 
        of by sections. . . .

        The Speaker: The question is on agreeing to the resolution.

[[Page 3274]]

        Mr. [Howard W.] Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, on that I 
    demand the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The question was taken; and there were-yeas 223, nays 179, not 
    voting 30. . . .
        So the resolution was agreed to. . . .
        The Speaker: . . . The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New 
    York [Mr. Multer].
        Mr. [Abraham J.] Multer: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House 
    resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State 
    of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 4644) to 
    provide an elected Mayor, City Council, and nonvoting Delegate to 
    the House of Representatives for the District of Columbia, and for 
    other purposes.

Speaker's Discretion in Recognize for Motions to Resolve

Sec. 4.3 Where two bills remain undisposed of by the Committee of the 
    Whole, the Speaker, by recognizing for motions to resolve into the 
    Committee for further consideration of those bills, determines in 
    his discretion the order of consideration of that unfinished 
    business, subject to the will of the House as manifested by the 
    vote on the motion.

    On Nov. 2, 1971,(11) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
indicated that the Chair has discretion to determine the order of 
consideration of unfinished business by recognizing for motions to 
resolve into the Committee of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 117 Cong. Rec. 38693, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [F. Edward] Herbert [of Louisiana]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Hebert: As I understand the situation as of now, and as 
    related to tomorrow, our understanding is that a continuation of 
    consideration of the bill H.R. 2 will be the first order of 
    business when the House meets tomorrow?
        The Speaker: Not under the program, the Chair will answer. 
    There are two unfinished matters pending before the House. One is 
    the Higher Education Act, which has been the unfinished business 
    for several days. It is a matter of discretion of the Chair, and 
    the Chair would like to discuss this matter with all parties 
    concerned.
        Mr. Hebert: I hope the Chair will, because it was my 
    understanding this would be the first order of business tomorrow. 
    That was the reason the committee rose, in deference to the wishes 
    of the Chair.
        The Speaker: The Chair will take that up with parties 
    concerned.

Effect of Refusal to Resolve

Sec. 4.4 Although the House may have agreed that an appropriation bill 
    is to take precedence over other legislation, the House may reach 
    the leg

[[Page 3275]]

    islation of lesser privilege by rejecting the motion to resolve 
    into the Committee of the Whole to consider the appropriation bill.

    On May 9, 1950,(12) during consideration of H.R. 7786, 
the general appropriations bill, 1951, Speaker pro tempore John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, indicated that the House could reach 
legislation of lesser privilege by rejecting the motion that the House 
resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole on the appropriations 
bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 96 Cong. Rec. 6720-24, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The House had previously agreed by unanimous consent that 
consideration of the appropriations bill would take precedence over all 
business except conference reports. However, Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of 
Michigan, sought prior consideration of a resolution disapproving of a 
reorganization plan.

        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I move that the 
    House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the 
    State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill (H.R. 
    7786) making appropriations for the support of the Government for 
    the fiscal year ending June 30, 1951, and for other purposes.
        Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order 
    that the House is not proceeding in the regular order because under 
    section 205a of the Reorganization Act, which is Public Law 109 of 
    the Eighty-first Congress, first session, any Member of the House 
    is privileged, and this is a highly privileged motion, to make the 
    motion that the House proceed to the consideration of House 
    Resolution 516.
        The gentleman from Michigan being on his feet to present this 
    highly privileged motion, the regular order is that he be 
    recognized for that purpose that the motion be entertained and the 
    question put before the House, and my motion is that the House 
    proceed to the consideration of House Resolution 516.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: That is the resolution disapproving 
    one of the reorganization plans?
        Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: That is right, House Resolution 516 
    disapproving plan No. 12. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Does the gentleman from Texas desire 
    to be heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Mahon: Mr. Speaker, on April 5, 1950, as shown at page 4835 
    of the daily Record of that day, the chairman of the Committee on 
    Appropriations, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Cannon] asked and 
    received unanimous consent that the appropriation bill should have 
    the right-of-way over other privileged business under the rules 
    until disposition, with the exception of conference reports. 
    Therefore. I believe the regular order would be to proceed with the 
    further consideration of H.R. 7786.
        Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Record would speak for itself. 
    . . .
        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, may I be 
    heard on the point of order?

[[Page 3276]]

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will hear the gentleman.
        Mr. Rankin: I was going to say that if this is of the highest 
    constitutional privilege it comes ahead of the present legislation.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is prepared to rule. . . .
        The question involved is not a constitutional question but one 
    relating to the rules of the House and to the Legislative 
    Reorganization Act of 1949 which has been alluded to by the 
    gentleman from Michigan and other Members when addressing the Chair 
    on this point of order. The Chair calls attention to the language 
    of paragraph (b) of section 201 of title II of the Reorganization 
    Act of 1949 which reads as follows: ``with full recognition of the 
    constitutional right of either House to change such rules so far as 
    relating to procedure in such House at any time in the same manner 
    and to the same extent as in the case of any other rule of such 
    House.''
        It is very plain from that language that the intent of Congress 
    was to recognize the reservation to each House of certain inherent 
    powers which are necessary for either House to function to meet a 
    particular situation or to carry out its will.
        On April 5, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Cannon], chairman 
    of the Committee on Appropriations, submitted a unanimous-consent 
    request to the House, which was granted, which has the force of a 
    rule, and which relates to the rules of the House governing the 
    consideration of the omnibus appropriation bill while it is before 
    the House and, of course, incidentally affecting other legislation. 
    The consent request submitted by the gentleman from Missouri was 
    ``that the general appropriation bill for the fiscal year 1951 have 
    right-of-way over all other privileged business under the rules 
    until disposition, with the exception of conference reports.''
        That request was granted by unanimous consent. On the next day 
    the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Cannon], in correcting and 
    interpreting the consent request granted on April 5, submitted a 
    further unanimous-consent request.
        The daily Record shows, on page 4976, April 6, that the 
    gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Cannon] said:

            Mr. Speaker, on page 4835 of the daily Record of yesterday, 
        the first column carrying the special order made by the House 
        last night reads that the general appropriation bill shall be a 
        special order privileged above all other business of the House 
        under the rule until disposition. The order made was until 
        final disposition. I ask unanimous consent that the Record and 
        Journal be corrected to conform with the proceedings on the 
        floor of the House yesterday.

        The Record further shows that the Speaker put the request and 
    there was no objection.
        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair recognizes the gentleman.

        Mr. Rankin: We for the first time this year have all the 
    appropriations in one bill. Now, if they drag out consideration 
    under the 5-minute rule beyond the 24th, would that not shut the 
    Congress off entirely from voting on any of these recommendations? 
    So we do have a constitutional right to consider these propositions 
    without having them smothered in this way.

[[Page 3277]]

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that the House 
    always has a constitutional right and power to refuse to go into 
    the Committee of the Whole on any motion made by any Member, so 
    that the House is capable of carrying out its will, whatever may be 
    the will of the majority of the House.
        Continuing, the Chair will state that in the opinion of the 
    present occupant, in view of the unanimous-consent request made by 
    the gentleman from Missouri and granted by the House, if any member 
    of the Appropriations Committee moves that the House resolve itself 
    into the Committee of the Whole on the State of the Union to 
    consider the appropriation bill, that motion has preference over 
    any other preferential motion. It is a matter that the House 
    decides when the motion is made as to what it wants to do and it 
    has an opportunity when that motion is made to carry out its will. 
    . . .
        Mr. [J. Percy] Priest [of Tennessee]: Mr. Speaker, a further 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Priest: My parliamentary inquiry simply is this, that 
    notwithstanding the question of recognition under the unanimous-
    consent request ordered by the House at the request of the 
    gentleman from Missouri, the matter of consideration still is in 
    the House, is it not? If the House refuses to go into the Committee 
    of the Whole it still is a question for the House to decide; is 
    that not correct?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Exactly, and the gentleman from 
    Michigan or anyone else making the motion could address the 
    question to the Chair, which question the Chair would then have to 
    pass upon.

Resolving to Consider Resolution of Disapproval

Sec. 4.5 A motion that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the 
    Whole for the consideration of a resolution disapproving a 
    reorganization plan is highly privileged and may be called up by 
    any Member, and the Member is not required to qualify as being in 
    favor of the resolution.

    On June 8, 1961,(13) Speaker pro tempore Oren Harris, of 
Arkansas, indicated that a motion, made pursuant to the Reorganization 
Act of 1949 [5 USC Sec. 912(a)], that the House resolve itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for consideration of a resolution (H. Res. 303) 
disapproving a reorganization plan was privileged.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 107 Cong. Rec. 9775-77, 87th Cong. 1st Sess. See also 107 Cong. 
        Rec. 12905, 12906, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., July 19, 1961.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. H. R. Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, is it in order and 
    proper at this time to submit a highly privileged motion?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: If the matter to which the gentleman 
    refers is highly privileged, it would be in order.

[[Page 3278]]

        Mr. Gross: Then, Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of section 
    205(a) Public Law 109, the Reorganization Act of 1949, I submit a 
    motion. . . .
        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown [of Ohio]: As I understand the 
    parliamentary situation the motion would be to take up the 
    resolution of rejection; is that correct?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would like to state that the 
    motion has not yet been reported; but the Chair understands that 
    the motion is for the House to go into Committee of the Whole House 
    for the consideration of it.
        Mr. Brown: If that should be defeated, of course, we would not 
    have the resolution of rejection before us.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: . . . The Clerk will report the motion 
    offered by the gentleman from Iowa.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Gross moves that the House resolve itself into the 
        Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the 
        consideration of H. Res. 303 introduced by Mr. Monagan 
        disapproving Reorganization Plan No. 2 transmitted to the 
        Congress by the President on April 27, 1961.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: . . . The question is on the motion 
    offered by the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Gross].
        The motion was rejected.

Sec. 4.6 The rejection of a motion that the House resolve itself into 
    the Committee of the Whole for the consideration of a disapproval 
    resolution does not preclude a subsequent motion to the same 
    effect.

    On June 8, 1961,(14) Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, submitted 
a motion that the House resolve into the Committee of the Whole to 
consider a resolution disapproving of a reorganization plan. Speaker 
pro tempore Oren Harris, of Arkansas, indicated that a subsequent 
motion that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole 
for consideration of a resolution disapproving the same plan would not 
be precluded by the rejection of the pending motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 107 Cong. Rec. 9775-77, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Halleck: As I understand, there is a motion pending to call 
    up what is known as Reorganization Plan No. 2.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would state that the 
    gentleman from Iowa indicated he would submit such a motion, but it 
    has not been reported.
        Mr. Halleck: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it. . . .
        Mr. Halleck: If the pending motion is voted down, would it 
    still be in order

[[Page 3279]]

    at a subsequent date to call up a motion rejecting plan No. 2 for 
    another vote? I ask that because I am opposed to plan No. 2. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The opinion of the Chair, under the 
    Reorganization Act, it could be called up at a subsequent 
    date.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Under 5 USC Sec. 912(a), it is provided: ``When the committee has 
        reported, or has been discharged from further consideration of, 
        a resolution with respect to a reorganization plan, it is at 
        any time thereafter in order (even though a previous motion to 
        the same effect has been disagreed to) to move to proceed to 
        the consideration of the resolution. . . .''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Halleck: In other words, the action that would be taken 
    today would not be final?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Halleck: In view of the fact that there was no notice to 
    the membership of the House of Representatives on either side that 
    this matter would come on for action today, if plan No. 2 is not 
    voted on today it would subsequently be voted on?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct.

After Motion to Discharge

Sec. 4.7 The House may resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole 
    to consider a bill before the House as a result of a motion to 
    discharge.

    On Apr. 26, 1948,(16) after agreeing to discharge H.R. 
2245, to repeal the tax on oleomargarine from the Committee on 
Agriculture, the House agreed to resolve itself into the Committee of 
the Whole for consideration of that bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 94 Cong. Rec. 4835, 4841, 4842, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [L. Mendel] Rivers [of South Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, I call 
    up the motion to discharge the Committee on Agriculture from the 
    further consideration of the bill (H.R. 2245) to repeal the tax on 
    oleomargarine.
        The Speaker:(l7) Did the gentleman sign the 
    petition?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rivers: I did, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: The gentleman qualifies.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.

    After conclusion of the debate on the motion to discharge, the 
following proceedings occurred:

        The Speaker: All time has expired.
        The question is, Shall the Committee on Agriculture be 
    discharged from further consideration of the bill H.R. 2245?
        Mr. [Clifford R.] Hope [of Kansas]: Mr. Speaker, on that I 
    demand the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered. The question was taken; and 
    there were--yeas 235, nays 121, answered ``present'' 2, not voting 
    72. . . .
        The Speaker: Without interfering with the rights of the 
    gentleman from South Carolina to move to go into the Committee of 
    the Whole,(18) the Chair
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Rule XXVII clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 908 (1979) 
        provides: ``If the motion prevails to discharge one of the 
        standing committees of the House from any public bill or 
        resolution pending before the committee, it shall then be in 
        order for any Member who signed the motion to move that the 
        House proceed to the immediate consideration of such bill or 
        resolution (such motion not being debatable), and such motion 
        is hereby made of high privilege. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3280]]

    will entertain consent requests for extensions of remarks only. . . 


        Mr. Rivers: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself 
    into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for 
    the consideration of the bill (H.R. 2245) to repeal the tax on 
    oleomargarine; and pending that motion, Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent that general debate be limited to 3 hours, the 
    time to be equally divided and controlled by the gentleman from 
    Kansas [Mr. Hope] and myself.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from South Carolina?
        There was no objection.
        The Speaker: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from South Carolina.
        The motion was agreed to.
        Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
    Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
    bill H.R. 2245, with Mr. Arends in the chair.

Resolving After Ruling on Words Taken Down

Sec. 4.8 After the Speaker has ruled on words taken down in Committee, 
    the House automatically again resolves into the Committee of the 
    Whole.

    On Mar. 26, 1965,(19) during consideration of H.R. 2362, 
the elementary and secondary education bill of 1965, and after Speaker 
John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, ruled on words taken down in the 
Committee of the Whole, Chairman Richard Bolling, of Missouri, 
indicated that a motion that the House resolve itself into the 
Committee was not necessary because that procedure is automatic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 111 Cong. Rec. 6107, 89th Cong. 1st Sess. See also 111 Cong. Rec. 
        18441, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., July 27, 1965, for another example 
        of the automatic resolution into the Committee of theWhole 
        following the Speaker's ruling on words taken down in the 
        Committee. Generally, the procedure for taking down words in 
        the Committee of the Whole is discussed at Ch. 29 Sec. Sec. 48-
        62, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proceedings in the House were as follows:

        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the words objected to.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            I might suggest further you can beat this dog all you want 
        for political purposes; you can demagog however subtly and try 
        to scare people off at the expense of the Nation's 
        schoolchildren with your demagoguery(20)--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. The weight of authority now supports the view that allegations of a 
        Member's ``demagoguery'' do constitute disorderly language in 
        debate. See Ch. 29, Consideration and Debate, Sec. 60, infra.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3281]]

        The Speaker: The Chair feels that Members in debate have 
    reasonable flexibility in expressing their thoughts.
        The Chair sees nothing about the words that contravene the 
    rules of the House. The point of order is not sustained.
        The Committee will resume its sitting.
        Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of 
    the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further 
    consideration of the bill (H.R. 2362) with Mr. Bolling in the 
    chair. . . .
        The Chairman: The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Thompson].
        Mr. [Frank] Thompson [Jr.] of New Jersey: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks.
        Mr. [Robert P.] Griffin [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I object.

        There has been no motion to resolve the House into the 
    Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union. The 
    gentleman is out of order at this point.
        The Chairman: The House automatically goes back into the 
    Committee of the Whole.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. Powell].

Automatic Call of House on Motion to Resolve

Sec. 4.9 An automatic roll call was had on a motion to go into the 
    Committee of the Whole to consider an appropriation bill after an 
    intervening motion to adjourn was decided in the negative by 
    division vote.

    On Feb. 14, 1946,(21) an automatic roll call was had on 
the motion to go into the Committee of the Whole to consider H.R. 5452, 
making appropriations for the Departments of the Treasury and the Post 
Office after rejection of a motion to adjourn.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 21. 92 Cong. Rec. 1324, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Louis] Ludlow [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, I move that the 
    House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the 
    State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill (H.R. 
    5452) making appropriations for the Treasury and Post Office 
    Departments for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1947, and for other 
    purposes.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore:(22) The question is on the 
    motion offered by the gentleman from Indiana.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 22. John J. Sparkman (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Cochran) there were--ayes 103, no 1.
        Mr. [John J.] Cochran [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I object to 
    the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the 
    point of order that a quorum is not present.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will count. [After 
    counting.] One hundred and seventy-four Members present; not a 
    quorum.

[[Page 3282]]

        Mr. [Compton I.] White [of Idaho]: Mr. Speaker, I move that the 
    House do now adjourn.
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    White) there were--ayes 31, no 103.
        So the motion was rejected.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the motion offered 
    by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Ludlow].
        The Doorkeeper will close the doors, the Sergeant-at-Arms will 
    notify absent Members, and the Clerk will call the roll.
        The question was taken; and there were-yeas 243, nays 16, not 
    voting 171, as follows: . . .

Motion to Resolve as Related to Question of Consideration

Sec. 4.10 The question of consideration may not be raised against a 
    motion to resolve into the Committee of the Whole for the 
    consideration of a proposition.

    On May 21, 1958,(23) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
ruled that the question of consideration could not be raised against 
the motion to resolve into the Committee of the Whole for the 
consideration of a bill, the motion to resolve being itself a test of 
the will of the House on consideration:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 23. 104 Cong. Rec. 9216, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Howard W.] Smith of Virginia: May I submit a parliamentary 
    inquiry, Mr. Speaker?
        The Speaker: The gentleman may.
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: Under what circumstances can the 
    question of consideration be raised?
        The Speaker: The Chair tried to say a moment ago that it cannot 
    be raised against the motion to go into the Committee of the Whole, 
    because that is tantamount to consideration, and the House will 
    have an opportunity to vote on that motion.
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: In other words, if we demand a vote on 
    that question, then that will be tantamount to raising the question 
    of consideration?
        The Speaker: That is correct.

Withdrawing Motion to Resolve

Sec. 4.11 A Member may withdraw his motion that the House resolve 
    itself into the Committee of the Whole at any time before the 
    motion is acted upon, and unaumous consent is not required.

    On Mar. 17, 1971,(24) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
stated that a motion that the House resolve itself into the Committee 
of the Whole could be withdrawn without House permission at any time 
before the motion is acted upon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 24. 117 Cong. Rec.  6847, 6848, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I move that 
    the House resolve itself into the Com

[[Page 3283]]

    mittee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the 
    consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 223) proposing an 
    amendment to the Constitution of the United States, extending the 
    right to vote to citizens 18 years of age or older.
        The Speaker: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from New York.
        For what purpose does the gentleman from Iowa rise?
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Gross: Is it proposed to take up this joint resolution at 
    this hour?
        The Speaker: For general debate only.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, I intend to make a point of order that 
    a quorum is not present.
        Mr. Celler: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the motion.

        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, does that not require unanimous 
    consent?
        The Speaker: The gentleman has the authority of withdrawing his 
    motion before it is acted upon by the House.
        The gentleman has withdrawn his motion.

Sec. 4.12 The chairman of the committee, at the request of the Speaker, 
    withdrew his motion to go into Committee of the Whole to consider a 
    bill reported by his committee, in order that the House might 
    consider emergency legislation reported by another committee.

    On Dec. 9, 1970,(25) the Chairman of the Committee on 
Foreign Affairs, Thomas E. Morgan, of Pennsylvania, at the request of 
Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, withdrew his motion that 
the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole. This motion 
was withdrawn to enable the House immediately to consider emergency 
railroad strike legislation reported by the Committee on Interstate and 
Foreign Commerce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 25. 116 Cong. Rec. 40688--91, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Morgan: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself 
    into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for 
    the consideration of the bill (H.R. 19911) to amend the Foreign 
    Assistance Act of 1961, and for other purposes. . . .
        The Speaker: Will the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Morgan) 
    withdraw his motion for the consideration of the bill H.R. 19911.
        Mr. Morgan: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the motion to go into 
    Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the 
    consideration of the bill H.R. 19911. . . .
        Mr. [William M.] Colmer [of Mississippi], from the Committee on 
    Rules, reported the following privileged resolution (H. Res. 1300, 
    Rept. No. 91-1687), which was referred to the House Calendar and 
    ordered to be printed:

                                  H. Res. 1300

            Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
        shall be in order

[[Page 3284]]

        to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the 
        Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of 
        the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 1413) to provide for a 
        temporary prohibition of strikes or lockouts with respect to 
        the current railway labor-management dispute. . . .

        Mr. Colmer: Mr. Speaker, I call up House Resolution 1300 and 
    ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the resolution.

Procedure of Motion to Resolve Over Motion to Discharge

Sec. 4.13 To a motion that the House resolve itself into the Committee 
    of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of a 
    bill, a motion that the Committee of the Whole be discharged and 
    that the bill be laid on the table is not preferential and not in 
    order.

    On Apr. 2, 1938,(26) during consideration of S. 3331, 
regarding government reorganization, Speaker William B. Bankhead, of 
Alabama, ruled that a motion that the Committee of the Whole be 
discharged and that the bill be laid on the table is not preferential 
to a motion that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the 
Whole for consideration of a bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
26.  83 Cong. Rec. 4621, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John J.] Cochran [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I move that 
    the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on 
    the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill 
    (S. 3331) to provide for reorganizing agencies of the Government, 
    extending the classified civil service, establishing a General 
    Auditing Office and a Department of Welfare, and for other 
    purposes.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Missouri moves that the House 
    resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state 
    of the Union for the further consideration of the bill (S. 3331) to 
    provide for reorganizing agencies of the Government, extending the 
    classified civil service, establishing a General Auditing Office 
    and a Department of Welfare, and for other purposes.
        Mr. [John J.] O'Connor of New York: Mr. Speaker--
        The Speaker: For what purpose does the gentleman from New York 
    rise?
        Mr. O'Connor of New York: To offer a preferential motion.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. O'Connor of New York moves that the Committee of the 
        Whole House on the state of the Union be discharged from 
        further consideration of the bill S. 3331, and that said bill 
        be laid on the table.

        Mr. [Lindsay C.] Warren [of North Carolina]: A point of order, 
    Mr. Speaker.

[[Page 3285]]

        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Warren: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious, of course, even to the 
    gentleman from New York, great parliamentarian that he is, that 
    this motion is merely dilatory. The motion pending before the House 
    is that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole 
    House on the state of the Union. This is the only motion now 
    pending. A motion to lay the bill on the table when it is not even 
    up for consideration is entirely out of order.
        Mr. O'Connor of New York: Mr. Speaker, under clause 4, rule 
    XVI,(1) the motion I offer is a preferential motion. It 
    must be made in the House, it cannot be made in the Committee of 
    the Whole. A motion has been made to consider the bill. A motion to 
    lay the bill on the table is preferential, I submit, according to 
    the authorities I have examined and under the exact language of 
    clause 4, rule XVI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. House Rules and Manual Sec. 782 (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The gentleman from New York [Mr. O'Connor] offers what he 
    states is a preferential motion that the Committee of the Whole 
    House on the state of the Union be discharged from consideration of 
    the bill S. 3331, and said bill be laid on the table.
        The Chair is of the opinion that under the rules of the House a 
    motion of this sort is not a preferential motion, and therefore not 
    in order. The matter now pending is a simple motion that the House 
    resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state 
    of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, and under 
    the precedents a motion to discharge the Committee of the Whole 
    House on the state of the Union from the further consideration of a 
    bill is not a privileged motion.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Even if the motion had been a straight 
motion to lay on the table, it would not have been in order since the 
bill was not ``under debate'' and therefore not subject to motions 
under clause 4, Rule XVI.


 
                               CHAPTER 19
 
                       The Committee of the Whole
 
                            B. THE CHAIRMAN
 
Sec. 5. Speaker's Appointment of Chairman


    When the early rules of the House were first drafted, the Chairman 
of the Committee of the Whole was elected by the House following the 
custom of the British Parliament. A 1794 modification altered the 
method of selection from election by the Members to appointment by the 
Speaker.(2)

[[Page 3286]]

Rule XXIII clause 1 mandates the Speaker ``in all cases'' to leave the 
Chair after appointing a Chairman of the Committee of the Whole. This 
requirement is rooted in the history of the British House of Commons 
and the original purpose of the Committee of the Whole. The Speaker of 
the House of Commons during the reign of the Stuarts was a partisan of 
the King who reported proceedings to him. To preserve their 
confidences, Members of the House of Commons formed the Committee of 
the Whole and elected one of their colleagues to preside over debates 
on financial matters. The Speaker was not permitted in the Hall of the 
House of Commons during these meetings.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Rule XXIII clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 861 (1979); 
        Jefferson's Manual, House Rules and Manual Sec. 328 (1979); and 
        4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4704.
 3. See 99 Cong. Rec. 1897, 1898, 83d Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 12, 1953, 
        for a statement by Representative Clarence Cannon, and Reed, 
        Thomas B., Reed's Rules, A Manual of General Parliamentary Law, 
        Rand, McNally & Co., 1894, p. 67, for discussions of the origin 
        of the Committee of the 
        Whole.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In General

Sec. 5.1 Parliamentarian's Note: The Chairman of the Committee of the 
    Whole is appointed by the Speaker. The Chairman decides questions 
    of order arising in the Committee independently of the Speaker. He 
    recognizes for debate, but like the Speaker is forbidden to 
    recognize for requests to suspend the rule of admission to the 
    floor.

    Rule XXIII clause 1 provides that ``In all cases, in forming a 
Committee of the Whole House, the Speaker shall leave his chair after 
appointing a Chairman to preside, who shall, in case of disturbance or 
disorderly conduct in the galleries or lobby, have power to cause the 
same to be cleared.'' (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. House Rules and Manual Sec. 861 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As to admission to the floor, Rule XXXII clause 1 provides: ``The 
persons hereinafter named, and none other, shall be admitted to the 
Hall of the House or rooms leading thereto . . . and it shall not be in 
order for the Speaker to entertain a request for the suspension of this 
rule. . . .'' (5) The rule also applies to the Chairman of 
the Committee of the Whole (see 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 7285).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. House Rules and Manual Sec. 919 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chairman Pro Tempore

Sec. 5.2 Where the Member named by the Speaker to act

[[Page 3287]]

    as Chairman of the Committee of the Whole is not present at the 
    time the House resolves into Committee, the Speaker may ask another 
    Member to assume the chair as Chairman pro tempore pending the 
    arrival of the Chairman.

    On Oct. 18, 1967,(6) Speaker pro tempore Carl Albert, of 
Oklahoma, designated one Member, Charles A. Vanik, of Ohio, as Chairman 
of the Committee of the Whole and, because Mr. Vanik was not present 
when the House resolved into Committee, appointed another, Member, 
Daniel D. Rostenkowski, of Illinois, to assume the Chair temporarily.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 113 Cong. Rec. 29277, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I move that the 
    House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the 
    State of the Union for the consideration of the joint resolution 
    (H.J. Res. 888), making continuing appropriations for the fiscal 
    year 1968, and for other purposes.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the motion offered 
    by the gentleman from Texas.
        The motion was agreed to.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair designates the gentleman 
    from Ohio [Mr. Vanik], as Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, 
    and requests the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Rostenkowski] to 
    assume the chair temporarily.
        Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
    Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
    joint resolution (H.J. Res. 888), with Mr. Rostenkowski in the 
    chair.

Use of Term ``Madam Chairman''

Sec. 5.3 A female Member who is appointed Chairman of the Committee of 
    the Whole should be addressed as ``Madam Chairman.''

    On Sept. 20, 1973,(7) during consideration of H.R. 9281, 
relating to retirement benefits of law enforcement and fire-fighter 
personnel, Mrs. Martha W. Griffiths, of Michigan, stated the form of 
address of a female Chairman of the Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 119 Cong. Rec. 30589, 30592, 30594, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [H.R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Madam Chairperson, I yield myself 
    such time as I may consume.
        Madam Chairman, I was interested to hear the gentleman speak of 
    the special benefits given to municipal employees of the city of 
    New York. . . .
        The Chairman: For the benefit of Members, the Chair would like 
    to announce that the Chair is properly addressed as Madam Chairman. 
    While she seems to be neutral, she is not neuter.

[[Page 3288]]




 
                               CHAPTER 19
 
                       The Committee of the Whole
 
                            B. THE CHAIRMAN
 
Sec. 6. Chairman's Role; Jurisdiction

    Points of order relating to procedure arising in the Committee of 
the Whole are decided by the Chairman.(8) Rule XXIII clause 
1 (9) empowers the Chairman to cause the galleries or 
lobbies to be cleared in case of disturbance or disorderly conduct. 
Nonetheless, in cases of extreme disorder the Speaker has taken the 
Chair and restored order without a formal rising of the 
Committee.(10) The Chairman is assisted by the Sergeant at 
Arms who attends sittings of the Committee to maintain order under 
direction of the Chair.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 6927, 6928. But see 4 Hinds' 
        Precedents Sec. 4783, which states that in an exceptional case 
        the Committee rose and reported a question of order for 
        decision of the House when an appeal was taken from a ruling of 
        the Chairman.
            In rare cases where the Chairman has been defied or 
        insulted, he has directed the Committee to rise, left the 
        Chair, and, following assumption of the Chair by the Speaker, 
        reported the facts to the House. Note to Rule XXIII clause 1, 
        House Rules and Manual Sec. 862 (1973); 2 Hinds' Precedents 
        Sec. Sec. 1350, 1651, 1653.
 9. House Rules and Manual Sec. 861 (1979).
10. Note to Rule I clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 622 (1979); 2 
        Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 1348, 1648-1653, 1657.
11. Rule IV clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 648 (1979); Rule 
        XXIII clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 862 (1979); and 1 
        Hinds' Precedents Sec. 257.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Committee of the Whole only the Chairman may recognize 
Members for debate.(12) However, like the Speaker, he is 
forbidden from recognizing requests to suspend the rule of admission to 
the floor.(13) The Chairman has a duty to call to order any 
Member who violates the privileges of debate (14) even in 
the absence of any suggestion from the floor.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5003. See Sec. 15, infra, for a discussion 
        of recognition for debate.
13. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 7285. See also Rule XXXII, House Rules and 
        Manual Sec. Sec. 919-921 (1979) relating to admission to the 
        floor.
14. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2515. See Sec. 17, infra, for discussion 
        of the procedure when words are taken down.
15. 8 Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. 2520.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ruling on Points Not in Issue

Sec. 6.1 The Chair does not rule on issues not presented in a point of 
    order.

    On June 27, 1949,(16) during consideration of H.R. 4009, 
the

[[Page 3289]]

Housing Act of 1949, and after overruling a point of order that certain 
provisions exceeded the jurisdiction of the Committee on Banking and 
Currency because they constituted appropriations, Chairman Hale Boggs, 
of Louisiana, declined to rule on an issue which had not been presented 
in the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 95 Cong. Rec. 8480, 8536-38, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, the point 
    of order I make is that subparagraphs (e) and (f) of section 102 in 
    title I constitute the appropriation of funds from the Federal 
    Treasury, and that the Committee on Banking and Currency is without 
    jurisdiction to report a bill carrying appropriations under clause 
    4, rule 21, which says that no bill or joint resolution carrying 
    appropriations shall be reported by any committee not having 
    jurisdiction to report appropriations.
        This is no casual point of order made as a tactical maneuver in 
    consideration of the bill. I make this point of order because this 
    proposes to expand and develop a device or mechanism for getting 
    funds out of the Federal Treasury in an unprecedented degree.
        The Constitution has said that no money shall be drawn from the 
    Treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law. It must 
    follow that the mechanism which gets the money out of the Treasury 
    is an appropriation. . . .
        This proposal will give to the Committee on Banking and 
    Currency, if it should be permitted, authority which the Committee 
    on Appropriations does not have, for in the reporting of an 
    appropriation bill for a fiscal year, any appropriation beyond the 
    fiscal year would be held out of order. Here this committee is 
    reporting a bill which proposes to make mandatory extractions from 
    the Treasury during a period of 4 years. . . .
        Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: . . . The provision 
    in paragraph (f) that my friend has raised a point of order against 
    relates entirely to loans. As we read section 102 of title I it 
    starts out with loans. Throughout the bill, a number of times, 
    there is reference to loans.
        Paragraph (e) says:

            To obtain funds for loans under this title. . . .

        I respectfully submit that it must call for an appropriation 
    out of the general funds of the Treasury in order to violate the 
    rules of the House. This permits the use of money raised by the 
    sale of bonds under the Second Liberty Bond Act for loans to these 
    public agencies, such loans to be repaid with interest.
        I respectfully submit, complimenting my friend for having 
    raised the point of order--and certainly, it is not a dilatory one, 
    nor a casual one, one that demands respect--that the point of order 
    does not lie against the language contained in the pending bill. . 
    . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair agrees with the gentleman from South Dakota that the 
    point which has been raised is not a casual point of order. As a 
    matter of fact, as far as the Chair has been able to ascertain, 
    this is the first time a point of order has been raised on this

[[Page 3290]]

    issue as violative of clause 4 of rule XXI.
        As the Chair sees the point of order, the issue involved turns 
    on the meaning of the word ``appropriation.'' ``Appropriation,'' in 
    its usual and customary interpretation, means taking money out of 
    the Treasury by appropriate legislative language for the support of 
    the general functions of Government. The language before us does 
    not do that. This language authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury 
    to use proceeds of public-debt issues for the purpose of making 
    loans. Under the language, the Treasury of the United States makes 
    advances which will be repaid in full with interest over a period 
    of years without cost to the taxpayers.
        Therefore, the Chair rules that this language does not 
    constitute an appropriation, and overrules the point of order.
        Mr. Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Case of South Dakota: Would the Chair hold then that that 
    language restricts the Secretary of the Treasury to using the 
    proceeds of the securities issued under the second Liberty Bond Act 
    and prevents him from using the proceeds from miscellaneous 
    receipts or tax revenues?
        The Chairman: The Chair does not have authority to draw that 
    distinction. The Chair is passing on the particular point which has 
    been raised.
        Mr. Case of South Dakota: However, Mr. Chairman, it would seem 
    implicit in the ruling of the Chair and I thought perhaps it could 
    be decided as a part of the parliamentary history. It might help 
    some courts later on.
        The Chairman: The Chair can make a distinction between the 
    general funds of the Treasury and money raised for a specific 
    purpose by the issuance of securities. That is the point involved 
    here.

Rulings to Follow Precedents

Sec. 6.2 The Chairman follows the precedents of the House in making 
    decisions on points of order.

    On July 28, 1959,(17) during consideration of a point of 
order that an amendment to H.R. 8385, making appropriations for the 
mutual security program, was legislative in intent, Chairman Wilbur D. 
Mills, of Arkansas, changed his opinion after being made aware of a 
precedent in which a point of order to a similar amendment was 
overruled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 105 Cong. Rec. 14521, 14522, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John V.] Dowdy [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Dowdy: On page 5, after line 21, 
        add a new section as follows: ``No part of any appropriation 
        contained in this Act shall be expended, in the event any such 
        expenditure will increase, directly or indirectly, the public 
        debt of the United States of America.''

        Mr. [Otto E.] Passman [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a 
    point of order.

[[Page 3291]]

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state the point of order.
        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, it creates additional duties and 
    changes existing law.
        The Chairman: The Chair will hear the gentleman from Texas on 
    the point of order.
        Mr. Dowdy: Mr. Chairman, the amendment I have offered puts a 
    limitation on an appropriation. I offered the same amendment in 
    previous years and it has been held not to be legislation upon an 
    appropriation bill. The fact of the matter is it follows in words 
    section 102 of the present bill.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Texas offers an amendment to 
    which the gentleman from New York makes a point of order on the 
    ground that the amendment is legislation on an appropriation bill, 
    therefore not germane to the bill before the Committee. Though the 
    amendment appears to be in the form of a simple limitation on an 
    appropriation bill, the Chair is of the opinion that the amendment 
    itself will place additional duties and responsibilities and 
    functions on someone perhaps in the executive department or in the 
    Congress.
        Mr. Dowdy: Mr. Chairman, in a previous year that very amendment 
    has been ruled on to the contrary by the Chair.
        The Chairman: If the gentleman would cite the decision, the 
    Chair would be glad to have it.
        Mr. Dowdy: I think it was 2 or 3 years ago on this bill. I do 
    not have the decision.
        The Chairman: The present occupant of the chair does not recall 
    it. In view of the gentleman's statement, the Chair is constrained 
    to withhold his final decision until he can look into the matter. . 
    . .
        The Chairman: The time of the gentleman from Texas has expired.
        The Chair is now prepared to rule on the point of order.
        The Chair appreciates the fact that the gentleman from Texas 
    called the attention of the present occupant of the chair to the 
    amendment offered in connection with the appropriation bill for 
    mutual security in 1955. The gentleman from Texas at that time 
    offered an amendment which is not identical with the amendment he 
    offered today, although apparently the purpose of the amendment 
    offered then and that of the amendment offered today are the same. 
    The language varies slightly.
        The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, on that occasion, 
    the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walter], held that the 
    amendment offered then in 1955 was merely a limitation. The present 
    occupant of the chair feels constrained to follow the precedent 
    pointed out by the gentleman from Texas and therefore overrules the 
    point of order.
        The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Texas [Mr. Dowdy].

Clarification of Earlier Ruling

Sec. 6.3 After the Committee of the Whole had agreed that debate on an 
    amendment be limited to five minutes and the Chair had 
    misinterpreted

[[Page 3292]]

    the agreement as limiting debate on the amendment and all 
    amendments thereto, the Chair later the same day apologized to the 
    Committee and to a Member who had been denied the privilege of 
    debate on his amendment to the amendment because of this 
    misinterpretation.

    On May 3, 1946,(18) during consideration of H.R. 6056, 
the 1947 appropriation bill for the Departments of State, Justice, 
Commerce, and the Judiciary, Chairman Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas, 
apologized for denying Mr. John M. Vorys, of Ohio, the privilege of 
debate on his amendment to an amendment. The apology was made because 
the Chairman misinterpreted a unanimous-consent request made by Mr. 
Louis C. Rabaut, of Michigan, that ``all debate on the pending 
amendment,'' which had been offered by Mr. Vorys, ``close in 5 
minutes.'' Although the unanimous-consent agreement would have barred 
Mr. Vorys from debating his original amendment because the five minutes 
had expired at the time he rose to speak, it should not have been 
applied in this instance because Mr. Vorys rose to speak not on the 
``pending amendment'' but rather on a new amendment which he sought to 
offer to the pending amendment.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 92 Cong. Rec. 4404-06, 4418, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
19. Parliamentarian's Note: If no objection is raised, a proponent of 
        an amendment may amend his own amendment. 116 Cong. Rec. 19754, 
        91st Cong. 2d Sess., June 15, 1970. See Ch. 27, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rabaut: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all 
    debate on the pending amendment close in 5 minutes.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Michigan?
        There was no objection.
        Mr. Rabaut: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Vorys] be read 
    again for the information of the Committee.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Michigan?
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, reserving the 
    right to object, I think we ought to have a little more time.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Michigan?
        There was no objection.
        The Clerk reread the pending Vorys amendment.
        Mr. Rabaut: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Ohio has submitted 
    a very complicated amendment. But the meaning of the amendment is 
    very simple. . . .
        The Chairman: The time of the gentleman from Michigan has 
    expired. All time has expired. . . .

[[Page 3293]]

        Mr. Rabaut: I ask for a vote on the amendment, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The question recurs on the amendment.
        Mr. Vorys of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment, which I 
    send to the Clerk's desk.
        The Chairman: Is it an amendment to the pending amendment?
        Mr. Vorys of Ohio: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the amendment.

        Mr. Rabaut: A parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Rabaut: On what ground is this amendment considered?
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Ohio has offered an amendment 
    to his amendment.
        Mr. Rabaut: But debate has been closed and the gentleman cannot 
    be recognized for debate.
        The Chairman: The Chair does not recognize the gentleman for 
    debate.
        Mr. Vorys of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, no debate could possibly have 
    been closed on this amendment which was not offered.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Michigan's unanimous-consent 
    request was that all debate close within 5 minutes on the pending 
    amendment and all amendments thereto.
        Mr. Vorys of Ohio: No, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Ohio to his amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Vorys of Ohio to the amendment 
        offered by Mr. Vorys of Ohio: After the words ``September 1, 
        1946,'' insert ``not specifically authorized by act of 
        Congress.''

        The Chairman: The question recurs on the amendment to the 
    amendment.
        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, I offer a preferential motion.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Taber: Mr. Taber 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.

    After debate, the motion of Mr. Taber was rejected by voice vote. 
The amendment of Mr. Vorys to the amendment of Mr. Vorys was rejected 
on a teller vote of ayes 88, noes 106.

        The Chairman: The Chair desires to make a statement.
        Earlier today, immediately upon the House resolving itself into 
    the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the 
    consideration of the present bill, H.R. 6065, the chairman of the 
    subcommittee handling the bill propounded a unanimous-consent 
    request which the Chair endeavored to understand. The Chair, in 
    attempting to understand the unanimous-consent request, failed, 
    however, to understand that request as it was transcribed by the 
    official reporter. The Chair has before him the transcript of the 
    record as taken by the official reporter, of the request made by 
    the gen

[[Page 3294]]

    tleman from Michigan. The request of the gentleman from Michigan 
    was that all debate on the pending amendment close in 5 minutes. 
    The Chair misunderstood the gentleman so that when the gentleman 
    from Ohio [Mr. Vorys] offered an amendment to his amendment, the 
    gentleman from Ohio, instead of being recognized for the 5 minutes 
    to which he was entitled, was barred by the Chair from speaking in 
    support of his amendment to the amendment.
        The Chair wishes to apologize to the Committee and to the 
    gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Vorys] for making a most unintentional 
    misinterpretation of the request of the gentleman from Michigan. 
    The Chair trusts the apology of the Chair may be accepted both by 
    the gentleman from Ohio and the Committee.

Interruption of Debate by Chair

Sec. 6.4 The Chair may interrupt a Member of the House in debate when 
    the Member proposes to read the opinions or statements of a Member 
    of the Senate.

    On May 25, 1937,(20) during consideration of House Joint 
Resolution 361, a relief appropriation, Chairman John J. O'Connor, of 
New York, interrupted a Member who sought to read a letter from a 
Member of the other body.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 81 Cong. Rec. 5013, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Alfred F.] Beiter [of New York]: . . . Mr. Chairman, I 
    have letters here from Members of the Senate saying they are in 
    sympathy with this movement. If you will permit me, I will read a 
    letter from Senator Murray, in which he says--
        The Chairman: The Chair, on its own responsibility, makes the 
    point of order against the reading of a letter from a Member of 
    another body.(21)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. Parliamentarian's Note: Jefferson's Manual provides: ``It is a 
        breach of order in debate to notice what has been said on the 
        same subject in the other House. . . . Therefore it is the duty 
        of the House, and more particularly the Speaker, to interfere 
        immediately, and not to permit expressions to go unnoticed 
        which may give a ground of complaint to the other House. . . 
        .'' House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 371-374 (1979). See also 
        Ch. 29, Sec. 44, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Expression of Appreciation to Chairman

Sec. 6.5 The House leaders expressed their appreciation for the dignity 
    and fairness of the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole in 
    presiding over debate on an appropriation bill.

    On May 10, 1950,(22) House leaders from both parties 
expressed their appreciation for the manner in which the Chairman,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. 96 Cong. Rec. 6841, 6842, 81st Cong. 2d Sess. The proceedings 
        described are illustrative of courtesies frequently expressed 
        in the House of Representatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3295]]

Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, presided over Committee of the Whole in the 
consideration of H.R. 7786, the first general appropriation bill, 1951.

        Mr. [J. Percy] Priest [of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, I move to 
    strike out the last word.
        Mr. Chairman, within a very few minutes the Committee of the 
    Whole House on the State of the Union will rise and report this 
    omnibus appropriation bill back to the House. The House of 
    Representatives, Mr. Chairman, always appreciates a job well done, 
    and when that job happens to be a difficult and a tedious and a 
    tiring job, the measure of appreciation is all the greater.
        I take the floor at the close of this debate to express a very 
    sincere appreciation for the magnificent job done by my 
    distinguished colleague the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Cooper] 
    in presiding over this bill in Committee.
        I am sure that my sentiments in this respect are shared by 
    every Member of this House on both sides of the aisle.
        Mr. [Joseph W.] Martin [Jr.] of Massachusetts: Mr. Chairman, 
    will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Priest: I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
        Mr. Martin of Massachusetts: I want to join, in behalf of the 
    Republican Members of this House, in this commendation of our very 
    able Chairman who has conducted himself with great dignity and 
    fairness. We, on this side, appreciate him as we always have.
        Mr. Priest: I thank the gentleman.
        Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, will 
    the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Priest: I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
        Mr. McCormack: We are all proud of Jere Cooper, not only as a 
    Member of the House, but for the outstanding and the fine manner in 
    which he always has presided over any bill that he has been 
    designated as Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House. I have 
    served with my friend for many years. The people of his district 
    and of his State can well be proud of their Jere Cooper.

        Mr. Priest: I thank the majority leader.
        Mr. Chairman, for more than a month this bill has been before 
    the House. Day after day since about April 3 the distinguished 
    gentleman from Tennessee has demonstrated every hour of every day 
    those qualities of patience and fairness and justice that mark him 
    as a great presiding officer.
        In addition to his arduous duties of presiding during 
    consideration of this bill, he has carried his part of the load 
    during all of that time as the ranking majority member of the 
    Committee on Ways and Means as it seeks to write a new tax bill.
        The Chairman: The Chair appreciates the very kind references.
        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I move that 
    the Committee do now rise and report the bill back to the House 
    with sundry amendments, with the recommendation that the amendments 
    be agreed to and that the bill as amended do pass.


 
                               CHAPTER 19
 
                       The Committee of the Whole
 
                            B. THE CHAIRMAN
 
Sec. 7.--Limitations on the Chairman's Jurisdiction

    The jurisdiction of the Chairman of the Committee of the

[[Page 3296]]

Whole is not unlimited; certain determinations are reserved to the 
Speaker, the House, or the Committee itself. Thus, the Committee of the 
Whole, not the Chairman, determines whether language in a committee 
report is binding,(1) and the Speaker responds to inquiries 
regarding whether a time limitation may be rescinded (2) or 
whether a two-thirds vote is required in the House.(3) The 
House determines the constitutionality of proposed 
legislation,(4) the sufficiency or legal effect of committee 
reports,(5) and whether the Committee of the Whole may sit 
in executive session.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Sec. 7.16, infra.
 2. Sec. 7.12, infra.
 3. Sec. 7.13, infra.
 4. Sec. 7.2, infra.
 5. Sec. 7.17, infra.
 6. Sec. 7.18, infra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Constitutional Questions

Sec. 7.1 The Chairman does not pass on questions of constitutionality.

    On Mar. 11, 1958,(7) during consideration of S. 497, 
authorizing the construction, repair, and preservation of certain 
public works on rivers and harbors for navigation, Chairman Howard W. 
Smith, of Virginia, referred to the power of the Chair to rule on 
constitutional questions.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 104 Cong. Rec. 4020, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
 8. See also 112 Cong. Rec. 25677, 89th Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 7, 1966, 
        in which Chairman Charles M. Price (Ill.), stated that the 
        Chair does not pass on constitutional questions; and see 94 
        Cong. Rec. 5817, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., May 13, 1948, for another 
        illustration of this principle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Donald E.] Tewes [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Tewes: On page 57, immediately 
        after line 22, insert the following:

        ``Sec. 211. For the purpose of disapproval by the President, 
    each paragraph of each of the preceding sections, shall be 
    considered a bill within the meaning of article I, section 7, of 
    the Constitution of the United States, and each such paragraph 
    which is disapproved shall not become law unless repassed in 
    accordance with the provisions of section 7, article I, of the 
    Constitution relating to the repassage of a bill disapproved by the 
    President.''
        And renumber the following section accordingly.
        Mr. [Frank E.] Smith of Mississippi: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment on the ground that such 
    language is entirely out of order on any type of legislation. We do 
    not have a provision in our Constitution for an item veto.
        Mr. Tewes: Mr. Chairman, I do not think that constitutional 
    provisions are involved.

[[Page 3297]]

        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. The Chair does not 
    pass upon constitutional questions. The amendment seems to be 
    pertinent to the bill and relates to the bill. Therefore, the Chair 
    overrules the point of order.

Sec. 7.2 The question of the constitutionality of proposed legislation 
    is a matter for the House, and not the Chairman, to decide.

    On May 10, 1973,(9) during consideration of an amendment 
to H.R. 7447, Chairman Jack B. Brooks, of Texas, ruled on the authority 
to decide constitutional questions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 119 Cong. Rec. 15290, 15291, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    point of order against the language beginning at page 6, line 10 
    through line 12.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Yates: Mr. Chairman. I make a point of order against the 
    language set forth in lines 10, 11, and 12, on page 6.
        Article I, section 8, of the Constitution of the United States 
    says:

            The Congress shall have the power to declare war.

        Congress has not declared war against Cambodia or Laos or 
    against any other country in Southeast Asia for that matter. 
    Congress has not given the President any authority to use the 
    American Armed Forces in Cambodia and Laos. Nevertheless, on order 
    of President Nixon, American military planes are bombing in both 
    those countries. The appropriation contained in the transfer 
    authority includes funds to continue the bombing of Cambodia and 
    Laos. That appears in the report of the committee and in the 
    testimony of the committee. This has been conceded by witnesses 
    appearing before the committee, and Secretary of Defense Richardson 
    again stated to the press yesterday that whether or not Congress 
    approves the transfer authority, the bombing would continue. . . .
        I am asking the Chair for its ruling on two points. One, I ask 
    the Chair to rule with respect to military appropriations which 
    provide funds for American Armed Forces to engage in war under rule 
    XXI, section 2, of the Rules of Procedure of the House of 
    Representatives, which states there must be, as well as any other 
    legislation authorizing such action, compliance with article I, 
    section 8, of the U.S. Constitution, which requires the approval of 
    the Congress for American Armed Forces to engage in that war. . . .
        The Chairman: Before the Chair will rule on this he will ask 
    the Clerk to read the section on which the point of order was 
    raised. The paragraph beginning on line 9.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Section 735 of the Department of Defense Appropriation Act, 
        1973, is amended by deleting ``$750,000,000'' and inserting 
        ``$1,180,000,000'' in lieu thereof. . . .

        The Chair is ready to rule.
        The Chair has read the resolution, and the resolution adopted 
    by the House under which this legislation is being considered says 
    that--

[[Page 3298]]

            All points of order against said bill for failure to comply 
        with the provisions of clause 2 and clause 5 of rule XXI are 
        hereby waived.

        Under clause 2, which the Chair has read, the pending paragraph 
    would be subject to a point of order, as legislation, were it not 
    for this rule.
        The Chair is not in a position, nor is it proper for the Chair 
    to rule on the constitutionality of the language, or on the 
    constitutionality or other effect of the action of the House in 
    adopting the resolution of the Committee on Rules. In the head 
    notes in the precedents of the House it very clearly states that it 
    is not the duty of a chairman to construe the Constitution as it 
    may affect proposed legislation, or to interpret the legality or 
    effect of language; and the Chair therefore overrules the point of 
    order raised by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates).

Sec. 7.3 It is the duty of the Chairman to determine whether the 
    provisions in a pending bill conform to the rules of the House, but 
    the Chair will not construe the constitutional validity of those 
    provisions.

    On May 10, 1973,(10) during consideration of an 
amendment to H.R. 7447, supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 
1973, Chairman Jack B. Brooks, of Texas, determined that the amendment 
conformed to the House rules, but declined to construe the 
constitutional validity thereof.(11) 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 119 Cong. Rec. 15290, 15291, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
11. See Sec. 7.2, supra, for the relevant debate on May 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Merits of Proposed Legislation

Sec. 7.4 It is not the function of the Chair to pass upon the merits of 
    a proposed amendment or bill.

    On May 19, 1948,(12) during consideration of H.R. 5852, 
regarding control of subversive activities, Chairman James W. 
Wadsworth, Jr., of New York, stated that the Chairman in ruling on a 
point of order does not pass on the merits of proposed legislation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 94 Cong. Rec. 6139, 6140, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Sam] Hobbs [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment. The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Hobbs. . . .
            ``Sec. 20. (a) That the deportation of aliens provided for 
        in this act and all other immigration laws of the United States 
        shall be directed by the Attorney General, within his 
        discretion and without priority of preference because of their 
        order as herein set forth, either to the country from which 
        such alien last entered the United States; or to the country in 
        which is located the foreign port at which such alien embarked 
        for the United States . . . .''

        Mr. [Karl [E.] [Mundt] of South Dakota]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the

[[Page 3299]]

    point of order against the amendment that it is not germane to the 
    pending bill, H.R. 5852. It seems to me the gentleman's amendment, 
    which I believe is in actuality a bill which is before the House 
    and before another committee, deals with the arrangements and 
    techniques of deportation proceedings, which do not properly fall 
    within the province of the House Committee on Un-American 
    Activities, so in my opinion the amendment should not be attached 
    with germaneness to legislation of this type. Regardless of the 
    merits of Mr. Hobbs' proposal, I submit it should come before us as 
    a separate measure and not be added as overburden to H.R. 5852.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Alabama care to be heard 
    on the point of order?
        Mr. Hobbs: I certainly do, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The Chair will hear the gentleman.
        Mr. Hobbs: Mr. Chairman, the amended title of this bill is ``A 
    bill to protect the United States against un-American and 
    subversive activities.'' That is the declared purpose of the bill. 
    In the subcommittee's report on the legislation we have been 
    considering it is stated:

            The subcommittee recommends the immediate consideration by 
        the Judiciary Committee of the House of proposals which would 
        require all aliens to register annually with the Department of 
        Justice, allow the Department of Justice to hold deportable 
        aliens in custody until arrangements for their deportation can 
        be concluded, and provide for strict reciprocity in the 
        granting of visas and in the treatment of aliens from 
        Communist-dominated countries.

        I submit, Mr. Chairman, in all earnestness and candor, that 
    when you are dealing with a problem that goes to un-American and 
    subversive activities you cannot find any activity that is more 
    important to prevent the poisoning of the body politic of this 
    Nation than the one to which my amendment addresses itself. It has 
    already been considered by the Judiciary Committee of the House, it 
    has already been granted a rule by the Rules Committee, and it has 
    already passed this House. In substance it is identical with H.R. 
    5643 of the Seventy-sixth Congress, that did pass this House. It is 
    no fault of ours that it is not the law of the land today. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The Chair would remind the gentleman from Alabama, of course, 
    that his function is not to pass upon the merits of an amendment 
    nor to pass upon the merits of the bill which the gentleman says 
    has already passed the House. The Chair may personally find himself 
    in complete agreement with the objective sought by the legislation 
    which the gentleman from Alabama espouses, but the legislation to 
    which he refers, as the Chair understands, has to do with the 
    immigration and naturalization laws of the United States. This bill 
    pending before the Committee of the Whole does not approach that 
    subject. Its title is ``Subversive Activities Control Bill, 1948.'' 
    It comes from the Committee on Un-American Activities. That 
    committee has no jurisdiction over legislation having to do with 
    immigration and naturalization laws. Therefore, the Chair holds 
    that the amendment is not germane.
        Mr. Hobbs: Mr. Chairman, may I call the attention of the Chair 
    to the

[[Page 3300]]

    fact that it deals with the question of the issuance of passports 
    and prohibits such issuance.
        The Chairman: The proposal of the gentleman goes far beyond 
    that. The point of order is sustained.

Consistency of Proposal With Existing Law

Sec. 7.5 It is not within the province of the Chairman to interpret the 
    consistency of a provision in a legislative bill with the 
    provisions of existing law.

    On June 7, 1973,(13) during consideration of H.R. 7645, 
to authorize appropriations for the Department of State, Chairman 
Robert C. Eckhardt, of Texas, ruled on the scope of the Chair's 
authority to interpret a proposed bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 119 Cong. Rec. 18502, 18503, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    language to be found on page 2, paragraph 2, lines 16 and 17, as 
    being in violation of the law and therefore not authorized.
        Mr. Chairman, section 286(c), title 22, United States Code, 
    which is derived from section 5 of the Bretton Woods Agreement Act, 
    provides as follows:

            Unless Congress by law authorizes such action neither the 
        President nor any person or agency shall on behalf of the 
        United States propose or agree to any change in the par value 
        of the United States dollar.

        Mr. Chairman, I repeat ``propose or agree to any change.'' Mr. 
    Chairman, reading from the report accompanying this bill on page 6:

            Paragraph (2) authorizes an appropriation not to exceed 
        $12,307,000 to offset increased costs abroad resulting from the 
        dollar devaluation . . .
            Mr. Chairman, I ask that my point of order be sustained on 
        the ground that the purpose of this specific authorization is 
        the result of a change in the par value of the dollar which has 
        not been validated.

        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Ohio wish to be heard on 
    the point of order?
        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: I do.
        Mr. Chairman, I recall a previous ruling in which the Chair at 
    one time ruled that the question of the constitutionality did not 
    have any bearing on the point of order if the language were 
    properly included in the bill and were not on an amendment subject 
    to a point of order.
        This is an amount of money put in at the request of the State 
    Department. It has nothing to do with any possible action by the 
    Banking and Currency Committee one way or the other.
        Whether we like it or not, whether there has been any 
    congressional action or not, in order to carry on the normal 
    operations at the present time, it is going to require $12 million 
    more to purchase the foreign currency necessary than it would have.
        This is not a devaluation by an act of Congress. This is a 
    pragmatic recogni

[[Page 3301]]

    tion of the loss of value of the dollar. And when the State 
    Department buys foreign currency with which to pay its bills, it 
    has to pay this much additional. By the time this becomes enacted 
    into law, if the present policies continue, it may cost a great 
    deal more than this.
        So, it has nothing to do with any action of Congress or any 
    law.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Chairman, may I be heard further, briefly.
        I point out to the Chair that no legislation has been approved 
    by Congress and signed by the President changing the par value of 
    the dollar.
        Mr. Hays: Mr. Chairman, may I be heard further?
        The action of the Congress and the President has nothing to do 
    with the purchase of foreign currency. When we go to buy it, we do 
    not set the rate of exchange. The President of the United States 
    and the Secretary of the Treasury have allowed the dollar to float, 
    and it did not float; it sunk.
        Therefore, this is a pragmatic situation. We have to pay what 
    the market price is. Under a float, there is no fixed currency 
    exchange rate. This has nothing to do in any way with any action of 
    Congress.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The bill provides an authorization for an appropriation for 
    expenses of the Department of State overseas. The expenditures are 
    merely referred to as resulting from the devaluation of the dollar 
    and do not bring about that devaluation. The language in the bill 
    simply authorizes expenses of the Department of State, and is in 
    order in bill of this type.
        All the Chair can do is interpret the rules of the House. There 
    is no rule of the House called in controversy here.
        The Chair overrules the point of order.

Hypothetical Questions

Sec. 7.6 The Chairman does not rule on hypothetical questions.

    On Mar. 19, 1952,(14) after Chairman Wilbur D. Mills, of 
Arkansas, sustained a point of order raised by Mr. Clarence Cannon, of 
Missouri, to an amendment offered by Mr. Thomas A. Pickett, of Texas, 
Mr. John Phillips, of California, propounded a parliamentary inquiry as 
to whether the amendment would have been in order if the factual 
situation had been slightly different. The Chair refused to pass 
judgment on the hypothetical case. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 98 Cong. Rec. 2543, 82d Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was H.R. 
        7072, an independent executive offices appropriation bill for 
        fiscal 1953.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Pickett: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Pickett: On page 3, after line 14, 
        insert a new heading and the following language: 

                               ``disaster relief

            ``The unobligated balances at the end of June 30, 1952, of 
        appropria

[[Page 3302]]

        tions heretofore made for Disaster Relief under the act of 
        September 30, 1950 (Public Law 875); the Independent Offices 
        Appropriation Act of 1952; act of July 18, 1951 (Public Law 
        80); and the act of October 24, 1951 (Public Law 202), shall, 
        to the extent that they exceed in the aggregate $5,000,000, not 
        be available for obligation after June 30, 1952, and shall be 
        recovered to the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts.''

        Mr. Cannon: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order, first, 
    that the amendment is not germane to the bill. It has no relation 
    to any item in the bill.
        Second, it is legislation on an appropriation bill.
        On both counts, or on either count, it is subject to a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Pickett] 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Pickett: Mr. Chairman, it occurs to me that this is a 
    limitation of an appropriation. Its effect certainly is to recover 
    into the Treasury moneys which are just floating around, and 
    apparently serving no purpose at this time. It never occurred to 
    me, of course notwithstanding whatever the rule might be, that we 
    would avoid trying to save money here just by raising points of 
    order. It seems to me that we might save a little money by even 
    legislating some time. I hope the point of order will be overruled.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. The gentleman from 
    Texas [Mr. Pickett] has offered an amendment. The gentleman from 
    Missouri [Mr. Cannon] makes a point of order against the amendment 
    on the ground it is not germane to the bill before the Committee 
    and that it is legislation on an appropriation bill. The Chair has 
    had an opportunity to read the amendment proposed by the gentleman 
    from Texas. The amendment does not, as the Chair understands, apply 
    to funds contained in the pending bill H.R. 7072, but has reference 
    to funds which have been made available by the Congress in other 
    legislation. Therefore, the amendment is not germane and is clearly 
    legislation on an appropriation bill. The Chair is constrained to 
    sustain the point of order.
        Mr. Phillips: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Phillips: Mr. Chairman, would it have been in order if the 
    gentleman from Texas made it a transfer of the funds to the Housing 
    and Finance Agency, which comes on about page 53, and which already 
    has a fund for distress purposes, and merely transfer this money to 
    that fund? It would, therefore, be a limitation upon it.
        The Chairman: I am sure the gentleman from California will 
    agree with the Chair when the Chair calls the gentleman's attention 
    to the fact that the present occupant of the Chair has enough 
    trouble without having to pass judgment on a hypothetical case.
        Mr. Pickett: Mr. Chairman, if I might be heard further, I might 
    say that if there is any possibility that the amendment is germane, 
    it will be offered at that point.

Sec. 7.7 The Chairman does not respond to hypothetical questions even 
    though raised under the guise of a parliamentary inquiry.

[[Page 3303]]

    On Mar. 26, 1965,(15) during consideration of H.R. 2362, 
the elementary and secondary education bill of 1965, Chairman Richard 
Bolling, of Missouri, declined to respond to a hypothetical question 
which had been raised as a parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15.  111 Cong. Rec. 6114, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Albert H.] Quie [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Quie: Mr. Chairman, if I had risen to move to strike out 
    the last word, rather than offering an amendment which would be 
    voted on, then would the extra 5 minutes have been I divided 
    equally?
        The Chairman: The Chair is not in position to answer that kind 
    of question.
        Mr. Quie: It may happen in the future as we go along with the 
    debate.
        The Chairman: The Chair will meet the situation as it arises.

Sec. 7.8 The Chairman will not entertain as a parliamentary inquiry a 
    hypothetical question regarding the effect which the defeat of a 
    pending amendment would have on the propriety of another amendment 
    which has not been offered.

    On Nov. 30, 1971,(16) during consideration of H.R. 
11060, the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, Chairman Richard 
Bolling, of Missouri, refused to give a specific answer to a question 
as to whether an amendment--not yet before the House--might be 
entertained after the defeat of the pending amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 117 Cong. Rec. 43377, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Frank E.] Evans of Colorado: Mr. Chairman, I have asked 
    the gentleman from Illinois to yield to me for the purpose of 
    posing a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Evans of Colorado: In the event the amendment offered by 
    the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hays) is defeated, will 
    we then be in a position to entertain an amendment as described by 
    the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Anderson)?
        The Chairman: The Chair will reply to the gentleman from 
    Colorado that the Chair cannot anticipate events precisely. If the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hays) to this 
    particular section is voted down, then another germane amendment to 
    the particular area could be offered.

Anticipating House Action

Sec. 7.9 The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole does not predict 
    what action may take place in the House after the Committee rises.

    On Mar. 24, 1949,(1) during consideration of H.R. 2681, 
to provide
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 95 Cong. Rec. 3110-15, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3304]]

pensions for veterans of World World Wars I and II based on nonservice-
connected disability and attained age, Chairman Albert A. Gore, of 
Tennessee, made reference to the power of the Chairman to anticipate 
House action following a rise of the Committee.

        Mr. [Olin E.] Teague [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Teague 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. Teague: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this motion is not to 
    kill the bill. The purpose of this motion is to bring it back 
    before the House, at which time I will make a motion to recommit it 
    to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs for further study. I think it 
    is obvious from what has happened in the last 2 days that the bill 
    deserves further study. . . .
        Mr. [George A.] Smathers [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, is this 
    not the parliamentary situation that if the motion is agreed to on 
    this teller vote, then the Committee rises and a motion will be 
    offered in the House to recommit the bill at which time there will 
    be a yea-and-nay vote, the first recorded vote?
        The Chairman: As Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, the 
    Chairman cannot construe what action may take place in the House. 
    The Chairman can only report the action of the Committee of the 
    Whole to the House when and if the Committee should rise.

Sec. 7.10 The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole does not rule on 
    procedural questions that may be directed to the Speaker when a 
    bill is reported back to the House.

    On Oct. 8, 1969,(2) during consideration of amendments 
to H.R. 14159, the public works appropriation measure for fiscal year 
1970, Chairman Wayne N. Aspinall, of Colorado, declined to rule on 
whether an amendment to the bill would be permissible in the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 115 Cong. Rec. 29219, 29220, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: . . . For what purpose does the gentleman from 
    Michigan (Mr. O'Hara) rise?
        Mr. [James G.] O'Hara: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. O'Hara: Would it be possible to offer an amendment to the 
    language on page 14, lines 15 through 17, in the House after the 
    Committee rises?
        The Chairman: That request would have to be taken care of at 
    the time a motion ordering the previous question is made.
        Mr. O'Hara: But if the previous question were not ordered, the 
    amendment would then be in order?
        The Chairman: That question would be determined by the Speaker 
    of the House.

[[Page 3305]]

Sec. 7.11 The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole does not 
    anticipate or suggest what parliamentary decisions may be rendered 
    in the House by the Speaker.

    On May 18, 1966,(3) during consideration of H.R. 14544, 
the Participation Sales Act of 1966, Chairman Eugene J. Keogh, of New 
York, refused to anticipate decisions that the Speaker might render.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 112 Cong. Rec. 10895, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles R.] Jonas [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Jonas: In case the bill agreed on in the conference should 
    delete this amending language, and the bill which came back to the 
    House contained the objectionable language, against which the point 
    of order was lodged, could a point of order be made against the 
    conference report to strike that language?
        The Chairman: The present occupant of the chair would not 
    assume to undertake to suggest what would be done by the Speaker in 
    that event.
        Mr. Jonas: That would be a matter for the Speaker to decide.
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.

Rescinding Time Limitation

Sec. 7.12 Whether the House can rescind a time limitation imposed by 
    the Committee of the Whole is a matter for the Speaker, and not the 
    Chairman, to determine.

    On Dec. 14, 1973,(4) during consideration of H.R. 11450, 
the Emergency Energy Act, Chairman Richard Bolling, of Missouri, 
declined to answer an inquiry regarding an extension of time for 
consideration of the bill on the ground that such an inquiry should be 
addressed to the Speaker.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 119 Cong. Rec. 41731, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John H.] Buchanan [Jr., of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Buchanan: Mr. Chairman, should a motion be offered that the 
    Committee do now rise, and that motion would be accepted by the 
    Committee, would it be possible then in the House for time to be 
    extended or for the earlier motion limiting time to be rescinded?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state to the gentleman from 
    Alabama that the gentleman is asking the Chairman of the Committee 
    of the Whole to rule on a matter that would come before the Speaker 
    of the House of Representatives.
        Mr. Buchanan: The Chairman cannot answer that according to the 
    rules of the House?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the Chair is not in a 
    position to answer for the Speaker.

[[Page 3306]]

Vote Required in House

Sec. 7.13 The question of the vote required to adopt a resolution in 
    the House is not properly addressed to the Chairman of the 
    Committee of the Whole as a parliamentary inquiry but should be 
    addressed to the Speaker in the House.

    On June 13, 1946,(5) during consideration of H.R. 6777, 
the government corporations appropriation bill, 1947, Chairman William 
M. Whittington, of Mississippi, declined to rule whether a two-thirds 
vote would be required in the House to adopt a special rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 92 Cong. Rec. 6877, 6878, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Case of South Dakota: Would it be possible to get a rule 
    making in order a paragraph which had previously been stricken from 
    the bill on a point of order, unless that rule was adopted by a 
    two-thirds vote?
        The Chairman: The Chair may say to the gentleman that that 
    inquiry is not one that can be answered in the Committee of the 
    Whole. It is a matter that would have to be determined by the 
    Speaker of the House.

Time To Resume Unfinished Business

Sec. 7.14 The question as to when the Committee of the Whole will 
    continue the consideration of a pending bill after rising for the 
    day is for the Speaker and the House to decide and not the Chairman 
    of the Committee of the Whole.

    On Apr. 26, 1948,(6) during consideration of H.R. 2245, 
to repeal the tax on oleomargarine, Chairman Leslie C. Arends, of 
Illinois, declined to rule on when the Committee would continue 
consideration of the bill after rising for the day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 94 Cong. Rec. 4873, 80th Cong. 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

[[Page 3307]]

    House and the House itself to determine. It is not something within 
    the jurisdiction of the Chair to decide.

Sec. 7.15 A parliamentary inquiry as to whether a bill under 
    consideration on Calendar Wednesday would be the unfinished 
    business of the Committee of the Whole on the next day if the House 
    adjourns is not a question for the Chairman to decide.

    On Feb. 22, 1950, Calendar Wednesday,(7) during 
consideration of H.R. 4453, the Federal Fair Employment Practice Act, 
Chairman Francis E. Walter, of Pennsylvania, declined to answer a 
parliamentary inquiry as to whether the bill would be the unfinished 
business of the Committee of the Whole on the next day if the House 
adjourned.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 96 Cong. Rec. 2161, 2162, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker:(8) The House automatically resolves 
    itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the 
    Union. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walter] will take the 
    chair.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
    Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
    bill (H.R. 4453) to prohibit discrimination in employment because 
    of race, color, religion, or national origin, with Mr. Walter in 
    the chair.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        Mr. [James G.] Fulton [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Fulton: If the House were now to adjourn would the first 
    order of business tomorrow be the consideration of this bill by the 
    Committee of the Whole?
        The Chairman: The parliamentary inquiry is directed to a state 
    of facts that does not exist. The House has resolved itself into 
    the Committee of the Whole, and the Committee of the Whole cannot 
    adjourn.
        The Clerk will read the bill.

Sufficiency or Legal Effect of Committee Report

Sec. 7.16 The Chair does not pass on the legal effect of funding 
    limitations included in a committee report on an appropriation bill 
    but not written into the wording of the bill; that matter is 
    decided by the Committee of the Whole in considering the bill for 
    amendment.

    On Apr. 14, 1955,(9) during consideration of H.R. 5502, 
the Departments of State, Justice, Judiciary, and related agencies 
appropriations bill of 1956, Chairman Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, de
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 101 Cong. Rec. 4463, 4464, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3308]]

clined to respond to a parliamentary inquiry as to whether limitations 
appearing in a committee report but not in the bill are binding.

        Mr. [Robert C.] Wilson of California: I have a question 
    relative to the United States Information Agency as it affects the 
    report of the committee. As printed I notice there are several 
    limitations written into the report. For instance, not to exceed 
    $300,000 is provided for the ``presentation'' program; not to 
    exceed $200,000 is provided for exhibits for which $334,000 was 
    requested, and other limitations of that type.
        I am wondering if the fact that these limitations appear in the 
    report make them actual limitations in law. I notice they are not 
    mentioned in the bill itself, and I wonder if the committee regards 
    them as binding on the agency, because there are many serious 
    limitations, particularly in regard to exhibits, for example. I 
    would just like to hear the opinion of the chairman.
        Mr. [John J.] Rooney [of New York]: I may say to the gentleman 
    from California that it is expected that they will be the law; and 
    that they are binding. The fact that they have not been inserted in 
    the bill is not important. They represent the considered judgment 
    of the committee and we expect the language of the report to be 
    followed.
        Mr. Wilson of California: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Wilson of California: Are limitations written in a 
    committee report such as this, but not written into the wording of 
    the legislation, binding?
        The Chairman: That is not a parliamentary inquiry. That is a 
    matter to be settled by the members of the Committee of the Whole.

Sec. 7.17 The Chair does not rule on the sufficiency or legal effect of 
    committee reports.

    On Apr. 14, 1955,(10) during consideration of H.R. 5502, 
the Departments of State, Justice, Judiciary, and related agencies 
appropriations bill of 1956, Chairman Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, stated 
that the Chair would not pass on the sufficiency of the committee 
report on the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 101 Cong. Rec. 4463, 4464, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert C.] Wilson of California: I have a question 
    relative to the United States Information Agency as it affects the 
    report of the committee. As printed I notice there are several 
    limitations written into the report. For instance, not to exceed 
    $300,000 is provided for the ``presentation'' program; not to 
    exceed $200,000 is provided for exhibits for which $334,000 was 
    requested, and other limitations of that type.
        I am wondering if the fact that these limitations appear in the 
    report make them actual limitations in law. I notice they are not 
    mentioned in the bill itself, and I wonder if the committee regards 
    them as binding on the agency, because there are many serious 
    limitations, particularly in regard to exhib

[[Page 3309]]

    its, for example. I would just like to hear the opinion of the 
    Chairman. . . .

        Mr. Wilson of California: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it. . . .
        Mr. Wilson of California: I merely wanted [to ask about a 
    report] for my own understanding and information, for I am fairly 
    new here. It seems to me rather unusual to consider matter written 
    into a report of the same binding effect on an administrator as 
    though written into the law itself.
        The Chairman: It is not the prerogative of the Chair to pass 
    upon the sufficiency or insufficiency of a committee report.
        Mr. Wilson of California: I am not really asking whether the 
    report itself is sufficient or insufficient; I am asking whether 
    the legislation we are voting on here is sufficient or 
    insufficient.
        The committee report on the appropriation bill now before the 
    House includes recommendations on maximum amounts to be available 
    to the USIA for certain specified functions. The recommendations 
    appear to be intended as limitations. No comparable limitations are 
    contained in the bill appropriating funds to USIA. . . .
        Legislation can be enacted only by the joint action of the 
    House and Senate and the President. Legislation cannot be 
    unilaterally enacted by a committee of the Congress. Naturally the 
    committee recommendations are to be given due weight by the 
    executive agencies in the administration of the programs concerned. 
    These recommendations are the result of the arduous labors of 
    conscientious legislators. They are not to be lightly ignored or 
    disregarded by the executive arm of the Government. They are not, 
    however, legislative mandates having the force of law.
        I am firmly of the above view and understand that my view is 
    shared by the General Counsel of the General Accounting Office.
        The Chairman: The gentleman might address that inquiry to the 
    chairman of the subcommittee.
        Mr. [John J.] Rooney [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, will the 
    gentleman yield?
        Mr. [Frederic R.] Coudert [Jr., of New York]: I yield.
        Mr. Rooney: Let me say once again that the language in the 
    report with regard to these limitations is a matter of custom which 
    has been followed over many years, and it is expected that the USIA 
    and the departments involved in this bill will strictly follow the 
    language of the report unless the will of the House demonstrates 
    otherwise by adopting amendments to the bill.

Sitting in Executive Session

Sec. 7.18 The House and not the Committee of the Whole decides whether 
    the Committee may sit in executive session; a parliamentary inquiry 
    of this sort should be addressed to the Speaker and not the 
    Chairman of the Committee of the Whole.

    On May 9, 1950,(11) during consideration of H.R. 7786, 
the gen
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 96 Cong. Rec. 6746, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3310]]

eral appropriations bill of 1951, Chairman Mike Mansfield, of Montana, 
stated that the House, not the Committee of the Whole, determines 
whether the Committee may sit in executive session, and he declined to 
respond to a parliamentary inquiry regarding that matter on the ground 
that such an inquiry should be addressed to the Speaker.

        Mr. [Errett P.] Scrivner [of Kansas]: Mr. Chairman, I move to 
    strike out the last word.
        Mr. Chairman, I would submit a parliamentary inquiry as to 
    whether or not an executive session could be held and, if so, what 
    procedure would be necessary to bring that to pass before we are 
    asked to vote upon the $350,000,000 additional.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state to the gentleman from Kansas 
    that the Committee of the Whole would have no control over that. 
    That would be a matter for the House itself to decide.
        Mr. Scrivner: I understand that, of course, and raised the 
    question for information of the Members. Since it is a matter for 
    the House to determine, as a further parliamentary inquiry, what 
    would be the method followed to take that action?
        The Chairman: The Chair will say to the gentleman from Kansas 
    that a parliamentary inquiry of that sort should be addressed to 
    the Speaker rather than the Chairman.

Interpretation of Senate Procedure

Sec. 7.19 The Chair does not interpret the rules or procedures of the 
    Senate.

    On June 6, 1961,(12) during consideration of H.R. 7444, 
making appropriations for the Department of Agriculture for fiscal year 
1962, the Chairman declined to interpret Senate rules or procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 107 Cong. Rec. 9626, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William H.] Avery [of Kansas]: Mr. Chairman, may I submit 
    another parliamentary inquiry?
        The Chairman:(13) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Paul J. Kilday (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Avery: Mr. Chairman, the language of the amendment now 
    pending at the desk is the identical language that came into 
    conference from the other body following action of the House, and 
    my amendment in 1959 became incorporated, I believe, in the 
    conference report. Does that in any way change the legislative 
    history of the amendment?
        The Chairman: The Chair may advise the gentleman that nothing 
    is pending before the Chair, but by way of observation, the 
    language the gentleman speaks of was apparently added by the other 
    body. The present occupant of the Chair would not attempt to state 
    or to interpret the rules or procedure of the other body.
        Mr. Avery: I thank the Chairman.


 
                               CHAPTER 19
 
                       The Committee of the Whole
 
                            B. THE CHAIRMAN
 
Sec. 8.--Rulings Relating to Amendments

    The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole is guided by the

[[Page 3311]]

precedents in determining whether a bill being considered in the 
Committee shall be read for amendment by sections or paragraphs. 
Generally, appropriation bills are read for amendment by paragraph and 
other bills are read for amendment by section, in the absence of a 
special rule providing otherwise.(14) Nonetheless, the 
Chairman's decision on this matter has been overruled on 
occasion.(15) Although it is ordinarily not in order to 
return to a section or paragraph that has been passed(16) 
(the Chairman may direct a return to a section when, by error, no 
action had been taken on a pending amendment.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Note to Rule XXIII clause 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. 872 
        (1979); 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 2341-2346.
            See Ch. 27, infra, for other precedents relating to 
        amendments.
15. Note to Rule XXIII clause 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. 872 
        (1979); 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2347.
16. Rule XXIII clause 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. 872 (1979); 4 
        Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 4742, 4743.
17. Rule XXIII clause 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. 872 (1979); 4 
        Hinds' Precedents 
        Sec. 4750.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Application or Effect of Proposed Amendment

Sec. 8.1 The Chairman does ordinarily not construe the effect of an 
    amendment.

    On Apr. 26, 1966,(18) during consideration of an 
amendment to H.R. 14596, making appropriations for the Department of 
Agriculture for fiscal year 1967, Chairman Eugene J. Keogh, of New 
York, declined to construe the effect of an amendment except to respond 
to a point of order alleging that it was legislation on an appropration 
bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 112 Cong. Rec. 8968, 8969, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Paul] Findley [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Findley: On page 35, strike all 
        language on lines 11 and 12, and insert the following:
            ``No funds appropriated by the Act shall be used to 
        formulate or administer a Federal crop insurance program for 
        the current fiscal year that does not meet its administrative 
        and operating expenses from premium income: Provided,''. . . .

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Illinois on the ground that it is legislation on an appropriation 
    bill.
        May I say that the gentleman from Illinois gave the matter 
    away, in my opinion, when he said that the purpose of his amendment 
    was to set premium rates that the Government would charge. I think 
    that shows clearly what is involved. This amendment provides that 
    no funds shall be used to administer this program under certain 
    condi

[[Page 3312]]

    tions. The program now in existence is based on contracts to which 
    the Government is a party. For us in this bill to try to prohibit 
    the handling of existing contracts on the part of the Government 
    would clearly be legislation. It not only would be legislation but 
    it would interfere with meeting obligations under existing 
    contracts and commitments on the part of the Government.
        For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I submit that the point of order 
    should be sustained.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Illinois desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Findley: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, the amendment I have offered is clearly a 
    limitation of funds, requiring that no funds be appropriated for 
    the administration or formulation of programs. Therefore, on the 
    basis of that it seems to me that the amendment is in order.
        Mr. Whitten: Mr. Chairman, if I may make one observation, the 
    amendment has to do with setting premiums and is quite clearly an 
    affirmative action.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Findley] has offered an 
    amendment at page 35, striking out all language on lines 11 and 12 
    and the amendment would add a new paragraph; to which amendment the 
    gentleman from Mississippi has made a point of order on the ground 
    that it is legislation on an appropriation act. . . .
        It might be said that the effect of any proposed amendment is 
    truly not within the competence of the Chair. But a reading of this 
    language indicates to this occupant of the chair that there is here 
    sought an express limitation on the funds appropriated by the 
    pending bill and the Chair, therefore, overrules the point of 
    order.

Sec. 8.2 The Chair may construe the purpose of an amendment to 
    determine whether it is a limitation on an appropriation and 
    therefore in order, but may refuse to rule on its application or 
    construction with respect to a provision in the bill.

    On May 15, 1957,(19~) during consideration of H.R. 7441, 
making appropriations for the Department of Agriculture, Chairman Paul 
J. Kilday, of Texas, declined to pass on the construction of a proposed 
amendment after a point of order was made alleging that it was 
surplusage and ineffective because of a previously adopted amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 103 Cong. Rec. 7023, 7033, 7034, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                           Acreage Reserve, Soil Bank

            For necessary expenses to carry out an acreage reserve 
        program in accordance with the provisions of subtitles A and C 
        of the Soil Bank Act (7 U.S.C. 1821-1824 and 1802-1814), 
        $600,000,000: Provided, That no part of this appropriation 
        shall be used to formulate and administer an acreage reserve 
        program which

[[Page 3313]]

        would result in total compensation being paid to producers in 
        excess of $500,000,000 with respect to the 1958 crops.

        Mr. [Burr P.] Harrison of Virginia: I offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Harrison of Virginia: On page 21, 
        strike out all following the word ``program'' in line 2 and 
        strike out all of line 3. . . .

        So the amendment was agreed to.
        Mr. [Henry S.] Reuss [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Reuss: On page 21, line 4, change 
        the period to a comma and add the following: ``or in total 
        compensation being paid to any one producer in excess of $5,000 
        with respect to the 1958 crops.''

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    reserve a point of order against the amendment. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, the committee having stricken out or prohibited 
    the use of any money for any 1958 program, now to provide that 
    money shall be limited to $5,000 per participant where no money can 
    be used for the 1958 program is the question. If it is in order, 
    Mr. Chairman, I should like to renew my point of order that to put 
    a limitation on the amount to be given to a participant, when the 
    committee has just adopted an amendment prohibiting the use of any 
    money, strikes me as being surplusage and subject to a point of 
    order. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule on the point of order.
        First, the Chair wants to call attention to the fact that the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Harrison] did 
    not strike out all of the proviso. It struck out only that portion 
    of the proviso on page 21, line 2, beginning after the word 
    ``program'' to and including ``$500,000,000'' in line 3. So that 
    the proviso now reads:

            Provided, That no part of this appropriation shall be used 
        to formulate and administer an acreage reserve program with 
        respect to the 1958 crops. 

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
    Reuss] strikes out the period, inserts a comma, and adds the 
    language ``or in total compensation being paid to any one producer 
    in excess of $5,000 with respect to the 1958 crops.''
        While it may be because of the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Virginia having been adopted that the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin would be ineffective, still 
    the Chair believes, it being a limitation upon the purpose for 
    which the funds are appropriated, that it is in order and that the 
    point of order should be overruled.
        Mr. Whitten: Mr. Chairman, do I understand then that it is the 
    judgment of the Chair that it would not apply back to the $600 
    million?
        The Chairman: The Chair is not going to pass on the 
    construction of the language whether this amendment is adopted or 
    not.
        The point of order is overruled.

Sec. 8.3 The Chairman does not rule on the effect of amendments on 
    other provisions in

[[Page 3314]]

    a bill, or their consistency with provisions of the bill already 
    passed in the reading for amendment.

    On June 28, 1967,(1) during consideration of amendments 
to H.R. 10340, authorizing appropriations for the National Aeronautics 
and Space Administration, Chairman John J. Flynt, Jr., of Georgia, on 
two occasions overruled points of order on the ground that the Chairman 
does not rule on the consistency of amendments or their effect on other 
provisions of a bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 113 Cong. Rec. 17755, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The bill contained an overall appropriation (on page 1, line 5, as 
mentioned below) which was to be divided among various specified 
projects, including an amount for sustaining university programs (on 
page 2, line 22, as mentioned below). The ``consistency problem'', as 
raised by Mr. Joseph E. Karth, of Minnesota, was that the total figure 
for the overall appropriation would not equal the sum of all the 
appropriations for the various specified projects if an amendment 
changed only the figure for one of the specified programs. The 
proceedings were as follows:

        Mr. [Richard L.] Roudebush [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Roudebush: On page 2, line 22, 
        strike the amount ``$30 million'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        the amount ``$20 million''.

        The Chairman: The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roudebush] is 
    recognized for 5 minutes in support of his amendment.
        Mr. Karth: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Karth: Mr. Chairman, now that the amendment is here, I 
    again renew my request for a ruling as to whether or not the 
    amendment that the gentleman proposes to make on page 2 can be 
    legitimately made without changing his figure on page 1. I raise 
    that point of order, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman make a point of order to the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana?
        Mr. Karth: I do, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state this point of order.
        Mr. Karth: My point of order is, If the gentleman proceeds with 
    his amendment as it has been read by the Clerk, reducing the amount 
    on line 22 by $10 million and he does not change the total on line 
    5 of page 1, it seems to me that the amendment is not in proper 
    order.
        The Chairman: Will the gentleman state his point of order in a 
    form on which the Chair can rule?
        Mr. Karth: The point of order I raise, Mr. Chairman, is against 
    the amendment.

[[Page 3315]]

        The Chairman: On what basis?
        Mr. Karth: On the basis that it is not a properly drawn 
    amendment, that it does not affect the bill as it otherwise would 
    if it were proper.
        The Chairman: The Chair overrules the point of order. The Chair 
    does not make rulings on the consistency of language in amendments 
    offered to the bill.
        The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roudebush] is recognized for 5 
    minutes.
        Mr. [Robert C.] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman----
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Indiana yield to the 
    gentleman from Texas?
        Mr. Roudebush: No, Mr. Chairman. I should like to make my 
    remarks.
        Mr. Eckhardt: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Eckhardt: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the 
    amendment offered has the effect of changing the figure on page 1, 
    line 5, by reducing it $10 million, and, therefore, affects line 5, 
    which has already been amended at a previous time.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule on the point of order.
        The Chair will state, that the point of order made by the 
    gentleman from Texas is substantially the same point of order made 
    by the gentleman from Minnesota. The Chair does not rule on the 
    question of whether an amendment to one point would amend another 
    point in the bill.
        The present amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana 
    relates to line 22 on page 2 and has no effect at this time on line 
    5, page 1.
        The Chair, therefore, overrules the point of order of the 
    gentleman from Texas.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roudebush] 
    in support of his amendment.

Interpretation of Amendment

Sec. 8.4 The meaning of an amendment that is technically in order is 
    not a matter to be passed on by the Chairman.

    On Oct. 12, 1966,(2) during consideration of H.R. 51, 
the Indiana Dunes Lakeshore bill, Chairman John J. McFall, of 
California, declined to interpret an amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 112 Cong. Rec. 26205, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [J. Edward] Roush [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the substitute amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Arizona [Mr. Udall].
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment to the substitute amendment offered by Mr. Roush: 
        Page 2, line 6, strike out the period at the end of Mr. Udall's 
        amendment and add the following: ``excluding therefrom the one 
        mile of lakefront known as Ogden Dunes Beach and adding thereto 
        the area known as the Burns Bog Unit as shown on a map with the 
        same title, dated January 1965 and bearing the number `NL-ID-
        7001A' which map is also on file and available for public 
        inspection in the office of the Director of the National Park 
        Service, Department of the Interior.''

[[Page 3316]]

        The Chairman: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana 
    [Mr. Roush].
        Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, will the 
    gentleman yield for the purpose of propounding a parliamentary 
    inquiry?
        Mr. Roush: I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Indiana will state the 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Halleck: Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that all of the 
    units of this proposed national park are fixed by reference to a 
    map, is it in order to offer language in indefinite terms that 
    would undertake to alter that?
        The gentleman from Arizona offered an amendment which referred 
    to another map, which is a matter of record.
        I do not know and I do not know whether anybody else knows just 
    what is meant when reference is made to Ogden Dunes or Burns Bog 
    units.
        The Chairman: The Chair would reply that the Chair is not in a 
    position to construe the amendment. The amendment technically is in 
    order and it is up to the Member offering an amendment to construe 
    the amendment for the benefit of the Members.

Ambiguity of Amendment

Sec. 8.5 The Chair does not rule on whether an amendment is ambiguous.

    On July 5, 1956,(3) during consideration of H.R. 7535, 
authorizing federal assistance to the states and local communities in 
financing an expanded program of school construction to eliminate a 
national shortage of classrooms, Chairman Francis E. Walter, of 
Pennsylvania, stated the practice of the Chair in ruling on the 
ambiguity of an amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 102 Cong. Rec. 11873, 11875, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Adam C.] Powell [Jr., of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Powell: On page 26, after line 12, 
        insert a new title IV:
            ``That there shall be no Federal funds allotted or 
        transferred to any State which fails to comply with the 
        provisions of the Supreme Court.''

    After debate, an amendment to the amendment was offered as follows:

        Amendment offered by Mr. [James] Roosevelt [of California] to 
    the Powell amendment: Strike the word ``provisions'' and insert the 
    word ``decisions.''
        Mr. [Ross] Bass of Tennessee: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Bass of Tennessee: I make the point of order that the 
    amendment is not germane to the bill.
        The Chairman: It is certainly germane to the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from New York to substitute the word ``decisions'' 
    for the word ``provisions.'' The Chair so rules.
        Mr. Bass of Tennessee: Mr. Chairman, a further point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.

[[Page 3317]]

        Mr. Bass of Tennessee: I make the point of order that the word 
    ``provisions'' is ambiguous and has no meaning whatever and would 
    make the amendment not germane.
        The Chairman: The Chair does not rule on the question of 
    ambiguity. It is a question of germaneness solely, and the Chair 
    has ruled that the amendment is germane.

Consistency of Amendments

Sec. 8.6 The Chairman does not rule on the consistency of amendments.

    On Aug. 16, 1961,(4) the Committee of the Whole by 
teller vote of 197 ayes, 185 noes, agreed to the following substitute 
amendment to H.R. 8400, the Mutual Security Act of 1961, authorizing 
appropriations to the President:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 107 Cong. Rec. 16060, 16073, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Dalip S.] Saund, of California, as a 
    substitute for the amendment offered by Mr. Morgan, of 
    Pennsylvania: On page 7, strike out line 13 and all that follows 
    down through line 7 on page 9, and insert in lieu thereof the 
    following:

            Sec. 202. Capitalization.--(a) There is hereby authorized 
        to be appropriated to the President not to exceed 
        $1,200,000,000 for use beginning in the fiscal year 1962 to 
        carry out the purposes of this title, which sums shall remain 
        available until expended.

    The following day, Aug. 17, 1961,(5) the Committee again 
met, with Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas, in the Chair, to consider other 
amendments to the same bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Id. at p. 16188. See 119 Cong. Rec. 25828, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., 
        July 25, 1973; 103 Cong. Rec. 13501, 85th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 
        2, 1957; and 95 Cong. Rec. 11994, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 
        22, 1949, for other rulings that the Chairman does not rule on 
        the consistency of amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: When the Committee rose on yesterday the Clerk 
    had read through section 202 ending in line 13, page 3 of the bill.
        If there are no further amendments to section 202, the Clerk 
    will read.
        Mr. [Laurence] Curtis of Massachusetts: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Curtis of Massachusetts: In 
        section 202 add a new subsection to be numbered (b), and re-
        letter the other subsections accordingly, to read as follows:
            ``(b) There is hereby authorized to be appropriated to the 
        President without fiscal year limitation to carry out the 
        purposes of this title not to exceed $1,000,000,000 for the 
        fiscal year 1963, and not to exceed $1,000,000,000 for the 
        fiscal year 1964.''

        Mr. [Howard W.] Smith of Virginia: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: Mr. Chairman, in order to see if we can 
    find out where we are at, I would like to know first what becomes 
    of the amendment that was adopted on yesterday. It is in the bill. 
    There is no provision in this amendment which strikes it out. Does

[[Page 3318]]

    it remain in the bill; and if it does not remain in the bill, how 
    does it get out?
        The Chairman: That provision adopted yesterday remains in the 
    bill; and, as the Chair understands the situation, it would not be 
    affected by this amendment. This amendment would be in addition to 
    that which was acted on yesterday.

        Mr. Smith of Virginia: Mr. Chairman, the two amendments are in 
    direct conflict. We have adopted one amendment which says that this 
    shall be for 1 year by direct appropriation, then we adopt another 
    amendment, both of which the Chairman informs us will be in the 
    bill. In the other amendment we made it a 3- or 4-year proposition 
    and cut the appropriation. . . .
        Mr. [E. Ross] Adair [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, I should like 
    to urge a further point of order against the proposed amendment, 
    first, on the basis that the subject matter of that amendment was 
    acted upon yesterday and therefore it is not appropriate to reopen 
    the matter at this time. Second, if I understood the place in the 
    bill to which it is offered, since we already have a section (b) in 
    there, it would be section (c), and I urge the Chair that it is not 
    germane at that point. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Curtis] offers an 
    amendment to section 202 of the bill to which the gentleman from 
    Virginia makes a point of order.
        Permit the Chair to say that it is not the province of the 
    Chair to rule on whether matters are consistent or not. That is 
    within the judgment of the committee. The amendment adopted 
    yesterday included the deletion of paragraph (b) of section 202 as 
    a part of the amendment. So, the Chair will say that there is at 
    the moment no paragraph (b) in the bill. This is new material. It 
    is germane to the subject of section 202, and the Chair overrules 
    the point of order.

Sec. 8.7 The Chairman does not rule on the consistency of a proposed 
    amendment with another amendment already adopted.

    On July 25, 1973,(6) during consideration of H. R. 8480, 
the Impoundment Control Act, Chairman Dante B. Fascell, of Florida, 
declined to rule that a proposed amendment was inconsistent with an 
amendment which had already been adopted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 119 Cong. Rec. 25828, 93d Cong. 1st Sess. See 119 Cong. Rec. 41306, 
        41308, 41688, 41689, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 13, and 14, 
        1973, respectively, for a similar ruling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John B.] Anderson of Illinois: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Anderson of Illinois: On page 11, 
        after line 10, add the following new section:
            ``Sec. 109. The foregoing provisions of this title shall 
        take effect on January 1, 1974.''

        Mr. [Richard] Bolling [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.

[[Page 3319]]

        Mr. Bolling: The point of order is that the amendment is not 
    germane.
        Mr. Anderson of Illinois: Mr. Chairman, if I may be heard on 
    the point of order, I think perhaps the distinguished gentleman 
    from Missouri and my colleague on the Committee on Rules has not 
    correctly understood the amendment, because it is not the amendment 
    that says that the foregoing provisions of this title; namely, 
    title I, shall take effect on the effective date of this 
    legislation which improves congressional control over budgetary 
    outlay and the receipt totals in a comprehensive manner but merely 
    fixes a date and says that the provisions of title I shall not 
    become effective until January 1, 1974.
        Mr. Bolling: Mr. Chairman, then this amendment should have been 
    offered at a different place as an amendment to the Heinz 
    amendment, or else it is in effect a redundancy.
        Mr. Anderson of Illinois: Mr. Chairman, if I may be heard 
    further on the point of order, as I understand the Heinz amendment 
    it has the effect of making it merely a 1-year bill. In other 
    words, the antiimpoundment provisions would expire at the end of 
    the current fiscal year. My amendment says that title I, the 
    antiimpoundment provision, does not commence, does not become 
    effective as a matter of law until January 1, 1974.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    Anderson) provides that title I shall take effect on January 1, 
    1974. The amendment is objected to because of inconsistency and 
    also because it is not germane. The Chair cannot rule on the 
    consistency of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois 
    (Mr. Anderson) but the amendment certainly fixes a date certain 
    which is not an unrelated contingency. The amendment is germane and 
    therefore the Chair overrules the point of order.

Sec. Sec. 8.8 While an amendment may not change an amendment already 
    agreed to, an amendment that involves similar but not identical 
    subjects to follow the adopted amendment is in order; and the Chair 
    will not rule on the consistency of those amendments.

    On Dec. 14, 1973,(7) during consideration of H.R. 11450, 
the Energy Emergency Act, Chairman Richard Bolling, of Missouri, 
overruled points of order in part on the ground that the Chairman does 
not rule on the consistency of amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 119 Cong. Rec. 41725-30, 41740, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [William R.] Roy [of Kansas] to the 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Staggers: 
    Page 36, line 23, strike out the quotation marks.
        Page 36, insert after line 23 the following:
        ``(9)(A) This subsection shall not apply to the first sale of 
    crude oil or petroleum condensates produced from any lease within 
    the United States by

[[Page 3320]]

    a seller (i) who produced such oil or condensate, (ii) who 
    (together with all persons who control, are controlled by or who 
    are under common control with, such seller), produces in the 
    aggregate less than 25,000 barrels per day of crude oil and 
    petroleum condensates, averaged annually, and (iii) who is not a 
    refiner or marketer or distributor of refined petroleum products 
    (or a person who controls, is controlled by, or is under common 
    control with such a refiner, marketer, or distributor).
        ``(B) For purposes of subparagraph (A)--
        ``(i) a person produces crude oil or petroleum condensates only 
    if he has an interest in the production thereof which permits him 
    to take his production (or share thereof) in kind, and
        ``(ii) the term `control' means control by ownership.'' . . .
        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Roy) to the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute offered by the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. 
    Staggers). . . .
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 
    189, noes 194, not voting 49, as follows: . . .
        Amendment offered by Mr. [Joe] Skubitz [of Kansas] to the 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Staggers: 
    Page 36, line 23, strike out the quotation marks.
        Page 36, insert after line 23 the following:
        ``(9) This subsection shall not apply to the first sale of 
    crude oil described in subsection (e)(2) of this section (relating 
    to stripper wells).''. . .
        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Skubitz) to the amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute offered by the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. 
    Staggers).
        The amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    was agreed to. . . .
        Mr. [Robert D.] Price of Texas: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by 
    the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Staggers).
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Price of Texas to the amendment in 
        the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Staggers: Page 36, 
        line 23, strike out the quotation marks.
            Page 36, insert after line 23 the following:
            ``(9)(A) This subsection shall not apply to the first sale 
        of crude oil or petroleum condensates produced from any lease 
        within the United States by a seller (i) who produced such oil 
        or condensate, (ii) who (together with all persons who control, 
        are controlled by or who are under common control with, such 
        seller), produces in the aggregate less than 5,000 barrels per 
        day of crude oil and petroleum condensates, averaged annually, 
        and (iii) who is not a refiner or marketer or distributor of 
        refined petroleum products (or a person who controls, is 
        controlled by, or is under common control with such a refiner, 
        marketer, or distributor).

        Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, a point 
    of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Conte: Mr. Chairman, my point of order is that we have 
    already considered the amendment before today. It was the Roy 
    amendment, and therefore a point of order should lie against it.

[[Page 3321]]

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I would like 
    to be heard also on the point of order.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that as the Chair 
    understands the amendment the figure has been changed, therefore it 
    is not the same amendment since the figure has been changed.
        Mr. Dingell: May I be heard on the point of order?
        Mr. [Robert C.] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I would like 
    to speak against the point of order.
        The Chairman: May the Chair suggest that the Clerk complete the 
    reading of the amendment, and then I will recognize the gentleman 
    on his point of order.
        The Clerk read the remainder of the amendment, as follows:

            (B) For purposes of subparagraph (A)--
            (i) a person produces crude oil or petroleum condensates 
        only if he has an interest in the production thereof which 
        permits him to take his production (or share thereof) in kind, 
        and
            (ii) the term ``control'' means control by ownership.

        The Chairman: The gentleman from Massachusetts will be heard on 
    his point of order.
        Mr. Conte: Mr. Chairman, I insist on the point of order even 
    though the amendment changes the figures. The amendment is now in 
    the third degree, and therefore the point of order should be 
    upheld.
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order on the 
    grounds that this is again bringing before the Committee a portion 
    of the bill which has already been amended. As the Chair recalls, 
    we adopted the Skubitz amendment, which dealt with the same subject 
    matter, and at the same place, and I submit, regardless of the 
    point of order raised by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
    Conte) that this is a violation of the Rules of the House as an 
    attempt to redo action earlier taken by the Committee with regard 
    to the Skubitz amendment, which was likewise dealing with the 
    limitation on the coverage of the particular section to include 
    coverage of people who operate stripper wells.
        Mr. Eckhardt: Mr. Chairman, I speak against the point of order. 
    The Skubitz amendment dealt in an entirely different subject 
    matter. The Skubitz amendment dealt with oil produced by well, not 
    oil produced by producer, and provided that in those cases of wells 
    producing less than, as I recall, 10 barrels per day, these should 
    be exempted.
        The amendment here is not dealing with stripper wells. It has 
    nothing to do with wells. It has to do with the size of the 
    producers. Therefore, this subject matter has not been previously 
    covered. This does not change the Skubitz amendment at all, and it 
    deals with a different subject.
        Of course, the point of order with respect to the proposition 
    that this is in the third degree is frivolous, because this is 
    introduced as an additional amendment, and the amendment is 
    different materially from the 25,000 barrels.
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I again note, with the assistance of 
    the Chair, that the Skubitz amendment and the amendment now before 
    us appear at precisely the same place in the bill.

[[Page 3322]]

        Mr. Chairman: For the reasons stated by the gentleman from 
    Texas (Mr. Eckhardt) because the Chair does not rule on the 
    inconsistency of amendments, and the fact that the number of 
    barrels involved in this amendment is different from that in the 
    former amendment, the Chair overrules the points of order, and the 
    amendment will be voted on.

Propriety of Considering Amendment Identical to a Previously Passed 
    Bill

Sec. 8.9 The Committee of the Whole and not the Chair decides whether 
    it may consider an amendment consisting of the exact language 
    agreed to in a bill previously passed by the House.

    On May 13, 1946,(8) during consideration of Senate Joint 
Resolution 159, to extend the Selective Training and Service Act, 
Chairman Alfred L. Bulwinkle, of North Carolina, stated that the 
Committee of the Whole, not the Chair, would decide whether an 
amendment to the resolution would be considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 92 Cong. Rec. 4957, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Resolved, etc., That section 16(b) of the Selective 
        Training and Service Act of 1940, as amended, is amended by 
        striking out ``May 15, 1946'' and inserting ``July 1, 1946.''

        Mr. [Dewey] Short [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Short: Strike out all after the 
        enacting clause of Senate Joint Resolution 159 and insert the 
        following:
            ``That so much of the first sentence of section 3(a) of the 
        Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, as amended, as 
        precedes the first proviso is amended to read as follows:
            `` `Sec. 3. (a) Except as otherwise provided in this act, 
        every male citizen of the United States, and every other male 
        person residing in the United States, who is between the ages 
        of 20 and 30, at the time fixed for his registration, or who 
        attains the age of 20 after having been required to register 
        pursuant to section 2 of this act, shall be liable for training 
        and service in the land or naval forces of the United States. . 
        . . ' ''

        Mr. [Walter G.] Andrews of New York: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment just offered by the gentleman 
    from Missouri on the ground that the exact language in another bill 
    has been acted on favorably by the House.
        Mr. Chairman: The Chair states to the gentleman from New York 
    [Mr. Andrews] that that is a matter for the committee to pass on, 
    not the Chair man. The Chair overrules the point of order.

Constitutionality of Proposed Amendment

Sec. 8.10 The Chairman does not rule on the constitutionality of 
    proposed amendments.

[[Page 3323]]

    On Aug. 19, 1965,(9) during consideration of an 
amendment to H.R. 9811, the Food and Agriculture Act of 1965, Chairman 
Oren Harris, of Arkansas, overruled a point of order that an amendment 
was unconstitutional.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 111 Cong. Rec. 21016, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I 
        offer an amendment.
            The Clerk read as follows:
            Amendment offered by Mr. Whitten: Page 14 following the 
        word ``follows'' in line 15 add the following: ``For such 
        period as the Secretary of Agriculture shall carry out the 
        provisions of the Export Sales Act of 1956 (7 U.S.C. 1853) the 
        following changes shall be made in the Agricultural Adjustment 
        Act of 1938, as amended.'' . . .

        Mr. [Harold D.] Cooley [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, may I 
    state my point of order?
        Mr. Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Cooley: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the 
    amendment not because of germaneness, but because it is an 
    unconstitutional and unwarranted delegation of the power of 
    Congress to some unknown person or to some unknown agency to make 
    the determinations contemplated by the gentleman's amendment. We 
    have no right to delegate this authority to any other person. . . .
        Mr. Chairman: Does the gentleman from Mississippi wish to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Whitten: Mr. Chairman, I wish to be heard on the point of 
    order. Certainly I do not believe that there is any case where the 
    Congress does not have a right to set the terms and conditions upon 
    which any legislation may become affected. The law to which I 
    referred is on the statute books and the reference made to it says 
    that the provisions of this act shall be effective only as this 
    other law is carried out.
        Mr. Chairman, I think that certainly an objection might be in 
    order, but I do not think there is any question insofar as the 
    point of order is concerned. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The gentleman from Mississippi offers an amendment to this 
    title which the Clerk has reported which proposes to amend title 
    IV, section 401.
        The Chair has had occasion to observe the provisions of the law 
    included in title VII of the United States Code to which the 
    amendment refers, imposing the duty on the Secretary of Agriculture 
    in carrying out certain provisions of the program.
        The gentleman from North Carolina raises a point of order on 
    the question that the amendment is unconstitutional--on the grounds 
    of unconstitutionality. Of course that is a matter on which the 
    Chair does not pass. That is a matter for the Committee to 
    determine and, therefore, the Chair overrules the point of order.

Authority to Allocate Debate Time on Amendments

Sec. 8.11 Where the Committee of the Whole fixes the time for closing 
    debate on pending amendments, the Chair notes the names of the 
    Members

[[Page 3324]]

    seeking recognition at the time the limitation is agreed to and 
    divides the time equally between them.

    On Aug. 18, 1949,(10) 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 allocated 
the time equally among them after the Committee of the Whole fixed the 
time for debate on pending amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 95 Cong. Rec. 11760, 81st Gong. 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 1 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.
        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. [Clare 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

[[Page 3325]]

    will be recognized for 2 minutes, there being 30 Members on their 
    feet at the time and debate having been limited to 1 hour.


 
                               CHAPTER 19
 
                       The Committee of the Whole
 
                            B. THE CHAIRMAN
 
Sec. 9.--Appeals of Rulings

    Debate on an appeal in the Committee of the Whole is under the 
five-minute rule (11) and may be closed by a motion to close 
debate or to rise and report.(12) In recognizing Members for 
debate on an appeal in the Committee of the Whole, the Chairman 
alternates between those favoring and those opposing the 
ruling.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11.  Sec. 9.6, infra; see also note to Rule I clause 4, House Rules and 
        Manual Sec. 628 (1979); and 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 1608.
12.  Rule I clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 628 (1979); 5 Hinds' 
        Precedents Sec. Sec. 6947, 6950; and 8 Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. 3453.
            In an exceptional case the Committee of the Whole rose and 
        reported a question of order for decision of the House when an 
        appeal was taken from a ruling of a Chairman; in that instance, 
        the Chairman had ruled that an appeal could not be taken in the 
        Committee. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4783.
13.  8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3455.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule I clause 4,(14) which relates to authority of the 
Speaker, provides that no Member shall speak more than once on appeal, 
unless by permission of the House; and this provision is applicable to 
Members rising for that purpose in the Committee.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14.  House Rules and Manual Sec. 624 (1979).
15.  See 2 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 1313; and 5 Hinds' Precedents 
        Sec. 6938. Although this principle has not been explicitly 
        extended to the Committee of the Whole, it applies because of 
        Rule XXIII clause 9, House Rules and Manual Sec. 877 (1979), 
        which provides that the rules of proceeding in the House shall 
        be observed in Committees of the Whole House so far as they may 
        be applicable. See Jefferson's Manual, House Rules and Manual 
        Sec. 340 (1979); 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4737; and 8 Cannon's 
        Precedents Sec. 2605.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Propriety of Appeal

Sec. 9.1 A decision of the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole can 
    be appealed.

    On July 19, 1956,(16) after ruling that an amendment to 
H.R. 627, to provide means of further securing and protecting the civil 
rights of persons within the jurisdiction of the United States was not 
germane,(17) Chairman Aime J. Forand, of Rhode Island, 
stated his opinion as to whether a decision of the Chairman of the Com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16.  102 Cong. Rec. 13551, 13552, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
17.  See Sec. 9.2, infra, for that ruling and an appeal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3326]]

mittee of the Whole was subject to appeal.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18.  See Sec. Sec. 9.4, 9.5, infra, for examples of the sustaining or 
        overruling of decisions of Chairmen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Howard W.] Smith of Virginia: Mr. Chairman, I appeal from 
    the decision of the Chair.
        Mr. [Byron G.] Rogers of Colorado: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Rogers of Colorado: Can the decision of the Chairman of the 
    Committee of the Whole be appealed, under the rules?
        The Chairman: It can.

Sec. 9.2 An appeal from the decision of the Chairman of the Committee 
    of the Whole as to the germaneness of an amendment to a bill is in 
    order.

    On July 19, 1956,(19~) during consideration of H.R. 627, 
to provide means of further securing and protecting the civil rights of 
certain persons, Chairman Aime J. Forand, of Rhode Island, stated that 
an appeal from a ruling of the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole 
as to the germaneness of an amendment to a bill was in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 102 Cong. Rec. 13551, 13552, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    H.R. 627 contained the following provision relating to the duties 
of the Civil Rights Commission:

            Sec. 103. (a) The Commission shall--(1) investigate the 
        allegations that certain citizens of the United States are 
        being deprived of their right to vote or are being subjected to 
        unwarranted economic pressures by reason of their color, race, 
        religion, or national origin.

    An amendment to this provision was offered, as follows:

        Mr. [Donald L.] Jackson [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Jackson: On page 21 strike out 
        lines 9 through 13 and insert the following:
            ``(1) investigate the allegations that certain citizens of 
        the United States are being deprived of their right to vote or 
        obtain employment, or are being subjected to unwarranted 
        economic pressures, by reason of their color, race, religion, 
        national origin, or membership or nonmembership in a labor or 
        trade organization.''

        Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Celler: I make the point of order that the amendment is not 
    germane. . . .
        Very briefly, Mr. Chairman. I believe the amendment would 
    change the whole complexion of the bill. The purpose of the bill is 
    to prevent and to redress deprivation of constitutional civil 
    rights on the grounds of race, color, religion, or national origin. 
    All through the provisions setting forth the duties of the 
    Commission we find the words

[[Page 3327]]

    ``race, color, religion, or national origin.'' That part that the 
    gentleman read contained the words ``economic pressures'' and the 
    phrase in the bill reads: ``Unwarranted economic pressures by 
    reason of their color, race, religion, or national origin.''
        For that reason, I insist on my point of order. . . 
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. The gentleman from 
    California [Mr. Jackson] has offered an amendment to the bill H.R. 
    627 now under consideration. The Chair has examined the amendment 
    and also the language of the bill as referred to by the gentleman 
    from California. The Chairman finds that the bill itself has to do 
    with matters of economic pressure by reason of their color, race, 
    religion, or national origin.
        The amendment of the gentleman from California goes beyond that 
    and extends to membership or nonmembership in labor or trade 
    organizations. The Chair holds that the amendment is not germane. 
    The point of order is sustained.
        Mr. [Howard W.] Smith of Virginia: Mr. Chairman, I appeal from 
    the decision of the Chair. . . .
        The Chairman: . . . The question is, Shall the decision of the 
    Chair stand as the judgment of the Committee?
        The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the 
    ayes had it.
        So the decision of the Chairman stood as the judgment of the 
    Committee.

Issues to Be Voted on

Sec. 9.3 On appeal from a ruling of the Chairman of the Committee of 
    the Whole on an amendment, the vote is not on the merits of the 
    proposed amendment, but on the correctness of the decision of the 
    Chair.

    On July 19, 1956,(20) during consideration of H.R. 627, 
to further secure and protect the civil rights of certain persons, an 
appeal was taken from a ruling by the Chair on an 
amendment.(1) Chairman Aime J. Forand, of Rhode Island, 
indicated that the vote on appeal from such a ruling is on sustaining 
or overruling the decision of the Chairman, not on the merits of the 
proposed amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 102 Cong. Rec. 13551, 13552, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
 1. See Sec. 9.2, supra, for a discussion of this appeal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Kenneth B.] Keating [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Keating: On this appeal from the ruling of the Chair, do I 
    understand correctly that in voting on it we are voting not on the 
    merits of the proposition submitted by the gentleman from 
    California but rather on whether the Chair is correct in his 
    ruling?
        The Chairman: That is correct.

Effect of Refusal of Tellers

Sec. 9.4 The Committee of the Whole has sustained a ruling

[[Page 3328]]

    of the Chair that, once tellers have been properly refused, they 
    cannot again be demanded on the same question.

    On June 13, 1957,(2) during consideration of H.R. 6127, 
a civil rights bill, an appeal was taken from a ruling of the Chairman 
regarding the sufficiency of the number of Members who rose on a demand 
for tellers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 103 Cong. Rec. 9034, 9035, 85th Cong. 1st Sess
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman:(3) All time has expired. The question 
    is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
    Tuck].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken and the Chair announced that the ayes 
    appeared to have it.
        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [Jr., of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    demand tellers.
        Tellers were refused.
        Mr. [Kenneth B.] Keating [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I ask for 
    a division.
        Mr. [Frank L.] Chelf [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, the request 
    comes too late.
        Mr. [William M.] Colmer [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, a point 
    of order. The request does come too late.
        Mr. [William M.] Tuck: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order 
    that the Chair had already ruled.
        The Chairman: This is the situation. The request for a teller 
    vote was turned down. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Keating] 
    made a request for a division vote. He is within his rights.
        The Committee divided; and there were--ayes 106, noes 114.
        Mr. Colmer: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Colmer: Would it be in order to have tellers?
        The Chairman: Tellers have been refused.
        Mr. [Ross] Bass of Tennessee: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Bass of Tennessee: Mr. Chairman the tellers were refused 
    after the Chair had ruled and said that the amendment was agreed 
    to. Then tellers were demanded, and those people who now want 
    tellers felt that the amendment was agreed to, so they did not rise 
    to ask for tellers; and I can get the House to agree with me. I 
    make that point of order and ask the Chair to rule on it.
        The Chairman: The Chair will rule that on the demand for 
    tellers an insufficient number of Members rose to their feet.
        Mr. Bass of Tennessee: I disagree with the ruling of the Chair 
    and ask for a vote on the ruling of the Chair. I say that he had 
    already ruled on the vote.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman appeal from the ruling of the 
    Chair?
        Mr. Bass of Tennessee: I appeal from the ruling of the Chair.
        Mr. [William J.] Green [Jr.] of Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman, a 
    point of order.

[[Page 3329]]

        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Green of Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman, it is too late for the 
    gentleman to appeal from the ruling of the Chair.
        The Chairman: The gentleman has appealed from the ruling of the 
    Chair.
        The question is, Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the 
    judgment of the Committee?
        The question was taken, and the Chairman announced that the 
    ayes apparently had it.
        Mr. Bass of Tennessee: Mr. Chairman, I demand a division.
        The Committee divided; and there were--ayes 222, noes 4.

        So the decision of the Chair stands as the judgment of the 
    Committee.
        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state the parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Hoffman: Mr. Chairman, is it now in order to ask for 
    tellers after the rising vote?
        The Chairman: It is not in order. The question was taken on the 
    amendment and the question was decided.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Chair's actual count on a vote is not 
subject to challenge by appeal.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. See Ch. 31, infra, for discussion of appeals from rulings of the 
        Chair. See also Ch. 30, infra, for general discussion of 
        voting.
            For other instances in which a ruling of the Chair was 
        sustained on appeal, see Sec. 9.2, supra, Sec. Sec. 9.6, 9.7, 
        infra; 106 Cong. Rec. 5477-79, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 14, 
        1960 (a germaneness ruling during consideration of H.R. 8601, 
        ``to enforce constitutional rights''); 96 Cong. Rec. 2178, 81st 
        Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 22, 1950 (a ruling regarding a Member's 
        right to yield for the purpose of offering a motion to rise 
        during consideration of H.R. 4453, the Federal Fair Employment 
        Practice Act); 91 Cong. Rec. 9846, 9867-70, 79th Cong. 1st 
        Sess., Oct. 19, 1945 (a germaneness ruling during consideration 
        of H.R. 5407, reducing appropriations); 88 Cong. Rec. 1708-12, 
        77th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 26, 1942 (a germaneness ruling during 
        consideration of S. 2208, the second war powers bill, 1942); 88 
        Cong. Rec. 606, 77th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 23, 1942 (a ruling on 
        timeliness of a point of order during consideration of H.R. 
        6448, the fourth supplemental national defense appropriation 
        bill, 1942); 81 Cong. Rec. 7698-7701, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., 
        July 27, 1937 (a germaneness ruling during consideration of 
        H.R. 7730, authorizing the President to appoint administrative 
        assistants).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Power to Overrule Decision on Appeal

Sec. 9.5 On appeal the Committee of the Whole has overruled a decision 
    of the Chairman on a point of order.

    On Feb. 1, 1938,(~5) during consideration of H.R. 9181, 
the Dis
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 83 Cong. Rec. 1372, 1373, 75th Cong. 3d Sess. See also Ch. 31, 
        infra, for appeals of the Chair's rulings on points of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3330]]

trict of Columbia appropriation bill of 1939, the Committee of the 
Whole heard an appeal on a decision of the Chairman that a point of 
order against an amendment was not timely.

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Collins: On page 68, line 20, 
        after the period, insert a new paragraph as, follows:
            ``Street lighting: For purchase, installation, and 
        maintenance of public lamps, lampposts, street designations, 
        lanterns, and fixtures of all kinds on streets, avenues, roads, 
        alleys, and for all necessary expenses in connection therewith, 
        including rental of storerooms, extra labor, operation, 
        maintenance, and repair of motortrucks, this sum to be expended 
        in accordance with the provisions of existing law, $765,000: 
        Provided, That this appropriation shall not be available for 
        the payment of rates for electric street lighting in excess of 
        those authorized to be paid in the fiscal year 1927, and 
        payment for electric current for new forms of street lighting 
        shall not exceed 2 cents per kilowatt-hour for current 
        consumed.''

        Mr. [Ross A.] Collins [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    language that is incorporated in the amendment--
        Mr. [Jack] Nichols [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment.
        Mr. Collins: Eliminates the language against which the 
    gentleman made the point of order.
        Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the gentleman's 
    point of order comes too late.
        The Chairman: (~6) The gentleman from Oklahoma makes 
    a point of order on the amendment, and the gentleman from 
    Mississippi makes the point of order that the point of order made 
    by the gentleman from Oklahoma comes too late.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. William J. Driver (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The point of order of the gentleman from Mississippi is 
    sustained. . . .
        Mr. Nichols: If the Chair did recognize the gentleman from 
    Mississippi I may say the Chair recognized him while I was on my 
    feet taking the only opportunity presented to me to address the 
    Chair, in order that I might direct my point of order to the Chair.
        The Chairman: That may be true. The Chair does not care to 
    indulge in any controversy on that question with the gentleman from 
    Oklahoma. The Chair is merely stating what occurred. The Chair may 
    state further to the gentleman from Oklahoma, in deference to the 
    situation which has developed here, that if that had been true, 
    under the rules it would have been the duty of the Chair to have 
    recognized a member of the committee in preference to any other 
    Member on the floor. The Chair was acting under the limitations of 
    the rule. . . .
        Mr. [Jesse P.] Wolcott [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, the rule, 
    as I understand it, is that if any action is taken on the 
    amendment, then the point of order is dilatory. The only action 
    that could have been taken was recognition by the Chair of the 
    gentleman from Mississippi to debate his amendment.
        I want to call the attention to the Chair to the fact that the 
    only manner in which the Chair can recognize a

[[Page 3331]]

    Member to be heard on this floor is to refer to the gentleman 
    either by name or by the State from which the gentleman comes, and 
    I call the attention of the Chair to the fact that the Chair in 
    this particular instance did not say he recognized the gentleman 
    from Mississippi or the gentleman [Mr. Collins], and for that 
    reason there was no official proceeding and no official action 
    taken between the time that the amendment was offered and the time 
    the gentleman from Oklahoma made his point of order, and therefore 
    the point of order was not dilatory.
        The Chairman: The Chair desires, in all fairness, to make this 
    statement to the Committee, as well as directly to the gentleman 
    from Michigan. Not only was the gentleman from Mississippi 
    recognized, but he began an explanation of his amendment, and the 
    Chair certainly presumes that the gentleman being on the floor at 
    the time heard that; and when that occurred, the Chair does not 
    think the gentleman will disagree with the Chair about the fact 
    that the Chair is required, under the rules, to rule in deference 
    to the situation that developed. The Chair does not desire to 
    forestall proceedings and would be pleased to hear points of order, 
    but the Chair must act within the definition of the rule.
        Mr. Wolcott: If the Chair will indulge me for a moment in that 
    respect, the point I wish to make is this. The gentleman from 
    Mississippi had no authority to address this Committee until he had 
    been recognized by the Chair, and if the gentleman from Oklahoma 
    made his point of order during a brief sentence by someone which 
    had no right under the rules of this House even to be reported by 
    the official reporter, then he cannot be estopped, under those 
    circumstances, from making his point of order. The Chair of 
    necessity must have recognized the gentleman from Mississippi to 
    debate the amendment.
        The offering of an amendment is not a proceeding which will 
    estop the gentleman from Oklahoma from making his point of order. 
    It is recognition by the Chair of another gentleman to discuss the 
    amendment, and the gentleman could have discussed the amendment 
    only after recognition was given.
        I want respectfully to call this to the attention of the Chair 
    in order that the Chair may correct any error which has been made 
    or any seeming injustice to the gentleman from Oklahoma, and I 
    respectfully submit that the Chair did not recognize the gentleman 
    from Mississippi, and I believe the Record will bear this out. . . 
    .
        Mr. Nichols: If the Chair has made a final ruling, I would, in 
    the most respectful manner I know, request an appeal from the 
    decision of the Chair.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Oklahoma appeals from the 
    decision of the Chair on the ruling of the Chair on the point of 
    order, as stated.
        The question before the Committee is, Shall the ruling of the 
    Chair stand as the judgment of the Committee?
        The question was taken, and the Chair announced that the noes 
    had it.
        So the decision of the Chair does not stand as the judgment of 
    the Committee.

Debate on Appeal

Sec. 9.6 An appeal in the Committee of the Whole is debat

[[Page 3332]]

    able under the five-minute rule and such debate is confined to the 
    appeal.

    On Feb. 22, 1950,(7) during general debate on H.R. 4453, 
the Federal Fair Employment Practices Act, Chairman Francis E. Walter, 
of Pennsylvania, set forth the limitations on debate on an appeal in 
the Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 96 Cong. Rec. 2178, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: The gentleman from South Carolina . . . cannot 
    yield to the gentleman from Virginia for the purpose of offering 
    that motion [that the Committee rise].
        Mr. [Howard W.] Smith of Virginia: Mr. Chairman, I respectfully 
    appeal from the decision of the Chair.
        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. [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.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See also 88 Cong. Rec. 1708-12, 77th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 26, 1942, 
        for a similar ruling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vacating Chair to Put Appeal

Sec. 9.7 After an appeal was taken from a decision of the Chairman of 
    the Committee of the Whole, the Chairman left the chair to permit 
    another Chairman to put the question.

    On Oct. 19, 1945,(9) after sustaining a point of order 
that a proposed amendment was not ger
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 91 Cong. Rec. 9846, 9868-70, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3333]]

mane to H.R. 4407, reducing appropriations, and hearing debate on an 
appeal of that ruling, Chairman Fritz G. Lanham, of Texas, left the 
chair to permit Chairman Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, to put the question 
whether the decision of the Chair should stand as the judgment of the 
Committee of the Whole.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. The decision whether to permit another Member to put the question 
        on an appeal is within the discretion of the Chairman. 8 
        Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3101.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Be it enacted, etc., That the appropriations and 
        contractual authorizations of the departments and agencies 
        available in the fiscal year 1946, and prior year unreverted 
        appropriations, are hereby reduced in the sums hereinafter set 
        forth. . . .
            The officer and enlisted personnel strengths of the Army, 
        Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard shall be demobilized at a 
        rate not less than would be necessary to keep within the 
        amounts available for their pay in consequence of the 
        provisions of this act, unless the President otherwise shall 
        direct. . . .

    The following amendment was offered:

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: 
        On page 36, line 7, after the word ``direct'', strike out the 
        period, insert a colon and the following:
            ``Provided, That (a) there shall be discharged from, or 
        released from active duty in, the military or naval forces of 
        the United States without delay, any person who requests such 
        discharge or release and who--
            ``(1) has served on active duty 18 months or more since 
        September 16, 1940; or
            ``(2) has, at the time of making such request, a wife or a 
        child or children with whom he maintains (or would but for his 
        service maintain) a bona fide family relationship in his home. 
        . . .''

        Mr. [Emmet] O'Neal [of Kentucky]: . . . I make the point of 
    order that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Mississippi 
    is not germane to the bill. . . .
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Kentucky desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. O'Neal: . . . This is writing a legislative bill in here. 
    It is so far beyond anything in this bill that I do not believe 
    there is any question but that the Chair will have to declare it 
    not germane, and therefore not in order.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The question before the Chair does not concern the merits of 
    the provisions of the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Mississippi. It is the duty of the Chair simply to pass upon the 
    point of order from a parliamentary standpoint, as to whether or 
    not the amendment is germane.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Mississippi is 
    clearly a general legislative expression and proposes substantive 
    law, whereas the provision in the bill to which the amendment is 
    offered is merely the expression of a hope that within the amounts 
    available for their pay and in consequence of the provisions of 
    this act demobilization will be carried on as rapidly as possible.

[[Page 3334]]

        In the opinion of the Chair, clearly, under the limitations of 
    the general provision on page 36, this amendment, being a general 
    legislative provision with reference to demobilization and having 
    the effect of substantive law, and not being restrictive is not 
    germane. The Chair therefore sustains the point of order.
        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Chairman, with all the deference in the world 
    for the distinguished Chairman, whom we all love, I respectfully 
    appeal from the ruling of the Chair. . . .
        The Chairman: The question at issue is, Shall the decision of 
    the Chair stand as the judgment of the Committee of the Whole?
        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Chairman, I ask for recognition on my appeal if 
    it is debatable.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Mississippi is recognized for 
    5 minutes on the appeal.
        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Chairman, I merely wish to say, with all 
    deference to the Chairman who labored considerably with this 
    proposition that I think the amendment is clearly germane. I have 
    taken this appeal because it is our chance to get these boys out of 
    the service. It is no reflection on the Chair to overrule the 
    decision of the Chair. I trust the decision of the Chair will be 
    overruled. If it is overruled, that will give us a chance to vote 
    on my amendment, which you can see the Members are anxious to 
    support. . . .
        Mr. O'Neal: I beg to differ with the statement of the gentleman 
    from Mississippi. The Chair has made a decision and ruled on a 
    point of order. This appeal is not on the merits of the amendment. 
    The gentleman from Mississippi has appealed to you that the Chair 
    has decided wrongly. Your decision, just as though you were a judge 
    on the bench, is to decide whether or not the Chair was in error 
    when he ruled that the point of order was well taken.
        The Chairman (Mr. Cooper): The question is: Shall the decision 
    of the Chair stand as the judgment of the Committee of the Whole?
        The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the 
    ``ayes'' had it.
        So the decision of the Chair stands as the judgment of the 
    Committee of the Whole.

Appeal as Subject to Motion to Table

Sec. 9.8 The motion to lay on the table an appeal from a decision of 
    the Chair is not in order in the Committee of the Whole.

    On Oct. 19, 1945,(11) after ruling that a proposed 
amendment was not germane to H.R. 4407, reducing appropriations, 
Chairman Fritz G. Lanham, of Texas, stated that a motion to table a 
decision of the Chair is not in order in the Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 91 Cong. Rec. 9846, 9868-70, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, with all 
    the deference in the world for the distinguished Chairman, whom we 
    all love, I respectfully appeal from the ruling of the Chair.

[[Page 3335]]

        Mr. [Emmet] O'Neal [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I move to lay 
    the appeal on the table.

        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Chairman, the appeal cannot be laid on the 
    table. The Committee has a right to vote on it.
        The Chairman: The motion to lay on the table is not in order in 
    the Committee.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See also 81 Cong. Rec. 7698-7700, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., July 27, 
        1937, for another illustration of this principle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


 
                               CHAPTER 19
 
                       The Committee of the Whole
 
            C. MOTION TO RECOMMEND STRIKING ENACTING CLAUSE
 
Sec. 10. Generally


    Although the Committee of the Whole does not have authority to 
consider a simple motion to strike the enacting clause of a 
bill,(13) it may agree to a motion that the Committee rise 
and report the bill back to the House with the recommendation that the 
enacting clause be stricken out.(1~4) Agreement by the House 
to the recommendation is considered equivalent to rejection of the 
bill.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See Sec. 10.1, infra. An older line of precedents took a different 
        view. See, for example, 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5332, stating 
        that the motion to strike out the enacting clause applied in 
        the Committee of the Whole. The Chair sometimes took the view 
        that the motion to strike the enacting clause was in the nature 
        of an amendment. (See 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2618.) Since 
        the motion can be dispositive of a bill, however, present 
        practice is to allow it in the House and not in the Committee 
        of the Whole.
14. Sec. 10.2, infra.
            See 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 5326-5346 and 8 Cannon's 
        Precedents Sec. Sec. 2618-2638 for earlier precedents relating 
        to these motions.
15. See Sec. 10.6, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the House rejects a recommendation of the Committee of the Whole 
to strike the enacting clause, it automatically resolves itself into 
the Committee for further consideration of the bill(16) 
which, by operation of the rule, is returned to the Committee without 
further House action. The bill goes back to the Committee of the Whole 
as unfinished business and is subject to amendment. Before the question 
of concurrence by the House is raised, a motion to refer the bill to 
any committee with or without instructions is in order, the Member 
offering that motion to refer need not qualify as being opposed to the 
bill; (17) when the bill is again reported to the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Sec. 10.9, infra.
17. See 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2629.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3336]]

House, it is referred to the Committee of the Whole without 
debate.(18~)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Rule XXIII clause 7, House Rules and Manual Sec. 875 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The motion that the Committee rise and report with the 
recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken is not in order 
during general debate on a measure in the Committee; it is in order 
after the first section is read during the reading for 
amendment.(1~9~)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See Sec. 11.2, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A point of order against the motion that the Committee rise and 
report with the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken out 
should be made before debate begins (20) on the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 6902; 8 Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. 3442.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Form of Motion

Sec. 10.1 The simple motion to strike out the enacting clause is not in 
    order in the Committee of the Whole, not being in proper form.

    On May 18, 1960,(21) during consideration of H.R. 5, the 
Foreign Investment Incentive Act of 1960, Chairman William H. Natcher, 
of Kentucky, ruled out of order a motion that the Committee of the 
Whole rise and report the bill back to the House with its enacting 
clause stricken out. However, a motion that the Committee rise and 
report the bill to the House with the recommendation that the enacting 
clause be stricken out was entertained and adopted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. 106 Cong. Rec. 10577-79, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas M.] Pelly [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Pelly moves that the Committee do now rise and report 
        the bill back to the House with its enacting clause stricken 
        out.

        The Chairman: The Chair desires to inform the gentleman that 
    his motion is not in order.
        Mr. [H.R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

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

        The question is on the preferential motion offered by the 
    gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Gross].
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Gross) there were--ayes 101, noes 93.
        Mr. [Hale] Boggs [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I ask for 
    tellers.
        Tellers were ordered, and the Chairman appointed as tellers Mr. 
    Boggs and Mr. Gross.
        The Committee again divided, and the tellers reported there 
    were--ayes 107, noes 101.

[[Page 3337]]

        So the motion was agreed to.

Sec. 10.2 The motion to strike out the enacting clause of a bill in the 
    Committee of the Whole is not in proper form. The motion should 
    provide that the Committee do now rise and report the bill to the 
    House with the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken 
    out.

    On June 21, 1944,(22) during consideration of H.R. 4219, 
providing for appointment of female pilots and aviation cadets in the 
air force, Chairman Robert Ramspeck, of Georgia, ruled out of order a 
motion to strike out the enacting clause because of improper form and 
indicated the proper form.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. 90 Cong. Rec. 6414, 6415, 78th Cong. 2d Sess. See also, for 
        example, 97 Cong Rec. 7498, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., June 29, 1951; 
        and 95 Cong. Rec. 2962-65, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 22, 1949, 
        for other illustrations of this principle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Edouard V. M.] Izac [of California]: I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the motion of the gentleman 
    from California.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Izac moves to strike out the enacting clause. . . .

        Mr. [Andrew J.] May [of Kentucky]: I reserve the point of order 
    against the motion on the ground that it is not in proper form and 
    does not comply with the rules of the House. The motion should 
    read: I move that the Committee do now rise and report the bill 
    back with instructions that the enacting clause be stricken out.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Kentucky is correct.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

Sec. 10.3 Where the form of a motion to strike out the enacting clause 
    of a bill in the Committee of the Whole is deficient, the Chair may 
    rule it out of order.

    On Nov. 4, 1971,(23) during consideration of H.R. 7248, 
to amend and extend the Higher Education Act of 1965 and other acts 
dealing with higher education, Chairman pro tempore Edward P. Boland, 
of Massachusetts, refused to entertain as privileged a motion that the 
Committee strike the enacting clause and report the bill back to the 
House because the motion was not in writing and not in proper form.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
23. 117 Cong. Rec. 39321, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair recognizes the gentleman 
    from New York (Mr. Wolff).
        Mr. [Lester L.] Wolff: Mr. Chairman, I take my time to send to 
    the desk a privileged motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

[[Page 3338]]

            Mr. Wolff of New York moves to strike all after the 
        enacting clause.

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that the motion 
    in the form offered is not in order in the Committee of the Whole 
    and it cannot be entertained.
        Mr. Wolff: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee strike the 
    enacting clause and report the bill back to the House.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Does the gentleman have his motion in 
    writing at the Clerk's desk?
        Mr. Wolff: I do not.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that the motion 
    is not in order.

Privileged Nature

Sec. 10.4 A motion that the Committee of the Whole rise and report back 
    to the House with the recommendation that the enacting clause be 
    stricken is of high privilege.

    On July 9, 1965,(1) during consideration of H.R. 6400, 
the Voting Rights Act of 1965, a motion that the Committee of the Whole 
rise and report back to the House with the recommendation that the 
enacting clause of the bill be stricken was offered as a preferential 
motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 111 Cong. Rec. 16227, 16228, 89th Cong. 1st Sess. See also 115 
        Cong. Rec. 30099, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 15, 1969, for 
        another illustration of this principle during consideration of 
        H.R. 14127, the Coinage Act Amendments of 1969.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Albert W.] Watson [of South Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer a preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Preferential motion offered by Mr. Watson:
            ``Mr. Watson, of South Carolina, moves that the Committee 
        now rise and report the bill back to the House with the 
        recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken out.''. . .

        Mr. [William T.] Cahill [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I rise 
    in opposition to the preferential motion.
        Mr. Chairman, I am very happy in a way that the gentleman from 
    South Carolina spoke, because by his speech he pointed out I think 
    more dramatically than anything I could say or anything anyone else 
    could say the courage that was demonstrated by another gentleman 
    from the South today, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Boggs]. . . 
    .
        The Chairman: (2) The question is on the 
    preferential motion offered by the gentleman from South Carolina.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The 10 minutes used for debate on the 
preferential motion was not taken from the time remaining for debate on 
the bill under a limitation previously agreed upon. The limitation was 
contained in a unanimous consent request to which the Committee had 
previously agreed. The request provided: (3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 111 Cong. Rec. 16038, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., July 8, 1965.
            For another instance in which the time for debate on a 
        motion to rise and report with the recommendation that the 
        enacting clause be stricken was not taken from the time fixed 
        for debate on an amendment previously offered (where the time 
        was not fixed by the clock), see 99 Cong. Rec. 4125-28, 83d 
        Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 28, 1953. See also Ch. 29 Sec. 79, infra.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3339]]

        Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that all debate on the so-called McCulloch 
    substitute and all amendments thereto be limited to 2 hours, and 
    that such time be equally divided and controlled by myself and the 
    gentleman from Ohio [Mr. McCulloch].
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from New York?
        There was no objection.

Divisibility

Sec. 10.5 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 is not divisible.

    On Dec. 15, 1937,(4) during consideration in Committee 
of S. 2475, the wages and hours bill, under Chairman John W. McCormack, 
of Massachusetts, a question arose as to whether a motion relating to 
the enacting clause was divisible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 82 Cong. Rec. 1600, 75th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: The motion of the gentleman from Oklahoma is 
    directed to the enacting clause of the Senate bill.
        Mr. [Clarence E.] Hancock of New York: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Hancock of New York: Is that motion divisible?
        The Chairman: The Chair, in answer to the gentleman's inquiry, 
    will say the motion is not divisible.

House Action on Committee Recommendation

Sec. 10.6 Where a bill is reported from the Committee of the Whole with 
    the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken out, the 
    question before the House is on the recommendation of the Committee 
    of the Whole; if that recommendation is agreed to, it is equivalent 
    to a rejection of the bill.

    On Mar. 1, 1950,(5) the Committee of the Whole agreed to 
a motion to report H.R. 5963, authorizing contributions to the 
Cooperative for American Remittances to Europe, Inc., back to the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 96 Cong. Rec. 2590, 2591, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3340]]

House with the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken out. 
The proceedings were as follows:

        The Chairman: (6) The question is on the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Nebraska.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Stefan) there were--ayes 92, noes 27.
        Mr. [John] Kee [of West Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I demand 
    tellers.
        Tellers were ordered, and the Chairman appointed as tellers Mr. 
    Kee and Mr. Stefan.
        The Committee again divided; and the tellers reported that 
    there were--ayes 127, noes 46.
        So the motion was agreed to.
        Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed 
    the chair, Mr. Price, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House 
    on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had 
    under consideration the bill (H.R. 5953) to authorize contributions 
    to Cooperative for American Remittances to Europe, Inc., had 
    directed him to report the bill back to the House with the 
    recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken out.
        The Speaker: (7) The question is on the motion to 
    strike out the enacting clause.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Kee: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
        Mr. [Jacob K.] Javits [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Javits: So that we may know what we are voting, is it a 
    fact that a vote ``yea'' means that the enacting clause will be 
    stricken, and a vote ``nay'' means that it will not be stricken and 
    the bill will pass?
        The Speaker: The question now is on the motion to strike out 
    the enactment clause.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 265, nays 102, not 
    voting 65. . . .
        So the motion was agreed to.

    Parliamentarian's Note: It should be noted that, under the rules, 
the motion to strike the enacting clause, if carried, is equivalent to 
the rejection of the bill. Rule XXIII clause 7, House Rules and Manual 
Sec. 875 (1979).

Resolving Clauses in Resolution of Disapproval and Applicability to 
    Simple Resolutions Generally

Sec. 10.7 A motion that the Committee of the Whole rise and report a 
    resolution to disapprove a reorganization plan under the 
    Reorganization Act of 1949 back to the House with the 
    recommendation that the resolving clause be stricken out was held 
    not in order because that resolution is not amendable.

    On June 27, 1953,(8) during consideration of House 
Resolution

[[Page 3341]]

295, disapproving Reorganization Plan No. 6, Chairman Leslie C. Arends 
of Illinois, held that the motion that the Committee of the Whole rise 
and report the resolution back to the House with the recommendation 
that the resolving clause be stricken out was not in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 99 Cong. Rec. 7482, 83d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Mr. Cole of New York moves that the Committee do now rise 
        with the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken.

        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the motion is not in order.
        The Chairman: The Chair is compelled to agree with the 
    gentleman from Michigan. The resolution is not amendable and, 
    therefore, the preferential motion is not in order.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 5 USC Sec. 912(b) provides that an amendment to a resolution of 
        disapproval is not in order and the preferential motion is in 
        order only during the stage of amendment.
            Parliamentarian's Note: A preferential motion under the 
        provisions of Rule XXIII clause 7, House Rules and Manual 
        Sec. 875 (1979), is applicable to a simple resolution being 
        considered under a special rule in the Committee of the Whole 
        under the five-minute rule. See 120 Cong. Rec. 34170, 34171, 
        93d Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 7, 1974.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chairman's Vote

Sec. 10.8 The Chairman of a Committee of the Whole cast his vote to 
    make a tie and thus defeated a motion to rise and report the bill 
    back to the House with the recommendation that the enacting clause 
    he stricken out.

    On Aug. 1, 1957,(10) during consideration of H.R. 6763, 
to amend the Act of Aug. 30, 1954, entitled ``an Act to authorize and 
direct the construction of bridges over the Potomac River,'' Chairman 
Richard Bolling, of Missouri, cast his negative vote to make a tie and 
thereby defeat a motion to rise and report a bill back to the House 
with the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken out.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 103 Cong. Rec. 13377, 13378, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Mr. Taber 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 question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from New York [Mr. Taber].
        The question was taken; and the Chair being in doubt, the 
    Committee

[[Page 3342]]

    divided, and there were--ayes 54, noes 49.
        Mr. [James C.] Davis of Georgia: Mr. Chairman, I ask for 
    tellers.
        Tellers were ordered, and the Chairman appointed as tellers Mr. 
    Taber and Mr. Davis of Georgia.
        The Committee again divided.
        The Chairman: On this vote by tellers, the ayes are 63; noes, 
    62. The Chair votes ``no''.
        So the motion was rejected.

Effect of House Rejection of Recommendation to Strike Enacting Clause

Sec. 10.9 When a recommendation of a Committee of the Whole that the 
    enacting clause be stricken is rejected by the House, the House, 
    without motion, resolves itself into the Committee of the Whole for 
    further consideration of the bill.

    On Aug. 21, 1958,(11) the Committee of the Whole resumed 
its sitting after the House rejected a Committee recommendation to 
strike the enacting clause of S. 4036, to stabilize production of 
copper, lead, zinc, acid-grade fluorspar, and tungsten. The proceedings 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 104 Cong. Rec. 18946-48, 85th Cong. 2d Sess. See also 111 Cong. 
        Rec. 25424-26, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 29, 1965; and 94 
        Cong. Rec. 6423, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., May 25, 1948, for other 
        examples of this principle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

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

        The Chairman: (12) The time of the gentleman from 
    Oklahoma has expired. All time on the preferential motion has 
    expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Joseph L. Evins (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question is on the motion to strike out the enacting 
    clause.
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. Hays 
    of Ohio) there were--ayes 77, noes 76.
        Mr. [Stewart L.] Udall [of Arizona]: Mr. Chairman, I demand 
    tellers.
        Tellers were ordered, and the Chairman appointed as tellers Mr. 
    Rogers of Texas and Mr. Hays of Ohio.
        The Committee again divided, and the tellers reported that 
    there were--ayes 108, noes 98.
        So the motion was agreed to.
        Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed 
    the chair, Mr. Evins, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House 
    on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had 
    under consideration the bill (S. 4036) to stabilize production of 
    copper, lead, zinc, acid-grade fluorspar, and tungsten from 
    domestic mines, had directed him to report the bill back to the 
    House with the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken 
    out.

[[Page 3343]]

        The Speaker: (13) The question is on the 
    recommendation of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
    the Union that the enacting clause be stricken out.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John J.] Rhodes of Arizona: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand 
    the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 171, nays 174, not 
    voting 84. . . .
        So the motion was rejected. . . .
        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
        The Committee resumed its sitting.

Motion to Rise (Strike the En- acting Clause) and Recommit Bill to 
    Committee

Sec. 10.10 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 and the bill be recommitted to a committee was 
    held not to be in order in the Committee of the Whole.

    On Apr. 3, 1957,(14) during consideration of H.R. 6287, 
making appropriations for the Departments of Labor and Health, 
Education, and Welfare, Chairman Aime J. Forand, of Rhode Island, held 
out of order a motion that the Committee of the VVhole rise and report 
a bill back to the House with the recommendation that the enacting 
clause be stricken and that the bill be recommitted to committee with 
instructions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 103 Cong. Rec. 5013, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Mr. Hoffman moves that the Committee do now rise, report 
        the bill back to the House with the recommendation that the 
        enacting clause be stricken, and that the bill be recommitted 
        to the Committee on Appropriations with instructions that it be 
        reported back to the House within 5 days with amendments which 
        will indicate the places and amounts in the budget where the 
        committee believes, in view of the statements made in the 
        Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, that 
        substantial reductions may best be made and will meet the views 
        of the House with the least curtailment of efficient 
        administration by the Departments affected.

        Mr. [John E.] Fogarty [of Rhode Island]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    reserve a point of order on the motion.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Michigan is recognized.
        Mr. Hoffman: In the interest of saving time, I am perfectly 
    willing that the point of order should be ruled on now. Why wait 5 
    minutes or 10 minutes if it is out of order?

        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Rhode Island care to be 
    heard on the point of order? The Chair is ready to rule.

[[Page 3344]]

        Mr. Fogarty: Mr. Chairman, as I remember the reading of the 
    motion, there is matter of wording contained therein that is not 
    permissible under the rules governing procedure in Committee of the 
    Whole, but would be allowed under the rules of procedure in the 
    House.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Michigan desire to be 
    heard?
        Mr. Hoffman: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I want to point out that there 
    is a precedent for the motion and the rules cite a precedent where 
    that motion has been held to be proper in the Committee.
        The Chairman: The Chair is not familiar with that precedent, 
    but the rules of the House provide that certain language contained 
    in the motion made by the gentleman from Michigan could be 
    entertained in Committee of the Whole, but the balance of the 
    motion would only be appropriate in the House. For that reason, the 
    Chair sustains the point of order.(l5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Immediately after the ruling of the Chairman, Mr. Hoffman quoted 
        from 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2329, in which Chairman Frank 
        D. Currier (N.H.) stated: ``The gentleman may move that the 
        Committee rise and report this bill to the House with the 
        recommendation that it be recommitted to the Committee on 
        Interstate and Foreign Commerce. A motion to recommit is in 
        order in the House. It is in order in Committee of the Whole 
        House to move that when the Committee rises it recommends to 
        the House a recommitment of the bill.''
            Note: A motion that the Committee of the Whole rise and 
        report a bill to the House with the recommendation that the 
        bill be recommitted to the committee from which it was reported 
        is in order only when the bill is being considered under the 
        general rules of the House and then only at the completion of 
        the reading of the bill for amendment (4 Hinds' Precedents 
        Sec. Sec. 4761, 4762); it is not in order when the Committee of 
        the Whole considers the bill under a special rule requiring 
        reading for amendment under the five-minute rule. See 96 Cong. 
        Rec. 12219, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 10, 1950. See also Ch. 
        23, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 10.11 A motion that the Committee of the Whole rise and report a 
    bill back to the House with the recommendation that it be 
    recommitted to the committee from which reported is not in order if 
    that motion is not permitted under the resolution setting out the 
    conditions under which the bill is to be considered.

    On Aug. 10, 1950,(16) during consideration of H.R. 9176, 
the Defense Production Act of 1950, Chairman Howard W. Smith, of 
Virginia, indicated that a motion that the Committee of the Whole rise 
and report a bill back to the House with the recommendation that it be 
recommitted to the reporting committee was not in

[[Page 3345]]

order because such motion was not authorized by the special rule 
setting out the conditions under which the bill was being considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 96 Cong. Rec. 12219, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Rankin moves that the Committee do now rise and report 
        the bill back to the House with the recommendation that it be 
        recommitted to the Committee on Banking and Currency for 
        further hearings and study.

        Mr. [Wright] Patman [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Patman: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that this 
    being a straight motion to recommit, without instructions, it is 
    not permissible under the rule under which we are considering the 
    bill in Committee.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        That motion is not in order in Committee of the Whole, and the 
    Chair sustains the point of order.
        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Chairman, it is in order to make a motion that 
    the Committee do now rise and report the bill back to the House 
    with the recommendation that it be recommitted to the Committee on 
    Banking and Currency for further study and hearing.
        The Chairman: In the consideration of this bill the Committee 
    of the Whole is operating under a special rule which lays down the 
    conditions under which the bill is to be considered. The motion of 
    the gentleman from Mississippi is not in order at this time.

    The special rule, House Resolution 740,(17) did not 
authorize the Committee of the Whole to rise and report the bill back 
to the House with recommendation that the bill be recommitted to the 
standing committee. One motion to recommit would have been in order in 
the House under the special rule, the terms of which are set out below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 96 Cong. Rec. 11506, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 1, 1950.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution 
    it shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into the 
    Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the 
    consideration of the bill (H.R. 9176) to establish a system of 
    priorities and allocations for materials and facilities, authorize 
    the requisitioning thereof, provide financial assistance for 
    expansion of productive capacity and supply, strengthen controls 
    over credit, regulate speculation on commodity exchanges, and by 
    these measures facilitate the production of goods and services 
    necessary for the national security, and for other purposes, and 
    all points of order against said bill are hereby waived. That after 
    general debate, which shall be confined to the bill and continue 
    not to exceed 1 day, to be equally divided and controlled by the 
    chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Banking 
    and Currency, the bill shall be read for amendment under the 5-
    minute rule.

[[Page 3346]]

    It shall be in order to consider without the intervention of any 
    point of order the substitute committee amendment recommended by 
    the Committee on Banking and Currency now in the bill, and such 
    substitute for the purpose of amendment shall be considered under 
    the 5-minute rule as an original bill. At the conclusion of such 
    consideration the committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
    House with such amendments as may have been adopted, and any Member 
    may demand a separate vote in the House on any of the amendments 
    adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or committee 
    substitute. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on 
    the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
    intervening motion except one motion to recommit, with or without 
    instructions.

Sec. 10.12 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 and the bill returned to a committee with 
    instructions to remove a provision was held not to be in proper 
    form.

    On May 5, 1949,(18) during consideration of H.R. 2989, 
to incorporate the Virgin Islands Corporation, Chairman Wilbur D. 
Mills, of Arkansas, held that 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 and the bill be returned to the 
legislative committee with instructions to remove a particular 
provision was not in proper form for a preferential motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 95 Cong. Rec. 5705, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert F.] Rich [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Rich moves that the Committee now rise and report the 
        bill back to the House with the recommendation that the 
        enacting clause be stricken and the bill be returned to the 
        Committee on Public Lands with instructions to remove the 
        provision permitting the Government to manufacture rum.

        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the motion as presented 
    by the gentleman from Pennsylvania is not in proper form for a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk will read the bill for amendment.

Yielding Time During Debate

Sec. 10.13 A Member offering a motion in the Committee of the Whole to 
    strike out the enacting clause of a bill may while holding the 
    floor yield part (but not all) of his five minutes of debate to 
    another to discuss the motion.

    On Sept. 27, 1945,(19) during consideration of H.R. 
2948, to

[[Page 3347]]

 amend the Civil Service Retirement Act to exempt certain annuity 
payments from taxation, Chairman Aime J. Forand, of Rhode Island, 
referred to the rule under which a Member offering a motion to strike 
out the enacting clause may yield time to another.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 91 Cong. Rec. 9095, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Mr. May moves that the Committee do now rise and report the 
        bill, H.R. 2948, back forthwith to the House with the 
        recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken out.

        Mr. May: Mr. Chairman, I yield my 5 minutes to the gentleman 
    from North Carolina, if I may.
        Mr. [Robert] Ramspeck [of Georgia]: The gentleman cannot do 
    that, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: He can yield time while he is holding the floor.
        Mr. May: I yield part of my time, then, to the gentleman from 
    North Carolina.
        Mr. [Robert L.] Doughton of North Carolina: Mr. Chairman, for 
    the first time in a number of years we are now preparing to bring 
    in a tax-relief bill.

Striking Enacting Clause of Senate Bill

Sec. 10.14 The Speaker has directed the Clerk to notify the Senate of 
    agreement by the House to a recommendation of the Committee of the 
    Whole that the enacting clause of a Senate-passed bill be stricken 
    out.

    On Oct. 4, 1972,(20) during consideration of S. 1316, to 
amend the federal laws governing meat and poultry inspection, the House 
agreed to a recommendation of the Committee of the Whole relating to 
the enacting clause of the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 118 Cong. Rec. 33785, 33786, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
            See also 92 Cong. Rec. 7211, 79th Cong. 2d Sess., June 20, 
        1946, for another instance in which the House struck the 
        enacting clause of a Senate bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Mr. Carey of New York 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: (21) The question is on the 
    preferential motion offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
    Carey).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. James W. Symington (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Carey of New York) there were--ayes 104, noes 97.
        Mr. [Wiley] Mayne [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I demand tellers.
        Tellers were ordered.
        Mr. Mayne: Mr. Chairman, I demand tellers with clerks.
        Tellers with clerks were ordered. . . .

[[Page 3348]]

        The Committee divided, and the tellers reported that there 
    were--ayes 172, noes 170, not voting 89. . . .
        So the preferential motion was agreed to.
        Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed 
    the chair, Mr. Symington, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole 
    House on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee, 
    having had under consideration the bill (S. 1316) . . . had 
    directed him to report the bill back to the House with the 
    recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken out.
        The Speaker: (22) The question is on the 
    recommendation of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
    the Union that the enacting clause be stricken out.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Mayne: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 173, nays 169, not 
    voting 88. . . .
        So the recommendation of the Committee of the Whole House on 
    the State of the Union that the enacting clause be stricken out was 
    agreed to. . . .
        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will notify the Senate of the action of 
    the House.

Withdrawal of Motion

Sec. 10.15 The 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 was withdrawn by unanimous consent.

    On May 3, 1949,(1~) during consideration of H.R. 2032, 
the National Labor Relations Act of 1949, a motion to strike the 
enacting clause was withdrawn by unanimous consent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 95 Cong. Rec. 5521, 5522, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Eugene] Worley [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Chairman: (2) The Clerk will report the motion 
    of the gentleman from Texas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Worley 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 Texas is recognized for 5 
    minutes on his motion.
        Mr. Worley: . . . Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 
    withdraw my motion.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Texas?
        There was no objection.


 
                               CHAPTER 19
 
                       The Committee of the Whole
 
            C. MOTION TO RECOMMEND STRIKING ENACTING CLAUSE
 
Sec. 11. When in Order

    The motion to strike out the enacting words of a bill has prece

[[Page 3349]]

dence over a motion to amend.(3) And it may be offered while 
an amendment is pending.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Rule XXIII clause 7, House Rules and Manual Sec. 875 (1979).
 4. See 5 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 5329, 5330, and 8 Cannon's 
        Precedents 
        Sec. 2624.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Time to Offer Motion

Sec. 11.1 Because a motion to strike out the enacting clause of a bill 
    is in order only during the stage of amendment, the Chair has 
    indicated that the motion would not be in order after the adoption 
    of an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

    On Aug. 7, 1964,(5) during consideration of H.R. 11377, 
the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, Chairman Albert Rains, of 
Alabama, made reference to the time during which the motion to strike 
out the enacting clause would be in order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 110 Cong. Rec. 18608, 18609, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: My inquiry, Mr. 
    Chairman, is this: After the substitute is voted on and if it is 
    adopted would it be in order for someone or anyone, any Member, to 
    offer a motion to strike out the enacting clause?
        The Chairman: The Chair replies that it would not be because 
    the stage of amending the bill would have passed.

Sec. 11.2 A motion in the Committee of the Whole that the Committee 
    rise and report a bill back to the House with the recommendation 
    that the enacting clause be stricken out is not in order during 
    debate on the measure but is properly offered when the bill is 
    being read for amendment.

    On July 5, 1939,(6) during general debate on H.R. 5031, 
regarding relief for sufferers from the earthquake in Chile, Chairman 
Orville Zimmerman, of Missouri, stated that a motion to strike the 
enacting clause was not in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 84 Cong. Rec. 8624, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: The gentleman from New York has control of the 
    time.
        Mr. [Albert E.] Carter [of California]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Carter: Would a motion that the Committee do now rise and 
    report the bill back to the House with the recommendation that the 
    enacting clause be stricken out be in order at this time, or must 
    we wait until debate closes?
        The Chairman: The Chair rules that the motion is not in order 
    at this time.

[[Page 3350]]

        Mr. [Hamilton] Fish [Jr., of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 
    minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Stefan].

Sec. 11.3 A motion to strike out the enacting clause is a preferential 
    motion and in order at any time recognition is secured to offer it 
    during the reading of the bill for amendment by a Member who, if 
    challenged, qualifies as being opposed to the bill, even though 
    that may have the effect of extending the time for debate.

    On May 26, 1945,(7) during consideration of H.R. 3240, 
regarding foreign trade agreements, Chairman Clifton A. Woodrum, of 
Virginia, overruled a point of order that a motion to strike the 
enacting clause should not be entertained because it had been offered 
merely to gain additional time for debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 91 Cong. Rec. 5149, 79th Cong. 1st Sess. See 86 Cong. Rec. 1883, 
        76th Cong. 3d Sess., Feb. 23, 1940, for another illustration of 
        this principle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Daniel A.] Reed of New York: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from New York offers a preferential 
    motion which the Clerk will report.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Reed of New York 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. [Jere] Cooper [of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the motion.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state the point of order.
        Mr. Cooper: Of course, this is a motion of the highest 
    privilege, under the rules of the House, but I submit to the Chair 
    that when it is offered obviously for the purpose of gaining a 
    specific object--to extend debate after the time has been fixed and 
    the debate closed--that such a motion should not be entertained.
        The Chairman: The Chair will say to the gentleman that the 
    effect of the motion may be to extend the time of debate, but the 
    purpose of the motion is a vehicle by which the bill may be killed. 
    If the gentleman from New York [Mr. Reed] is opposed to the bill, 
    this is one way to do it.
        Mr. Reed of New York: I am opposed to the bill, sir, as I have 
    been consistently.
        The Chairman: The Chair overrules the point of order.

Under Rule Permitting Only Committee Amendments

Sec. 11.4 Where a bill is being considered under a rule permitting only 
    committee amendments and no amendments thereto, a motion that the 
    Committee rise and report the bill back to the House with the 
    recommendation that the enacting clause

[[Page 3351]]

    be stricken out is in order until the stage of amendment is passed.

    On Jan. 30, 1957,(8) during consideration under a closed 
rule of House Joint Resolution 117, to authorize the President to 
cooperate with nations of the Middle East, Chairman Jere Cooper, of 
Tennessee, stated that a motion that the Committee of the Whole rise 
and report the resolution back to the House with the recommendation 
that its enacting clause be stricken was preferential and in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 103 Cong. Rec. 1307-09, 85th Cong. 1st Sess. See 106 Cong. Rec. 
        10577-79, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., May 18, 1960, for another 
        illustration of this principle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James G.] Fulton [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I rise 
    in support of the amendment and the resolution.
        The Chairman: Under the rules adopted by the House all debate 
    on the pending amendment is exhausted.
        The question is on the committee amendment.
        The committee amendment was agreed to. . . .
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Gross moves the Committee now rise and report the 
        resolution to the House with the recommendation that the 
        enacting clause be stricken.

        Mr. [John M.] Vorys [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Vorys: It is my understanding that under the rule this 
    motion is not in order.
        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I want to 
    be heard on that point of order, if I may.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        This is a preferential motion. It is not an amendment which is 
    prohibited under the rule adopted by the House, but a preferential 
    motion. It is in order. The point of order is overruled and the 
    gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Gross] is recognized for 5 minutes in 
    support of his preferential motion.

    Following debate and rejection of the preferential motion, the 
Chairman put the question on the committee amendment. After the 
committee amendment was agreed to, the Chairman directed the Clerk to 
read the next committee amendment. The proceedings were as follows:

        The Chairman: The question is on the preferential motion 
    offered by the gentleman from Iowa.
        The motion was rejected.
        The Chairman: The question is on the committee amendment.
        The committee amendment was agreed to.

        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the next committee 
    amendment as it appears in the printed copy of the resolution.
        The Clerk read as follows: . . .

Sec. 11.5 A preferential motion that the Committee rise and

[[Page 3352]]

    report the bill to the House with the recommendation that the 
    enacting clause be stricken is not in order where the stage of 
    amendment is passed; and the stage of amendment is passed in 
    Committee of the Whole where a bill is being considered under a 
    rule permitting only committee amendments and where no committee 
    amendments are offered at the conclusion of general debate.

    On Apr. 16, 1970,(9) during consideration of H.R. 16311, 
the Family Assistance Act of 1970, Chairman John D. Dingell, of 
Michigan, ruled out of order a motion that the Committee of the Whole 
rise and report a bill to the House with the recommendation that the 
enacting clause be stricken. He did so on the ground that the stage of 
amendment had passed, no committee amendments having been offered at 
the conclusion of general debate. The bill was being considered under a 
closed rule permitting only committee amendments and no amendments 
thereto.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 116 Cong. Rec. 12092, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: Under the rule, the bill is considered as having 
    been read for amendment. No amendments are in order to the bill 
    except amendments offered by direction of the Committee on Ways and 
    Means.
        Are there any committee amendments?
        Mr. [Wilbur D.] Mills [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, there are no 
    committee amendments.
        Mr. [Omar T.] Burleson of Texas: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Burleson of Texas: Mr. Chairman, I have a preferential 
    motion. Is it in order to offer a preferential motion at this time?
        The Chairman: Will the gentleman advise the Chair what sort of 
    preferential motion he has in mind?
        Mr. Burleson of Texas: To strike the enacting clause.
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman from Texas 
    that that motion is not in order unless amendments are in order, 
    and are offered. There being no committee amendments, that motion 
    will not be in order at this time.
        Mr. Burleson of Texas: Mr. Chairman, may I inquire, if there 
    are no committee amendments to be offered, if the bill is 
    perfected?
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman from Texas 
    that the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman 
    from Arkansas (Mr. Mills), has just advised the Chair that there 
    are no committee amendments. That being so, the motion is not in 
    order at this time.
        Under the rule, the Committee rises.

[[Page 3353]]

Effect of Adoption of Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute

Sec. 11.6 After the stage of amendment is passed, the motion that the 
    Committee of the Whole rise and report the bill with the 
    recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken is not in 
    order; and the adoption of an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute may foreclose the opportunity to offer such a motion.

    On Aug. 7, 1964,(10) during consideration of H.R. 11377, 
the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, Chairman Albert Rains, of 
Alabama, stated that the motion that the Committee of the Whole rise 
and report a bill with the recommendation that the enacting clause be 
stricken would not be in order after the adoption of an amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 110 Cong. Rec. 18608, 18609, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, a further 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Halleck: As I remember the unanimous-consent request it was 
    that debate on the pending amendment, which is the Landrum 
    substitute, and all amendments and substitutes thereto, close at 
    6:30. I did not take it that that would foreclose the consideration 
    of a motion to strike out the enacting clause after the amendment 
    in the nature of a substitute had been disposed of.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that if the Landrum 
    amendment is adopted it will foreclose the opportunity to offer a 
    motion to strike out the enacting clause because the stage for 
    amendment would then be passed.

Sec. 11.7 Where the Committee of the Whole adopts an amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute for an entire bill it is not subject to 
    further amendment; and a subsequent motion that the Committee rise 
    and report the bill back to the House with the recommendation that 
    the enacting clause be stricken is not then in order because the 
    stage of amendment has passed.

    On Apr. 1, 1949,(11) during consideration of H.R. 2023, 
regarding regulation of oleomargarine, Chairman William M. Whittington, 
of Mississippi, stated that a motion that the Committee rise and report 
the bill back to the House with the recommendation that the enacting 
clause be stricken out is not in order after the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 95 Cong. Rec. 3727, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3354]]

adoption of a substitute for an entire bill.

        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment to the original 
    bill, in the nature of a substitute, offered by the gentleman from 
    Texas [Mr. Poage].
        The question was taken; and the Chair being in doubt, the 
    Committee divided, and there were--ayes 152, noes 140.
        Mr. August H. Andresen [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I demand 
    tellers.
        Tellers were ordered, and the Chairman appointed as tellers Mr. 
    Poage and Mr. August H. Andresen.
        The Committee again divided; and the tellers reported that 
    there were--ayes 162, noes 141.
        So the substitute amendment was agreed to.
        Mr. August H. Andresen: Mr. Chairman, I offer a preferential 
    motion.
        The Chairman: Will the gentleman state what he proposes to 
    offer as a preferential motion?
        Mr. August H. Andresen: Mr. Chairman, I move 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 is out of order. That is not a 
    preferential motion at this time.

After Ordering of Previous Question

Sec. 11.8 A motion in the House to strike out the enacting clause of a 
    bill is not in order after the previous question has been ordered 
    on the bill to final passage.

    On Apr. 16, 1970,(12) during consideration of H.R. 
16311, the Family Assistance Act of 1970, Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, stated that a motion to strike out the enacting clause 
was not in order where the previous question had been ordered on the 
bill to final passage. This bill was considered under a closed rule 
which permitted only committee amendments and no amendments thereto.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 116 Cong. Rec. 12092, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: Under the rule, the previous question is ordered.
        The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the 
    bill.
        The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and 
    was read the third time.
        The Speaker: The question is on the passage of the bill.
        Mr. [Omar T.] Burleson of Texas: Mr. Speaker a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Burleson of Texas: Mr. Speaker I have a preferential motion 
    which was not permitted to be made in the Committee of the Whole. 
    The preferential motion is to strike the enacting clause. Is it in 
    order in the House at this time?
        The Speaker: Due to the fact that the previous question has 
    been ordered

[[Page 3355]]

    on the bill to final passage, the motion is not in order at this 
    time.

After Defeat of Motion to Rise and Recommend Passage

Sec. 11.9 After defeat of a motion that the Committee of the Whole rise 
    and report a bill to the House with the recommendation that it 
    pass, a motion that the Committee rise and report the bill with the 
    recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken out is in 
    order.

    On May 12, 1941,(13) during consideration of H.R. 3490, 
fixing the amount of annual payment by the United States toward 
defraying expenses of the District of Columbia government, Chairman 
William M. Whittington, of Mississippi, stated that it would be in 
order to move that the Committee of the Whole rise and report the bill 
with the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken out after 
defeat of a motion that the Committee rise and report the bill 
favorably.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 87 Cong. Rec. 3917, 3938, 3939, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jennings] Randolph [of West Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I move 
    that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House 
    on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
    3490) to fix the amount of the annual payment by the United States 
    toward defraying the expenses of the government of the District of 
    Columbia; and pending that, I ask unanimous consent that debate be 
    limited to 2 hours.

    After completion of general debate and reading of the bill for 
amendment under the five-minute rule, the manager of the bill, Mr. 
Randolph, moved as follows:

        Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise and report 
    the bill back to the House with an amendment with the 
    recommendation that the amendment be agreed to and that the bill as 
    amended do pass. . . .
        Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Tarver: If this motion to report the bill favorably does 
    not carry, it would then be in order to offer a motion to report 
    the bill with the recommendation that the enacting clause be 
    stricken out.
        The Chairman: The bill would still be in the Committee, and 
    such a motion would be in order.

Effect of Pendency of Motion to Limit Debate

Sec. 11.10 A preferential motion under Rule XXIII clause 7 that the 
    Committee of the Whole rise with the recommendation that the 
    resolving clause be stricken out is applicable to a simple resolu

[[Page 3356]]

    tion and may be offered while a motion to limit debate is pending.

    On Oct. 7, 1974,(14) during consideration of a 
resolution (H. Res. 988) to reform the structure, jurisdiction, and 
procedures of House committees, the following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 120 Cong. Rec. 34170, 34171, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Richard] Bolling [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I move that 
    all debate on the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered 
    by the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. Hansen), and all 
    amendments thereto, conclude in 5 hours.
        The Chairman: [William H. Natcher, of Kentucky]: The question 
    is on the motion.
        The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the 
    noes appeared to have it.
        Mr. Bolling: Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

    A series of parliamentary inquiries ensued. Then a preferential 
motion was made, as follows:

        Mr. [David T.] Martin of Nebraska: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Martin of Nebraska moves that the Committee rise and 
        report the resolution H. Res. 988 to the House with the 
        recommendation that the resolving clause be stricken out.

        The Chairman: The Chair would like to ask the gentleman from 
    Nebraska, is the gentleman opposed to this resolution?
        Mr. Martin of Nebraska: I am, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The gentleman qualifies to make the motion.
        The gentleman from Nebraska is recognized for 5 minutes in 
    support of his motion.

Sec. 11.11 The motion that the Committee of the Whole rise and report a 
    bill to the House with the recommendation that the enacting clause 
    be stricken out (Rule XXIII clause 7) (15) takes 
    precedence over a motion to limit debate under Rule XXIII clause 
    6.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. House Rules and Manual Sec. 875 (1979).
16. Id. at Sec. 874.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Dec. 14, 1973,(17) during consideration of H.R. 
11450, the Energy Emergency Act, Chairman Richard Bolling, of Missouri, 
indicated that a motion that the Committee of the Whole rise and report 
the bill to the House with the recommendation that the enacting clause 
be stricken out took precedence over a motion to limit debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 119 Cong. Rec. 41711-14, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Samuel L.] Devine [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.

[[Page 3357]]

        Mr. Devine: Mr. Chairman, my parliamentary inquiry is this: Is 
    a motion now in order to say that the House will vote on the bill 
    and all amendments thereto by a time certain?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that a motion to limit 
    debate on the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by 
    the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Staggers) and all amendments 
    thereto, to a time certain, would be in order.
        Mr. Devine: Mr. Chairman, I therefore will make that motion.
        Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on the amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from West Virginia 
    (Mr. Staggers) and all amendments thereto, close at 5:30 p.m. 
    today. . . .
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, my parliamentary 
    inquiry is this: Must that motion be in writing?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the motion must be in 
    writing if the gentleman insists upon it.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Chairman, I do so insist.
        Mr. [Phillip M.] Landrum [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

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

        The Chairman: The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Landrum) is 
    recognized for 5 minutes in support of his preferential motion. . . 
    .
        The question is on the preferential motion offered by the 
    gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Landrum).
        The preferential motion was rejected.
        Mr. Devine: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Ohio will state it.
        Mr. Devine: At the time the gentleman from Georgia made his 
    preferential motion, I had already made a motion before the House, 
    and it was requested that that be put in writing. That was done, 
    and it is currently at the Clerk's desk. I wonder what the status 
    of that motion is that was pending at the time the preferential 
    motion was made.
        The Chairman: The preferential motion takes precedence. The 
    preferential motion was rejected.
        Mr. Devine: Mr. Chairman, I offer a motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Devine moves that all debate on the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute, H.R. 11882, and all amendments thereto 
        be concluded by 6:30 p.m.

    Parliamentarian's Note: On Oct. 7, 1974 (see Sec. 11.10, supra), 
the Chair entertained as preferential a motion that the Committee rise 
with the recommendation that the resolving clause of a simple 
resolution be stricken out while there was pending a motion to limit 
debate. The motion is more preferential since, if adopted, it is a 
final disposition of the bill in Committee.

Duration of Debate

Sec. 11.12 A motion that the Committee of the Whole rise and

[[Page 3358]]

    report a bill back to the House with the recommendation that the 
    enacting clause be stricken is debatable for 10 minutes.

    On Oct. 17, 1945,(18) during consideration of H.R. 3615, 
the airport bill, Chairman Graham A. Barden, of North Carolina, stated 
the time for debate on a motion to strike out the enacting clause of 
the bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 91 Cong. Rec. 9751, 79th Cong. 1st Sess. See also 89 Cong. Rec. 
        654, 78th Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 5, 1943; and 79 Cong. Rec. 
        13013, 74th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 13, 1935. See Rule XXIII 
        clause 7 and comment thereto, House Rules and Manual 
        Sec. Sec. 875, 876 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clare 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 recommendation 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.

Precedence of Motion to Rise

Sec. 11.13 A motion that the Committee of the Whole do now rise takes 
    precedence over a pending motion to rise and report with the 
    recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken out.

    On May 24, 1967,(19) during consideration of H.R. 7819, 
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act Amendments of 1967, Chairman 
Charles M. Price, of Illinois, stated that the motion that the 
Committee of the Whole rise takes precedence over a pending motion to 
rise and report with the recommendation that the enacting clause be 
stricken out.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 1113 Cong. Rec. 13876, 13877, 90th Cong. 1st Sess. See 82 Cong. 
        Rec. 1600, 75th Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 15, 1937, for another 
        illustration of this principle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Hays 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 question is on the preferential motion 
    offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hays].

[[Page 3359]]

        Mr. [Carl D.] Perkins [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I move that 
    the Committee do now rise.
        The Chairman: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Perkins].
        Mr. [Paul C.] Jones of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Jones of Missouri: Does not a preferential motion require a 
    vote before the Chair can accept another motion?
        The Chairman: No. A motion to rise takes precedence over any 
    other motion.
        The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from 
    Kentucky [Mr. Perkins].
        Mr. [Leslie C.] Arends [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, on that I 
    demand tellers.
        Tellers were ordered, and the Chairman appointed as tellers Mr. 
    Perkins and Mr. Goodell.
        The Committee divided and the tellers reported that there 
    were--ayes 127, noes 186.
        So the motion was rejected.
        The Chairman: The question is on the preferential motion.
        Mr. Jones of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I demand tellers. Tellers 
    were refused.
        The Chairman: The question is on the preferential motion.
        The preferential motion was rejected.

Precedence of Motion to Recommit

Sec. 11.14 When a bill is reported to the House by the Committee of the 
    Whole with the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken 
    out, pending the question of concurrence, a motion to recommit the 
    bill to a committee is in order under Rule XXIII clause 
    7,(20) and is voted on before the recommendation to 
    strike out the enacting clause.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. House Rules and Manual Sec. 875 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Mar. 22, 1949,(21) during consideration of H.R. 2681, 
to provide pensions for veterans of World Wars I and II, and after the 
Committee of the Whole rose with the recommendation that the enacting 
clause be stricken out, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, stated that 
pending the question of concurrence on the motion to strike the 
enacting clause a motion to recommit the bill to committee was in 
order. The House voted on the motion to recommit before the 
recommendation to strike the enacting clause.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. 95 Cong. Rec. 2962-65, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The proceedings were as follows:

            Mr. [John A.] Carroll [of Colorado]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
        a preferential motion.

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Carroll moves that the Com mittee do now rise and 
        report the

[[Page 3360]]

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

        The Chairman: (1) The question is on the 
    preferential motion of the gentleman from Colorado.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Albert A. Gore (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken; and the Chair being in doubt, the 
    Committee divided, and there were--ayes 154, noes 139.
        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I demand 
    tellers.
        Tellers were ordered, and the Chair appointed as tellers Mr. 
    Carroll and Mr. Rankin.
        The Committee again divided; and the tellers reported that 
    there were--ayes 163, noes 154.
        So the motion was agreed to.
        Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed 
    the chair, Mr. Gore, Chairman of the Committee . . . reported that 
    the Committee . . . had directed him to report the bill back to the 
    House with the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken 
    out.
        The Speaker: The question is on the recommendation of the 
    Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union that the 
    enacting clause be stricken out.

            Mr. Carroll: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Carroll moves that the bill H.R. 2681 be recommitted to 
        the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, I demand a vote on the motion to 
    strike out the enacting clause.
        The Speaker: The Chair holds that this motion [to recommit] 
    offered by the gentleman from Colorado at this time is in order.
        Mr. Carroll: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.
        The previous question was ordered.
        The question was taken on the motion to recommit [which was 
    rejected]. . . .
        The Speaker: The question is on the recommendation of the 
    Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union that the 
    enacting clause be stricken out. Those in favor of voting to strike 
    out the enacting clause of the bill will, when their names are 
    called, vote ``aye''; those opposed vote ``nay.''. . .
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 120, nays 291, not 
    voting 22, as follows: . . .
        So the recommendation of the Committee of the Whole was 
    rejected. . . .
        The Speaker: The House automatically resolves itself into the 
    Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the 
    further consideration of the bill H.R. 2681.
        Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
    Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration 
    of the bill H.R. 2681, with Mr. Gore in the chair.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        The Chairman: When the Committee rose, there was an amendment 
    pending offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Kearney].
        Mr.  [Joseph W.] Martin [Jr.] of Massachusetts: Mr. Chairman, I 
    ask unanimous consent that the amendment be reread for the 
    information of the Committee.

[[Page 3361]]

        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Massachusetts?
        There was no objection.

    When the Committee of the Whole agreed to a motion to rise that 
day, the Chairman reported that the Committee had come to no resolution 
on H.R. 2681. The Committee of the Whole considered the measure again 
on the following day. On Mar. 24, 1949, the House again resolved into 
the Committee of the Whole for further consideration of H.R. 
2681.(2) Subsequently, Mr. Olin E. Teague, of Texas, moved 
that the Committee rise and report back to the House with the 
recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken, creating a 
parliamentary situation that Mr. Francis H. Case, of South Dakota, 
suggested was similar to that prevailing on Mar. 22, 1949. This time, 
however, the House voted to recommit the bill to the Committee on 
Veterans' Affairs for further study.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2.  95 Cong. Rec. 3110-15, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


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

Qualification to Offer Motion

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 3362]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 3363]]

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

Presumptions as to Proponent's Qualification

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 3364]]

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

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

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

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

Effect of Closed Rule

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

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

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

[[Page 3365]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

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

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

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

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

Committee Chairman as Proponent

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

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

[[Page 3366]]

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 3367]]

        So the motion was rejected.

Offering Motion to Secure Debate Time

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 3368]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 3369]]

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

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

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

[[Page 3370]]

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

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

[[Page 3371]]

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

Qualification to Oppose Motion

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

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

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

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

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

Recognition of Opponent

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

[[Page 3372]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recognizing Committee Member as Opponent

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

[[Page 3373]]

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

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

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

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

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

Recognizing Member of Opposition Party

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

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

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

[[Page 3374]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

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

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

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

Speaker as Opponent

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

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

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

        The Clerk read as follows:

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

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

[[Page 3375]]

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

Effect of Recognizing Objection to Withdrawal of Motion

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 3376]]

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


 
                               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]]




 
                               CHAPTER 19
 
                       The Committee of the Whole
 
            C. MOTION TO RECOMMEND STRIKING ENACTING CLAUSE
 
Sec. 14. Renewal of Motion

Generally

Sec. 14.1 Only one motion recommending that the Committee of the Whole 
    rise and report a bill back to the House with the recommendation 
    that the enacting clause be stricken is in order on the same 
    legislative day unless the text of the bill is changed.

    On Mar. 16, 1948,(19) during consideration of S. 2182, 
extending rent controls, Chairman Walter C. Ploeser, of Missouri, made 
reference to the general rule against permitting a second motion to 
strike the enacting clause.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 94 Cong. Rec. 2956, 80th Cong. 2d Sess. See, for example, 99 Cong. 
        Rec. 9563, 83d Cong. 1st Sess., July 22, 1953; 97 Cong. Rec. 
        8970, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., July 26, 1951; and 95 Cong. Rec. 
        4414, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 12, 1949, for other 
        illustrations of this principle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Mr. Celler moves that the Committee do now rise and report 
        S. 2182 back to the House with the recommendation that the 
        enacting clause be stricken therefrom. . . .

        The Chairman: The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. 
    Jackson] has expired.
        The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from New 
    York [Mr. Celler].
        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Rankin: As I understand, only one motion of this kind can 
    be offered to a bill.
        The Chairman: Unless the text of the bill is changed.

Sec. 14.2 A second motion to strike out the enacting clause is not 
    entertained in the absence of any material modification of the 
    bill.

    On Mar. 26, 1965,(20) during consideration of H. R. 
2362, the elementary and secondary education bill of 1965, one motion 
to strike the enacting clause having been defeated, Chairman Richard 
Bolling, of Missouri, indicated the circumstances under which a second 
motion to strike out the enacting clause would be in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 111 Cong. Rec. 6101, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
            See also 108 Cong. Rec. 11369, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., June 
        21, 1962; and 96 Cong. Rec. 2235, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 22, 
        1950 (Calendar Wednesday).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. George W. Andrews [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        Mr. [Adam C.] Powell [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I move that 
    all

[[Page 3387]]

    debate on this section close in 5 minutes.
        The Chairman: Will the chairman suspend for a minute?
        Mr. George W. Andrews: Mr. Chairman, I offer a preferential 
    motion.
        The Chairman: Will the gentleman state his preferential motion?
        Mr. George W. Andrews: That the Committee rise and strike out 
    the enacting clause.
        The Chairman: The Chair will have to advise the gentleman from 
    Alabama that that motion will not be in order again until 
    substantial change is made in the bill.

Sec. 14.3 A second motion to strike out the enacting clause is in order 
    on a bill if a substantial change has been made in the bill since 
    the disposal of the first motion.

    On Apr. 6, 1935,(21) during consideration of H.R. 5529, 
to prevent war profiteering, Chairman Lindsay C. Warren, of North 
Carolina, overruled a point of order against the renewal on the same 
day of a motion to strike the enacting clause, noting that a 
substantial change had been made in the bill since disposition of the 
previous motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. 79 Cong. Rec. 5181, 74th Cong. 1st Sess. See 79 Cong. Rec. 12430, 
        74th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 3, 1935, for another example of this 
        principle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I move to 
    strike out the enacting clause.
        Mr. [Lister] Hill of Alabama: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Mississippi will send to the 
    Clerk's desk his motion.
        Mr. Hill of Alabama: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order 
    that the motion is dilatory. That motion was voted down yesterday. 
    . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair overrules the point of order, believing 
    that there has been a substantial change made in the bill since the 
    motion to strike was made. The gentleman from Mississippi 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.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The motion can be renewed on the following 
legislative day regardless of modification of the bill. See Sec. 14.8, 
infra.

After Amendment

Sec. 14.4 A second 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 is in order if the bill has been 
    amended since disposition of the first motion.

    On June 18, 1970(22) during consideration of H.R. 17070, 
the Post
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. 116 Cong. Rec. 20481, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. See 86 Cong. Rec. 1899, 
        76th Cong. 3d Sess., Feb. 23, 1940; 84 Cong. Rec. 7382, 76th 
        Cong. 1st Sess., June 16, 1939; and 82 Cong. Rec. 1119, 75th 
        Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 8, 1937, for other examples of this 
        principle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3388]]

al Reform Act of 1970, Chairman Charles M. Price, of Illinois, stated 
that a second 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 is in order if business [the adoption of amendments] has 
transpired since the first such motion.

        Mr. [James C.] Wright [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Wright 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. [Robert J.] Corbett [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    point of order. Has not such a motion already been introduced and 
    defeated?
        The Chairman. It has been, but other business has transpired 
    since the first motion to rise and strike the enacting clause. The 
    motion is in order, and the gentleman from Texas is recognized for 
    5 minutes.

After Rejection of Amendment

Sec. 14.5 A second motion to strike out the enacting clause is not in 
    order if the only action of the Committee of the Whole in the 
    interim has been the rejection of a proposed amendment to the bill.

    On June 21, 1962,(1) during consideration of H.R. 11222, 
the food and agricultural bill of 1962, Chairman Francis E. Walter, of 
Pennsylvania, refused to entertain a second motion to strike out the 
enacting clause because the only action in the interim had been 
rejection of a proposed amendment to the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 108 Cong. Rec. 11359, 11360, 11369, 11370, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: The time for debate on title IV has expired.
        Mr. [Ancher] Nelsen [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Nelsen moves that the Committee do now rise and report 
        H.R. 11222 back to the House with the recommendation that the 
        enacting clause be stricken. . . .

        The Chairman: The question is on the preferential motion 
    offered by the gentleman from Minnesota.
        The motion was rejected.
        Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment. . . .
        The Chairman:  . . . The Clerk will report the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from New York.
        The Clerk read as follows: . . .
        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from New York [Mr. Stratton].

[[Page 3389]]

        The amendment was rejected. . . .
        Mr. [Neal] Smith of Iowa: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at 
    the Clerk's desk which I offer at this time.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the amendment.
        Mr. [Robert J.] Dole [of Kansas]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    preferential motion.
        The Chairman: The motion is not in order because no action has 
    been taken since the last identical motion.
        The Clerk will report the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Iowa.
        Mr. Dole: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Dole: We just voted on the amendment of the gentleman from 
    New York [Mr. Stratton] and it was defeated.
        The Chairman: The amendment was defeated and did not prevail.
        The Clerk will report the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Iowa [Mr. Smith].

After Amendment of Bill

Sec. 14.6 Where a bill has been amended subsequent to the rejection of 
    a motion to strike out the enacting clause, a second motion is in 
    order and is debatable notwithstanding a limitation of debate on 
    the bill.

    On May 9, 1947,(2) during consideration of H.R. 2616, 
providing assistance to Greece and Turkey, Chairman Francis H. Case, of 
South Dakota, held that a motion to strike the enacting clause was in 
order and debatable, several amendments having been adopted since 
disposition of the previous motion to strike the enacting clause.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 93 Cong. Rec. 4974, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Mr. Hoffman 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. [Pete] Jarman [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order 
    against the motion.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Jarman: Mr. Chairman, that motion has already been made and 
    was voted down once.
        The Chairman: There have been several amendments adopted on the 
    bill, it has been changed since that motion was previously acted 
    on. The Chair overrules the point of order.
        Mr. [John M.] Vorys [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Vorys: Mr. Chairman, debate is limited on the bill by 
    action of the committee.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Michigan has offered a 
    preferential motion which is in order in spite of the agreement on 
    closing debate.

[[Page 3390]]

Effect of Withdrawal of Prior Motion

Sec. 14.7 After withdrawal by unanimous consent of the first such 
    motion, a second 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 was held in order and not dilatory.

    On May 3, 1949,(3) during consideration of H.R. 2032, 
the National Labor Relations Act of 1949, Chairman Jere Cooper, of 
Tennessee, indicated that a second motion to strike the enacting clause 
is in order and not dilatory where the first such motion had been 
withdrawn.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 95 Cong. Rec. 5521, 5522, 5531, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Eugene] Worley [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the motion of the gentleman 
    from Texas.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Worley 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 Texas is recognized for 5 
    minutes on his motion. . . .
        Mr. Worley: . . . Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 
    withdraw my motion.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Texas?
        There was no objection. . . .
        Mr. [Hale] Boggs of Louisiana: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

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

        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order that that motion has just been voted down.
        The Chairman: The gentleman is mistaken. The previous motion 
    was withdrawn by unanimous consent.
        Mr. [Joseph W.] Martin [Jr.] of Massachusetts: Mr. Chairman, I 
    make the point of order it is dilatory. Is the gentleman going to 
    press his motion?
        The Chairman: The Chair overrules the point of order.

On Another Day

Sec. 14.8 Parliamentarian's Note: A second motion to ``strike the 
    enacting clause'' is in order on a subsequent legislative day, 
    notwithstanding the fact that there has been no modification of the 
    bill since the first preferential motion was rejected.

[[Page 3391]]

    On May 6, 1950,(4) during consideration of H.R. 7786, 
the general appropriation bill of 1951, Chairman Jere Cooper, of 
Tennessee, ruled that a second motion to strike out the enacting clause 
was in order, the first having been made on a previous day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 96Cong. Rec. 6571, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

        Mr. [Albert A.] Gore [of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the motion on the ground that it is a 
    dilatory motion.
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    further point of order against the motion that no amendment has 
    been adopted since the last such motion was disposed of.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that while it is true that 
    no amendment has been adopted and there has been no alteration in 
    the bill since the last motion to strike out the enacting clause 
    was disposed of, nevertheless this is a different day.
        The Chair is of the opinion that the point of order made by the 
    gentleman from New York would not lie against the motion.


 
                               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.


 
                               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]]


 
                               CHAPTER 19
 
                       The Committee of the Whole
 
                      D. CONSIDERATION AND DEBATE
 
Sec. 17. Calling Members to Order

    The Chairman directs the Committee of the Whole to rise and report 
to the House when objections have been made under Rule XIV clause 
4,(17) which relates to calling a Member to order for 
transgressing the rules of the House, or Rule XIV clause 
5,(18) which relates to calling a Member to order for words 
spoken in debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. House Rules and Manual Sec. 760 (1979); 2 Hinds' Precedents 
        Sec. 1653. See also Ch. 29 Sec. Sec. 48-52, infra
18. House Rules and Manual Sec. 761 (1979); Sec. 17.3, infra; 2 Hinds' 
        Precedents Sec. Sec. 1257-1259, 1348; and 8 Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. Sec. 2533, 2538, 2539. See also Jefferson's Manual, House 
        Rules and Manual Sec. 369 (1979), for parliamentary law on 
        calling to order.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Seating of Member Called to Order

Sec. 17.1 A Member called to order in the Committee of the Whole 
    because of words spoken in debate must take his seat.

    On Mar. 26, 1965,(19) during consideration of H.R. 2362, 
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Chairman Richard 
Bolling, of Missouri, stated that a Member called to order because of 
words spoken in debate in the Committee of the Whole must take his 
seat.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 111 Cong. Rec. 6107, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Frank] Thompson [Jr.] of New Jersey: Mr. Chairman, I move 
    to strike out the requisite number of words. . . .
        I might suggest further you can beat this dog all you want for 
    political purposes; you can demagog however subtly and try to scare 
    people off at the expense of the Nation's schoolchildren with your 
    demagoguery
        Mr. [Charles E.] Goodell [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I demand 
    that those words be taken down.
        Mr. Thompson of New Jersey: Please take the words down.
        Mr. Goodell: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has accused one of his 
    colleagues of demagoguery.
        Mr. Thompson of New Jersey: I was referring to a gentleman; who 
    takes exception to that?
        Mr. Goodell: Mr. Chairman, a point of order: The gentleman must 
    take his seat.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from New Jersey will take his seat.

Rising of Committee to Report Objectionable Words

Sec. 17.2 When words are taken down in the Committee of the Whole, the 
    Committee immediately rises and the Chairman reports the words 
    objected to to the House.

[[Page 3414]]

    On Mar. 9, 1936,(20) during consideration of H.R. 11563, 
the District of Columbia rent commission bill, the Committee of the 
Whole rose immediately after a demand was made to take words down, and 
the Chairman reported the objectionable words to the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 80 Cong. Rec. 3465, 74th Cong. 2d Sess. See 79 Cong. Rec. 1808, 
        74th Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 7, 1935, for another illustration of 
        this procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Henry] Ellenbogen [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, a point 
    of order. I ask that the gentleman's language be taken down. It is 
    a violation of the rules of the House, and in the meantime I demand 
    that the gentleman take his seat.
        The Chairman: (1) The Clerk will report the words 
    objected to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. William B. Umstead (N.C.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Blanton: Here is the answer if the gentleman can 
        understand English.

        The Committee rose and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. O'Connor) 
    having assumed the chair, Mr. Umstead, Chairman of the Committee of 
    the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that the 
    Committee having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 11563), 
    certain words used in debate were objected to and on request were 
    taken down and read at the Clerk's desk and he reported the same to 
    the House herewith.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (2) The Clerk will report 
    the words objected to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. John J. O'Connor (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Blanton: Here is the answer, if the gentleman can 
        understand English.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is ready to rule. The Chair 
    sees nothing objectionable in the words used.
        The Committee will resume its session.

Expungement of Words

Sec. 17.3 Where a demand is made that certain words spoken in debate be 
    taken down in Committee of the Whole, such words must be reported 
    to the House, and a motion to expunge words from the Record is not 
    in order in the Committee.

    On Feb. 18, 1941,(3) Chairman Warren G. Magnuson, of 
Washington, stated that the House, not the Committee of the Whole, 
determines whether to expunge from the Record words spoken and objected 
to in the Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  3. 87 Cong. Rec. 1126, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman [of Michigan]: All we ask in this case 
    is what we do not expect to get, that you stick by the rules of the 
    game you established last year. That is not too much to expect if 
    we adhere to the agreement of last year. This would give us in 
    Michigan the Representative to

[[Page 3415]]

    which we are entitled. But we know what you are going to do. You 
    know what is going to happen. You are going to skin us, are you 
    not? And we have no way to prevent it.
        Mr. [Robert F.] Rich [of Pennsylvania]: I demand that the 
    gentleman's words be taken down. . . .
        The Chairman: . . . The Clerk will read the words objected to.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            You know what is going to happen. You are going to skin us, 
        are you not; and we have not any way to help it

        Mr. Rich: Mr. Chairman, I ask that those words be expunged from 
    the Record. They are not going to skin anybody around here.
        The Chairman: That is a matter for the House to decide. The 
    Committee will rise.
        Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed 
    the chair, Mr. Magnuson, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole 
    House on the state of the Union, reported that that Committee, 
    having had under consideration the bill H.R. 2665, certain words in 
    debate were objected to, which, on request, where taken down and 
    read at the Clerk's desk, and that he reported the same herewith to 
    the House.
        The Speaker: (4) The Clerk will report the words 
    objected to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Hoffman: You know what is going to happen. You are 
        going to skin us, are you not; and we have not any way to help 
        it.

        The Speaker: The Chair is of the opinion that the expression 
    contained in the words reported to the House is merely a 
    colloquialism which does not reflect in an unparliamentary manner 
    upon any Member.
        The Chair cannot see anything in these words which violates the 
    rules of the House.
        The Committee will resume its session.

Scope of Ruling by Speaker

Sec. 17.4 The Speaker passes only on words reported from the Committee 
    of the Whole; a demand that additional words uttered in the 
    Committee (but not reported to the House) be reported is not in 
    order in the House.

    On July 27, 1965,(5) during consideration of H.R. 77, 
repealing section 14(b) of the Labor-Management Relations Act, Speaker 
John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, stated that he could rule only on 
words reported from the Committee of the Whole as recited by the 
Clerk.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 111 Cong. Rec. 18441, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
 6. See 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5202, for additional support for this 
        principle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles E.] Goodell [of New York]: I would be very 
    interested on this particular issue, if we are going to have a 
    repeat of the exhibition on the housing vote with the gentleman 
    withholding votes and seeing how they are necessary on the issue 
    that comes be

[[Page 3416]]

    fore us. I hope that this will not be repeated. In my instance, and 
    in the instance of all the gentlemen from New York, I believe we 
    will be standing on the merits of whether we should have a Federal 
    law that destroys the right of the States to make up their minds.
        Mr. [Neal] Smith of Iowa: Mr. Chairman, I demand that the 
    gentleman's words be taken down. He is impugning the motives of 
    Members of this body.
        The Chairman:(7) The Clerk will report the words 
    objected to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Leo W. O'Brien (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Goodell: I would be very interested on this particular 
        issue if we are going to have a repeat of the exhibition on the 
        housing vote with the gentlemen withholding votes and seeing 
        how they are necessary on the issue that comes before us. I 
        hope that this will not be repeated.

        The Chairman: The Committee will rise.
        Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed 
    the chair, Mr. O'Brien, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole 
    House on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee, 
    having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 77) to repeal section 
    14(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and section 
    705(b) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 
    and to amend the first proviso of section 8(a)(3) of the National 
    Labor Relations Act, as amended, certain words used in debate were 
    objected to and on request were taken down and read at the Clerk's 
    desk, and he herewith reported the same to the House.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the words objected to.

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Goodell: I would be very interested on this particular 
        issue if we are going to have a repeat of the exhibition on the 
        housing vote with the gentlemen withholding votes and seeing 
        how they are necessary on the issue that comes before us. I 
        hope that this will not be repeated.

        Mr. Smith of Iowa: Mr. Speaker, there was another sentence 
    following that. He did not read the last sentence.
        The Speaker: The occupant of the Chair can pass only on the 
    words that have been reported.
        The Chair will state that in debate the question of impugning 
    the motives or attacking the vote of a Member is one thing; but 
    looking at it from a broad angle the remarks made by the gentleman 
    from New York [Mr. Goodell] seem to come within the purview of the 
    rules.
        The Chair does not consider this to be a reflection, if the 
    gentleman was making any reflection, upon any Member of the House 
    or upon any State of the Union, particularly the State of Iowa.
        The Chair overrules the point of order.
        Mr. Smith of Iowa: Mr. Speaker, I demand the sentence following 
    that be taken down. That was the sentence objected to. He said we 
    did not vote on the merits.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the Chair can only pass 
    upon the words presented to the Chair and which were taken down in 
    the Committee of the Whole.
        Mr. Smith of Iowa: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.

[[Page 3417]]

        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Smith of Iowa: Are we not entitled to have the words taken 
    down that were objected to in the Committee of the Whole so that 
    Members can exercise their rights?
        The Speaker: The Chair was confronted with the words actually 
    reported by the Clerk.
        Mr. Smith of Iowa: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Smith of Iowa: Then when we go back into the Committee of 
    the Whole, am I entitled to demand that the words be taken down 
    that I objected to and report them back?
        The Speaker: The Chair will not pass upon what can be done in 
    the Committee of the Whole. Of course, if the gentleman desires to 
    renew his request, that would be a matter for the Chairman of the 
    Committee of the Whole to consider on the question of whether or 
    not the words were taken down as demanded by the gentleman from 
    Iowa.
        The Committee will resume its sitting.
        Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of 
    the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further 
    consideration of the bill H.R. 77 with Mr. O'Brien in the chair.
        The Chairman: The Committee will be in order.
        Mr. Smith of Iowa: Mr. Chairman, I demand that the words the 
    gentleman most recently gave me be taken down.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Iowa demands that certain 
    additional words which he claims were uttered shall be taken down.
        The Clerk will report the words objected to.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Goodell: In my instance and in the instance of all the 
        gentlemen from New York, I believe we will be standing on the 
        merits of whether we should have a Federal law that destroys 
        the right of the States to make up their minds.

        Mr. Smith of Iowa: That is not all of it, Mr. Chairman. That is 
    not all of the words.
        The Chairman: I might say to the gentleman that is all that the 
    Clerk was able to furnish the Chairman and I assume that the point 
    he has raised--
        Mr. Smith of Iowa: In that case, I withdraw the objection.
        The Chairman: Objection is withdrawn.
        The Committee will proceed in order.

Automatic Resolution Into Committee After Ruling

Sec. 17.5 After the Speaker has ruled on words taken down in Committee, 
    the House automatically again resolves into the Committee of the 
    Whole.

    On Mar. 26, 1965,(8) during consideration of H.R. 2362, 
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, and after Speaker 
John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, ruled on words taken
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 111 Cong. Rec. 6107, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3418]]

down in the Committee of the Whole, the House automatically resolved 
into the Committee under the Chairmanship of Richard Bolling, of 
Missouri.

        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the words objected to.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            I might suggest further you can beat this dog all you want 
        for political purposes; you can demagog however subtly and try 
        to scare people off at the expense of the Nation's 
        schoolchildren with your demagoguery--

        The Speaker: The Chair feels that Members in debate have 
    reasonable flexibility in expressing their thoughts.
        The Chair sees nothing about the words that contravene the 
    rules of the House. The point of order is not sustained.
        The Committee will resume its sitting.
        Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of 
    the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further 
    consideration of the bill (H.R. 2362) with Mr. Bolling in the 
    chair. . . .
        The Chairman: . . . The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New 
    York [Mr. Powell).

Withdrawal of Demand

Sec. 17.6 A demand that words spoken in debate be taken down may be 
    withdrawn without unanimous consent in the Committee of the Whole.

    On July 3, 1946,(9) Chairman Wright Patman, of Texas, 
stated that withdrawal of a demand to take words down did not require 
unanimous consent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 92 Cong. Rec. 8295, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike 
    out the last three words.
        Mr. Chairman, I have just finished listening to two political 
    tirades by two political tyros, and I say to those gentlemen that 
    they cannot
        Mr. [Matthew M.] Neely [of West Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    demand that those words be taken down.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: If the gentleman knows what the word 
    ``tyro'' means he can have it taken down.
        Mr. Neely: The gentleman knows that that statement is not true 
    and that the statement is not justified. I demand that the words be 
    taken down and stricken from the Record.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the words objected to.
        Mr. Neely: Mr. Chairman, for fear that this procedure will 
    delay the final vote on the bill, I withdraw my request.
        Mr. [Earl] Wilson [of Indiana]: I object, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: It does not require unanimous consent to withdraw 
    the request.

Withdrawal of Objectionable Words After Speaker's Ruling

Sec. 17.7 Words spoken in debate in the Committee of the

[[Page 3419]]

    Whole and ruled out of order by the Speaker when reported to the 
    House may by unanimous consent be withdrawn; such consent when 
    granted permits a Member who had the floor to continue without 
    motion to proceed in order provided that his time had not expired.

    On Mar. 16, 1939,(10) during consideration of H.R. 4852, 
the Department of the Interior appropriations bill, 1940, Speaker 
William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, stated that words spoken in the 
Committee of the Whole and objected to as violative of rules of the 
House could be withdrawn by unanimous consent. After the Committee 
resumed its sitting, Chairman Frank H. Buck, of California, ruled on 
whether the Member who had been granted unanimous consent to withdraw 
certain words could proceed with further debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 84 Cong. Rec. 2871, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Lee E.] Geyer of California: Mr. Chairman, I move to 
    strike out the last two words. . . .
        I have heard the gentleman from Wisconsin, the man who made 
    Milwaukee famous, stand upon this floor a good many times. He is an 
    estimable gentleman. I like him very much when he is not in the 
    Well of this House. I have seen him come out with a hand that only 
    he possesses, a hand like a ham, and grasp this delicate instrument 
    until it groaned from mad torture. I have seen him come on the 
    floor and stamp up and down like a wild man.
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I demand that the 
    gentleman's words be taken down.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from New York demands that the 
    words of the gentleman be taken down. The gentleman from California 
    will take his seat.
        The gentleman from New York will indicate to the Clerk the 
    words objected to.
        Mr. Taber: ``Stamping like a wild man'' and ``a hand like a 
    ham.''
        Mr. [John C.] Schafer [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, as far as I 
    am concerned, I am not objecting to the words. I will handle him at 
    a later date.
        Mr. Taber: I believe the integrity of the rules of the House 
    should be preserved.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the words taken down at the 
    request of the gentleman from New York.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            I have seen him come on the floor and stamp up and down 
        like a wild man.

        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, there were some other words about ``a 
    hand like a ham.''
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the additional words.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            I have seen him come out with a hand that only he 
        possesses, a hand

[[Page 3420]]

        like a ham, and grasp this delicate instrument until it groaned 
        from mad torture.

        The Chairman: The Committee will rise.
        Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed 
    the chair, Mr. Buck, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House 
    on the state of the Union, reported that the Committee having had 
    under consideration the bill (H.R. 4852) the Interior Department 
    appropriation bill, 1940, certain words used in debate were 
    objected to and, on request, were taken down and read at the 
    Clerk's desk, and that he herewith reported the same to the House.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the words objected to in the 
    Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            I have seen him come out with a hand that only he 
        possesses, a hand like a ham, and grasp this delicate 
        instrument until it groaned from mad torture. I have seen him 
        come on the floor and stamp up and down like a wild man.

        The Speaker: The rule governing situations of this character 
    provides as follows:

                             Of Decorum and Debate

            When any Member desires to speak or deliver any matter to 
        the House he shall rise and respectfully address himself to 
        ``Mr. Speaker,'' and, on being recognized, may address the 
        House from any place on the floor or from the Clerk's desk, and 
        shall confine himself to the question under debate, avoiding 
        personality.

        The words objected to and which have been taken down and read 
    from the Clerk's desk very patently violate the rule, because the 
    words alleged do involve matters of personal reference and 
    personality.
        Mr. Schafer of Wisconsin: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Schafer of Wisconsin: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the 
    gentleman who had the floor had any intention of violating the 
    rules. He was just carried away by the debate. I rise to ask if the 
    words cannot be withdrawn by unanimous consent.
        The Speaker: The words can be withdrawn by unanimous consent.
        Mr. Geyer of California: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the 
    gentleman from Wisconsin for his very generous attitude, and I ask 
    unanimous consent to withdraw the words in question.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from California?
        There was no objection.
        The Speaker: The Committee will resume its sitting.
        Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
    Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration 
    of the bill H.R. 4852, with Mr. Buck in the chair.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from California is recognized for 
    3\1/2\ minutes.
        Mr. [James W.] Mott [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from California yield for a 
    parliamentary inquiry?
        Mr. Geyer of California: I do not yield, Mr. Chairman.

[[Page 3421]]

        Mr. Mott: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Mott: As I understand, Mr. Chairman, the proceeding just 
    had takes the gentleman off the floor, and he may proceed only by 
    unanimous consent.
        The Chairman: The Chair may state that, by unanimous consent, 
    the House permitted the gentleman to withdraw his words. That 
    leaves the gentleman in the position he was before the words were 
    uttered.
        The gentleman from California will proceed.
        Mr. Mott: Mr. Chairman, a further parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman yield for a parliamentary 
    inquiry?
        Mr. Geyer of California: I do not care to yield for another 
    one, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Mott: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Mott: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order that the time 
    of the gentleman has expired.
        The Chairman: The time of the gentleman has not expired. The 
    point of order is overruled.


 
                               CHAPTER 19
 
                       The Committee of the Whole
 
                      D. CONSIDERATION AND DEBATE
 
Sec. 18. Reading Papers

    Rule XXX (11) provides that the question of whether a 
paper may be read is to be determined by a vote of the House. 
Nonetheless, when an objection to the reading of a paper is raised in 
the Committee of the Whole, the Committee need not rise; the issue is 
put to (~12) and voted on (13) by the Committee, 
without debate.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. House Rules and Manual Sec. 915 (1979); see Jefferson's Manual, 
        House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 432-436, for parliamentary law 
        relating to reading papers. See also Ch. 29 Sec. Sec. 80-84, 
        infra.
12. Sec. 18.1, infra.
13. Sec. 18.2, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Putting Question to Committee of the Whole

Sec. 18.1 Where objection is made in the Committee of the Whole to the 
    reading of a paper, the question may be raised by motion and put to 
    the Committee by the Chairman.

    On Mar. 24, 1948,(14) during consideration of S. 2202, 
the Foreign Assistance Act of 1948, Chairman Francis H. Case, of South 
Dakota, after objection was made, put to the Committee of the Whole a 
question regarding the reading of a letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 94 Cong. Rec. 3436, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York] (interrupting the reading 
    of the

[[Page 3422]]

    letter): Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. [John M.] Vorys [of Ohio]: No.
        Mr. Marcantonio: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Marcantonio: Mr. Chairman, in connection with my point of 
    order, I just want to propound a parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Vorys: I object to his propounding a parliamentary inquiry, 
    Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Marcantonio: Then I make a point of order, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Marcantonio: The point of order is that the gentleman 
    cannot read anybody else's material without the consent of the 
    Committee. I asked the gentleman to yield to me, and he would not 
    yield.
        The Chairman: The Chair will present that question to the 
    Committee. The question is, Shall the gentleman be permitted to 
    proceed with the reading of the letter?
        The question was taken, and the Chair announced that the motion 
    was agreed to.

Sec. 18.2 If objection is made in the Committee of the Whole to the 
    reading of a letter by another Member, the question is determined 
    by vote of the Committee without debate.

    On June 26, 1952,(15) during consideration of H.R. 8120, 
the Defense Production Act Amendments of 1952, the Committee of the 
Whole by vote and without debate permitted a Member to read a letter by 
a Governor after objection to that reading was raised.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 98 Cong. Rec. 8175, 8176, 82d Cong. 2nd Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clinton D.] McKinnon [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I move 
    to strike out the last word.
        Mr. Chairman, yesterday the committee adopted, tentatively at 
    least, the Cole amendment which provided for individual ceilings on 
    price control. This amendment has a lot of things in it that I am 
    sure the Members are not familiar with or I am sure they would not 
    have adopted the amendment. In view of that, the chairman of the 
    committee requested Governor Arnall, for whom I am sure the House 
    has a high regard, to comment on what that would mean in regard to 
    enforcement of price ceilings, and I should like to read what 
    Governor Arnall has to say about it. He said this:

            It is my considered judgment that an amendment of this kind

        Mr. [Jesse P. ] Wolcott [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (16) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Wolcott: I have not gone into this too thoroughly, but I 
    make the point of order, Mr. Chairman, that it is against the rules 
    of the House, which control the rules of the committee, to read 
    letters from other than Members of Congress. We have been 
    propagandized enough on this bill already.
        The Chairman: If the gentleman from Michigan objects to the 
    reading of

[[Page 3423]]

    the letter, the question will then be put to the members of the 
    Committee of the Whole for a decision. Does the gentleman object to 
    the further reading of the letter?
        Mr. Wolcott: Yes; at this time I do object, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The question is, Shall the gentleman from 
    California be permitted to proceed with the reading of the letter?
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Wolcott) there were--ayes 103, noes 102.
        Mr. Wolcott: Mr. Chairman, I demand tellers.
        Tellers were ordered, and the Chairman appointed as tellers Mr. 
    Wolcott and Mr. Bolling.
        The Committee again divided; and the tellers reported there 
    were--ayes 141, noes 113.
        So Mr. McKinnon was permitted to proceed with the reading of 
    the letter

Time to Read

Sec. 18.3 A decision of the Committee of the Whole to permit a Member 
    to read a paper means that the Member may read it within the five 
    minutes allotted to him, and does not necessarily permit him to 
    read the entire paper.

    On June 26, 1952,(17) during consideration of H.R. 8210, 
the Defense Production Act Amendments of 1952, Chairman Wilbur D. 
Mills, of Arkansas, stated that a decision of the Committee of the 
Whole to permit a Member to read a letter enables the Member to use 
only the allotted time to read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 98 Cong. Rec. 8175, 8176, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: The gentleman from California is recognized [to 
    read a letter].
        Mr. [Clinton D.] McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the 
    membership. I am sure there are many Members who are very desirous 
    of getting all the information they can.
        Mr. [Brent] Spence [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, will the 
    gentleman yield?
        Mr. McKinnon: I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
        Mr. Spence: I suggest the gentleman read the entire letter.
        Mr. McKinnon: The letter reads as follows:

            It is my considered judgment that an amendment of this 
        kind, if adopted, would throw a costly monkey-wrench into the 
        food pricecontrol machinery. It would come close to making it 
        completely unworkable. Its effects can be simply stated: . . .
            I am confident that if Congress is informed of the 
        consequences of this high-food price, red-tape amendment, it 
        will be overwhelmingly defeated. This is no time to raise the 
        prices of food to housewives or to make the small-business man 
        go through mountains of red tape just to satisfy a few food 
        organizations.
            I hope that you will call these considerations to the 
        attention of the House if the individual mark-up amendment is 
        offered on the floor.

        Sincerely yours,
                                               Ellis Arnall.

        The Chairman: The gentleman has consumed 5 minutes. . . .

[[Page 3424]]

        Mr. [Herman P.] Eberharter [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Eberharter: Mr. Chairman, the House decided by a teller 
    vote to permit the reading of this letter. I submit that the letter 
    should be read in its entirety; that is the point of order I make.
        The Chairman: That is not the decision made by the Committee. 
    The Committee made the decision that the gentleman could read the 
    letter within the time allotted to the gentleman of 5 minutes.
        Mr. Eberharter: I did not hear it so stated when the motion was 
    put, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The question put to the Committee had nothing 
    whatsoever to do with the time to be consumed by the gentleman from 
    California. The Chair recognized the gentleman from California for 
    5 minutes; the question arose as to whether or not he could within 
    that 5 minutes time read extraneous papers.
        The point of order is overruled.-


 
                               CHAPTER 19
 
                       The Committee of the Whole
 
                           E. POINTS OF ORDER
 
Sec. 19. Generally


    Questions of order relating to procedure (as distinguished from 
cases of disorder or contempt) arising in the Committee of the Whole 
are decided by the Chairman, not the Speaker.(18)  However, 
on an occasion when the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole had 
taken an active part in the discussion of a point of order, the 
question was by unanimous consent passed over to be later raised in the 
House.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 6927, 6928.
            See Sec. 6, supra, for precedents relating to rulings of 
        the Chairman generally. See Ch. 31, infra, for precedents 
        relating to points of order generally. See 4 Hinds' Precedents 
        Sec. Sec. 4783, 4784, 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 6921-6937, 
        6987, and 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3450, for pre-1936 
        precedents.
19. 7 Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. 1527.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of Ruling

Sec. 19.1 The Chair does not rule on points not presented in a point of 
    order.

    On June 27, 1949,(20) during consideration of H.R. 4009, 
the Housing Act of 1949, and after overruling a point of order that 
particular provisions exceeded the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
Banking and Currency because they constituted appropriations,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 95 Cong. Rec. 8536-38, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3425]]

Chairman Hale Boggs, of Louisiana, declined to rule on an issue which 
had not been presented in a point of order.

        Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, the point 
    of order I make is that subparagraphs (e) and (f) of section 102 in 
    title I constitute the appropriation of funds from the Federal 
    Treasury, and that the Committee on Banking and Currency is without 
    jurisdiction to report a bill carrying appropriations under clause 
    4, rule 21, which says that no bill or joint resolution carrying 
    appropriations shall be reported by any committee not having 
    jurisdiction to report appropriations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20.\ 95 CONG. REC. 8536-38, 81st Cong. 1 st Sess
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        This is no casual point of order made as a tactical maneuver in 
    consideration of the bill. I make this point of order because this 
    proposes to expand and develop a device or mechanism for getting 
    funds out of the Federal Treasury in an unprecedented degree
        The Constitution has said that no money shall be drawn from the 
    Treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law. It must 
    follow that the mechanism which gets the money out of the Treasury 
    is an appropriation.
        I invite the attention of the Chairman to the fact that 
    subparagraph (e) states:

            To obtain funds for loans under this title, the 
        Administrator may issue and have outstanding at any one time 
        notes and obligations for purchase by the Secretary of the 
        Treasury in an amount not to exceed $25,000,000, which limit on 
        such outstanding amount shall be increased by $225,000,000 on 
        July l, 1950, and by further amounts of $250,000,000 on July 1 
        in each of the years 1951, 1952, and 1953, respectively--

        Within the total authorization of $1,000,000,000.
        Further that subparagraph (f) provides that--

            The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized and directed--

        And I call particular attention to the use of the words ``and 
    directed''--

            to purchase any notes and other obligations of the 
        Administrator issued under this title and for such purpose is 
        authorized to use as a public debt transaction the proceeds 
        from the sale of any securities issued under the Second Liberty 
        Bond Act, as amended--

        And so forth. The way in which this particular language extends 
    this device of giving the Secretary authority to subscribe for 
    notes by some authority is this: It includes the words ``and 
    directed.''
        In other words, the Secretary of the Treasury has no 
    alternative when the Administrator presents to him some of these 
    securities for purchase but to purchase them. The Secretary of the 
    Treasury is not limited to purchasing them by proceeds from the 
    sale of bonds or securities. He is directed to purchase these notes 
    and obligations issued by the Administrator. That means he might 
    use funds obtained from taxes, that he might use funds obtained 
    through the assignment of miscellaneous receipts to the Treasury, 
    that he might use funds obtained through the proceeds of bonds.
        This proposal will give to the Committee on Banking and 
    Currency, if it

[[Page 3426]]

    should be permitted, authority which the Committee on 
    Appropriations does not have, for in the reporting of an 
    appropriation bill for a fiscal year, any appropriation beyond the 
    fiscal year would be held out of order. Here this committee is 
    reporting a bill which proposes to make mandatory extractions from 
    the Treasury during a period of 4 years. . . .
        Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    agree with my friend who has raised the point of order that this is 
    not a casual one, but, on the contrary, is a very sincere one. It 
    presents a new question from a legislative angle to be passed upon 
    in the direct question raised by the point of order. . . .
        The provision in paragraph (f) that my friend has raised a 
    point of order against relates entirely to loans. As we read 
    section 102 of title I it starts out with loans. Throughout the 
    bill, a number of times, there is reference to loans.
        Paragraph (e) says:

            To obtain funds for loans under this title.

        It is a loan.
        The meat of the two paragraphs, as I see it, is this:

        Paragraph (f), line 23, page 8, says:

            The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized and directed to 
        purchase any notes and other obligations of the Administrator 
        issued under this title and for such purpose is authorized to 
        use as a public-debt transaction the proceeds from the sale of 
        any securities issued under the Second Liberty Bond Act, as 
        amended, and the purposes for which securities may be issued 
        under such act, as amended, are extended to include any 
        purchases of such notes and other obligations.

        It seems to me that that is the meat. Certainly, the language 
    there does not amount to an appropriation. It is entirely for loan 
    purposes. . . .
        I respectfully submit that it must call for an appropriation 
    out of the general funds of the Treasury in order to violate the 
    rules of the House. This permits the use of money raised by the 
    sale of bonds under the Second Liberty Bond Act for loans to these 
    public agencies, such loans to be repaid with interest.
        I respectfully submit, complimenting my friend for having 
    raised the point of order--and certainly, it is not a dilatory one, 
    nor a casual one, one that demands respect--that the point of order 
    does not lie against the language contained in the pending bill. . 
    . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair agrees with the gentleman from South Dakota that the 
    point which has been raised is not a casual point of order. As a 
    matter of fact, as far as the Chair has been able to ascertain, 
    this is the first time a point of order has been raised on this 
    issue as violative of clause 4 of rule XXI.
        As the Chair sees the point of order, the issue involved turns 
    on the meaning of the word ``appropriation.'' ``Appropriation,'' in 
    its usual and customary interpretation, means taking money out of 
    the Treasury by appropriate legislative language for the support of 
    the general functions of Government. The language before us does 
    not do that. This language authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury 
    to use pro

[[Page 3427]]

    ceeds of public-debt issues for the purpose of making loans. Under 
    the language, the Treasury of the United States makes advances 
    which will be repaid in full with interest over a period of years 
    without cost to the taxpayers.
        Therefore, the Chair rules that this language does not 
    constitute an appropriation, and overrules the point of order.
        Mr. Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Case of South Dakota: Would the Chair hold then that that 
    language restricts the Secretary of the Treasury to using the 
    proceeds of the securities issued under the second Liberty Bond Act 
    and prevents him from using the proceeds from miscellaneous 
    receipts or tax revenues?
        The Chairman: The Chair does not have authority to draw that 
    distinction. The Chair is passing on the particular point which has 
    been raised.
        Mr. Case of South Dakota: However, Mr. Chairman, it would seem 
    implicit in the ruling of the Chair and I thought perhaps it could 
    be decided as a part of the parliamentary history. It might help 
    some courts later on.
        The Chairman: The Chair can make a distinction between the 
    general funds of the Treasury and money raised for a specific 
    purpose by the issuance of securities. That is the point involved 
    here.

Scope of Debate

Sec. 19.2 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,(1) during consideration of S. 1, 1951 
Amendments to the Universal Military Training and Service Act, Chairman 
Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, stated that debate on a point of order is 
controlled by the Chair and must be confined to the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 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. . . .''

        Mr. [Carl] Vinson [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, 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?

[[Page 3428]]

        The Chairman: That is in the discretion of the Chair. The 
    gentleman's argument must be confined to the point of order.

Violation of Ramseyer Rule

Sec. 19.3 A point of order that a committee report fails to comply with 
    Rule XIII clause 3,(2) the Ramseyer rule, will not lie 
    in the Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. House Rules and Manual Sec. 745 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 5, 1966,(3) during consideration of H.R. 14765, 
the Civil Rights Act of 1966, Chairman Richard Bolling, of Missouri, 
ruled whether a point of order that a committee report that failed to 
comply with Rule XIII clause 3, the Ramseyer rule, would lie in the 
Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 112 CONG. REC. 16840, 89th Cong, 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I move that 
    the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on 
    the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
    14765) to assure nondiscrimination in Federal and State jury 
    selection and service . . . and for other purposes.
        Mr. [John Bell] Willians [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, a point 
    of order.
        The Speaker: (4) The question is on the motion 
    offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Celler].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
        The Speaker: All those in favor of the motion will let it be 
    known by saying ``aye.'' All those opposed by saying ``no.''
        The motion was agreed to.
        Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of 
    the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of 
    the bill, H.R. 14765. with Mr. Bolling in the chair.
        Mr. Williams: Mr. Chairman, a point of order. Mr. Chairman, I 
    have a point of order. I was on my feet----
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        By unanimous consent, the first reading of the bill was 
    dispensed with.
        Mr. [Joe D.] Waggoner [Jr., of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: Under the rule, the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
    Celler] will be recognized for 5 hours. . . .
        Mr. Williams:  Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Celler: Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
    care to use.
        Mr. Chairman, Negroes propose to be free. Many rights have been 
    denied and withheld from them. The right to be equally educated 
    with whites. The right to equal housing with whites.
        The right to equal recreation with whites.
        Mr. Williams: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        Mr. Celler: Regular order, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Williams: Mr. Chairman, immediately before the House 
    resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House I was on my 
    feet on the floor

[[Page 3429]]

    seeking recognition for the purpose of making a point of order 
    against consideration of H.R. 14765 on the ground that the report 
    of the Judiciary Committee accompanying the bill does not comply 
    with all the requirements of clause 3 of rule XIII of the rules of 
    the House known as the Ramseyer rule and intended to request I be 
    heard in support of that point of order. I was not recognized by 
    the Chair. I realize technically under the rules of the House at 
    this point, my point of order mav come too late, after the House 
    resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State 
    of the Union.
        Mr. Celler: Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Williams: But I may say, Mr. Chairman, that I sought to 
    raise the point of order before the House went into session. May I 
    ask this question? Is there any way that this point of order can 
    lie at this time?
        The Chairman: Not at this time. It lies only in the House, the 
    Chair must inform the gentleman from Mississippi.
        Mr. Williams: May I say that the Parliamentarian and the 
    Speaker were notified in advance and given copies of the point of 
    order that I desired to raise, and I was refused recognition 
    although I was on my feet seeking recognition at the time.
        Mr. [John J.] Flynt [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I appeal the 
    ru]ing of the Chair.
        The Chairman: The Chair will have to repeat that the gentleman 
    from Mississippi is well aware that this present occupant of the 
    chair is powerless to do other than he has stated.
        Mr. Waggonner: Mr. Chairman, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.
        The Chairman: The question is, Shall the decision of the Chair 
    stand as rendered?
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Williams) there were--ayes 139, noes 101.
        The decision of the Chair was sustained.

Sec. 19.4 After brief debate on whether a point of order that a 
    committee report violated the Ramseyer rule could be entertained in 
    the Committee of the Whole, the Committee on motion rose; the 
    Speaker announced that because of confusion in the Chamber he had 
    not heard the Member seeking recognition on the point of order and, 
    since the Member stated that he had been seeking recognition, 
    agreed to hear his point of order.

    On July 5, 1966,(5) after the Chairman of the Committee 
of the Whole refused to entertain a point of order that a committee 
report violated the Ramseyer Rule (6) and the Committee on 
appeal sustained that ruling, the Committee on motion rose. Speaker 
John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, agreed to hear this point of order
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 112 Cong. Rec. 16840, 16842, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
 6. House Rules and Manual Sec. 745 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3430]]

because he had not heard the Member, John Bell Williams, of 
Mississippi, seek recognition before the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole.

        Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed 
    the chair, Mr. Bolling, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole 
    House on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee, 
    having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 14765) to assure 
    nondiscrimination in Federal and State jury selection and service, 
    to facilitate the desegregation of public education and other 
    public facilities, to provide judicial relief against 
    discriminatory housing practices, to prescribe penalties for 
    certain acts of violence or intimidation, and for other purposes, 
    had come to no resolution thereon.
        The Speaker: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
    Mississippi.
        Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, the House resolved itself into the 
    committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union a moment 
    ago. When the question was put by the Chair, I was on my feet 
    seeking recognition for the purpose of offering a point of order 
    against consideration of the legislation. Although I shouted rather 
    loudly, apparently the Chair did not hear me. Since the Committee 
    proceeded to go into the Committee of the Whole, I would like to 
    know, Mr. Speaker, if the point of order which I had intended to 
    offer can be offered now in the House against the consideration of 
    the bill; and, Mr. Speaker, I make such a point of order and ask 
    that I be heard on the point of order.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the Chair did not hear 
    the gentleman make his point of order. There was too much noise. 
    Under the circumstances the Chair will entertain the point of 
    order.

Rising of Committee Pending Decision

Sec. 19.5 A point of order having been raised in the Committee of the 
    Whole against a bill reported by a nonappropriating committee, on 
    grounds that it proposed an appropriation contrary to Rule XXI 
    clause 5,(7) the Committee rose pending decision by the 
    Chair on the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. House Rules and Manual Sec. 846 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 4, 1957,(8) during consideration of H.R. 6974, 
extending the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 
1954, the Committee of the Whole rose pending a decision by the 
Chairman on a point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 103 Cong. Rec. 8298, 8318, 8319, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Be it enacted, etc., That the Agricultural Trade 
        Development and Assistance Act of 1954, as amended, is amended 
        as follows: . . .

        Mr. [John J.] Rodney [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a 
    point of order against the entire bill, H.R. 6974, on the ground 
    that it is a bill from a committee not having authority to report 
    an appropriation. . . .

[[Page 3431]]

        Mr. [Harold D.] Cooley [of North Carolina]: . . . I am a little 
    bit apprehensive that the point of order may be sustained, if the 
    Chair is called upon to rule on it. But, I think it would be very 
    unfortunate for us to delay final action on the bill, and in the 
    circumstances we have no other alternative other than to move that 
    the Committee do now rise, and so, Mr. Chairman, I make that 
    motion.
        The Chairman: (9) The Chair is prepared to rule on 
    the point of order, but the motion offered by the gentleman from 
    North Carolina that the Committee do now rise is in order, and the 
    Chair will put the question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Brooks Hays (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from 
    North Carolina.
        The motion was agreed to.
        Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed 
    the chair, Mr. Hays of Arkansas, Chairman of the Committee of the 
    Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that 
    Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 6974) to 
    extend the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 
    1954, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

Disposing of Points of Order Before Consideration of Bill for Amendment

Sec. 19.6 The Committee of the Whole agreed by unanimous consent to 
    dispense with the reading of an appropriation bill for amendment 
    and that points of order and then amendments could be submitted 
    immediately after the first reading of the bill had been dispensed 
    with.

    On July 5, 1945,(10) the Committee of the Whole agreed 
to dispense with the reading of an appropriation bill, that the bill be 
considered as read, and that points of order and amendments be in order 
thereafter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 91 Cong. Rec. 7226, 7227, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
    Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
    bill (H.R. 3649) with Mr. Sparkman in the chair.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        On motion of Mr. Cannon of Missouri the first reading of the 
    bill was dispensed with.
        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that the bill be considered as read and that all 
    Members desiring to submit amendments or points of order have leave 
    to submit them at this time
        The Chairman: (11) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Missouri?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. John J. Sparkman (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, in view of 
    the unanimous consent request that has just been granted, I make 
    the point of order against the first item, National War Labor 
    Board, on the ground that it is an appropriation not authorized by 
    law.

[[Page 3432]]

        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I concede the point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.
        Mr. Marcantonio: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order on the 
    same grounds against the item for the Office of Defense 
    Transportation on page 5.
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: The point of order is conceded, Mr. 
    Chairman.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from New York [Mr. Marcantonio] 
    makes a point of order which the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 
    Cannon] concedes. The Chair sustains the point of order.

Sec. 19.7 Where unanimous consent is granted that the remainder of an 
    appropriation bill be considered as read and that all portions 
    thereof be subject to amendments and to points of order, the Chair 
    suggests that points of order be disposed of first since it will be 
    too late to make such points after amendments to the bill have been 
    considered.

    On Apr. 25, 1947,(1~2) during consideration of H.R. 
3123, the Department of the Interior appropriations bill, 1948, 
Chairman Earl C. Michener, of Michigan, suggested a time for the 
raising of points of order against amendments to the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 93 Cong. Rec. 4098, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert F.] Jones of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent that the remainder of the bill be considered as read and 
    that all portions thereof be subject to amendment and to points of 
    order.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Ohio?
        There was no objection.
        The Chairman: The Chair suggests that the points of order be 
    disposed of first under this procedure, before the amendments.
        Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order. . . .
        My point of order, Mr. Chairman, is that that is legislation 
    amending a previous act and not within the purview of this bill 
    making appropriations for fiscal 1948. It constitutes legislation 
    on an appropriation bill for it destroys existing legislation.
        The Chairman: This language changes a contract authorization 
    contained in a previous appropriation bill passed by another 
    Congress. The Chair sustains the point of order.
        Are there any further points of order to be made to the bill? 
    If so, they will be taken up first since it will be too late to 
    make points of order after amendments to the bill have been 
    considered.


 
                               CHAPTER 19
 
                       The Committee of the Whole
 
                           E. POINTS OF ORDER
 
Sec. 20. Timeliness

    Points of order on general appropriation bills are usually reserved 
in the House at the time of reference to the Committee of the Whole (to 
the Union Calendar) to permit the Committee to strike

[[Page 3433]]

out portions in violation of the rules.(1~3~) This 
reservation is necessary only on general appropriation bills; 
(14) failure to reserve the point of order precludes a 
ruling on it because the Chairman may not take away from the Committee 
of the Whole a-portion of a bill committed to it by the 
House.(15) Not all points of order on appropriation bills 
must be reserved prior to reference to the Committee of the Whole, 
however. Points of order against the consideration of an appropriation 
bill, since made in the House, need not be reserved in advance. A point 
of order based on a rule which prohibits reporting of bills or joint 
resolutions carrying appropriations by committees which do not have 
jurisdiction to report appropriations may be made 
anytime.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 6921-6925; 8 Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. 3450.
            Points of order on appropriation bills generally, see Ch. 
        25, infra.
14. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 6926.
15. Sec. 20.11, infra.
16. Rule XXI clause 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. 846 (1979); and 7 
        Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2148.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Generally, points of order against a provision in a bill or 
amendment are properly made when that provision or amendment is reached 
in the reading. Points of order against bills in their entirety are 
normally in order when called up.
    Some points of order may not be raised in the Committee of the 
Whole. Those relating to a comparative print of proposed changes in 
law,(17) printing a bill and hearings prior to floor 
consideration,(18) and failure of a quorum to be present in 
a standing committee when a bill was reported (19) come too 
late in the Committee of the Whole; they should be raised in the House 
against consideration of the bill pending the motion to resolve into 
the Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Sec. Sec. 20.1-20.3, infra.
18. Sec. 20.4, infra.
19. Sec. 20.5, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A point of order against a bill or a portion thereof based upon 
lack of committee jurisdiction of the committee reporting the bill 
comes too late when the bill is under consideration in Committee of the 
Whole, the proper remedy being the motion to correct an erroneous 
reference under Rule XXII clause 4 prior to the reporting of the 
bill.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 854 (1979). See also 4 Hinds' 
        Precedents Sec. 4372; 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 2112, 
        2114, 2115.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Ramseyer Rule

Sec. 20.1 The point of order that a report fails to comply with

[[Page 3434]]

    the requirement that proposed changes in law be indicated 
    typographically is properly made when the bill is called up in the 
    House and before the House resolves into the Committee of the 
    Whole.

    On June 13, 1959,(2) Speaker pro tempore John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, stated that the point of order that a 
report fails to comply with the requirement that proposed changes in 
law be indicated typographically as required by the Ramseyer rule, Rule 
XIII clause 3,(3) is properly made when the bill is called 
up in the House and before the House resolves into the Committee of the 
Whole.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 105 Cong. Rec. 13226, 13227, 86th Cong. 1st Sess. See 114 Cong. 
        Rec. 24245, 24252, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., July 30, 1968, for 
        another illustration of this principle.
 3. House Rules and Manual Sec. 745 (1979).
 4. See 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2243 for another precedent which 
        states this principle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas G.] Abernethy [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I move 
    that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House 
    on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
    6893) to amend the District of Columbia Stadium Act of 1957. . . .
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, I desire to make a 
    point of order against the consideration of the bill and the 
    report. When is the proper time to seek recognition for this 
    purpose?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: This is the proper time for the 
    gentleman to make this point of order.
        Mr. Gross: . . . I submit, Mr. Speaker, and make the point of 
    order, that this report No. 643, does not conform to rule XIII, 
    otherwise known as the Ramseyer rule.

Sec. 20.2 The point of order that a report fails to comply with the 
    Ramseyer rule comes too late after the House has resolved into the 
    Committee of the Whole for consideration of the bill.

    On Aug. 17, 1949,(5) during consideration of House Joint 
Resolution 339, amending an act making temporary appropriations for 
fiscal year 1950, as amended (continuing resolution), Chairman Jere 
Cooper, of Tennessee, indicated the time for raising a point of order 
that a report does not comply with the Ramseyer rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 95 Cong. Rec. 11654, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order. I was on my feet urging a point of order when the 
    motion was made to go into committee. I make the point of order 
    that this bill is not properly before the House, for the simple 
    reason that the report does not comply

[[Page 3435]]

    with the Ramseyer rule, and therefore the membership is not 
    properly informed as to what had obtained.
        The Chairman: Of course, that point of order would have to be 
    made in the House and not in Committee of the Whole. The point of 
    order comes too late, and the Chair overrules the point of order.

Sec. 20.3 On appeal, the Committee sustained the Chair's ruling that a 
    point of order against a committee report comes too late after the 
    House has resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole.

    On July 5, 1966,(6) during consideration of H.R. 14765, 
the Civil Rights Act of 1966, the Committee of the Whole on appeal 
sustained a ruling of Chairman Richard Bolling, of Missouri, on the 
timeliness of a point of order that a committee report violates Rule 
XIII clause 3,(7) the Ramseyer rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 112 Cong. Rec. 16840, 16842, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
 7. House Rules and Manual Sec. 745 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John Bell] Williams [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I yield 
    myself such time as I may care to use.
        Mr. Chairman, Negroes propose to be free. Many rights have been 
    denied and withheld from them. The right to be equally educated 
    with whites. The right to equal housing with whites. The right to 
    equal recreation with whites.
        Mr. Williams: Mr. Chairman, point of order.
        Mr. Celler: Regular order, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Williams: Mr. Chairman, immediately before the House 
    resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House I was on my 
    feet on the floor seeking recognition for the purpose of making a 
    point of order against consideration of H.R. 14765 on the ground 
    that the report of the Judiciary Committee accompanying the bill 
    does not comply with all the requirements of clause 3 of rule XIII 
    of the rules of the House known as the Ramseyer rule and intended 
    to request I be heard in support of that point of order. I was not 
    recognized by the Chair. I realize technically under the rules of 
    the House at this point, my point of order may come too late, after 
    the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on 
    the State of the Union.
        Mr. Celler: Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Williams: But I may say, Mr. Chairman, that I sought to 
    raise the point of order before the House went into session. May I 
    ask this question? Is there any way that this point of order can 
    lie at this time?
        The Chairman: Not at this time. It lies only in the House, the 
    Chair must inform the gentleman from Mississippi.
        Mr. Williams: May I say that the Parliamentarian and the 
    Speaker were notified in advance and given copies of the point of 
    order that I desired to

[[Page 3436]]

    raise, and I was refused recognition although I was on my feet 
    seeking recognition at the time.
        Mr. [John J.] Flynt [Jr., of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I appeal 
    the ruling of the Chair.
        The Chairman: The Chair will have to repeat that the gentleman 
    from Mississippi is well aware that this present occupant of the 
    chair is powerless to do other than he has stated.
        Mr. [Joseph D.] Waggonner [Jr., of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    appeal the ruling of the Chair.
        The Chairman: The question is, Shall the decision of the Chair 
    stand as rendered?
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Williams) there were--ayes 139, noes 101.

        The decision of the Chair was sustained.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See Sec. 18.4, supra, for a precedent relating to entertainment of 
        this point of order by the Speaker after the Committee of the 
        Whole rose on motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Printing of Bill and Hearings

Sec. 20.4 After the House has resolved itself into the Committee of the 
    Whole it is too late to make a point of order that the bill and 
    hearings have not been printed and that minority views do not 
    accompany the report.

    On Nov. 4, 1943,(9) during consideration of H.R. 4598, 
the first supplemental national defense appropriations bill, Chairman 
John J. Sparkman, of Alabama, ruled untimely a point of order that a 
bill and hearings had not been printed and that minority views did not 
accompany the report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 89 Cong. Rec. 9121, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Earl] Wilson [of Indiana]: Then, Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against further consideration of the bill on the 
    ground that it has not been printed and presented to the House, and 
    that the majority hearings have not been printed and presented to 
    the House 24 hours ahead of the time when the bill is called up. 
    Further, the minority views have not been printed.
        The Chairman: The point of order comes too late. The House has 
    already committed the bill to the Committee of the Whole House on 
    the state of the Union and the bill is now properly before the 
    Committee for its consideration. The point of order does not lie at 
    this time.

Quorum in Standing Committee

Sec. 20.5 Points of order against a bill on the ground that a quorum of 
    the standing committee was not present when the bill was ordered 
    reported should be made in the House; such points come too late 
    after the House has resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole 
    for consideration of the bill.

[[Page 3437]]

    On June 14, 1946,(10) during consideration of S. 524, 
the national cemetary bill, Chairman Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, stated 
that points of order that a quorum of the standing committee was not 
present when the bill was ordered reported should be made in the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 92 Cong. Rec. 6961, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Forest A.] Harness of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Harness of Indiana: At what time would a point of order lie 
    against the bill on the ground that the committee reporting it was 
    without jurisdiction because at the time it reported the bill there 
    was not a quorum present?
        The Chairman: Answering the gentleman's parliamentary inquiry 
    the Chair will state that such a point of order would be too late 
    now that the House is in the Committee of the Whole House on the 
    State of the Union. Such a point of order should be made in the 
    House before consideration of the bill.

Effect of Commencement of Debate

Sec. 20.6 A point of order in the Committee of the Whole against an 
    amendment to an appropriation bill comes too late if there has been 
    debate on the amendment.

    On Apr. 25, 1947,(11) during consideration of H.R. 3123, 
the Department of the Interior appropriations bill, 1948, Chairman Earl 
C. Michener, of Michigan, held that a point of order came too late 
after commencement of debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 93 Cong. Rec. 4079, 80th Cong. 1st Sess. See 88 Cong. Rec. 754, 
        77th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 27, 1942, for another example of this 
        principle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Lowell] Stockman [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Stockman: Page 34, line 11, strike 
        out ``$125,000'' and insert ``$2,500,000.''

        Mr. Stockman: Mr. Chairman, the amount allowed by the budget 
    for this item----
        Mr. [Robert F.] Jones of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I would like to 
    make a point of order against this amendment, but will reserve it 
    for the moment.
        Mr. [Carl] Hinshaw [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that that comes too late.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Ohio makes a point of order. 
    The gentleman from Oregon had already been recognized and had 
    started debate. The Chair wants to be extremely fair and not too 
    technical, but that is the situation. The Chair is constrained to 
    hold that the point of order comes too late.

Sec. 20.7 A Member who has shown due diligence has been recognized to 
    make a

[[Page 3438]]

    point of order against a proposed amendment even though the sponsor 
    of the amendment has commenced his remarks.

    On June 23, 1945,(12~) during consideration of House 
Joint Resolution 101, extending the Price Control and Stabilization 
Acts, Chairman Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, recognized a Member to make a 
point of order notwithstanding the fact that the sponsor of the 
amendment had commenced his remarks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 91 Cong. Rec. 6597, 6598, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Case of South Dakota: Insert a new 
        section after section 2 to read as follows:
            ``The Secretary of Agriculture shall confer with the 
        Secretary of War and the Secretary of the Navy from time to 
        time on the supplies of meat, sugar, poultry, dairy and 
        vegetable products available in continental United States for 
        military and civilian needs and said Secretary of Agriculture 
        is authorized and directed to borrow or divert from military 
        channels for critical civilian needs such stocks or supplies as 
        he finds can be spared by the military and in such amounts as 
        he can certify to the Secretary of War or the Secretary of the 
        Navy can and will be restored by the time they are needed.''

        Mr. Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, this amendment 
    proposes----
        Mr. [Brent] Spence [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Spence: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the 
    amendment is not germane to the bill; that it includes matters not 
    contemplated by the bill, and it goes far beyond the scope of the 
    bill.
        Mr. Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman's 
    point of order comes too late, because I had been recognized and 
    started to debate the amendment.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Kentucky was on his feet, and 
    the point of order does not come too late. Does the gentleman from 
    South Dakota desire to be heard on the point of order? . . .
        Mr. Spence: Mr. Chairman, I insist on the point of order.
        The Chairman: . . . [T]he Chair is of the opinion that the 
    amendment is in order especially in view of the present form of the 
    pending bill at this stage. The Chair overrules the point of order.

Effect of Failure to Obtain Recognition to Debate

Sec. 20.8 Recognition of a Member by the Chair to offer an amendment 
    does not give such Member the privilege of debating his amendment; 
    consequently a point of order against an amendment may be made in a 
    proper case even though a Member has started debate thereon if he

[[Page 3439]]

    did not obtain recognition for that purpose (the Committee 
    overruling the Chair on appeal).

    On Feb. 1, 1938,(13) during consideration of amendments 
to H.R. 9181, the District of Columbia appropriations bill of 1939, it 
was contended that a point of order against an amendment was untimely 
in that it had been made after debate had begun. The proceedings were 
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 83 Cong. Rec. 1372, 1373, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk reads as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Collins: On page 68, line 20, 
        after the period, insert a new paragraph, as follows:
            ``Street lighting: For purchase, installation, and 
        maintenance of public lamps; lampposts, street designations, 
        lanterns, and fixtures of all kinds on streets, avenues, roads, 
        alleys, and for all necessary expenses in connection therewith, 
        including rental of storerooms, extra labor, operation, 
        maintenance, and repair of motortrucks, this sum to be expended 
        in accordance with the provisions of existing law, $765,000: 
        Provided, That this appropriation shall not be available for 
        the payment of rates for electric street lighting in excess of 
        those authorized to be paid in the fiscal year 1927, and 
        payment for electric current for new forms of street lighting 
        shall not exceed 2 cents per kilowatt-hour for current 
        consumed.''

        Mr. [Ross A.] Collins [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    language that is incorporated in the amendment----
        Mr. [Jack] Nichols [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment.
        Mr. Collins: Eliminates the language against which the 
    gentleman made the point of order.
        Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the gentleman's 
    point of order comes too late.
        The Chairman: (14) The gentleman from Oklahoma makes 
    a point of order on the amendment, and the gentleman from 
    Mississippi makes the point of order that the point of order made 
    by the gentleman from Oklahoma comes too late.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. William J. Driver (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The point of order of the gentleman from Mississippi is 
    sustained. . . .
        Mr. Nichols: If the Chair did recognize the gentleman from 
    Mississippi I may say the Chair recognized him while I was on my 
    feet taking the only opportunity presented to me to address the 
    Chair, in order that I might direct my point of order to the Chair.
        The Chairman: That may be true. The Chair does not care to 
    indulge in any controversy on that question with the gentleman from 
    Oklahoma. The Chair is merely stating what occurred. The Chair may 
    state further to the gentleman from Oklahoma, in deference to the 
    situation which has developed here, that if that had been true, 
    under the rules it would have been the duty of the Chair to have 
    recognized a member of the committee in preference to any other 
    Member on the floor. The Chair was acting under the limitations of 
    the rule. . . .
        Mr. [Jesse P.] Wolcott [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, the rule, 
    as I un

[[Page 3440]]

    derstand it, is that if any action is taken on the amendment, then 
    the point of order is dilatory. The only action that could have 
    been taken was recognition by the Chair of the gentleman from 
    Mississippi to debate his amendment.
        I want to call the attention of the Chair to the fact the only 
    manner in which the Chair can recognize a Member to be heard on 
    this floor is to refer to the gentleman either by name or by the 
    State from which the gentleman comes, and I call the attention of 
    the Chair to the fact that the Chair in this particular instance 
    did not say he recognized the gentleman from Mississippi or the 
    gentleman [Mr. Collins], and for that reason there was no official 
    proceeding and no official action taken between the time that the 
    amendment was offered and the time the gentleman from Oklahoma made 
    his point of order, and therefore the point of order was not 
    dilatory.
        The Chairman: The Chair desires, in all fairness, to make this 
    statement to the Committee, as well as directly to the gentleman 
    from Michigan. Not only was the gentleman from Mississippi 
    recognized, but he began an explanation of his amendment, and the 
    Chair certainly presumes that the gentleman being on the floor at 
    the time heard that; and when that occurred, the Chair does not 
    think the gentleman will disagree with the Chair about the fact 
    that the Chair is required, under the rules, to rule in deference 
    to the situation that developed. The Chair does not desire to 
    forestall proceedings and would be pleased to hear points of order, 
    but the Chair must act within the definition of the rule.
        Mr. Wolcott: If the Chair will indulge me for a moment in that 
    respect, the point I wish to make is this. The gentleman from 
    Mississippi had no authority to address this Committee until he had 
    been recognized by the Chair, and if the gentleman from Oklahoma 
    made his point of order during a brief sentence by someone which 
    had no right under the rules of this House even to be reported by 
    the official reporter, then he cannot be estopped, under those 
    circumstances, from making his point of order. The Chair of 
    necessity must have recognized the gentleman from Mississippi to 
    debate the amendment.
        The offering of an amendment is not a proceeding which will 
    estop the gentleman from Oklahoma from making his point of order. 
    It is recognition by the Chair of another gentleman to discuss the 
    amendment, and the gentleman could have discussed the amendment 
    only after recognition was given. . . .
        Mr. Nichols: If the Chair has made a final ruling, I would, in 
    the most respectful manner I know, request an appeal from the 
    decision of the Chair.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Oklahoma appeals from the 
    decision of the Chair on the ruling of the Chair on the point of 
    order, as stated.
        The question before the Committee is, Shall the ruling of the 
    Chair stand as the judgment of the Committee?
        The question was taken, and the Chair announced that the noes 
    had it.
        So the decision of the Chair does not stand as the judgment of 
    the Committee.

Appeal of Chair's Ruling on Timeliness

Sec. 20.9 A ruling of the Chairman that a point of order is

[[Page 3441]]

    untimely may be appealed to the Committee of the Whole.

    On Feb. 1, 1938,(15) during consideration of amendments 
to H.R. 9181, the District of Columbia appropriations bill, 1939, the 
Committee of the Whole overruled a decision of the Chairman that a 
point of order had been made too late. The Chair invoked the principle 
that a point of order on an amendment is made too late after 
commencement of debate on the amendment. But the Committee took the 
view that recognition to offer an amendment did not automatically 
extend to the privilege of debating that amendment, so that a point of 
order would be timely if the proponent of the amendment had commenced 
debate without first receiving recognition to debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See Sec. 20.8, supra, for the relevant proceedings of this date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Against Appropriation Bill

Sec. 20.10 The time for making points of order against items in an 
    appropriation bill is after the House has resolved itself into the 
    Committee of the Whole and after the paragraph containing such 
    items has been read for amendment.

    On July 5, 1945,(16) during consideration of a motion 
that the House resolve into the Committee of the Whole for 
consideration of H.R. 3649, the war agencies appropriation bill, 1946, 
Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, stated the rule as to the proper time to 
raise points of order against items in an appropriation bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 91 Cong. Rec. 7226, 7227, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, I move that the 
    House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the 
    State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 3649), 
    making appropriations for war agencies for the fiscal year ending 
    June 30, 1946, and for other purposes; and pending that motion, Mr. 
    Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to dispense with general debate in 
    the Committee of the Whole.
        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Marcantonio: Mr. Speaker, if, as in this case, the bill 
    contains many items that are subject to a point of order, is it not 
    in order to make a point of order against sending this bill to the 
    Committee of the Whole?
        The Speaker: Under the rules of the House, it is not.
        Mr. Marcantonio: Then the procedure to make the point of order 
    is to make it as the bill is being read for amendment?

[[Page 3442]]

        The Speaker: As the paragraphs in the bill are reached.
        Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
    Missouri?
        There was no objection.
        The Speaker: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from Missouri.
        The motion was agreed to.
        Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
    Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
    bill (H.R. 3649) with Mr. Sparkman in the chair.

Time to Reserve Point of Order of Legislation on Appropriation Bill

Sec. 20.11 Where points of order were not reserved on an appropriation 
    bill when it was reported to the House and referred to the 
    Committee of the Whole, points of order against a proposition in 
    violation of Rule XXI clause 2,(17) as legislation on an 
    appropriation bill, were overruled on the ground that the Chairman 
    lacked authority to pass upon that question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 17. House Rules and Manual Sec. 834 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Apr. 8, 1943,(18) during consideration of H.R. 2409, 
the legislative and judiciary appropriation, 1944, Chairman James P. 
McGranery, of Pennsylvania, declined to rule on points of order that 
certain sections of a bill violated Rule XXI clause 2, allegedly 
legislation on an appropriation bill, because such points of order had 
not been reserved when the bill was reported to the House and referred 
to the Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 89 Cong. Rec. 3150-53, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Salaries of clerks of courts: For salaries of clerks of 
        United States circuit courts of appeals and United States 
        district courts, their deputies, and other assistants, 
        $2,542,900. . . .

        Mr. [Francis E.] Walter [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order that the material contained in line 20, page 55, 
    down to the end of the paragraph on page 56, line 11, is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill.
        Mr. [John J.] Cochran [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that there was no reservation made when this bill 
    was introduced with reference to points of order, and the Record 
    will bear me out. Therefore, a point of order against anything in 
    the bill now is not in order. . . .
        Mr. Walter: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Walter: Is not the Chair in the position at this moment of 
    having to rule on the point of order made by the gentleman from 
    Missouri?
        The Chairman: The Chair will have to rule unless the point of 
    order is

[[Page 3443]]

    withdrawn. In that case the Chair would not be required to rule.
        The Chair is prepared to rule, if there is no withdrawal of the 
    points of order.
        In this connection the Chair feels that there is a duty upon 
    all Members to read the rules, which are published. This is not 
    just mere custom, as the Chair sees it.
        The Journal discloses that there were no points of order 
    reserved on the pending bill when it was reported to the House on 
    April 6, 1943.
        The Chair has been very deeply impressed with the decisions on 
    this question which run back to 1837, particularly an opinion 
    expressed by Chairman Albert J. Hopkins, of Illinois, on March 31, 
    1896--Hinds' Precedents, volume V, section 6923--in which it was 
    stated:

            In determining this question the Chair thinks it is 
        important to take into consideration the organization and power 
        of the Committee of the Whole, which is simply to transact such 
        business as is referred to it by the House. Now, the House 
        referred the bill under consideration to this Committee as an 
        entirety, with directions to consider it. The objection raised 
        by the gentleman from North Dakota would, in effect, cause the 
        Chair to take from the Committee the consideration of part of 
        this bill, which has been committed to it by the House. The 
        Committee has the power to change or modify this bill as the 
        Members, in their wisdom, may deem wise and proper; but it is 
        not for the Chairman, where no points of order were reserved in 
        the House against the bill. . . . The effect would be, should 
        the Chair sustain the point of order made by the gentleman from 
        North Dakota, to take from the consideration of the Committee 
        of the Whole a part of this bill which has been committed to it 
        by the House without reservation of this right to the Chairman.

        Hopkins then held that he had no authority to sustain a point 
    of order against an item in the bill.
        The present occupant of the chair feels constrained to follow 
    the precedents heretofore established and sustains the point of 
    order made by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Cochran].
        Mr. [Earl C.] Michener [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Michener: For the sake of clarity and for the future, and 
    may I say I have great respect for the Chairman's ruling, will the 
    Chair differentiate between an appropriation bill in his final 
    decision as written, that is, differentiate between the Hopkins 
    decision which applies for all logical reasons to all legislative 
    committees the same as it does to the Appropriations Committee?
        The Chairman: The Chair thinks if the gentleman will read 
    clause 2 of rule XXI he will find that provision applies merely to 
    appropriation bills, while clause 4 of rule XXI applies to 
    legislative bills coming from committees not having appropriating 
    powers.
        Mr. Michener: That is the decision.
        The Chairman: Yes.
        Mr. Walter: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Walter. As I understood the Chairman, the point of order 
    was overruled?

[[Page 3444]]

        The Chairman: The Chair held that in the Chair's opinion he 
    cannot pass upon the question raised by the gentleman. The Chair 
    feels this bill was given to the Committee of the Whole House on 
    the State of the Union in its entirety and that the Chair cannot 
    under the present circumstances sustain a point of order against an 
    item.
        Mr. Walter: I understand that, but does the Chair mean that the 
    point of order made by the gentleman from Missouri is sustained?
        The Chairman: The Chair sustained the point of order made by 
    the gentleman from Missouri and overruled the point of order made 
    by the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
        Mr. [Karl] Stefan [of Nebraska]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Stefan: May I ask the Chair if the ruling affects page 56, 
    line 12, down to line 25, the part of the bill which had not been 
    read?
        The Chairman: The Clerk has not read that part of the bill.
        Mr. Stefan: Then it has no effect upon the language appearing 
    on page 56, lines 1 to 11?
        The Chairman: The Chair's decision just now given will affect 
    every item in the bill.
        Mr. Stefan: In the entire bill?
        The Chairman: Yes.
        Mr. [Francis H.] Case [of South Dakota]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Case: Mr. Chairman, I note in reading the precedent to 
    which the Chair has referred, volume 5, Hinds Precedents, page 957, 
    that the Chairman at that time recognized that this was a very 
    close question. The Chair raised this question: ``The very most 
    that could be done would be to report the point of order back to 
    the House for its decision.''
        In other words, in taking the point of view that since the 
    House had referred the bill to the Committee, no such question 
    rose, the Chair might refer it back to the House for further 
    instruction, which would be within the ruling that the Chair cited.
        The Chairman: As the Chair read the particular case, that was 
    the suggestion made by the Chairman, but there is nothing in the 
    decision to show that that was actually done.

Effect of Failure to Raise Point of Order

Sec. 20.12 If no point of order is raised against an amendment 
    proposing legislation on an appropriation bill being considered in 
    the Committee of the Whole, the amendment may be perfected by 
    germane amendments which provide exceptions from the language 
    permitted to remain but do not add further legislation.

    On Jan. 31, 1938,(19) during consideration of amendments 
to H.R. 9181, the District of Columbia appropriations bill, 1939, 
Chairman
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 83 Cong. Rec. 1309, 1312, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3445]]

William J. Driver, of Arkansas, stated that if no point of order is 
raised against it, an amendment proposing legislation on an 
appropriations bill may be perfected by germane amendments which do not 
add further legislation on an appropriations bill.

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Millard F.] Caldwell [of 
        Florida]: Page 13, line 2, after the amendment offered by Mr. 
        Kennedy, insert a new paragraph, as follows:
            ``For a complete investigation of the administration of 
        public relief in the District of Columbia, to be made under the 
        supervision and direction of the Commissioners, including the 
        employment of personal services without reference to the 
        Classification Act of 1923, as amended, and civil-service 
        requirements, $5,000.''. . .

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Caldwell to the amendment pending: 
        After the word ``relief'' in the proposed amendment, insert 
        ``not including the activities of the Works Progress 
        Administration.''

        Mr. [Claude A. ] Fuller [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the amendment for the reason that it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill and, furthermore, that it 
    seeks to make an appropriation for an item not authorized by law. . 
    . .
        The Chairman: Objection is heard. The Chair is ready to rule. 
    The gentleman from Florida offers an amendment to the pending 
    amendment in the following language:

            After the word ``relief'' in the proposed amendment, insert 
        ``not including the activities of the Works Progress 
        Administration.''

        That is the amendment to the amendment offered and to which the 
    gentleman from Arkansas addresses his point of order. The original 
    amendment proposed legislation on an appropriation bill, but no 
    point of order was raised against it. That being so, an amendment 
    that would contain an exception would be germane and in order, 
    certainly. Therefore, the point of order that the gentleman directs 
    to the amendment to the amendment must be overruled.

Point of Order as to Diversion of Appropriated Funds

Sec. 20.13 A point of order against an amendment to a legislative bill 
    proposing an appropriation of funds that have already been 
    appropriated is in order even though debate has started on such 
    amendment, since Rule XXI clause 5 permits such a point of order 
    ``at any time.''

    On July 29, 1953,(1) during debate on an amendment to 
H.R. 6016, an emergency famine relief bill, Chairman Glenn R. Davis, of 
Wisconsin, sustained a point of order against the amendment to a bill 
reported from a committee not having authority to report 
appropriations, on the ground that it
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 99 Cong. Rec. 10398, 83d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3446]]

proposed an appropriation of funds previously appropriated for a 
specific purpose.

        Mr. [Paul C.] Jones of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman wild state it.
        Mr. Jones of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, would this be the proper 
    time to make a point of order against some wording in section [2]?

        The Chairman: The Chair will hear the gentleman to state the 
    point of order.
        Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, may I 
    suggest that the point of order comes too late, the section has 
    been read.
        Mr. Jones of Missouri: We are debating on the whole bill, and I 
    suggest that we do not want to pass a bill without considering 
    every part of it.
        The Chairman: Section ( 2) is now under consideration.
        Mr. Jones of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, that is what I want to 
    make my point of order on.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state the point of order.
        Mr. Jones of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order 
    against the wording beginning on line 24:

            Any assets available to the Commodity Credit Corporation 
        may be used in advance of such appropriations or payments, for 
        carrying out the purposes of this act.

        Mr. Chairman, I make that point of order on the ground that 
    when I offered an amendment authorizing that the $100 million be 
    taken from funds heretofore appropriated for the Mutual Security 
    Administration, the point of order was sustained that those funds 
    were already appropriated for a specific purpose and that we could 
    not divert such funds. I am making the same point of order now that 
    any assets available to the Commodity Credit Corporation which have 
    heretofore been appropriated would be by the same token diverted to 
    this purpose for the use of the Mutual Security Administration. In 
    other words, the situation if this is permitted to stay in the bill 
    would be that we could not divert Mutual Security funds to carry 
    out this, but that we could divert agricultural funds to carry out 
    a mutual-security program. . . .
        Mr. [James G.] Fulton [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Fulton: Mr. Chairman, is it not the parliamentary situation 
    here that debate has commenced on section 2 at the particular time 
    when the point of order is being made by the gentleman from 
    Missouri [Mr. Jones]?
        The Chairman: The Chair is advised that this point of order may 
    be made at any time of the consideration of the section.
        The Chair is ready to rule. Since the previous point of order 
    was sustained on similar grounds, the Chair now sustains the point 
    of order of the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Jones].

    Parliamentarian's Note: Rule XXI clause 5, House Rules and Manual 
Sec. 846 (1979) provides:

        No bill or joint resolution carrying appropriations shall be 
    reported by any

[[Page 3447]]

    committee not having jurisdiction to report appropriations, nor 
    shall an amendment proposing an appropriation be in order during 
    the consideration of a bill or joint resolution reported by a 
    committee not having that jurisdiction. A question of order on an 
    appropriation in any such bill, joint resolution, or amendment 
    thereto may be raised at any time.

Point of Order as to Germaneness

Sec. 20.14 A point of order as to the germaneness of an amendment may 
    be reserved when the amendment is read, and the Chairman rules on 
    the point of order when the sponsor of the amendment ends his five-
    minute debate.

    On Apr. 13, 1946,(2) during consideration of H.R. 6064, 
extending the Selective Service and Training Act, with Chairman Alfred 
L. Bulwinkle, of North Carolina, presiding, the following proceedings 
took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 92 Cong. Rec. 3660-63, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Ross] Rizley [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Rizley: On page 2, line 18, after 
        the word ``months'' and before the word ``unless'', insert the 
        following: ``except that every individual heretofore inducted 
        under the provision of subsection (a) who has a wife and one or 
        more legitimate children, shall upon his request in writing be 
        excused from further service and shall be separated from the 
        service within 60 days from and after the effective date of 
        this act.''

        Mr. [Andrew J.] May [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a 
    point of order against the amendment. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. May: Having reserved a point of order on the amendment, Mr. 
    Chairman, does that point of order have to be ruled upon when the 
    party offering it finishes his debate?
        The Chairman: It should be. The gentleman will state his point 
    of order.
        Mr. May: Mr. Chairman, my point of order is that this amendment 
    has the effect of requiring the Army to discharge a certain group 
    of people that are already in the service. The statute under 
    consideration to which the gentleman's pending amendment is offered 
    is an induction statute and not a discharge law.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Oklahoma desire to speak 
    on the point of order?
        Mr. Rizley: I think certainly the amendment is pertinent to 
    this very section of the bill. The bill provides that no one can be 
    taken into the service for more than 18 months, and I simply 
    offered an amendment which excepts married men already in the 
    service and says that they shall be discharged within 60 days from 
    the effective date of this act.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule on the point of order.

[[Page 3448]]

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma relates to 
    the discharge of men. It is not germane either to the section or to 
    the bill. The Chair sustains the point of order.

Effect of Agreement to Dispense With Reading

Sec. 20.15 Where the Committee of the Whole agrees that the remainder 
    of an appropriation bill be considered as read and open at any 
    point to points of order and amendments, the Chair asks if there 
    are any points of order and then if there are any amendments; 
    points of order against portions of the bill made subsequent to the 
    offering of amendments are not recognized.

    On Aug. 19, 1949,(3) during consideration of H.R. 6008, 
the supplemental appropriations bill, 1950, Chairman Aime J. Forand, of 
Rhode Island, declined to entertain a point of order against a portion 
of the bill after an amendment was offered. The Chairman noted that he 
had requested that points of order be raised when the further reading 
of the bill was dispensed with.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 95 Cong. Rec. 11870, 11876, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Louis C.] Rabaut [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill be considered as 
    read and be open at any point to points of order and amendments.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Michigan?
        There was no objection.
        The Chairman: Are there any points of order?
        If not, are there any amendments?
        Mr. [William M.] Wheeler [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Wheeler: On page 6, line 17, 
        strike out all the paragraph to and including all of lines 16 
        on page 7. . . .

        Mr. [James P.] Sutton [of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Sutton: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order against the 
    language on page 19 that it is legislation on an appropriation 
    bill.
        The Chairman: The point of order comes too late. At the time 
    the further reading of the bill was dispensed with, the Chair 
    requested Members desiring to make points of order to do so at that 
    time.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Miller].

Report on Striking Language From Senate Bill

Sec. 20.16 Where language in violation of Rule XXI clause 5 
    (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. House Rules and Manual Sec. 846 (1979), which makes subject to 
        points of order appropriation measures reported from committees 
        that do not have jurisdiction over appropriations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3449]]

    is stricken from a Senate bill in the Committee of the Whole by a 
    point of order, the Chairman reports that fact to the House when 
    the measure is reported to the House.

    On July 31, 1957,(5) after the Committee of the Whole 
rose and reported a bill, Chairman George H. Mahon, of Texas, reported 
that language in violation of then Rule XXI clause 4 (now clause 5), 
had been stricken from the bill by the Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 103 Cong. Rec. 13182, 13183, 85th Cong. 1st Sess. The point of 
        order against the language in question, as being an 
        appropriation on a legislative bill, is at p. 13056 (July 30 
        1957).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: The time of the gentleman from Michigan has 
    expired.
        All time has expired.
        The Committee will rise.
        Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed 
    the chair, Mr. Mahon, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House 
    on the State of the Union, stated that that Committee having had 
    under consideration the bill (S. 1856) to provide for the 
    development and modernization of the national system of navigation 
    and traffic-control facilities to serve present and future needs of 
    civil and military aviation, and for other purposes, pursuant to 
    House Resolution 361, he reported the same back to the House.
        The Chairman also reported that the language in the bill on 
    page 7, line 12, reading as follows: ``and unexpended balances of 
    appropriations, allocations, and other funds available or'' was 
    stricken out on a point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: If the Senate bill passes the House in this 
form, it is messaged to the Senate as having been passed with an 
amendment, although the House does not vote separately on the language 
stricken in Committee of the Whole on a point of order.

Points of Order Against Measure Committed to Conference

Sec. 20.17 Where a House bill with Senate amendments has been sent to 
    conference and the stage of disagreement reached, it is too late to 
    raise a point of order that the amendments of the Senate should 
    have been considered in the Committee of the Whole pursuant to Rule 
    XX clause 1.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. House Rules and Manual Sec. 827 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Oct. 20, 1966,(7) during consideration of Conference 
Report
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 112 Cong. Rec. 28240, 28241, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3450]]

No. 2327, on H.R. 13103, the Foreign Investment Tax Act of 1966, 
Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, stated that a point of 
order under Rule XX clause 1, that a particular Senate amendment should 
have been considered in the Committee of the Whole, comes too late 
after conferees have reported.

        Mr. [Wilbur D.] Mills [of Arkansas]: Mr. Speaker, I call up the 
    conference report on the bill (H.R. 13103) to amend the Internal 
    Revenue Code of 1954 to provide equitable tax treatment for foreign 
    investment in the United States, and ask unanimous consent that the 
    statement of the managers on the part of the House be read in lieu 
    of the report.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Arkansas?
        Mr. [Howard W.] Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, I desire to 
    make a point of order against title III of the conference report.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, this point of order is 
    directed at title III of the conference report. That title is the 
    one that provides for the contribution of $1 apiece from any 
    taxpayer who wishes to do so, to be used as a fund to be divided 
    between the political parties in Presidential elections. The title 
    itself has never been before the House. This is a Senate amendment 
    to the bill that the gentleman from Arkansas has just called up. It 
    is not germane to that bill itself and comes under the prohibition 
    of rule XX of the rules of the House. . . .
        If that amendment had been offered when the bill was under 
    consideration in the House it would have had to be under rule XX, 
    and considered under rule XX that I have just read.
        Now, because it is a bill which is an appropriation bill we 
    cannot consider it except in the Committee of the Whole House on 
    the State of the Union. This rule provides that if there is put on 
    it a Senate amendment and it comes hack it is subject to a point of 
    order that it has not been considered in the Committee of the Whole 
    House on the State of the Union. . . .
        The Speaker: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from Virginia makes the point of order that title 
    III of the conference report contravenes the first sentence of rule 
    XX:

            Any amendment of the Senate to any House bill shall be 
        subject to the point of order that it shall first be considered 
        in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, 
        if, originating in the House, it would be subject to that 
        point:

        Without passing upon the germaneness of the amendment, because 
    that point was not raised, the Chair calls attention to the fact 
    that the Senate amendment went to conference by unanimous consent. 
    Where unanimous consent was obtained, the effect of that is to 
    circuit rule XX, in other words, to waive or vitiate that portion 
    of rule XX.
        If objection had been made at the point when the unanimous 
    consent request was made to send the bill to conference, then the 
    bill could have been

[[Page 3451]]

    referred to the proper standing committee, and then, if and when 
    reported out of the committee would have been brought up for 
    consideration in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
    the Union.
        At this point, and under the parliamentary situation, the bill 
    was sent to conference by unanimous consent; and this applies to 
    all bills that go to conference by unanimous consent, if there be 
    provisions therein that might be subject to the first sentence of 
    rule XX. If there is no objection made at that time, the bill goes 
    to conference; which in this case had the effect of suspending that 
    portion of rule XX. Therefore, it is properly before the House at 
    the present time as part of the conference report and the Chair 
    overrules the point of order.
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, may I add one comment since 
    this is a very important question.
        The Speaker: The Chair will, of course, hear the gentleman.
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, this did not go to 
    conference by unanimous consent because it was never in the House 
    bill. It was in the Senate bill and it never got in the House bill 
    until last night.
        The Speaker: The Chair will call to the attention of the 
    gentleman from Virginia that the unanimous consent request was made 
    to take a bill from the Speaker's desk with Senate amendments 
    thereto, and disagree to the Senate amendments and request a 
    conference.


 
                               CHAPTER 19
 
                       The Committee of the Whole
 
                F. RISING OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
 
Sec. 21. Generally


    The Committee of the Whole may rise formally or informally. 
Sometimes, on the informal rising of the Committee of the Whole, the 
House by unanimous consent transacts unrelated business, such as the 
presentation of enrolled bills, the swearing in of a Member, or 
consideration of the message.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 4788-4791.
            See Jefferson's Manual, House Rules and Manual 
        Sec. Sec. 330, 331, 333, 334, 563 (1973), for parliamentary law 
        regarding rising of the Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee of the Whole rises automatically on adoption of the 
recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken out.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 8 Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. 2629.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Formal and Informal Rise

Sec. 21.1 When the Committee of the Whole rises--that is, concludes or 
    suspends its proceedings--it may do so either formally or 
    informally. When it rises informally, it rises at the direction of 
    the Chairman, without a formal mo

[[Page 3452]]

    tion from the floor. Thus the Committee may rise informally to 
    receive a message from the President.

    On Apr. 8, 1967,(10) the Committee of the Whole rose 
informally to receive a message from the President.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 113 Cong. Rec. 8585, 90th Cong. 1st Sess. See 110 Cong. Rec. 18262, 
        18263, 88th Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 6, 1964, for another 
        illustration of this principle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (11) The Committee will rise 
    informally to receive a message.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. John H. Dent (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker assumed the Chair.
        The Speaker: (12) The Chair will receive a message.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        A message in writing from the President of the United States 
    was communicated to the House by Mr. Jones, one of his secretaries.
        The Speaker: The Committee will resume its sitting.

Sec. 21.2 The Committee of the Whole may rise, informally, immediately 
    after having resolved into the Committee following a quorum call in 
    Committee and the Chair's report to the House.

    On Apr. 21, 1969,(13) the Committee of the Whole rose, 
informally, immediately after having resolved into the Committee 
following a quorum call.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 115 Cong. Rec. 9705, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Frank E.] Evans of Colorado: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that a quorum is not present.
        The Chairman:(14) The Chair will count. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed 
    the chair, Mr. Price of Illinois, Chairman of the Committee of the 
    Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that 
    Committee, having had under consideration the bill H.R. 514, and 
    finding itself without a quorum, he had directed the roll to be 
    called, when 325 Members responded to their names, a quorum, and he 
    submitted herewith the names of the absentees to be spread upon the 
    Journal.
        The Committee resumed its sitting.
        The Chairman: The Committee will rise informally in order that 
    the House may receive a message.
        The Speaker assumed the chair.
        The Speaker: (15) The Chair will receive a message.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        A message in writing from the President of the United States 
    was communicated to the House by Mr. Geisler, one of his 
    secretaries.
        The Speaker: The Committee will resume its sitting.

Automatic Rise Pursuant to Agreement

Sec. 21.3 When the House has limited general debate to a time certain 
    and provided for the

[[Page 3453]]

    Committee of the Whole to rise at the conclusion of that time, the 
    Committee then rises without a motion or vote.

    On Apr. 9, 1963,(16) upon arrival of the time to close 
debate during consideration of H.R. 5517, making supplemental 
appropriations for fiscal year 1963, the Committee of the Whole rose 
without motion or vote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 109 Cong. Rec. 6044, 6072, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I move that the 
    House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the 
    State of the Union for the consideration of the bill H.R. 5517, 
    making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 
    30, 1963, and for other purposes; and, pending that motion, Mr. 
    Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that general debate on the bill be 
    concluded not later than 5 p.m. today, one-half of the time to be 
    controlled by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Bow], and one-half by 
    myself, and that at the conclusion of general debate today the 
    Committee will rise. . . .
        The Speaker: (17) Is there objections to the request 
    of the gentleman from Texas?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There is no objection.
        The Speaker: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from Texas [Mr. Thomas].
        The motion was agreed to. . . .
        The Chairman: (18) The time of the gentleman from 
    California has expired, all time for debate has expired. The hour 
    is 5 o'clock. Under the previous order of the House the Committee 
    rises.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed 
    the chair, Mr. Bolling, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole 
    House on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee, 
    having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 5517) making 
    supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 
    1963, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

Effect of Motion to Rise on Amendments

Sec. 21.4 Where the Committee of the Whole during consideration of 
    amendments to a bill votes merely that the Committee rise, the 
    Chairman reports to the House that the Committee has considered the 
    bill but come to no resolution thereon; he does not under this 
    procedure report the bill back to the House with amendments.

    On Aug. 24, 1949,(19) during consideration of H.R. 6070, 
to amend the National Housing Act, Chairman Mike Mansfield, of Montana, 
indicated the procedure to be followed when the Committee of the Whole 
votes to rise,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 95 Cong. Rec. 12186, 12187, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3454]]

and the effect thereof on amendments taken up by the Committee.

        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read, as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Marcantonio: On page 34, after the 
        period on line 5, add a new subsection:
            ``Sec. --. Prohibition against discrimination. . . .''

        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from New York [Mr. Marcantonio].
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Marcantonio) there were--ayes 62, noes 31.
        Mr. [Brent] Spence [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I demand 
    tellers.
        Tellers were ordered; and the Chairman appointed Mr. Buchanan 
    and Mr. Marcantonio to act as tellers.
        The Committee again divided; and the tellers reported there 
    were--ayes 77, noes 57.
        So the amendment was agreed to.
        Mr. Spence: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now 
    rise.
        Mr. [Jesse P.] Wolcott [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Wolcott: If the Committee rises at the present time will it 
    report the bill back to the House with amendments, or will it 
    report that it has come to no conclusion thereon? What is the 
    situation?
        The Chairman: This is simply a motion that the Committee rise. 
    There are several amendments yet to be offered.
        The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the 
    noes appeared to have it.
        Mr. Spence: Mr. Chairman, I demand tellers.
        Tellers were ordered, and the Chairman appointed as tellers Mr. 
    Patman and Mr. Wolcott.
        The Committee again divided, and the tellers reported that 
    there were--ayes 86, noes 83.
        So the motion was agreed to.
        Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore, 
    Mr. Priest, having assumed the chair, Mr. Mansfield, Chairman of 
    the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, 
    reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the 
    bill (H. R. 6070) to amend the National Housing Act, as amended, 
    and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

Rising of Committee to Report Objectionable Words

Sec. 21.5 When words are taken down in the Committee of the Whole, the 
    Committee must immediately rise and the Chairman reports the 
    questionable words to the House.

    On Mar. 9, 1936,(20) during consideration of H.R. 11563, 
the Dis
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 80 Cong. Rec. 3465, 74th Cong. 2d Sess. See 79 Cong. Rec. 1808, 
        74th Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 7, 1935, for another illustration of 
        this procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3455]]

trict of (Columbia rent commission bill, the Committee of the Whole 
rose immediately after a demand was made to take words down.

        Mr. [Henry] Ellenbogen [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, a point 
    of order. I ask that the gentleman's language be taken down. It is 
    a violation of the rules of the House, and in the meantime I demand 
    that the gentleman take his seat.
        The Chairman: (1) The Clerk will report the words 
    objected to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. William B. Umstead (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Blanton: Here is the answer, if the gentleman can 
        understand English.

        The Committee rose and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. O'Connor) 
    having assumed the chair, Mr. Umstead, Chairman of the Committee of 
    the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that the 
    Committee having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 11563), 
    certain words used in debate were objected to and on request were 
    taken down and read at the Clerk's desk and he reported the same to 
    the House herewith.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (2) The Clerk will report 
    the words objected to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. John J. O'Connor (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Blanton: Here is the answer, if the gentleman can 
        understand English.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is ready to rule. The Chair 
    sees nothing objectionable in the words used.
        The Committee will resume its session.

Rising on Ceremonial Occasions

Sec. 21.6 The Speaker was instrumental in causing the Committee of the 
    Whole to rise because of the death of a Senator, formerly a Member 
    of the House.

    On Mar. 8, 1951,(3) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, was 
instrumental in causing the Committee of the Whole to rise on the death 
of Senator Virgil M. Chapman, formerly a Member of the House. After the 
Committee of the Whole rose, on motion, the Speaker addressed the House 
from the chair.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 97 Cong. Rec. 2153, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The Chair desires to inform the House that he was 
    instrumental in seeing that the Committee rose at this time because 
    of the death of a great citizen, a great Senator, and a former 
    great Member of the House of Representatives. The Chair would much 
    prefer that gentlemen who have special orders for this afternoon 
    postpone their special orders. The Chair knows that the gentleman 
    from Texas [Mr. Patman], who has a special order for today, does 
    not want to use his time.

Sec. 21.7 During consideration of an appropriations bill, the

[[Page 3456]]

    Committee of the Whole rose to permit the House to commemorate the 
    150th anniversary of the organization of the Supreme Court.

    On Feb. 1, 1940,(4) during consideration of H.R. 8202, 
the agriculture appropriation bill, the Committee of the Whole rose to 
permit the House to hold exercises commemorating the 150th anniversary 
of the organization of the Supreme Court.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 86 Cong. Rec. 935, 936, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I move that 
    the Committee do now rise, for the purpose of affording the House 
    of Representatives an opportunity to hold exercises in 
    commemoration of the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the 
    organization of the Supreme Court of the United States; and pending 
    that motion, I may say, Mr. Chairman, that at the conclusion of the 
    exercises, at approximately 3 o'clock, the Committee will resume 
    its session and continue consideration of the bill.
        The motion was agreed to.
        Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed 
    the chair, Mr. Cole of Maryland, Chairman of the Committee of the 
    Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that that 
    Committee, having had under consideration the bill H.R. 8202, the 
    agricultural appropriation bill, 1941, had come to no resolution 
    thereon.
        The Speaker: (5) Members of the House of 
    Representatives, as you are doubtless aware, this is the one 
    hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the first convening of the 
    Supreme Court of the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


 
                               CHAPTER 19
 
                       The Committee of the Whole
 
                F. RISING OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
 
Sec. 22. Motions to Rise

    It is in order for any Member of the Committee of the Whole to move 
to rise and the Chairman is constrained to recognize for that 
purpose,(6) unless another Member controls the 
floor.(7) However, neither the motion to rise (8) 
nor the motion to rise and report is debatable.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2369.
 7. See Sec. 24.2, infra.
 8. Sec. 22.4, infra.
 9. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4766.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although a motion that the Committee of the Whole rise and resume 
its sitting on a day certain is not in order in the 
Committee,(10) a motion to rise and report with the 
recommendation that consideration be postponed to a day certain is in 
order and preferential where the Committee is operating under the 
general rules of the House,(11) but not where the Committee 
is operating under a special rule specifying the conditions under which 
the bill is to be considered.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Sec. 22.2, infra.
11. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2372.
12. For an example of the effect of a special rule on the availability 
        of certain motions to rise with recommendations, see 
        Sec. 23.12, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3457]]

    The simple motion to recommit is not admissible in the Committee of 
the Whole, but a motion to rise and report with the recommendation that 
the bill be recommitted is in order (13) unless that motion 
is precluded by the terms of a special rule.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2329.
14. See Sec. 23.12, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Form of Motion

Sec. 22.1 The Committee of the Whole may rise pursuant to a motion from 
    the floor in which a Member states ``Mr. Chairman, I move that the 
    Committee do now rise.''

    On Apr. 14, 1970,(15) the Committee of the Whole rose 
pursuant to a motion from the floor to enable the Speaker to sign and 
lay before the House an enrolled bill to increase the pay of federal 
employees. After the Speaker announced his signature the House agreed 
to a motion to resolve into the Committee. The proceedings were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 116 Cong. Rec. 11654, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Daniel J.] Flood [of Pennsylvania]: I take this time to 
    advise the Chair and the Committee that the postal pay raise bill 
    is about to be presented. I understand that action will take place 
    immediately as the Speaker has just advised us.
        Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
        The motion was agreed to.
        Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed 
    the chair, Mr. Holifield, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole 
    House on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee, 
    having had under consideration the bill H.R. 16916, making 
    appropriations for the Office of Education for the fiscal year 
    ending June 30, 1971, and for other purposes, had come to no 
    resolution thereon.
        The Speaker announced his signature to enrolled bill of the 
    Senate of the following title:

            S. 3690. An act to increase the pay of Federal employees.

        Mr. Flood: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself 
    into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for 
    the further consideration of the bill (H.R. 16916) making 
    appropriations for the Office of Education for the fiscal year 
    ending June 30, 1971, and for other purposes.
        The Speaker: (16) The question is on the motion 
    offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The motion was agreed to.
        Accordingly the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole 
    House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of 
    the bill H.R. 16916, with Mr. Holifield in the chair.

Motion to Rise and Resume on Day Certain

Sec. 22.2 A motion that the Committee rise and resume its

[[Page 3458]]

    sitting on a day certain is not in order in the Committee of the 
    Whole.

    On May 25, 1967,(17) during consideration of S. 1432, 
amending the Universal Military Training and Service Act, Chairman 
Robert L. F. Sikes, of Florida, ruled out a motion that the Committee 
rise and resume its sitting on a day certain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 113 Cong. Rec. 14121, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William H.] Bates [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Rogers C. B. 
    Morton].
        Mr. Morton: Mr. Chairman, I open my remarks with a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Morton: Would it be in order to move that the Committee 
    rise and sit again on Wednesday, the 31st of May?
        The Chairman: At this time that motion would not be order.

Requirement That Motion Be Written

Sec. 22.3 All motions must be in writing if the demand is made, and 
    this applies to a motion that the Committee of the Whole do now 
    rise.

    On June 13, 1947,(18) during consideration of H.R. 3342, 
the cultural relations program of the State Department, Chairman Thomas 
A. Jenkins, of Ohio, sustained a point of order against a motion, made 
orally, to rise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 93 Cong. Rec. 6998, 80th Cong. 1st Sess. See 96 Cong. Rec. 1693, 
        81st Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 8, 1950, for another illustration of 
        this principle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Daniel A.] Reed of New York: Mr. Chairman, I move that the 
    Committee do now rise.
        Mr. [Karl E.] Mundt [of South Dakota]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the motion has not been submitted in writing.
        Mr. Reed of New York: Mr. Chairman, a preferential motion of 
    this character does not have to be submitted in writing.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.

Debatability

Sec. 22.4 The motion that the Committee rise is not debatable.

    On Apr. 8, 1964,(19) during consideration of H.R. 10222, 
the Food Stamp Act of 1964, Chairman Phillip M. Landrum, of Georgia, 
indicated that the motion that the Committee of the Whole rise is not 
debatable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 110 Cong. Rec. 7298, 88th Cong. 2d Sess. See 94 Cong. Rec. 8521, 
        80th Cong. 2d Sess., June 16, 1948; 89 Cong. Rec. 1167, 78th 
        Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 19, 1943; and 81 Cong. Rec. 7686-97, 75th 
        Cong. 1st Sess., July 27, 1937, for other examples of this 
        principle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. 
    Jensen].

[[Page 3459]]

        Mr. [Ben F.] Jensen: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do 
    now rise out of further respect for one of the greatest Americans, 
    Gen. Douglas MacArthur.
        The Chairman: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Jensen].
        Mr. Jensen: Mr. Chairman, I demand tellers. It is disgraceful 
    to have this sort of thing going on while General MacArthur is 
    lying here in the Capitol.
        The Chairman: The Chair will inform the gentleman that a vote 
    on his motion is being taken. He is not recognized to make a 
    speech.

Control by Floor Manager

Sec. 22.5 It is within the discretion of the Member handling a bill 
    before the Committee of the Whole to move that the Committee rise.

    On June 16, 1948,(20) during consideration of H.R. 6401, 
the Selective Service Act of 1948, Chairman Francis H. Case, of South 
Dakota, indicated the Member handling a bill in the Committee of the 
Whole always has the discretion to move that the Committee rise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 94 Cong. Rec. 8621, 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.

Establishing Time to Rise

Sec. 22.6 Prior to resolving into the Committee of the Whole, the House 
    by unanimous consent may limit general debate to a time certain and 
    provide that the Committee will rise at the conclusion of general 
    debate.

    On Apr. 9, 1963,(21) during consideration of H.R. 5517, 
making supplemental appropriations for the 1963 fiscal year, the House 
by unanimous consent limited general debate and provided for a time for 
the Committee to rise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. 109 Cong. Rec. 6044, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I move that the 
    House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the 
    State of the Union for the consideration of the bill H.R. 5517, 
    making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 
    30, 1963, and for other purposes; and, pending that motion, Mr. 
    Speaker, I

[[Page 3460]]

    ask unanimous consent that general debate on the bill be concluded 
    not later than 5 p.m. today, one-half of the time to be controlled 
    by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Bow], and one-half by myself, and 
    that at the conclusion of general debate today the Committee will 
    rise. . . .
        The Speaker: (22) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Texas?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.

Quorum Requirement

Sec. 22.7 In Committee of the Whole a quorum is not required on a 
    motion to rise.

    On June 4, 1948,(23) during consideration of H.R. 6801, 
the foreign aid appropriations bill, Chairman W. Sterling Cole, of 
Maryland, ruled on the necessity for a quorum at the time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
23. 94 Cong. Rec. 7178, 80th Cong. 2d Sess. See also 118 Cong. Rec. 
        19353, 92d Cong. 2d Sess., May 31, 1972.
            Parliamentarian's Note: Rule XV clause 6(b), House Rules 
        and Manual Sec. 774(c) (1979) now provides that a ``quorum 
        shall not be required in the Committee of the Whole for 
        agreement to a motion that the Committee rise.'' The subject of 
        quorums is discussed more fully in Ch. 20, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Harold D.] Cooley [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
        The Chairman: The Chair will count.
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I move that the 
    Committee rise.
        The Chairman: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from New York.
        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, on that I demand tellers.
        Mr. Cooley: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Cooley: Is the motion of the gentleman from New York in 
    order pending the determination as regards the presence of a 
    quorum?
        The Chairman: The gentleman's motion is in order. A quorum is 
    not necessary upon a motion that the Committee rise.

Voting on the Motion

Sec. 22.8 The Committee of the Whole on a division or teller vote may 
    reject a motion made by the Member in charge of a bill that the 
    Committee rise.

    On June 16, 1948,(1) during consideration of H.R. 6401, 
the Selective Service Act of 1948, the Committee of the Whole rejected 
a motion made by the Member in charge of the bill that the Committee 
rise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 94 Cong. Rec. 8521, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Walter G.] Andrews [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, in view of 
    the

[[Page 3461]]

    fact that two or three Members who have time are not here, I move 
    that the Committee do now rise. . . .
        The Chairman: (2) The question is on the motion 
    offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Andrews] that the 
    Committee do now rise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Francis H. Case (S.D.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Andrews of New York) there were--ayes 79, noes 94.
        Mr. Andrews of New York: Mr. Chairman, I ask for tellers.
        Tellers were ordered, and The Chairman appointed as tellers Mr. 
    Andrews of New York and Mr. Smathers.
        The Committee again divided; and the tellers reported there 
    were--ayes 76, noes 139.
        So the motion was rejected.

Withdrawal

Sec. 22.9 A privileged motion that the Committee of the Whole rise may 
    be withdrawn by unanimous consent.

    On Oct. 28 1971,(3) during consideration of H.R. 7248 to 
amend and extend the Higher Education Act of 1965 and other acts 
dealing with higher education, the motion that the Committee of the 
Whole rise was withdrawn by unanimous consent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 117 Cong. Rec. 38071, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas M.] Pelly [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, I move 
    that the Committee do now rise.
        The Chairman: (4) The gentleman is seeking to 
    propound a parliamentary inquiry?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Pelly: I am not, Mr. Chairman. I have a privileged motion. 
    I move that the Committee do now rise. . . .
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Washington insist upon 
    his motion?
        Mr. Pelly: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my motion.
        The Chairman: Without objection, the motion is withdrawn.
        There was no objection.


 
                               CHAPTER 19
 
                       The Committee of the Whole
 
                F. RISING OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
 
Sec. 23.--When in Order

    The motion to rise is preferential (5) and is in order 
pending a count of a quorum (6) or pending a decision on a 
point of order.(7) It is also in order after tellers have 
been ordered and appointed, though not after the count has 
begun.(8) However, the motion will not lie during a division 
(9) or while another Member has the floor in 
debate.(10) A decision by
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Sec. 23.1, infra.
 6. Sec. 23.5, infra.
 7. Sec. Sec. 23.7, 23.8, infra.
 8. Sec. 23.9, infra; compare 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 6001 and 4 
        Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4773, which indicate that, tellers 
        having been ordered and appointed, the motion to rise is not in 
        order pending the taking of the vote.
 9. Sec. 23.11, infra.
10. Sec. 23.6, infra; 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4769; and 8 Cannon's 
        Precedents Sec. 2325.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3462]]

The Chairman that a motion to rise was in order after a Member had been 
recognized for debate but before he had begun to speak was overruled by 
the Committee.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2370.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The point of order that the motion is dilatory may be raised in the 
Committee of the Whole.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2800.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When provision is made by special order for the automatic rising of 
the Committee of the Whole at a designated time, a motion is required 
to rise before that time, and is in order.(13) However, when 
the hour previously fixed for adjournment of the House arrives while 
the Committee of the Whole is still in session, The Chairman may direct 
the Committee to rise and make his report as though the Committee had 
risen on motion in the regular way.(14) And when the House 
has limited general debate to a time certain and provided for the 
Committee of the Whole to rise at the conclusion of that time, the 
Committee then rises without a motion or vote.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 793.
14. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4785.
15. See Sec. 21.3, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The motion to rise and report has precedence over the motion to 
take up another bill.(16) The motion to amend has precedence 
over the motion to rise and report a bill with recommendations 
(17) but not over the simple motion to rise.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4766.
17. Sec. 23.14, infra.
18. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4770.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The motion to rise and report with the recommendation that the bill 
be recommitted takes precedence over the motion to rise and report with 
the recommendation that the bill pass,(19) when the 
Committee of the Whole is operating under the general rules of the 
House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 8 Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. 2329.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Privileged Nature

Sec. 23.1 The motion that the Committee of the Whole rise is 
    privileged.

    On July 23, 1970,(20) during consideration of H.R. 
18515, providing appropriations for the Departments of Labor and 
Health, Education, and Welfare for fiscal year 1971, Chairman Chet 
Holifield, of California, referred to the privileged nature of the 
motion that the Committee of the Whole rise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 116 Cong. Rec. 25628, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.

[[Page 3463]]

        Is it in order for me to move that the Committee do now rise?
        The Chairman: It is a privileged motion.
        Mr. Yates: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
        The Chairman: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from Illinois.
        The question was taken; and The Chairman announced that the 
    noes appeared to have it.
        Mr. Yates: Mr. Chairman, I demand tellers.
        Tellers were ordered, and The Chairman appointed as tellers Mr. 
    Yates and Mr. Flood.
        The Committee divided, and the tellers reported that there 
    were--ayes 8, noes 93.
        So the motion was rejected.

    Parliamentarian's Note: While a motion that the Committee of the 
Whole rise is privileged, it cannot be made while another Member has 
the floor, but can be offered any time when the proponent thereof can 
secure the floor in his own right.

Sec. 23.2 A motion that the Committee of the Whole rise is of high 
    privilege, and may be offered by a Member who holds the floor by 
    virtue of having offered an amendment.

    On Nov. 15, 1967,(1) during consideration of S. 2388, 
Economic Opportunity Act Amendments of 1967, Chairman John J. Rooney, 
of New York, made reference to the right of a Member who holds the 
floor by virtue of having offered an amendment to offer the privileged 
motion that the Committee rise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 113 Cong. Rec. 32694, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Paul C.] Jones of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Jones of Missouri: On page 219 
        strike out all of line 17 through line 24.

        Mr. Jones of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I make a parliamentary 
    inquiry at this time.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Jones of Missouri: Would I be in order to make a motion 
    that the Committee do now rise so that if we could get back into 
    the House I could make a motion to adjourn?
        The Chairman: A motion that the Committee do now rise is a 
    privileged motion.
        Mr. Jones of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee 
    do now rise.

        The Chairman: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from Missouri.
        The motion was rejected.

Sec. 23.3 A motion that the Committee rise is privileged during 
    consideration of a bill under the five-minute rule and takes 
    precedence over pending amendments.

[[Page 3464]]

    On Apr. 30, 1970,(2) during consideration of H.R. 17123, 
the military procurement authorization for fiscal year 1971, Chairman 
Daniel D. Rostenkowski, of Illinois, indicated that the motion that the 
Committee rise was privileged and would take precedence over certain 
pending amendments.
    Parliamentarian's Note: During consideration of this measure under 
the five-minute rule, amendments were offered with respect to use of 
funds to support ground combat troops in Cambodia, Laos, and Thailand. 
When it became apparent during lengthy debate on these amendments that 
many Members wished to defer action on the amendment until the 
President had concluded a policy statement on Southeast Asia which had 
been scheduled for delivery on nationwide television that evening, 
several Members approached the manager of the bill, L. Mendel Rivers, 
of South Carolina, Chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, to urge 
the Committee's rising without completing action on the bill. When the 
Chairman declined to make the motion, Mr. Edward P. Boland, of 
Massachusetts, who was not on the Committee on Armed Services, sought 
recognition to make the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 116 Cong. Rec. 13784, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Boland: Mr. Chairman. a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Boland: Mr. Chairman, is it in order to move that the 
    Committee do now rise?
        The Chairman: Yes; it is in order.
        Mr. Boland: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now 
    rise.
        The Chairman: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from Massachusetts.
        Mr. Rivers: Mr. Chairman, on that I demand tellers.
        Tellers were ordered, and the Chairman appointed as tellers Mr. 
    Boland and Mr. Rivers.
        The Committee divided and the tellers reported that there 
    were--ayes 131, noes 100.
        So the motion was agreed to.
        Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed 
    the chair, Mr. Rostenkowski, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole 
    House on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee, 
    having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 17123) to authorize 
    appropriations during the fiscal year 1971 for procurement of 
    aircraft, missiles, naval vessels, and tracked combat vehicles, and 
    other weapons, and research development, test, and evaluation for 
    the Armed Forces, and to prescribe the authorized personnel 
    strength of the Selected Reserve of each Reserve component of the 
    Armed Forces, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution 
    thereon.

Sec. 23.4 The motion that the Committee of the Whole rise is privileged 
    and in order notwithstanding the announcement of an ``informal

[[Page 3465]]

    agreement'' among floor managers of a bill with respect to 
    concluding consideration of the bill on that day at a different 
    time.

    On Oct. 28, 1971,(3) during consideration of H.R. 7248, 
to amend and extend the Higher Education Act of 1965 and other acts 
dealing with higher education, Chairman James C. Wright, Jr., of Texas, 
refused to entertain a parliamentary inquiry as to whether the motion 
that the Committee of the Whole rise would be in order notwithstanding 
an informal agreement to conclude consideration of a bill on that day 
at a different time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 117 Cong. Rec. 38078, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. [Edith S.] Green of Oregon (during the reading): Mr. 
    Chairman, I ask unanimous consent, that title VIII be considered as 
    read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentlewoman from Oregon?
        There was no objection.
        Mrs. Green of Oregon: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee 
    do now rise. . . .
        Mr. [Roman C.] Pucinski [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Pucinski: It was my impression that earlier today the Chair 
    stated the agreement we had was that we were going to go through 
    title VIII or until 6 o'clock, whichever came later. I was under 
    the impression that that was the agreement, so a number of members 
    of the Veterans' Affairs Committee have remained since we have an 
    amendment to title VIII. I just wonder what happened to that 
    agreement.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state to the gentleman that the 
    gentlewoman from Oregon has made a motion that the Committee do now 
    rise. That is a privileged motion, that the Chair must put the 
    motion.
        Mr. Pucinski: Mr. Chairman, a further parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.

        Mr. Pucinski: It is correct, then, to assume that the motion 
    does somewhat contravene and contradict the agreement that was 
    made?
        The Chairman: The Chair cannot entertain that as a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The question is on the motion that the Committee do now rise.
        The motion was agreed to.

Pending Count of Quorum

Sec. 23.5 Pending the (Chair's count of a quorum, a motion that the 
    Committee of the Whole rise is in order; that motion does not 
    require a quorum for its adoption.

    On June 4, 1948,(4) during consideration of H.R. 6801, 
the for
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 94 Cong. Rec. 7178, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
            Parliamentarian's Note: This principle is now expressly 
        provided under Rule XV clause 6(b), House Rules and Manual 
        Sec. 774(c) (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3466]]

eign aid appropriations bill, Chairman W. Sterling Cole, of New York, 
stated that the motion to rise is in order pending the Chair's count of 
a quorum.

        Mr. [Harold D.] Cooley [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
        The Chairman: The Chair will count.
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I move that the 
    Committee rise.
        The Chairman: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from New York.
        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, on that I demand tellers.
        Mr. Cooley: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Cooley: Is the motion of the gentleman from New York in 
    order pending the determination as regards the presence of a 
    quorum?
        The Chairman: The gentleman's motion is in order. A quorum is 
    not necessary upon a motion that the Committee rise.
        Tellers were ordered, and the Chairman appointed as tellers Mr. 
    Taber and Mr. Cannon.
        The Committee divided; and the tellers reported that there 
    were-aye 1, noes 64.
        So the motion was rejected.

While Another Member Has Floor

Sec. 23.6 In the Committee of the Whole a Member may not move to rise 
    while another has the floor.

    On Mar. 12, 1964,(5) during consideration of H.R. 8986, 
the pay bill for federal employees, Chairman Chet Holifield, of 
California, indicated that a Member may not move, while another Member 
has the floor, that the Committee of the Whole rise, unless time is 
yielded to him for that purpose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 110 Cong. Rec. 5101, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert J.] Corbett [of Pennsylvania]: I was going to try 
    to explain the amendment a little bit, but the gentleman is using 
    up all my time. Go ahead.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman yield for a parliamentary 
    inquiry?
        Mr. Corbett: I yield to the gentleman.
        The Chairman: The gentleman is recognized.
        Mr. [August E.] Johansen [of Michigan]: Would a motion that the 
    Committee rise be in order at this time?
        The Chairman: If the gentleman from Pennsylvania yields for 
    that purpose.
        Mr. Corbett: Mr. Chairman, I cannot yield further. I probably 
    only have 3 minutes left.

[[Page 3467]]

Pending Decision on Point of Order

Sec. 23.7 In the Committee of the Whole a motion that the Committee 
    rise may be entertained pending a decision of the Chair on a point 
    of order.

    On June 4, 1957,(6) during consideration of H.R. 6974, 
extending the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 
1954, Chairman Brooks Hays, of Arkansas, stated that a motion that the 
Committee of the Whole rise was made pending the Chair's decision on a 
point of order.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 103 Cong. Rec. 8298, 8318, 8319, 85th Cong. 1st Sess. See 105 Cong. 
        Rec. 9027, 9028, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., May 25, 1959, for 
        another illustration of this principle.
 7. See Sec. 23.8, infra, for the proceedings of this date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 23.8 A point of order having been raised in the Committee of the 
    Whole against a bill reported by a committee without jurisdiction 
    to propose an appropriation under Rule XXI, the Committee rose 
    pending decision by the Chair on the point of order.

    On June 4, 1957,(8) during consideration of H.R. 6974, 
extending the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 
1954, the Committee of the Whole rose pending a decision by the 
Chairman on a point of order that the bill which proposed an 
appropriation had been reported by a committee contrary to Rule XXI 
clause 4.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 103 Cong. Rec. 8298, 8318, 8319, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
 9.  See Rule XXI clause 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. 846 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John J.] Rodney [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a 
    point of order against the entire bill, H.R.6974, on the ground 
    that it is a bill from a committee not having authority to report 
    an appropriation. . . .

        Mr. [Harold D.] Cooley [of North Carolina]: . . . I am a little 
    bit apprehensive that the point of order may be sustained, if the 
    Chair is called upon to rule on it. But, I think it would be very 
    unfortunate for us to delay final action on the bill, and in the 
    circumstances we have no other alternative other than to move that 
    the Committee do now rise, and so, Mr. Chairman, I make that 
    motion.
        The Chairman: (10) The Chair is prepared to rule on 
    the point of order, but the motion offered by the gentleman from 
    North Carolina that the Committee do now rise is in order, and the 
    Chair will put the question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Brooks Hays (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from 
    North Carolina.
        The motion was agreed to.
        Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed 
    the chair, Mr. Hays of Arkansas, Chairman of the Committee of the 
    Whole House on

[[Page 3468]]

    the State of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had 
    under consideration the bill (H.R. 6974) to extend the Agricultural 
    Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954, and for other 
    purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

    Parliamentarian's Note: In this case the language of the bill was 
in violation of the provisions of then Rule XXI clause 4 (now clause 
5). The Member in charge of the bill moved that the Committee rise to 
permit application to the Committee on Rules for a resolution waiving 
points of order against the bill. The rule granted was House Resolution 
274.

Before Tellers Begin Count

Sec. 23.9 A vote by tellers having been ordered and appointed in the 
    Committee of the Whole, a motion that the committee rise is in 
    order if the tellers have not taken their places and the count has 
    not begun.

    On Mar. 12, 1942,(11) during consideration of H.R. 6709, 
the agriculture appropriations bill for fiscal year 1943, Chairman 
Robert Ramspeck, of Georgia, indicated that a motion that the Committee 
of the Whole rise is in order after a vote by tellers has been ordered 
and tellers have been appointed if the tellers have not taken their 
places and begun the count.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 88 Cong. Rec. 2374, 77th Cong. 2d Sess. See 88 Cong. Rec. 5169, 
        77th Cong. 2d Sess., June 11, 1942, for another illustration of 
        this principle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: The gentleman from South Dakota [Mr. Case] offers 
    a substitute for the Dirksen amendment.
        The Clerk will report the substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Case of South Dakota as a 
        substitute for the amendment offered by Mr. Dirksen: Page 80, 
        line 21, strike out ``$45,000,000'' and insert ``$25,000,000.''

        The Chairman: The question is on the substitute offered by the 
    gentleman from South Dakota.
        The question was taken; and the Chair being in doubt the 
    Committee divided, and there were--ayes 84, noes 88.
        Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, I ask for 
    tellers.
        Tellers were ordered, and the Chair appointed as tellers Mr. 
    Case of South Dakota and Mr. Tarver.
        Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I move that 
    the Committee do now rise.
        Mr. [Joseph W.] Martin [Jr.] of Massachusetts: Mr. Chairman, a 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Martin of Massachusetts: The gentleman cannot interrupt a 
    vote.
        The Chairman: The vote has not started.
        Mr. Martin of Massachusetts: We had already started to vote on 
    the substitute and the Chair had announced the vote as 84 to 88.

[[Page 3469]]

        The Chairman: The tellers had not taken their places.
        The point of order is overruled.
        Mr. Martin of Massachusetts: Mr. Chairman, we had started the 
    vote when the first voice vote was taken.
        The Chairman: The point of order is overruled.
        The gentleman from Georgia moves that the Committee do now 
    rise.
        The question is on the motion.

During Time for Debate

Sec. 23.10 The motion to rise is in order after agreement to a motion 
    to limit debate on an amendment.

    On Feb. 8, 1950,(12) during consideration of H.R. 2945, 
to adjust postal rates, Chairman Chet Holifield, of California, 
indicated that a motion that the Committee of the Whole rise was in 
order after agreement to a time limit on debate on an amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 96 Cong. Rec. 1690, 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. [Robert J.] Corbett [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    demand tellers.
        Tellers were ordered, and the Chairman appointed as tellers Mr. 
    Murray of Tennessee and Mr. Corbett.
        The Committee again divided; and the tellers reported there 
    were--ayes 133, noes 72.
        So the motion was agreed to.
        Mr. [James G.] Fulton [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.

        Mr. Fulton: Is a motion that the Committee do now rise in order 
    at this time?
        The Chairman: Such a motion would be in order.
        Mr. Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now 
    rise.
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Fulton) there were--ayes 76, noes 125.
        Mr. Fulton: Mr. Chairman. I ask for tellers.
        Tellers were refused.
        So the motion was rejected.

During Division Vote

Sec. 23.11 The motion that the Committee of the Whole rise is not 
    preferential while the Committee is dividing on a question.

    On Dec. 8, 1944,(13) during a division vote on a motion 
to close debate on H.R. 5587, the first supplemental appropriations 
bill, 1944, Chairman Herbert C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 90 Cong. Rec. 9066, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3470]]

Bonner, of North Carolina, refused to recognize a Member for a motion 
that the Committee of the Whole rise.

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I move that all 
    debate on this amendment do now close.
        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I trust 
    the gentleman will not press that motion.
        The Chairman: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from New York [Mr. Taber].
        The question was taken, and the Chair announced that the ayes 
    had it.
        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I ask for a 
    division.
        The Chairman: Those in favor of the motion will rise and be 
    counted.
        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now 
    rise.
        The Chairman: The Chair calls the attention of the gentleman to 
    the fact that we are in the middle of a vote.
        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Chairman, I am offering a preferential motion. 
    I move that the Committee do now rise.
        The Chairman: The Chair will ask the gentleman to reconsider, 
    because we are in the midst of taking a vote on a motion at this 
    time.
        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Chairman, I am offering a preferential motion 
    now.
        The Chairman: The Chair cannot recognize the gentleman at this 
    time for that purpose.
        The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from New 
    York [Mr. Taber].

During Consideration of Bill Under Special Rule

Sec. 23.12 A motion that the Committee of the Whole rise and report a 
    bill back to the House with the recommendation that it be 
    recommitted to the committee from which reported is not in order if 
    the bill is being considered under a special rule which provides 
    that, after consideration and upon the automatic rising of the 
    Committee of the Whole, the previous question shall be considered 
    as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage.

    On Aug. 10, 1950,(14) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 9176, the Defense Production Act of 1950, under a 
special rule which provided as follows: (15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 96 Cong. Rec. 12219, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
15. See H. Res. 740, 96 Cong. Rec. 11606, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 1, 
        1950.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution 
    it shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into the 
    Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the 
    consideration of the bill (H. R. 9176) to establish a system of 
    priorities and allocations for materials and facilities . . . and 
    for other purposes, and all points of order against said bill are 
    hereby waived. That after general debate, which shall be confined 
    to the bill and continue not to exceed 1 day, to be equally divided 
    and controlled by the

[[Page 3471]]

    chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Banking 
    and Currency, the bill shall be read for amendment under the 5-
    minute rule. It shall be in order to consider without the 
    intervention of any point of order the substitute committee 
    amendment recommended by the Committee on Banking and Currency now 
    in the bill, and such substitute for the purpose of amendment shall 
    be considered under the 5-minute rule as an original bill. At the 
    conclusion of such consideration the committee shall rise and 
    report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
    adopted, and any Member may demand a separate vote in the House on 
    any of the amendments adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
    bid] or committee substitute. The previous question shall be 
    considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final 
    passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit, 
    with or without instructions.

    During the proceedings, Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, made a 
motion that the Committee rise and report the bill back to the House 
with the recommendation that it be recommitted. The Chairman, Howard W. 
Smith, of Virginia, in ruling on a point of order against the motion, 
indicated that the motion was precluded under the terms of the special 
rule. The motion and ruling were as follows:

        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Chairman, I offer a preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Rankin moves that the Committee do now rise and report 
        the bill back to the House with the recommendation that it be 
        recommitted to the Committee on Banking and Currency for 
        further hearings and study.

        Mr. [Wright] Patman [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.

        Mr. Patman: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that this 
    being a straight motion to recommit, without instructions, it is 
    not permissible under the rule under which we are considering the 
    bill in Committee.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. That motion is not in 
    order in Committee of the Whole, and the Chair sustains the point 
    of order.
        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Chairman, it is in order to make a motion that 
    the Committee do now rise and report the bill back to the House 
    with the recommendation that it be recommitted to the Committee on 
    Banking and Currency for further study and hearing.
        The Chairman: In the consideration of this bill the Committee 
    of the Whole is operating under a special rule which lays down the 
    conditions under which the bill is to be considered. The motion of 
    the gentleman from Mississippi is not in order at this time.

    Parliamentarian's Note: An earlier precedent (see 8 Cannon's 
Precedents Sec. 2375) indicated a contrary view. The Chair in that 
instance held that a special rule, whose provisions were not materially 
different from those of House Resolution 740, above, did not de

[[Page 3472]]

prive the Committee of the Whole of the right to report with a 
recommendation to recommit the bill under consideration at the end of 
reading for amendment. The Chair on that occasion, however, incorrectly 
overruled a point of order made by Mr. Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, 
who argued that at the conclusion of the amendment process the 
Committee of the Whole rises automatically under the terms of such a 
special rule and reports the bill to the House with adopted amendments, 
and that a motion to that end is not necessary. The modern practice, as 
shown in the ruling of Chairman Smith, above, is to disallow motions in 
Committee of the Whole that, if adopted, would effectively contravene 
the terms of the special rule that order the previous question on the 
bill and amendments thereto, to final passage at the conclusion of the 
amendment process under the five-minute rule, and that protect the 
motion to recommit, as guaranteed by clause 4 Rule XVI, only after 
amendments are disposed of in the House and pending final passage.

Precedence Over Motion to Strike Enacting Clause

Sec. 23.13 A motion that the Committee of the Whole do now rise takes 
    precedence over a pending motion to rise and report with the 
    recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken out.

    On May 24, 1967,(1) during consideration of H.R. 7819, 
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act Amendments of 1967, Chairman 
Charles M. Price, of Illinois, addressed the question whether the 
motion that the Committee of the Whole rise takes precedence over a 
pending motion to rise and report with the recommendation that the 
enacting clause be stricken out.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 113 Cong. Rec. 13876, 13877, 90th Cong. 1st Sess. See 82 Cong. Rec. 
        1600, 75th Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 15, 1937, for another 
        illustration of this principle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Hays 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 question is on the preferential motion 
    offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hays].
        Mr. [Carl D.] Perkins [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I move that 
    the Committe do now rise.
        The Chairman: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Perkins].

[[Page 3473]]

        Mr. [Paul C.] Jones of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Jones of Missouri: Does not a preferential motion require a 
    vote before the Chair can accept another motion?
        The Chairman: No. A motion to rise takes precedence over any 
    other motion.
        The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from 
    Kentucky [Mr. Perkins].
        Mr. [Leslie C.] Arends [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, on that I 
    demand tellers.
        Tellers were ordered, and the Chairman appointed as tellers Mr. 
    Perkins and Mr. Goodell.
        The Committee divided and the tellers reported that there 
    were--ayes 127, noes 186.
        So the motion was rejected.
        The Chairman: The question is on the preferential motion.
        Mr. Jones of Missouri: Mr. Chairman I demand tellers.
        Tellers were refused.
        The Chairman: The question is on the preferential motion.
        The preferential motion was rejected.

Precedence of Motion to Amend Over Motion to Rise and Report

Sec. 23.14 A motion to amend in the Committee of the Whole takes 
    precedence over a motion to rise and report a bill with 
    recommendations.

    On July 27, 1937,(2) during consideration of H.R. 7730, 
to authorize the President to appoint administrative assistants, 
Chairman Wright Patman, of Texas, ruled on the precedence of a motion 
to amend over a motion to rise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 81 Cong. Rec. 7699, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Robinson of Utah and Mr. Collins rose.
        Mr. [J. W.] Robinson of Utah: Mr. Chairman, I move that the 
    Committee do now rise and report the bill back to the House with 
    the recommendation that the bill do pass.
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the motion that it is not in order at this stage 
    of the proceedings.
        The Chairman: The Chair may state that motions to amend take 
    precedence over a motion that the Committee rise.


 
                               CHAPTER 19
 
                       The Committee of the Whole
 
                F. RISING OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
 
Sec. 24.--Offering the Motion

    A Member with the floor generally yields for debate only, since in 
yielding for a motion or amendment he may lose the floor. The principle 
that a Member may not, in time yielded for debate, make a motion to 
rise is based on the consideration that, if amendments or motions were 
allowed in time yielded for debate, control would shift and the Chair 
would be deprived of his power of recognition.

[[Page 3474]]

The subject of yielding time in debate and what may be accomplished 
during yielded time is taken up in greater detail in the chapter on 
Consideration and Debate, Ch. 29, 
infra.
                          -------------------

During Offering of Amendment

Sec. 24.1 A Member recognized to offer and debate an amendment may, 
    during his five minutes, move that the Committee rise.

    On Nov. 15, 1967,(3) during consideration of S. 2388, 
the Economic Opportunity Act Amendments of 1967, a Member recognized to 
offer and debate an amendment was permitted, during his five minutes, 
to move that the Committee of the Whole rise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 113 Cong. Rec. 32694, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Paul C.] Jones of Missouri:
        Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Jones of Missouri: On page 219 
        strike out all of line 17 through line 24.

        Mr. Jones of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I make a parliamentary 
    inquiry at this time.
        The Chairman: (4) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. John J. Rooney (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Jones of Missouri: Would I be in order to make a motion 
    that the Committee do now rise so that if we could get back into 
    the House I could make a motion to adjourn?
        The Chairman: A motion that the Committee do now rise is a 
    privileged motion.
        Mr. Jones of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee 
    do now rise.
        The Chairman: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from Missouri.
        The motion was rejected.

During Yielded Time

Sec. 24.2 A Member may not in time yielded him for general debate move 
    that the Committee of the Whole rise, nor may a Member who has been 
    yielded time for debate yield to another for that motion. (The 
    Chair was sustained on appeal.)

    On Feb. 22, 1950, Calendar Wednesday,(5) during 
consideration of H.R. 4453, the Federal Fair Employment Practice Act, 
Chairman Francis E. Walter, of Pennsylvania, ruled that a Member could 
not in time yielded to him for general debate move that the Committee 
of the Whole rise. It was also ruled that a Member who had been yielded 
general debate time could not yield to another for that motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 96 Cong. Rec. 2178, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Adam C.] Powell [Jr., of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I yield 
    the

[[Page 3475]]

    minute that the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Kelley] yielded 
    back to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Smith] for debate.
        Mr. [Howard W.] Smith of Virginia: Mr. Chairman, we have been 
    in session for a long time. It is now almost 7 o'clock, and it is 
    obvious this bill cannot be seriously considered and concluded 
    during this session of the House. I think most of the Members are 
    very tired. It is about time we were getting away from here. I 
    think a good many of them are ready to get away.
        Mr. [Franklin D.] Roosevelt [Jr., of New York]: Mr. Chairman, 
    will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: I yield to the gentleman from New York.
        Mr. Roosevelt: I would like to ask the gentleman if he realizes 
    I am feeling very wide awake and I have no desire to leave until we 
    complete the business of the day.
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: The gentleman is a good deal younger 
    than some of us and I congratulate him. I admire him, I like to see 
    him up here jumping around and going on. But I think it is about 
    time we quit. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I move the Committee do now 
    rise.
        Mr. Powell: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Powell: Mr. Chairman, I yielded 1 minute to the gentleman 
    from Virginia only for debate.
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: Mr. Chairman, I ask recognition on my 
    own to offer a preferential motion.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from New York yielded to the 
    gentleman from Virginia for a particular purpose. The motion 
    offered by the gentleman from Virginia is not in order at this 
    time.
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: Mr. Chairman, I now move, on my own 
    time, that the Committee do now rise.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Virginia has no time. The 
    gentleman from New York and the gentleman from Pennsylvania have 
    control of the time.
        Mr. Powell: Mr. Chairman, I now yield 4 minutes to the 
    gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Sims] for debate.
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. [Hugo S.] Sims [Jr., of South Carolina]: I yield to the 
    gentleman from Virginia.
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: Mr. Chairman, having some time of my 
    own, I now move that the Committee do now rise.
        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.

    An appeal was then taken from the ruling of the Chair and the 
ruling was sustained on a teller vote.


 
                               CHAPTER 19
 
                       The Committee of the Whole
 
                F. RISING OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
 
Sec. 25.--Proceedings Subsequent to Action on Motion

Reporting to House

Sec. 25.1 Where the Committee of the Whole votes merely that

[[Page 3476]]

    the Committee rise, the Chairman reports to the House that the 
    Committee has considered a certain bill and has come to no 
    conclusion thereon; he does not under this procedure report the 
    bill with amendments back to the House.

    On Aug. 24, 1949,(6) during consideration of H.R. 6070, 
to amend the National Housing Act, and after agreement to a particular 
amendment, Chairman Mike Mansfield, of Montana, ruled on the procedure 
to be followed in reporting to the House where the Committee of the 
Whole votes to rise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 95 Cong. Rec. 12186, 81st Cong.1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Brent] Spence [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I move that the 
    Committee do now rise.
        Mr. [Jesse P.] Wolcott [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Wolcott: If the Committee rises at the present time will it 
    report the bill back to the House with amendments, or will it 
    report that it has come to no conclusion thereon? What is the 
    situation?
        The Chairman: This is simply a motion that the Committee rise. 
    There are several amendments yet to be offered. . . .
        The Committee again divided, and the tellers reported that 
    there were--ayes 86, noes 83.
        So the motion was agreed to.
        Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore, 
    Mr. Priest, having assumed the chair, Mr. Mansfield, Chairman of 
    the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, 
    reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the 
    bill (H.R. 6070) to amend the National Housing Act, as amended, and 
    for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

Point of No Quorum

Sec. 25.2 A point of order that no quorum is present is not in order 
    after the Committee of the Whole has voted to rise.

    On Mar. 9, 1936,(7) during consideration of H.R. 11563, 
and after the Committee of the Whole had voted to rise, Chairman 
William B. Umstead, of North Carolina, ruled that a point of order that 
a quorum was not present was not in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 80 Cong. Rec. 3459, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
            Note: A quorum is not required on an affirmative vote to 
        rise. The subject of quorums and points of no quorum is treated 
        more fully in Ch. 20. infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas L.] Blanton [of Texas] (interrupting the reading of 
    the bill): Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
        The question was taken.
        Mr. Blanton: Mr. Chairman, I ask for a division.

[[Page 3477]]

        The Committee divided; and there were--ayes 40, noes 33,
        Mr. [Henry] Ellenbogen [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order there is not a quorum present.
        The Chairman: The Chair will count.
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that a point 
    of no quorum is not in order after the Committee has determined to 
    rise.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained. The vote had 
    already been announced.

Division on Amendment After Rejection of Motion

Sec. 25.3 Where a preferential motion that the Committee of the Whole 
    rise is made and rejected subsequent to a demand for a division 
    vote on an amendment, the division is taken after the rejection of 
    the motion that the Committee rise.

    On June 13, 1947,(8) during consideration of H.R. 3342, 
relating to the cultural relations program of the State Department, 
Chairman Thomas A. Jenkins, of Ohio, presiding, a preferential motion 
that the Committee of the Whole rise was made subsequent to a demand 
for a division vote on an amendment. The division vote was taken after 
rejection of the motion to rise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 93 Cong. Rec. 6998, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: . . . The question is on the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Keefe].
        The question was taken; and Mr. Angell demanded a division.
        Mr. [Daniel A.] Reed of New York: Mr. Chairman I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Reed of New York moves that the Committee do now rise.

        The Chairman: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from New York.
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Rayburn) there were--ayes 93, noes, 95.
        Mr. Reed of New York: Mr. Chairman, I demand tellers.
        Tellers were ordered, and the Chairman appointed as tellers Mr. 
    Mundt and Mr. Reed of New York.
        The Committee again divided; and the tellers reported that 
    there were--ayes 101, noes 110.
        So the motion was rejected.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that before the motion was 
    made that the Committee do now rise the question was being taken on 
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Keefe]. 
    There was a voice vote and then a division was requested.
        Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.

[[Page 3478]]

        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. McCormack: The Chair had stated that a standing vote had 
    been requested, but I think the Chair failed to state that the 
    Chair announced the ``ayes'' had it on the voice vote.
        The Chairman: No. No announcement was made on the division. The 
    preferential motion intervened.
        The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Wisconsin [Mr. Keefe].
        The question was taken; and on a division there were--ayes 145, 
    noes 1.

Resolving Back Into Committee After Reporting a Quorum

Sec. 25.4 Under the former practice, where the Committee of the Whole 
    rose and the Chairman reported to the House that, pursuant to House 
    rule,(9) he had caused the roll to be called in the 
    Committee to establish the presence of a quorum, the House 
    automatically resolved back into the Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Rule XXIII clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 863 (1973).
            Note: Clause 2 of Rule XXIII was amended in the 96th 
        Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 15, 1979) to permit the Committee to 
        continue its business following the appearance of a quorum so 
        that the Speaker need not take the chair to receive the 
        Committee's report of absentees. Prior to the adoption of this 
        change in the rules, the Committee of the Whole followed the 
        procedure indicated above. Under the new rule, the Committee 
        would still rise if a quorum of the Committee failed to appear. 
        Rule XXIII clause 2(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 863 (1979). 
        The subject of quorums is discussed more fully in Ch. 20, 
        infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Apr. 21, 1969,(10) the House automatically resolved 
into the Committee of the Whole where the Committee rose and the 
Chairman reported to the House that, pursuant to Rule XXIII clause 2, 
he caused the roll to be called in Committee, thereby establishing the 
presence of a quorum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 115 Cong. Rec. 9705, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Frank E.] Evans of Colorado: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that a quorum is not present.
        The Chairman: (11) The Chair will count.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Forty Members are present, not a quorum. The Clerk will call 
    the roll.
        The Clerk called the roll, and the following Members failed to 
    answer to their names: . . .
        Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed 
    the chair, Mr. Price of Illinois, Chairman of the Committee of the 
    Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that 
    Committee, having had under consideration the bill H.R. 514, and 
    finding itself without a quorum, he had directed the roll to be 
    called, when 325

[[Page 3479]]

    Members responded to their names, a quorum, and he submitted 
    herewith the names of the absentees to be spread upon the Journal.
        The Committee resumed its sitting.

On Calendar Wednesday

Sec. 25.5 On Calendar Wednesday, if the Committee of the Whole during 
    consideration of a bill votes to rise, and the House then rejects a 
    motion to adjourn, Calendar Wednesday business is still before the 
    House; and if the chairman of the committee having the call calls 
    up the same bill, the House automatically resolves itself into the 
    Committee of the Whole and continues consideration of that bill.

    On Feb. 22, 1950, Calendar Wednesday,(12) during 
consideration of H. R. 4453, the Federal Fair Employment Practice Act, 
Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, presiding, the Committee of the Whole 
voted to rise; thereafter, the House rejected a motion to adjourn. The 
Speaker indicated that the chairman of the committee having the call 
could call up the same bill, and, if so, that the House would 
automatically resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole to 
continue consideration thereof.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 96 Cong. Rec. 2238-40, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Paul W.] Shafer [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    preferential motion. I move that the Committee do now rise.
        The Chairman: (1~3~) The question is on the motion 
    offered by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Shafer].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Francis F. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Adam C.] Powell [Jr., of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry. Has any business been transacted in 
    connection with the bill?
        The Chairman: That is immaterial. The motion is in order at 
    this time.
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Shafer) there were--ayes 142, noes 164.
        Mr. Shafer: Mr. Chairman, I demand tellers.
        Tellers were ordered, and the Chair appointed as tellers Mr. 
    Shafer and Mr. Powell.
        The Committee again divided, and tellers reported that there 
    were--ayes 172, noes 165.
        So the motion was agreed to.
        Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed 
    the chair, Mr. Walter, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House 
    on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had 
    under consideration the bill (H.R. 4453) to prohibit discrimination 
    in employment because of race, color, religion, or national origin, 
    had come to no resolution thereon.
        Mr. [Howard W.] Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, I move that the 
    House do now adjourn.
        Mr. Marcantonio and Mr. Biemiller demanded the yeas and nays.

[[Page 3480]]

        Mr. [Oren] Harris [of Arkansas]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Harris: As I understand, the roll call now is on the motion 
    to adjourn.
        The Speaker: That is correct.
        Mr. Harris: If the motion to adjourn is not agreed to, then 
    what will be the parliamentary situation?
        The Speaker: It will be Calendar Wednesday business.
        Mr. Harris: A further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Harris: Do we automatically then go back into Committee?
        The Speaker: If the gentleman from Michigan calls the bill up 
    again, yes.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 165, nays 239, 
    answered ``present'' 1, not voting 26, as follows: . . .
        Mr. [John] Lesinski [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of 
    the Committee on Education and Labor I call up the bill H.R. 4453.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the title of the bill.

        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, I raise the question of 
    consideration of the bill.
        The Speaker: The question is, Will the House consider the bill?
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas 
    and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 271, nays 133, not 
    voting 27, as follows: . . .
        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
        The Speaker: The House automatically resolves itself into the 
    Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the 
    consideration of the bill.
        Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
    Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
    bill (H.R. 4453) to prohibit discrimination in employment because 
    of race, color, religion, or national origin, with Mr. Walter in 
    the chair.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.

    Parliamentarian's Note: On this Calendar Wednesday, because of 
numerous roll calls and motions, the House stayed in session until 3:19 
a.m. Thursday morning, when the reading of the engrossed copy was 
demanded. The House then adjourned and met at noon Thursday to read the 
engrossed copy and pass the bill.

Vacating Vote to Rise

Sec. 25.6 A Committee of the Whole may by unanimous consent vacate the 
    proceedings by which it has voted to rise.

    On Feb. 5, 1936,(14) during consideration of H.R. 10919, 
the Departments of the Treasury and Post Office appropriations bill, 
Chairman Arthur H. Greenwood,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 80 Cong. Rec. 1534, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3481]]

of Indiana, stated that the Committee of the Whole could by unanimous 
consent vacate the proceedings by which it had voted to rise.

        Mr. [Louis] Ludlow [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, I move that the 
    Committee do now rise.
        The motion was agreed to.
        Mr. Ludlow: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Ludlow: May I ask what is the status of the Committee now?
        The Chairman: We are waiting for the Speaker to arrive to 
    report that the Committee has determined to rise.
        Mr. Ludlow: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
    proceedings by which the Committee determined to rise be vacated.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Indiana?
        There was no objection.
        Mr. Ludlow: Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
    from Iowa [Mr. Wearin].


 
                               CHAPTER 19
 
                       The Committee of the Whole
 
                F. RISING OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
 
Sec. 26. Resumption of Business After Committee Resumes Sitting

Continuation of Debate When Committee Resumes Business After Rising

Sec. 26.1 Where the period of 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.

    On June 16, 1948,(15) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 6401, the Selective Service Act of 1948, under 
Chairman Francis H. Case, of South Dakota. Time for debate had been 
fixed on an amendment by the Committee, but a motion to rise was 
offered before the time had expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 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. . . .
        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.

[[Page 3482]]

        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.

Resumption of Consideration After House Refusal to Strike Enacting 
    Clause

Sec. 26.2 When a recommendation of the Committee of the Whole that the 
    enacting clause of a bill be stricken is rejected by the House, the 
    House, without motion, resolves itself into the Committee of the 
    Whole for further consideration of the bill.

    On May 18, 1960,(16) during consideration of H.R. 5, the 
Foreign Investment Incentive Tax Act of 1960, the House without motion 
resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole for further 
consideration of the bill after rejecting a Committee recommendation to 
strike out the enacting clause.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 106 Cong. Rec. 10577-79, 86th Cong. 2d Sess. See also, for example, 
        113 Cong. Rec. 8611, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 6, 1967 (H.R. 
        2512, revision of copyright laws); 111 Cong. Rec. 25418, 89th 
        Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 29, 1965 (H.R. 4644, providing home rule 
        for the District of Columbia); and 108 Cong. Rec. 22363, 87th 
        Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 4, 1962 (S. 1123, amending the Fair Labor 
        Standards Act), for other illustrations of this principle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

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

        The Chairman: (17) . . . The question is on the 
    preferential motion offered by the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Gross].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Gross) there were--ayes 101, noes 93.
        Mr. [Hale] Boggs [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I ask for 
    tellers.
        Tellers were ordered, and the Chairman appointed as tellers Mr. 
    Boggs and Mr. Gross.
        The Committee again divided, and the tellers reported there 
    were--ayes 107, noes 101.
        So the motion was agreed to.
        The Chairman: The Committee will rise.
        Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed 
    the chair, Mr. Natcher, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole 
    House on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee, 
    having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 5) to amend the 
    Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to encourage private investment 
    abroad and thereby promote American industry and reduce Government 
    expenditures for foreign economic assistance, had di

[[Page 3483]]

    rected him to report the bill back to the House with the 
    recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken out.
        The Speaker: (18) The question is, Shall the 
    enacting clause be stricken out?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Boggs: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The question was taken and there were--yeas 160, nays 232, not 
    voting 40. . . .
        So the enacting clause was not stricken out. . . .
        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
        The Committee resumed its sitting.
        Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of 
    the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further 
    consideration of the bill H.R. 5.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        The Chairman: When the Committee rose, there was pending the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Boggs] to 
    the Committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. The 
    gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Boggs] had consumed 5 minutes in 
    support of the amendment.

Resumption of Proceedings on Teller Vote

Sec. 26.3 Where a demand for tellers on a vote in the Committee of the 
    Whole is displaced by a motion to rise before the demand for 
    tellers is seconded, the question on ordering tellers is regarded 
    as pending and is first disposed of when the Committee resumes its 
    session.

    On Mar. 9, 1935,(19) a demand for tellers had been 
displaced by a motion to rise during consideration of H.R. 6021. 
Chairman Emanuel Celler, of New York, stated that the question on 
ordering tellers would be regarded as pending and disposed of first 
after resumption of business in the Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 79 Cong. Rec. 3315, 3316, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Wolcott], which the Clerk will again 
    report.
        The Clerk read the Wolcott amendment.
        The question was taken; and the Chair being in doubt, the 
    Committee divided, and there were--ayes 118, noes 89.
        Mr. [Franklin W.] Hancock of North Carolina: Mr. Chairman. I 
    demand tellers.
        Mr. [John J.] O'Connor [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I move that 
    the Committee do now rise.
        Mr. [Thomas L.] Blanton [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, if the 
    Committee determines to rise, the request for tellers will be 
    considered as pending?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.

[[Page 3484]]

Sec. 26.4 Under the former practice, it was held that where a point of 
    no quorum was made in the Committee of the Whole and the roll was 
    called while a demand for a teller vote on an amendment was 
    pending, the question of ordering tellers was put immediately after 
    the Committee resumed its sitting.

    On May 10, 1946,(20) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering amendments to H.R. 6335, the Department of the Interior 
appropriation, 1947, Chairman Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, presiding. A 
point of no quorum was made and the roll was called while a demand for 
a teller vote on an amendment was pending. The question on ordering 
tellers was put immediately after the Committee obtained a quorum and 
resumed its sitting. The Chairman indicated that the demand for tellers 
was not precluded by a prior division vote agreeing to the amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 92 Cong. Rec. 4840, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment to the 
    amendment.
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Rooney) there were--ayes 41, noes 29.
        Mr. [Jed] Johnson of Oklahoma:
        Mr. Chairman, I demand tellers.
        Mr. [Frank B.] Keefe [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that a quorum is not present.
        The Chairman: The Chair will count. [After counting.] Eighty-
    seven Members are present, not a quorum.
        The Clerk will call the roll.
        The Clerk called the roll. . . .
        Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed 
    the chair, Mr. Cooper, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House 
    on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee having had 
    under consideration the bill H.R. 6335, and finding itself without 
    a quorum, he had directed the roll to be called, when 313 Members 
    responded to their names, a quorum, and he submitted herewith the 
    names of the absentees to be spread upon the Journal.
        The Speaker: (1) The Committee will resume its 
    sitting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: The gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Johnson] demands 
    tellers on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Idaho [Mr. 
    Dworshak] to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Utah [Mr. 
    Robertson].
        Mr. [Walter K.] Granger [of Utah]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it
        Mr. Granger: As I understood the situation when the quorum was 
    called, the Chair had already announced that the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from Idaho to the amendment had been agreed to; 
    and the request comes too late.
        The Chairman: The Chair had announced that on a division the 
    amend

[[Page 3485]]

    ment to the amendment had been agreed to. Thereupon, the gentleman 
    from Oklahoma [Mr. Johnson] demanded tellers. At that point a point 
    of order was made that a quorum was not present.
        The gentleman's demand for tellers is now pending.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Clause 2 of Rule XXIII was amended in the 
96th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 15, 1979) to permit the Committee to 
continue its business following the appearance of a quorum so that the 
Speaker need not take the chair to receive the Committee's report of 
absentees. Prior to the adoption of this change in the rules, the 
Committee of the Whole followed the procedure indicated above. Under 
the new rule, the Committee would still rise if a quorum of the 
Committee failed to appear. Rule XXIII clause 2(a), House Rules and 
Manual Sec. 863 (1979). The subject of quorums is discussed more fully 
in Ch. 20, infra

Sec. 26.5 Where the Committee of the Whole has ordered tellers on an 
    amendment and then rises, the order for tellers is pending and can 
    be vacated and the vote taken de novo only by unanimous consent 
    when the Committee again resumes consideration of the matter.

    On July 2, 1947,(2) the Committee of the Whole resumed 
consideration from the previous day of amendments to H.R. 4002, the War 
Department civil functions appropriations bill, 1948. Chairman Earl C. 
Michener, of Michigan, stated that on the previous day the Committee of 
the Whole had ordered tellers on an amendment and then had risen. The 
Chairman ruled that the order for tellers could be vacated and the vote 
taken de novo only by unanimous consent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 93 Cong. Rec. 8136, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: . . . When the Committee rose yesterday, the so-
    called Rankin amendment was pending. A voice vote had been taken. 
    Tellers were demanded and ordered.
        Without objection the Clerk will again read the so-called 
    Rankin amendment.
        There was no objection.
        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Chairman, is it not in order to vacate or 
    disregard the standing vote and take the standing or voice vote 
    again?
        The Chairman: Tellers have already been ordered.
        Mr. Rankin: I understand that, Mr. Chairman, but I believe that 
    where a vote is not completed on one day it is

[[Page 3486]]

    taken again when the question again comes up for consideration.
        The Chairman: The gentleman's inquiry is: Can the order for 
    tellers be vacated, and the Committee proceed de novo on the 
    amendment? That can be done by unanimous consent.
        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that that be 
    done.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Mississippi asks unanimous 
    consent that the proceedings on the vote on the Rankin amendment 
    when the Committee was last in session be vacated and that the vote 
    be taken de novo. Is there objection?
        Mr. [Albert J.] Engel of Michigan: I object, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will again report the amendment.
