[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 9, Chapter 27]
[Chapter 27. Amendments]
[B. When To Offer Amendment; Reading For Amendment]
[Â§ 14. Effect of Previous Question; Expiration of Time for Debate]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 6888-6904]
 
                               CHAPTER 27
 
                               Amendments
 
           B. WHEN TO OFFER AMENDMENT; READING FOR AMENDMENT
 
Sec. 14. Effect of Previous Question; Expiration of Time for Debate

Amendments Cut Off by Previous Question

Sec. 14.1 The demand for the previous question cuts off further 
    amendments unless the previous question is rejected.

    On June 12, 1961,(3) during consideration, in the House 
as in Committee of the Whole, of a bill (4) relating to 
admission of certain evidence in the District of Columbia courts, the 
following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 107 Cong. Rec. 10080, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
            For further application of the principle that a resolution 
        before the House is subject to amendment if the motion for the 
        previous question is voted down, see 95 Cong. Rec. 10, 81st 
        Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 3, 1949.
 4. H.R. 7053 (Committee on the District of Columbia).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John L.] McMillan [of South Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, I move 
    the previous question. . . .
        Mr. [William C.] Cramer [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, I have 
    previously announced I would offer an amend

[[Page 6889]]

    ment to make it applicable nationwide in conformance with a bill 
    reported by the Committee on the Judiciary. Could the Chair advise 
    me as to when and if such an amendment is in order and under what 
    circumstances?

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (5) The Chair will state 
    that the amendment can be offered only if the previous question is 
    voted down.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. W. Homer Thornberry (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 14.2 An amendment to the body of a resolution reported by the 
    Committee on Rules should be offered before the previous question 
    is moved.

    On Feb. 28, 1949,(6) the House having under 
consideration a resolution reported by the Committee on Rules which 
contained authority to spend money from the contingent fund of the 
House, a matter within the jurisdiction of the Committee on House 
Administration, struck out such authority by an amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 95 Cong. Rec. 1617, 1619, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John E.] Lyle [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I call up 
    House Resolution 44 and ask for its immediate consideration. . . .

            Resolved, That the Committee on Merchant Marine and 
        Fisheries or any duly authorized subcommittee thereof is 
        authorized to make a full and complete study. . . .

        Mr. Lyle: At what time would an amendment be proper? Now, or 
    after the previous question has been ordered?
        The Speaker: (7) An amendment to the body of the 
    resolution should be offered now.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Lyle: I offer an amendment, Mr. Speaker, which I send to 
    the desk.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Lyle:
            On page 3, line 6, after the word ``oaths'' and the 
        semicolon, insert the word ``and.''
            On page 3, line 7, after the word ``testimony'', strike out 
        the semicolon and the words ``and to make such expenditures as 
        it deems advisable.''
            Page 3, line 8, after the word ``advisable'', strike out 
        the period and the remainder of the paragraph down to and 
        including the word ``administration'' in line 14.

        The Speaker: The question is on agreeing to the amendments.
        The amendments were agreed to.
        The Speaker: The question is on agreeing to the resolution as 
    amended.
        The resolution as amended was agreed to.
        Mr. Lyle: Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Lyle: Page 1, strike out the 
        preamble of the resolution.

        The amendment was agreed to.

Sec. 14.3 Where the previous question is ordered in the House on a 
    pending resolution and the amendment thereto, the vote immediately 
    recurs on the adoption of the

[[Page 6890]]

    resolution after the disposition of the amendment, and no 
    intervening amendment is in order.

    On Jan. 3, 1969,(8) during consideration of a resolution 
(9) authorizing Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, 
to administer the oath of office to Adam Clayton Powell, of New York, 
the following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 115 Cong. Rec. 27-29, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
 9. H. Res. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clark] MacGregor [of Minnesota]: . . . Mr. Speaker, I now 
    move the previous question on the amendment and the resolution.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Minnesota moves the previous 
    question on the amendment and the resolution. The question is on 
    ordering the previous question.
        The previous question was ordered.
        The Speaker: The question is on the substitute amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. MacGregor). . . .
        So the substitute amendment was rejected. . . .
        The Speaker: The question recurs on the adoption of the 
    resolution offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Celler).
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker . . . I have a 
    substitute at the Clerk's desk.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the previous question 
    has been ordered not only on the amendment but also on the 
    resolution. Therefore, a substitute is not in order at this time.
        The question is on the resolution offered by the gentleman from 
    New York (Mr. Celler).

Effect of Previous Question on Amendments to Motion To Recommit

Sec. 14.4 A straight motion to recommit a bill is not amendable unless 
    the previous question is voted down on that motion.

    On Feb. 5, 1974,(10) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 120 Cong. Rec. 2079-81, 93d Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 11221, amending the Federal Deposit Insurance Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (11) The Clerk will report the motion 
    to recommit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Blackburn moves to recommit the bill H.R. 11221 to the 
        Committee on Banking and Currency.

        Mr. [Robert G.] Stephens [Jr., of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Stephens: Mr. Speaker, is a straight motion to recommit 
    amendable?
        The Speaker: Not when the previous question is ordered. If the 
    previous question is ordered, it is not amendable.
        Mr. Stephens: In other words, in order to give me a chance, we 
    will have to vote down the previous question. . . .

[[Page 6891]]

        The Speaker: The question is on ordering the previous question. 
    . . .
        A recorded vote was ordered.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 
    11, noes 259, answered ``present'' 24, not voting 24. . . .
        Mr. [Thomas L.] Ashley [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I offer an 
    amendment to the motion to recommit. . . .
        The Speaker: . . . The Clerk will report the amendment to the 
    motion to recommit.

Reconsideration of Vote Whereby Previous Question Was Ordered

Sec. 14.5 Where the previous question had been ordered on a resolution 
    creating an investigating committee, the vote whereby the previous 
    question was ordered was reconsidered and the motion for the 
    previous question rejected, so that the Member in charge could 
    yield to another for the purpose of offering an amendment to the 
    resolution.

    On Mar. 27, 1945,(12) during consideration of House 
Resolution 195, creating a select committee to investigate supplies and 
shortages of food, the previous question was moved on the resolution:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See 91 Cong. Rec. 2861, 2862, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (13) The unfinished business is the 
    further consideration of House Resolution 195, on which there are 2 
    minutes of debate remaining.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Cox).
        Mr. [Edward E.] Cox: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question 
    on the resolution.
        The previous question was ordered.
        The Speaker: The question is on the resolution.
        The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the 
    ``ayes'' appeared to have it.
        Mr. [John W.] Flannagan [Jr., of Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    demand a division.
        Mr. Cox: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to vacate the 
    proceedings by which the previous question was ordered.
        Mr. Flannagan: I object, Mr. Speaker.
        Mr. [Frank B.] Keefe [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Keefe: Mr. Speaker, this scenery is moving so fast here I 
    just do not understand the procedure. As I understand, we had under 
    consideration a resolution from the Committee on Rules and there 
    were 2 minutes of debate remaining. I had a very distinct 
    understanding yesterday with the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. 
    Anderson], and with the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Cox], that 
    before this resolution was voted on an amendment to the resolution 
    would be offered, and that the gentleman from Georgia would yield 
    for the purpose of offering that amendment.
        Mr. Cox: The gentleman is correct.

[[Page 6892]]

        Mr. Keefe: Mr. Speaker, I should hesitate very much to see this 
    thing move so very rapidly before that agreement is consummated. . 
    . .
        Mr. Speaker, may I ask what the situation is which now 
    confronts us?
        The Speaker: The situation at present is that the previous 
    question has been ordered on the resolution.
        Mr. Keefe: Then, in view of that situation, if the gentleman 
    from Georgia, in charge of the resolution, yields, is the 
    resolution subject to amendment?
        The Speaker: The gentleman does not have the right to yield 
    since the previous question has been ordered.
        Mr. Anderson of New Mexico: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Anderson of New Mexico: Mr. Speaker, if the previous 
    question is voted down, will the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Cox] 
    then have the right to yield to me for the purpose of offering an 
    amendment?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the previous question 
    has already been ordered. The motion for the previous question 
    offered by the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Cox] has already been 
    agreed to.
        Mr. Cox: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House reconsider the vote 
    by which the previous question was ordered. I am compelled to make 
    that motion because of the agreement that the gentleman from 
    Wisconsin [Mr. Keefe] has stated was made between himself and the 
    gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Anderson]. . . .
        The Speaker: That question has not been decided.
        A motion to reconsider is in order and the Chair must recognize 
    the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Cox] who made the motion to 
    reconsider the vote by which the previous question was ordered, 
    which the Chair has done.
        Mr. Flannagan: Mr. Speaker, is such a motion in order after the 
    vote on the resolution has been ordered?
        The Speaker: Certainly, at any time.
        Mr. [Earl C.] Michener [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as 
    a misunderstanding has evidently occurred, I ask unanimous consent 
    that all proceedings beyond the motion for the previous question be 
    vacated and that the question on ordering the previous question 
    again be put by the Speaker.
        Mr. Flannagan: Mr. Speaker, I object. . . .
        The Speaker: The question is on the motion of the gentleman 
    from Georgia [Mr. Cox] to reconsider the vote by which the previous 
    question was ordered.
        The motion was agreed to.
        The Speaker: The question is on ordering the previous question.
        The motion for the previous question was rejected.
        Mr. Anderson of New Mexico: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman 
    from Georgia [Mr. Cox] yield?
        Mr. Cox: Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico 
    [Mr. Anderson].
        Mr. Michener: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for a 
    parliamentary inquiry?
        Mr. Anderson of New Mexico: I yield.
        Mr. Michener: Mr. Speaker, the acting chairman of the Committee 
    on Rules having yielded for the offering of an amendment, as I 
    understand the

[[Page 6893]]

    rule, the gentleman from New Mexico now has 1 hour, and the 
    gentleman from Georgia has lost the floor.
        The Speaker: The gentleman is correct.

Amendment Offered and Previous Question Moved on Amendment and 
    Resolution

Sec. 14.6 Where a member of the Committee on Rules calling up a 
    resolution reported by that committee offered an amendment after 
    debate on the resolution had concluded, and then immediately moved 
    the previous question on the amendment and the resolution, the 
    Speaker ruled that the amendment was proper, but indicated that the 
    amendment would be debatable only if the previous question were 
    rejected.

    On Mar. 11, 1941,(14) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 87 Cong. Rec. 2182, 2189, 77th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration 
        was H. Res. 120, relating to an investigation of national 
        defense.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Edward E.] Cox [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, I call up House 
    Resolution 120, which I send to the desk and ask to have read. . . 
    .
        Mr. Speaker, I have stated that the language proposed by the 
    gentleman from New York [Mr. Wadsworth] is an improvement to this 
    bill, and I offer it as an amendment to the bill, and Mr. Speaker, 
    I move the previous question on the amendment and the resolution.
        Mr. [Andrew J.] May [of Kentucky]: Mr. Speaker, I make the 
    point of order that the resolution is not subject to amendment 
    until the previous question has been disposed of. . . .
        The Speaker: (15) It is in order for the gentleman 
    from Georgia [Mr. Cox] to offer the amendment. The Clerk will 
    report the amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Cox: On page 2, line 20, after 
        section 2, strike out section 3 and insert the following:
            ``Sec. 3. The committee may withhold from publication such 
        information obtained by it as in its judgment should be 
        withheld in the public interest.''

        The Speaker: The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Cox] moves the 
    previous question on the amendment and the resolution.
        Mr. May: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. May: Mr. Speaker, I desire to inquire whether or not the 
    amendment as offered is debatable before the previous question is 
    voted upon.
        The Speaker: The previous question has been moved. If the 
    previous question is voted down, the amendment would be subject to 
    debate.

Sec. 14.7 When an amendment is offered to a pending resolution and the 
    previous ques

[[Page 6894]]

    tion is immediately moved on the resolution and on the amendment, 
    the 40 minutes of debate under clause 3 of Rule XXVII 
    (16) does not apply if the main question has been 
    debated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. House Rules and Manual Sec. 907 (101st Cong.). The rule provides 
        for 40 minutes of debate when the previous question has been 
        ordered ``on any proposition on which there has been no 
        debate.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    See Sec. 14.6, supra, wherein the Chair did not allow debate on an 
amendment on which the previous question had been moved.

Amendment to Motion To Refer Presidential Message

Sec. 14.8 An amendment to a motion to refer a message of the President 
    to a committee is in order only when the motion for the previous 
    question is rejected or the Member making the original motion 
    yields for that purpose.

    On June 3, 1937,(17) he following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 81 Cong. Rec.  5297, 5298, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William M.] Whittington [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    move that the message of the President be referred to the Committee 
    on Flood Control and ordered to be printed. . . .
        Mr. [Joseph J.] Mansfield [of Texas]: Would it be in order for 
    me as chairman of the Committee on Rivers and Harbors to move, as a 
    substitute for the motion of the gentleman from Mississippi, that 
    the message be referred to the Committee on Rivers and Harbors? . . 
    .
        The Speaker: (18) The gentleman from Texas propounds 
    a parliamentary inquiry to the Chair as to whether the gentleman 
    would be entitled to offer as a substitute for the motion made by 
    the gentleman from Mississippi a motion to refer the President's 
    message to the Committee on Rivers and Harbors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair, anticipating that this question might arise, has 
    looked rather fully into the precedents in reference thereto and 
    finds that on April 4, 1933, when Mr. Rainey was Speaker of the 
    House, this identical proposition was presented.
        At that time it will be recalled that a bill was pending with 
    reference to the refinancing of farm-mortgage indebtedness. Two 
    committees claimed jurisdiction of the subject matter of that bill, 
    the Committee on Banking and Currency and the Committee on 
    Agriculture.
        When the President's message was read the chairman of the 
    Committee on Agriculture, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Jones], 
    moved that the President's message be referred to the Committee on 
    Agriculture. Thereupon the specific inquiry now propounded by the 
    gentleman from Texas [Mr. Mansfield] was made.
        The Chair reads the query and the answer of the Speaker:

            Mr. Steagall: Mr. Speaker, I desire at the proper time to 
        submit a

[[Page 6895]]

        substitute motion that the message be referred to the Committee 
        on Banking and Currency.

        Mr. Jones said:

            Mr. Speaker, I do not yield for that purpose.

        The Speaker stated:

            The gentleman from Texas does not yield. It is necessary to 
        vote down the previous question before that motion will be in 
        order.

        The gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Whittington] is entitled to 
    1 hour, and the Chair understands he has perfected an arrangement 
    with the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Mansfield] by which he will 
    yield to the gentleman from Texas one-half of that time. At the 
    conclusion of the debate of 1 hour the Chair assumes the gentleman 
    from Mississippi will move the previous question on the motion 
    referring the message to the Committee on Flood Control. If the 
    previous question should be voted down, then the gentleman from 
    Texas [Mr. Mansfield] would have the right and privilege of 
    offering an amendment to the motion to refer the message.

Amendments Offered After Expiration of All Debate Time

Sec. 14.9 In the Committee of the Whole, where all time for debate on a 
    section of a bill and amendments thereto has expired, amendments 
    may still be offered to the section but are voted on without 
    debate, except in certain cases where a Member has caused an 
    amendment to be printed in the Record (19) pursuant to 
    the House rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See Rule XXIII clause 6, House Rules and Manual Sec. 874 (101st 
        Cong.), permitting 10 minutes debate on an amendment which has 
        been printed in the Congressional Record even though debate has 
        been closed by the Committee of the Whole. The same rule 
        provides for amendments to be offered without debate even after 
        the Committee of the Whole has voted to close debate on a 
        section or paragraph, or amendments thereto, of a bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Mar. 26, 1965,(20) before clause 6 of Rule XXIII was 
amended as noted above, the following proceedings took place during 
consideration of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
1965.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 111 Cong. Rec.  6097, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
 1. H.R. 2362.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles E.] Goodell [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows: . . .
        Mr. [James C.] Cleveland [of New Hampshire]: May I have an 
    explanation of the amendment just read? Is there any way I can have 
    it explained?
        The Chairman: (2) All debate has been closed, by 
    order of the Committee, on this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Cleveland: No matter what the amendment is, all debate is 
    closed off?
        The Chairman: The gentleman must be aware of the rules with 
    respect to this.

[[Page 6896]]

    On Nov. 15, 1967,(3) in another application of the 
principle, the Chairman (4) responded to an inquiry as to 
the effect of an order extending the time fixed for debate and 
allocating such extra time to specified Members. The proceedings were 
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 113 Cong. Rec. 32691-94, 90th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration 
        was S. 2388 (Committee on Labor and Public Welfare).
 4. John J. Rooney (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Carl] Albert [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent that the order limiting the time to 8:05 p.m. be vacated 
    and that all time on this section be closed at 8:45 p.m.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Oklahoma?
        There was no objection. . . .
        Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: Under the unanimous-consent 
    request of the gentleman from Oklahoma, the previous order was 
    vacated. Does that mean the allocation of time under that was also 
    vacated?
        The Chairman: Yes. The Chair then allocated the additional 30 
    minutes among the Members on the list he had before him. . . .
        Mr. [Albert H.] Quie [of Minnesota]: If a Member has an 
    amendment at the desk but his name is not on the list, he will not 
    be precluded from offering his amendment; is that correct?
        The Chairman: No. There is no question about that. If a 
    Member's name is not on the list, he will not have any time, but 
    his amendment will be voted on.

Sec. 14.10 The expiration of a limitation on debate under the five-
    minute rule in Committee of the Whole does not prohibit the 
    offering of further amendments, but such amendments are not subject 
    to debate (if not printed in the Congressional Record).

    On June 14, 1979,(5) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 4388,(6) the above-stated 
proposition was illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 125 Cong. Rec. 14993, 14994, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
 6. The Energy and Water Development Appropriation Bill for fiscal year 
        1980.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment, as amended. . . .
        Mr. [Tom] Bevill [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, on the amendment, 
    as amended, I ask for a rollcall vote.
        The Chairman: (7) The Chair has not yet put the 
    question on the amendment, as amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Philip R. Sharp (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bevill: I ask for a vote then.
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I happen to have an amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute.
        The Chairman: The Chair had recognized the gentleman from 
    Michigan and asked him for what purpose he sought recognition. The 
    gentleman indicated that he had an amendment.
        Mr. [Mike] McCormack [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.

[[Page 6897]]

        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. McCormack: Mr. Chairman, when the gentleman from Alabama, 
    the chairman of the subcommittee, requested an agreement to end 
    debate, there was no objection on the amendment and amendments 
    thereto. At that point the vote was put.
        I suggest to the Chair that it is in order now to vote on the 
    amendment.
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment I desire to 
    offer as a substitute at this time.
        The Chairman: The Chair will indicate to the gentleman from 
    Washington that we are operating under a time limit; however, that 
    does not exclude the possibility of offering an amendment as a 
    substitute, though no debate will be in order in the absence of a 
    unanimous-consent request.
        Therefore, the Clerk will read the amendment.

Sec. 14.11 While a perfecting amendment may be offered pending a motion 
    to strike out a title, it is not debatable, except by unanimous 
    consent, if offered after expiration of all debate time under a 
    limitation unless printed in the Record.

    On July 29, 1983,(8) during consideration of H.R. 2957 
(9) in the Committee of the Whole, debate had been 
terminated by motion on the bill and all amendments thereto. Only 
amendments protected by Rule XXIII clause 6 were still subject debate 
under the five-minute rule. An amendment was offered, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 129 Cong. Rec. 21678, 21679, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
 9. International Monetary Fund Authorization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William N.] Patman [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: (10) Is the amendment printed in the 
    Record?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Donald J. Pease (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Patman: Yes, it is.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Patman: Strike line 13 on page 18 
        and all that follows through line 8 on page 28. . . .

        Mr. [Henry B.] Gonzalez [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    perfecting amendment to title III at the desk which I offer.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Perfecting amendment offered by Mr. Gonzalez: On line 18, 
        page 19, strike out ``6,310.8 million Special Drawing Right'' 
        and insert in lieu thereof ``1,750 million Special Drawing 
        Rights''. . . .

        Mr. Gonzalez: Mr. Chairman, this is a perfecting amendment to 
    the Patman amendment which strikes title III.
        The Chairman: The Chair would inquire of the gentleman from 
    Texas whether this perfecting amendment has been printed in the 
    Record.
        Mr. Gonzalez: No, Mr. Chairman, it has not been printed in the 
    Record.
        Mr. [Fernand J.] St Germain [of Rhode Island]: I have a point 
    of order,

[[Page 6898]]

    Mr. Chairman. I think that the amendment is not in order.
        The Chairman: The Chair would state that the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gonzalez] is a perfecting 
    amendment to title III. As such, it takes precedence over a motion 
    to strike. It is in order. . . .
        Mr. [Ed] Bethune [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, is it not the 
    case that when a Member offers a perfecting amendment to an 
    amendment such as is the case before us now, he should be 
    recognized for 5 minutes to explain his amendment?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the rules do not 
    provide for any debate after a limitation of time on any amendment 
    which has not been previously printed in the Record.
        Mr. Gonzalez: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I may 
    be permitted to explain my amendment.
        Mr. [Doug] Barnard Jr., [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I object.

Adoption of Motion Closing Debate

Sec. 14.12 Pursuant to House rules,(11) amendments not 
    printed in the Record may be offered to a bill and voted on without 
    debate, although all five-minute debate on the bill has been closed 
    by motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Rule XXIII clause 6, House Rules and Manual Sec. 874 (101st Cong.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Aug. 3, 1972,(12) n inquiry arose regarding the 
effect of a motion to limit debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 118 Cong. Rec. 26622, 92d Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 15989 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (13) As the Chair 
    understands the motion, the gentleman from Texas moves that all 
    debate on this bill cease in 10 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Sam M. Gibbons (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Wright] Patman [of Texas]: That is correct.
        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Yates: Does that mean that all Members will be precluded 
    from offering amendments after the expiration of the 10 minutes?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: No; the Members just have 10 minutes 
    in which to complete the debate.

Rejection of Motion To Strike Enacting Clause

Sec. 14.13 Rejection by the Committee of the Whole or by the House of a 
    preferential motion to recommend striking, or to strike, the 
    enacting clause, permits the offering of proper amendments 
    notwithstanding expiration of all debate time on the bill, but only 
    amendments which have been printed in the Record may be debated for 
    five minutes on each side.

    On July 29, 1983,(14) the proposition described above 
was dem

[[Page 6899]]

onstrated during consideration of H.R. 2957,(15) in the 
Committee of the Whole. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 129 Cong. Rec. 21675, 21676, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
15. The International Monetary Fund Authorization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Trent] Lott [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Chairman: (16) The Clerk will report the 
    preferential motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Donald J. Pease (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Lott 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. [Ed] Bethune [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        Earlier today, Mr. Chairman, a request was made for unanimous 
    consent to limit debate to 12 o'clock. That was defeated. Later it 
    was put in the form of a motion and that carried, limiting the 
    debate to 12 o'clock today. That, therefore, closed debate past the 
    hour of 12 o'clock.
        Now, a motion to rise is being made by the minority whip. Does 
    that foreclose now the offering of further amendments should that 
    motion to rise carry?
        The Chairman: If the preferential motion to strike the enacting 
    clause carries, further amendments would not be in order. . . .
        Mr. [Ronald E.] Paul [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, if this motion 
    were to fail, whose amendments will be protected? Only those who 
    have amendments printed in the Record, or anybody who has an 
    amendment?
        The Chairman: Under the rule, if this motion is defeated, any 
    amendment printed in the Record could be offered and debated for 5 
    minutes on each side. Any other germane amendment could also be 
    offered but no debate would be allowed.

Offering of Amendments Printed in Record Precluded

Sec. 14.14 Where debate has been closed on a pending amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute and all amendments thereto, adoption of that 
    amendment would cause the stage of amendment to be passed and 
    amendments, even though printed in the Record, could not thereafter 
    be offered to the bill.

    On Apr. 23, 1975,(17) uring consideration of a bill 
(18) n the Committee of the Whole, an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute was offered and the following proceedings 
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 121 Cong. Rec. 11491, 11499, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
18. H.R. 6096, Vietnam Humanitarian and Evacuation Assistance Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert W.] Edgar [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Edgar:

[[Page 6900]]

        Strike out everything after the enacting clause and insert in 
        lieu thereof the following:

        That this Act may be cited as the ``Vietnam Humanitarian 
    Assistance and Evacuation Act of 1975''.

            Sec. 2. The President is directed to evacuate from South 
        Vietnam within ten days of the enactment of this Act the 
        following categories of persons:
            (1) United States citizens;
            (2) dependents of United States citizens and of permanent 
        residents of the United States; and
            (3) Vietnamese nationals eligible for immigration to the 
        United States by reason of their relationships to United States 
        citizens. . . .

        Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I move 
    that all debate on this substitute amendment and all amendments 
    thereto close at 4 p.m.
        The Chairman: (19) The question is on the motion 
    offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Otis G. Pike (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The motion was agreed to. . . .
        Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, inasmuch as the 
    substitute offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania would 
    preclude many of us from offering amendments which had heretofore 
    been dropped into the hopper and printed in today's Record in 
    compliance with the rules, will we be granted the set-aside 5 
    minutes to present our amendments inasmuch as the substitute 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Edgar] 
    would extinguish our right to offer an amendment at that point?
        The Chairman: If the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Edgar] is agreed 
    to, the stage of amendment would have been passed and no further 
    amendments would be in order to the bill.

Effect of Special Order

Sec. 14.15 When the Committee of the Whole is operating under a special 
    order limiting consideration of all amendments to a number of hours 
    of consideration, and the Committee rises during that time 
    immediately following the offering of an amendment, that amendment 
    remains pending when the Committee resumes its sitting and 
    subsequent amendments may be offered only after its disposition and 
    during the time remaining for consideration of all amendments; no 
    amendments may be offered thereafter, since the special order 
    terminates consideration and overrides Rule XXIII clause 6, which 
    would otherwise guarantee additional time for amendments printed in 
    the Record.

    An example of the situation described above occurred on Apr. 9, 
1986,(20) during consideration of H.R. 4332 (the Firearms 
Law Re

[[Page 6901]]

form Act). The proceedings in the Committee of the Whole were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 132 Cong. Rec. 6896, 6897, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Hughes to the amendment, as 
        amended, offered by Mr. Volkmer as a substitute for the 
        Judiciary Committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as 
        amended: Page 7, line 10, strike out ``shall not apply'' and 
        all that follows through ``firearms)'' in line 2 on page 8, and 
        insert in lieu thereof the following: ``shall not apply to the 
        sale or delivery of any rifle or shotgun to a resident of a 
        State other than a State in which the licensee's place of 
        business is located. . . .

        Mr. [William J.] Hughes [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I yield 
    the balance of my time, and move that the Committee do now rise.
        The Chairman: (1) The gentleman yields back the 
    balance of his time and moves that the Committee rise. . . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Charles B. Rangel (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles] Roemer [of Louisiana]: Is it the position of the 
    House, Mr. Chairman, that when we rise and meet tomorrow, the 
    Hughes amendment pending now would begin the debate?
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Louisiana is exactly correct.
        Mr. [Harold L.] Volkmer [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Volkmer: When we come in tomorrow and the Committee begins 
    to act on the bill, we will have only the time left under the 5 
    hours for amendments, is that not correct?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Volkmer: Which right now is approximately 1 hour?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Volkmer: And then the rest of the amendments, are they cut 
    off? Or do we go ahead for those that are in the Record and vote on 
    them after 5 minutes each?
        The Chairman: There will not be any amendments that would be in 
    order after the conclusion of the 5-hour consideration.

Recognition for Amendments Before and After Expiration of Debate Time

Sec. 14.16 The Committee of the Whole having agreed to a limitation on 
    debate under the five-minute rule on a section of a bill and all 
    amendments thereto, distribution of the time under the limitation 
    is within the discretion of the Chair, who may recognize under the 
    limitation first those Members offering amendments which have not 
    been printed in the Congressional Record, and Members speaking in 
    opposition to such amendments, and then recognize after the 
    limitation has expired those Members with amendments printed in the 
    Record, since such are debatable for 10 minutes not

[[Page 6902]]

    withstanding the expiration of the limitation.

    An example of the situation described above occurred on June 26, 
1979,(2) during consideration of H.R. 3930 (3) in 
the Committee of the Whole. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 125 Cong. Rec. 16677, 16678, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
 3. Defense Production Act Amendments of 1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William S.] Moorhead of Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman, I move 
    that all debate on section 3 and all amendments thereto cease at 
    6:40 p.m.
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Rousselot) there were--ayes 43, noes 33. . . .
        The Chairman: (4) . . . The Committee has just voted 
    to end all debate on section 3 and all amendments thereto at 6:40. 
    The Chair in a moment is going to ask those Members wishing to 
    speak between now and then to stand. The Chair will advise Members 
    that he will attempt, once that list is determined, to recognize 
    first those Members on the list with amendments which are not 
    protected by having been printed in the Record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair would ask those Members wishing to be recognized in 
    the remaining 20 minutes to stand. . . .
        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, did I understand 
    the Chair correctly that Members who are protected by having their 
    amendments printed in the Record will not be recognized until the 
    time has run so that those Members will only have 5 minutes to 
    present their amendments, but that other Members will be recognized 
    first for the amendments which are not printed in the Record?
        The Chairman: Those Members who are recognized prior to the 
    expiration of time have approximately 20 seconds to present their 
    amendments. Those Members whose amendments are printed in the 
    Record will have a guaranteed 5 minutes after time has expired. . . 
    .
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: In what way does that protect Members by 
    having their amendments then printed in the Record? It would seem 
    to me they are penalized by having their time limited to 5 minutes 
    and the other time goes ahead and runs in terms of general debate.
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman that Members 
    do not need and are not required to seek their protection for 
    debate on the amendment under the rules, but if they do not they 
    will be recognized for at most 20 seconds instead of 5 minutes. . . 
    .
        The Chair will now recognize those Members who wish to offer 
    amendments which have not been printed in the Record.
        The Chair will advise Members he will recognize listed Members 
    in opposition to the amendments also for 20 seconds.
        Mr. [Richard] Kelly [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Kelly: Mr. Chairman, is it not regular order that the 
    Members of the

[[Page 6903]]

    Committee with amendments be given preference and recognition?
        The Chairman: The Chair would advise the gentleman once the 
    limitation of time has been agreed to and time divided, that 
    priority of recognition is within the complete discretion of the 
    Chair.

Pro Forma Amendments

Sec. 14.17 When the time for debate on a bill is limited by unanimous 
    consent prior to the conclusion of the reading thereof, and time 
    for debate then expires, the remainder of the bill is read but pro 
    forma amendments are not then in order.

    On Sept. 12, 1968,(5) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 114 Cong. Rec. 26566, 26574, 90th Cong. 2d Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 18707 (Committee on Appropriations).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent that all debate on this bill and all amendments thereto 
    close in 30 minutes. . . .
        There was no objection.

    Following debate, the proceedings continued as indicated below:

        The Chairman: (6) All time has expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Daniel D. Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk will read.
        The Clerk concluded the reading of the bill.
        Mr. [John E.] Moss Jr., [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I move 
    to strike the last word.
        The Chairman: The parliamentary situation is such that the 
    gentleman cannot be recognized for that purpose since all debate 
    has been concluded.

    Parliamentarian's Note: This procedure was by unanimous consent 
only, as the Chair does not normally entertain a request to limit 
debate on an entire bill until reading thereof has been completed or 
dispensed with.

Sec. 14.18 After time set for debate on a bill and all amendments 
    thereto had expired, no pro forma amendments were allowed, although 
    further amendments could be offered but not debated.

    A motion to strike the last word is not in order after all time for 
debate on a bill has expired. The following proceedings, which took 
place on July 18, 1968,(7) are an illustration of the 
application of this principle:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 114 Cong. Rec. 22110, 90th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 15263 (Committee on Foreign Affairs), the Foreign 
        Assistance Act of 1968.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [E. Ross] Adair [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to 
    strike the requisite number of words.

[[Page 6904]]

        The Chairman: (8) Under the unanimous-consent 
    agreement, (9) all time for debate has expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
 9. See Sec. 14.12, infra, for discussion of an instance where five-
        minute debate was closed by motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment. Do I correctly understand I cannot discuss it?

    The amendment was read.

        Mr. Hays: Do I correctly understand that all time to explain 
    amendments has expired?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Special provision is made in Rule XXIII 
clause 6 (as amended in 1971), House Rules and Manual Sec. 874 (101st 
Cong.), for debate on any amendment which a Member has caused to be 
printed in the Record.