[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 9, Chapter 27]
[Chapter 27. Amendments]
[E. Consideration and Voting]
[Â§ 28. Debating Amendments]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 7129-7178]
 
                               CHAPTER 27
 
                               Amendments
 
                      E. CONSIDERATION AND VOTING
 
Sec. 28. Debating Amendments

Debate Until Chair Puts Questions

Sec. 28.1 An amendment cannot be ``accepted'' by the major

[[Page 7130]]

    ity and minority managers of a bill but must be voted on, and a 
    Member may be recognized to debate the amendment for five minutes 
    by offering a pro forma amendment.

    On Nov. 18, 1981,(7) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 4995,(8) the above-stated 
proposition was illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 127 Cong. Rec. 28026, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
 8. Department of Defense appropriations for fiscal year 1982.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Joseph P.] Addabbo [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, we have no 
    objection to the amendment. . . .
        Mr. [Jack] Edwards of Alabama: Mr. Chairman, we have no 
    objection to the amendment.
        Mr. [Theodore S.] Weiss [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I move to 
    strike the last word.
        Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: Point of order, Mr. 
    Chairman.
        Did I understand that the amendment had been accepted?
        The Chairman: (9) The Chair did not put the 
    question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Stratton: Is a motion to strike the last word in order at 
    this time?
        The Chairman: Even while an amendment is pending, the gentleman 
    may be recognized for 5 minutes.

Amendments Not Debatable

Sec. 28.2 Where there was pending a committee amendment, an amendment 
    thereto, a substitute therefor and an amendment to the substitute, 
    time for debate on the amendment, the substitute, and all 
    amendments thereto having expired, votes were taken on the 
    amendment to the committee amendment and then on the amendment to 
    the substitute, after which further amendments were offered and 
    voted upon without debate.

    On Aug. 5, 1970,(10) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 116 Cong. Rec. 27471, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 18546.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (11) . . . The question is 
    on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
    Lowenstein] to the committee amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment to the committee amendment was rejected.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The question now occurs on the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Jacobs] to the 
    substitute amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
    Findley].
        The amendment to the substitute amendment was rejected.
        Mr. [Sam] Steiger of Arizona: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the substitute amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Illinois.
        The Clerk read as follows: . . .

[[Page 7131]]

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The question is on the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Steiger] to the 
    substitute amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
    Findley].

Sec. 28.3 In some instances, amendments may be offered that are not 
    debatable.

    Parliamentarian's Note: As an example, 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 pursuant to the House rules.(12) hus, 
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.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See Sec. 14.9, supra.
13. See Sec. 28.28, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    And rejection by the House or by the Committee of the Whole of a 
preferential motion to strike (or to recommend striking) 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.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See Sec. 28.29, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Motion To Close Debate; When in Order

Sec. 28.4 A motion to close debate on an amendment is not in order 
    until there has been debate on the amendment (unless the proponent 
    of the amendment yields for that purpose).(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See Sec. 28.5, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 9, 1965,(16) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 111 Cong. Rec. 16233, 89th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 6400.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Basil L.] Whitener [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:
        Amendment offered by Mr. Whitener: . . .
        Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, will the 
    gentleman yield for a unanimous-consent request?
        Mr. Whitener: I yield to the gentleman.
        Mr. Celler: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all 
    debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto end in 10 
    minutes.
        The Chairman: (17) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from New York?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Richard Bolling (Mo.).

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

[[Page 7132]]

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I object.
        Mr. Celler: Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on this 
    amendment and all amendments thereto end in 10 minutes.
        For rules governing debate under the five-minute rule and the 
    effects of limitation thereon, see Rule XXIII clauses 5, 6, House 
    Rules and Manual Sec. 870-874 (101st Cong.). See, for general 
    discussion, Ch. 29, Consideration and Debate, infra.
        The Chairman: The Chair will have to advise the gentleman that 
    no such motion is in order until the gentleman from North Carolina 
    has been heard on his amendment. The gentleman from North Carolina 
    is recognized for 5 minutes.

Sec. 28.5 A motion to limit debate on an amendment, while privileged, 
    cannot be made while another Member has the floor.

    On Mar. 12, 1964,(18) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 110 Cong. Rec. 5118, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James H.] Morrison [of Louisiana]: After consideration of 
    the gentleman's amendment, could all debate on all amendments end 
    in 20 minutes?
        Mr. [August E.] Johansen [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I object. 
    . . .
        Mr. Morrison: Mr. Chairman, I move that be done.
        The Chairman: (19) The gentleman from Nebraska has 
    the floor. Does the gentleman from Nebraska yield to the gentleman 
    from Louisiana?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Glenn C.] Cunningham [of Nebraska]: No, because I wish to 
    make a statement. . . .
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Nebraska is recognized for 5 
    minutes.

Sec. 28.6 A motion to close all debate on a pending amendment and 
    amendments thereto has been interpreted to include amendments not 
    yet offered or at the desk.

    On Aug. 13, 1959,(20) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 105 Cong. Rec. 15850, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Graham A.] Barden [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    move that all debate on the amendment and all amendments thereto 
    close at 4 o'clock. . . .
        Mr. [Edwin E.] Willis [of Louisiana]: My parliamentary inquiry 
    is this: Would the suggested time of closure of debate on all 
    pending amendments--I seek an interpretation of ``all pending 
    amendments.'' Does that include amendments on the desk? . . .
        The Chairman: (21) The Chair may say that the 
    pending amendment is the Landrum-Griffin bill. Amendments thereto 
    are the amendments that are on the desk which have not yet been 
    offered. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: And that would include any 
    other amendments which may hereafter be offered?

[[Page 7133]]

        The Chairman: That would include all amendments.

Sec. 28.7 A motion to close all debate on a bill and all amendments 
    thereto under the five-minute rule is not in order when the bill 
    has not been completely read; such motion may be made only with 
    respect to that portion which has been read and on which there has 
    been debate.

    On June 4, 1975,(1) during consideration of a bill 
(2) in Committee of the Whole, a motion to close debate was 
made and the proceedings, as described above, were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 121 Cong. Rec. 16895, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
 2. H.R. 6219, Voting Rights Act extension.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Don] Edwards of California: . . . Mr. Chairman, I believe 
    we have an agreement to vote on the final passage of the bill at 
    6:30 and with a time limitation on certain amendments that remain, 
    so I ask unanimous consent at this time that the bill be considered 
    as read in full and open to amendment at any point.
        The Chairman: (3) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from California?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James P.] Johnson of Colorado: Mr. Chairman, I object.
        Mr. Edwards of California: Mr. Chairman, I so move.
        The Chairman: The motion is not in order. Only title II could 
    be closed at this time by a motion.

Motion To Limit Debate; Reservation of Time Not in Order

Sec. 28.8 A motion to limit debate on an amendment is not in order if 
    it includes a reservation of time for the committee.

    On Dec. 12, 1969,(4) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 115 Cong. Rec. 38844, 91st Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 12321.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William H.] Ayres [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I move that all 
    debate on the substitute amendment and all amendments thereto close 
    at 6 o'clock with the last 5 minutes reserved to the committee.
        The Chairman: (5) The matter of the last 5 minutes 
    being reserved to the committee may not be included in the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. John J. Rooney (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Special Rule Limiting Debate on Amendments During Further Consideration

Sec. 28.9 The Committee on Rules may report a resolution providing 
    additional procedures to govern the further consideration of a 
    measure already pending in Committee of the Whole, including 
    limiting

[[Page 7134]]

    further consideration of amendments to a total amount of time, and 
    prohibiting further debate or amendments when the limitation has 
    expired.

    On May 4, 1983,(6) the Committee on Rules Chairman, 
Claude Pepper, of Florida, called up for immediate consideration in the 
House, House Resolution 179, providing for the further consideration of 
House Joint Resolution 13, then pending in Committee of the Whole. The 
reported resolution and Chairman Pepper's comments thereon were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 129 Cong. Rec. 11036, 11037, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Pepper: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
    Rules, I call up House Resolution 179 and ask for its immediate 
    consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 179

            Resolved, That during the further consideration of the 
        joint resolution (H.J. Res. 13) calling for a mutual and 
        verifiable freeze on and reductions in nuclear weapons, further 
        consideration of amendments to the committee amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute shall terminate at the expiration of ten 
        further hours of such consideration, and at the expiration of 
        said time the Committee of the Whole shall immediately proceed 
        to vote on any amendments pending to said substitute, and then 
        on said substitute. During such time limitation, debate on any 
        amendment to said substitute, and on any amendment thereto, 
        whether or not printed in the Congressional Record, shall 
        continue not to exceed thirty minutes, equally divided and 
        controlled by the proponent of the amendment and a Member 
        opposed thereto. After the disposition of said substitute, the 
        preamble shall be considered for amendment, debate on each 
        amendment to the preamble or on each amendment thereto shall 
        continue not to exceed thirty minutes, equally divided and 
        controlled by the proponent of the amendment and a Member 
        opposed thereto, and further consideration of amendments to the 
        preamble shall terminate at the expiration of two hours of such 
        consideration, and at the expiration of said time the Committee 
        of the Whole shall immediately proceed to vote on any 
        amendments pending to the preamble. After the disposition of 
        said amendments, it shall be in order to consider the amendment 
        in the nature of a substitute by Representative Broomfield made 
        in order by House Resolution 138 for amendment under the five-
        minute rule, debate on each amendment to the amendment or on 
        each amendment thereto shall continue not to exceed thirty 
        minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent of the 
        amendment and a Member opposed thereto, and further 
        consideration of amendments to said amendment shall terminate 
        at the expiration of two hours of such consideration, and at 
        the expiration of said time the Committee of the Whole shall 
        immediately proceed to vote on any amendments pending to said 
        amendment, and then on said amendment. During the further 
        consideration of the joint resolution, the Chairman of the 
        Committee of the Whole shall not entertain any pro forma 
        amendment offered for the purpose of obtaining time for debate 
        only. During the further consideration of the joint resolution, 
        the

[[Page 7135]]

        Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may, in his discretion, 
        announce after a recorded vote has been ordered that he may 
        reduce to not less than five minutes the period of time in 
        which a recorded vote, if ordered, will be taken by electronic 
        device on any amendment which is to be voted on without further 
        debate immediately following that fifteen-minute recorded vote. 
        In the event that an amendment in the nature of a substitute to 
        the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute to the 
        resolution is adopted, it shall not be in order to demand a 
        separate vote in the House on any other amendment adopted to 
        said committee substitute. . . .

        Mr. Pepper: Mr. Speaker, there are two essential elements 
    involved in the legislative process. One is the right to debate, 
    the other is the right to decide. We have had some 45 hours of 
    debate upon the pending resolution. This rule today is offered by 
    the Rules Committee as an instrument by which the Members of this 
    House may also enjoy the right to decide the pertinent issues 
    involved in the pending resolution.
        Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 179 provides additional 
    procedures for the consideration of House Joint Resolution 13, 
    calling for a mutual and verifiable freeze on and reductions in 
    nuclear weapons. Prior to discussing the actual provisions of this 
    rule, Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few minutes to discuss 
    the necessity for this rule.
        On March 15, 1983, the Committee on Rules ordered reported an 
    open rule allowing 3 hours of general debate on House Joint 
    Resolution 13. The rule, House Resolution 138, was adopted on March 
    16 and since that time, Mr. Speaker, the House has spent more than 
    45 hours over 5 days considering only the resolving clause of the 
    joint resolution. On April 14, Chairman Zablocki requested an 
    additional rule on House Resolution 13, but later asked the Rules 
    Committee that the meeting scheduled for April 19 be canceled after 
    he reached what he believed at that time to be an agreement to 
    finish debate on the matter.
        On April 21, the House agreed, by a vote of 214 to 194 and 
    after three attempts, to a motion that ``debate on the resolving 
    clause--to House Joint Resolution 13--and all amendments thereto 
    cease at 3:30 p.m.'' on that date. The effect of that time 
    limitation agreement was to stop further debate on the resolving 
    clause of House Joint Resolution 13 under the 5-minute rule, with 
    the exception that amendments printed in the Congressional Record 
    could be offered pursuant to clause 6, rule XXIII, allowing the 
    member presenting the amendment 5 minutes to explain his amendment, 
    and the first person to obtain the floor 5 minutes to oppose the 
    amendment. In addition, perfecting amendments could be offered 
    while such amendments were pending. However, such perfecting 
    amendments would have been decided without debate unless printed in 
    the Record.
        The Committee of the Whole again debated House Joint Resolution 
    13 on Thursday, April 28. At that time, it became apparent that the 
    House would not be able to complete consideration of the nuclear 
    freeze resolution in any reasonable amount of time. Chairman 
    Zablocki then stated his intention of asking the Rules Committee to 
    grant an additional rule of the joint resolution.
        The Committee on Rules met on Monday, May 2, to consider the 
    possi

[[Page 7136]]

    bility of granting an additional rule and again yesterday to 
    discuss further the rule and to vote on special order that we are 
    bringing before the House today.
        Let me say that during my absence last week I had left 
    authority before my departure with the able ranking majority member 
    on the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Long, to 
    perform the necessary duties to allow the Rules Committee to 
    function. He subsequently met with the leadership of the House and 
    they formulated basically the rule which is presented today. It was 
    that rule which was considered on Monday and Tuesday of this week. 
    We heard several witnesses, 10 to 12 witnesses, most from the 
    minority party on that rule on Monday.

    Parliamentarian's Note: This rule has provided a model for further 
rules on complicated bills (see, for example, House Resolution 247, on 
H.R. 2760, Intelligence Authorization Amendment, reported June 29, 
1983; and House Resolution 300, on H.R. 2453, Radio Broadcasting to 
Cuba, reported Aug. 3, 1983).

Special Rule Precluding Pro Forma Amendments

Sec. 28.10 Where a bill was being considered for amendment pursuant to 
    a special ``modified closed'' rule permitting only designated 
    amendments to be offered and precluding amendments thereto, with 
    debate on each amendment limited and controlled, the Chair 
    indicated that pro forma amendments for the purpose of debate were 
    not in order.

    On May 21, 1986,(7) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 4800,(8) the Chair responded to a 
parliamentary inquiry in the circumstances described above:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 132 Cong. Rec. 11484, 11485, 11566, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
 8. The Omnibus Trade Act of 1986.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (9) When the Committee of the Whole 
    rose on Tuesday, May 20, 1986, all time for general debate had 
    expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Anthony C. Beilenson (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having been 
    read for amendment under the 5-minute rule. The amendments printed 
    in section 2 of House Resolution 456, agreed to by the House on May 
    15, 1986, are considered as having been adopted.
        No other amendments to the bill are in order except the 
    following amendments printed in the Congressional Record of May 15, 
    1986, . . . by, and if offered by the designated Members or their 
    designees, which shall be considered only in the following order, 
    shall be considered as having been read, shall not be subject to 
    amendment or to a demand for a division of the question, and each 
    amendment shall be debatable for 30 minutes, or 1 hour in the case 
    of amendments (8) and (12), the time to be equally divided and con

[[Page 7137]]

    trolled by the proponent of the amendment and a Member opposed
    thereto: . . .
        Mr. [Don] Young of Alaska: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary 
    inquiry.

        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Young of Alaska: Mr Chairman, can I move to strike the last 
    word and get 5 minutes?
        The Chairman: The time is controlled by the gentleman from 
    Wisconsin [Mr. Roth, the proponent of the amendment]. The gentleman 
    has to seek time from the gentleman from Wisconsin or the gentleman 
    from Washington [Mr. Bonker, controlling time in opposition to the 
    amendment].

Allocation of Time or Recognition Following Limitation on Debate; 
    Discretion of Chair

Sec. 28.11 A limitation of debate on a bill and all amendments thereto 
    to a time certain in effect abrogates the five-minute rule; and 
    decisions regarding the division of the remaining time and the 
    order of recognition of those Members desiring to speak are largely 
    within the discretion of the Chair who may defer recognition of 
    listed Members whose amendments have been printed in the Record and 
    who are therefore guaranteed five minutes notwithstanding the 
    limitation.

    On June 4, 1975,(10) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration the bill H.R. 6219,(11) a motion to 
close debate on the bill and all amendments was agreed to, and resulted 
in a division of the remaining time, as described above. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 121 Cong. Rec. 16899, 16901, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
11. Voting Rights Act extension.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Don] Edwards of California: Mr. Chairman, I move that all 
    debate on the bill and all amendments thereto terminate at 6:45 
    p.m.
        The Chairman: (12) The question is on the motion 
    offered by the gentleman from California.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The motion was agreed to. . . .
        The Chairman: With the permission of the committee, the Chair 
    will briefly state the situation.
        There are a number of Members who do not have amendments that 
    were placed in the record, and the Chair feels that he must try to 
    protect them somewhat, so he proposes to go to a number of Members 
    on the list so they will at least get some time. The time allotted 
    will be less than a minute.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. de la 
    Garza).

Sec. 28.12 A limitation of time for debate abrogates the five-minute 
    rule and allocation of the time remaining to Members seeking 
    recognition is within the discretion of the

[[Page 7138]]

    Chair, except that Members who had caused amendments to be printed 
    in the Record under Rule XXIII clause 6 would receive the full five 
    minutes.

    On June 26, 1975,(13) during consideration of a bill 
(14) in the Committee of the Whole, a unanimous-consent 
request to close debate on the bill and all amendments thereto was 
agreed to. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 121 Cong. Rec. 20951, 20957, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
14. H.R. 8121, Departments of State, Justice, and Commerce, the 
        Judiciary, and related agencies appropriation bill for fiscal 
        1976.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Neal] Smith of Iowa: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
    that all debate on the bill and all amendments thereto cease in 60 
    minutes.
        The Chairman: (15) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Iowa?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Charles A. Vanik (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        The Chairman: The Chair will further add that all Members who 
    were standing at the time the limitation of debate was made will be 
    recognized for approximately 2 minutes each. . . .
        Mr. [Robert F.] Drinan [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, will 
    the time be limited with regard to the amendments offered by the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Heinz) so that the other Members 
    who have filed amendments will also have a certain amount of time?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania (Mr. Heinz) will be recognized, and then all other 
    Members will be allotted 2 minutes, except for such amendments as 
    were printed in the Congressional Record. Every Member who has an 
    amendment that was printed in the Congressional Record will be 
    guaranteed a full 5 minutes.

Sec. 28.13 Where time for debate has been limited and the time 
    remaining has been allocated by the Chair, a Member offering an 
    amendment printed in the Record is nevertheless entitled to five 
    minutes--with five minutes in opposition--and if that debate comes 
    out of the allocated time the Chair must reduce and reallocate the 
    remaining time among the Members previously listed.

    The proceedings on June 26, 1975,(16) during 
consideration of a bill (17) in the Committee of the Whole, 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 121 Cong. Rec. 20965, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
17. H.R. 8121, Departments of State, Justice, and Commerce, the 
        Judiciary, and related agencies appropriations for fiscal 1976.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (18) The time of the gentleman has 
    expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Charles A. Vanik (Ohio).

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

[[Page 7139]]

        Mr. [M. Caldwell] Butler [of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    that I may be permitted to speak on my own time.
        The Chairman: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia 
    for 1 additional minute.
        Mr. Butler: Mr. Chairman, I would inquire, am I not to be 
    permitted to proceed for my full time?
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman from Virginia 
    that the time has been reallocated because of the time taken under 
    the 5-minute rule.

Sec. 28.14 Where debate under the five-minute rule has been limited to 
    a time certain and time allocated among those Members desiring to 
    speak, the Chair may either insist that listed Members utilize 
    their time when first recognized or may, in his discretion, permit 
    a recognized Member to reserve his time with the admonition that 
    subsequent recognition would not be assured if time expired.

    An example of the situation described above occurred on Apr. 9, 
1979,(19) during consideration of H.R. 3324.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 125 Cong. Rec. 7763, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
20. The International Development Cooperation Act of 1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that all debate on the Bauman amendment and the 
    Solarz amendment to the Bauman amendment and all amendments thereto 
    end at 3:30 o'clock. . . .
        The request having been agreed to, the Chair announced that 
    time would be allocated among Members desiring to speak at one 
    minute each.
        Mr. [Paul] Findley [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment. . . .
        The Chairman: (21) The Chair would advise the 
    gentleman from Illinois the amendment is not in order. There is 
    already an amendment pending to the Bauman amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. Elliott H. Levitas (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Findley: May I reserve my time?
        The Chairman: If there is still time left. The Chair would 
    point out the limitation is for 3:30 p.m.

Sec. 28.15 Where the Committee of the Whole has, by unanimous consent, 
    permitted four designated amendments to be offered to a title of a 
    bill which has been passed in the reading for amendment, and has 
    limited time on those amendments to a time certain, the Chair may, 
    in his discretion, allocate in advance a portion of that time among 
    the proponent and opponent of those amendments and then allocate 
    the remaining time among other Members desiring to speak.

[[Page 7140]]

    On Jan. 29, 1980,(1) during consideration of H.R. 4788 
(2) in the Committee of the Whole, the proceedings described 
above occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 126 Cong. Rec. 992-94, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
 2. The Water Resources Development Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert W.] Edgar [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that titles III and IV be open to amendment at 
    any point. . . .
        Mr. [William H.] Harsha [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, reserving the 
    right to object, we have passed over title III, and without 
    unanimous consent it is my understanding that the gentleman could 
    not offer any amendment to title III. Is that correct?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Harsha: Further reserving the right to object, could the 
    gentleman explain to me what amendments he proposes to offer to 
    title III?
        Mr. Edgar: I would be glad to. I would hope that we could 
    protect the gentleman from Montana in offering his amendment to the 
    Libby Dam, and then I have three amendments I would like to offer, 
    amendments in title III. . . .
        The Chairman: (3) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Pennsylvania?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        Mr. [Ray] Roberts [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent that all debate on title III and all amendments thereto end 
    at 4:40.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Texas wish to allocate 
    any portion of that time under his unanimous-consent request, 
    consistent with the discussion that took place previously?

        Mr. Roberts: Five minutes only. I think there is enough to go 
    around. I will not use my 5 minutes.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roberts)?
        Mr. Edgar: Reserving the right to object, in our colloquy we 
    had suggested that the gentleman from Montana be given at least a 
    minimum of 5 minutes and the gentleman from Washington be given 5 
    minutes. I would have no objection to that.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roberts) so 
    revise his unanimous-consent request?
        Mr. Roberts: I do, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roberts) as revised?
        Mr. Clausen: Reserving the right to object, 10 minutes is going 
    to be allocated to the Montana project. Is the balance to be 
    divided among the Members standing, or will there be a division 
    between the majority and the minority of the remaining time?
        Mr. Roberts: If the gentleman will yield, that would be up to 
    the Chair, but we have already authorization for revision and 
    extension. We have beaten this thing over the head all day, and I 
    would certainly hope we can go ahead with it. I will certainly give 
    my attention to that.
        Mr. Clausen: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of 
    objection.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roberts)?

[[Page 7141]]

        There was no objection.
        The Chairman: The Chair has discretion to allocate time under 
    the unanimous-consent request. In addition to the allocation which 
    has been requested of 5 minutes for the gentleman from Montana and 
    5 minutes for the gentleman from Washington, the Chair in the 
    exercise of that discretion will allocate a total of 10 minutes to 
    the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Edgar) on the basis that he is 
    offering three amendments, and will allocate the balance of the 
    time to those Members who are standing.
        Members standing at the time the unanimous-consent request was 
    agreed to will be recognized for 40 seconds each, with the possible 
    loss of time if there are any recorded votes.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
    Edgar) for 10 minutes.

Sec. 28.16 In allocating time under a limitation on debate under the 
    five-minute rule, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may in 
    his discretion recognize first those Members wishing to offer 
    amendments after having equally divided the time among all Members 
    desiring to speak.

    On Nov. 18, 1981,(4) during consideration of H.R. 4995 
(5) n the Committee of the Whole, the situation described 
above occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 127 Cong. Rec. 28074, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
 5. Department of Defense appropriation bill, fiscal year 1982.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Joseph P.] Addabbo [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, there are 
    about nine amendments at the desk. I have looked at those 
    amendments. The committee will be accepting at least six or seven 
    of them. There are only two or three that may be slightly 
    controversial and subject to some slight debate.
        I would therefore believe that we can finish this bill tonight 
    and not be burdened with it tomorrow because I know full well if we 
    come in tomorrow, we will be using a whole day for what can be 
    completed in approximately half an hour here tonight.
        Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this 
    bill and all amendments thereto end at 9:30 p.m.
        The Chairman: (6) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from New York?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        The Chairman: Members standing at the time the unanimous 
    consent request was agreed to will be recognized for 1 minute each.
        The Chair will recognize first those Members who have 
    amendments.

Sec. 28.17 Where a ``modified closed'' rule permitted only one 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute and one substitute 
    therefor, and divided a separate hour of debate on each substitute 
    between the same two Mem

[[Page 7142]]

    bers, the Chair permitted the total time to be accumulated and 
    consumed before putting the question on the substitute.

    On June 10, 1982,(7) during consideration of House 
Concurrent Resolution 352 (8) in the Committee of the Whole, 
the proceedings described above occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 128 Cong. Rec. 13387, 13390, 13395, 13399, 13409, 97th Cong. 2d 
        Sess.
 8. First concurrent resolution on the budget, fiscal 1983.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (9) All time for general debate has 
    expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Anthony C. Beilenson (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XXIII, the concurrent resolution 
    is considered as having been read for amendment and open for 
    amendment at any point. . . .
        Mr. [Delbert L.] Latta [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Chairman: . . . The Clerk will designate the amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute.
        The amendment in the nature of a substitute is as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Latta: Strike all after the resolving clause and insert in lieu 
        thereof the following: . . .

        The Chairman: Under the rule, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
    Jones) will be recognized for 30 minutes and the gentleman from 
    Ohio (Mr. Latta) will be recognized for 30 minutes.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Jones.

    [Mr. James R. Jones, of Oklahoma, offered an amendment as a 
substitute for the amendment in the nature of a substitute as permitted 
by the rule.]

        The Chairman: Pursuant to the provisions of House Resolution 
    496, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Jones) will be recognized for 
    30 minutes and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta) will be 
    recognized for 30 minutes.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
    Jones).
        Mr. Jones of Oklahoma: Mr. Chairman, in order to resolve the 
    technicalities, I will use 30 minutes on the Jones substitute 
    first, and the remaining 30 minutes on the Latta substitute. I 
    think we have agreed to alternate back and forth the total hour we 
    have.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois 
    (Mr. Simon) a member of the committee. . . . [After debate:]
        Mr. [Ralph] Regula [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        What is the situation at the moment? Have we completed with the 
    first hour, that is, in effect, the debate on the Jones substitute?
        The Chairman: In effect, the Chair has. The Chair believes, and 
    it has been treating the time as a fungible commodity. The total 
    time has been allocated as to both amendments. In effect, the 
    gentleman from Ohio has remaining to himself to yield, 30 minutes, 
    and the gentleman from Oklahoma has 29 minutes remaining.

Sec. 28.18 Following an agreement to limit debate on an

[[Page 7143]]

    amendment and an amendment thereto to a time certain, the Chairman 
    of the Committee of the Whole may exercise his discretion and allot 
    the remaining time in several equal parts, between, for example, 
    the offerors of an amendment and an amendment to the amendment, and 
    the floor manager of the bill.

    On Apr. 13, 1983,(10) during consideration of House 
Joint Resolution 13 (11) in the Committee of the Whole, the 
situation described above occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 129 Cong. Rec. 8425, 8426, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
11. Nuclear Weapons Freeze.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: . . . I ask unanimous 
    consent that debate close at 6:05. . . .
        Mr. [Jack] Kemp [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I object. . . .
        Mr. Zablocki: 6:15?
        The Chairman: (12) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Wisconsin?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        The Chairman: The unanimous-consent request is agreed to and 
    debate is limited to 6:15.
        The Chair is going to exercise discretion and allot the time in 
    three equal parts to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), the 
    gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Brown) and the gentleman from 
    Wisconsin (Mr. Zablocki) and, of course, those Members can yield 
    for purposes of debate.
        Mr. [Newt] Gingrich [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.

        Mr. Gingrich: Mr. Chairman, if I may express my ignorance for a 
    moment, is it, in fact, the prerogative of the Chair in that sort 
    of unanimous-consent request to then design whatever system seems 
    workable?
        The Chairman: Yet, it is. The Chair has exercised its 
    discretion in light of the circumstances and allocates 6 minutes to 
    the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach); 6 minutes to the gentleman 
    from Colorado (Mr. Brown); and 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
    Wisconsin (Mr. Zablocki).

Sec. 28.19 Where the Committee of the Whole has, by unanimous consent, 
    considered the remainder of a bill as read and open to amendment at 
    any point, and has then separately limited debate on each remaining 
    title and all amendments thereto to a number of hours of debate, 
    equally divided and controlled, the Chair may, through the power of 
    recognition, continue to require debate and amendments to proceed 
    title by title.

    During consideration of H.R. 2100 (13) in the Committee 
of the

[[Page 7144]]

Whole on Oct. 3, 1985,(14) the situation described above 
occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. The Food Security Act of 1985.
14. 131 Cong. Rec. 25897, 25947, 25948, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Kika] de la Garza [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, in order to 
    facilitate the debate for the rest of the day, I ask unanimous 
    consent that the remainder of the bill after this title be printed 
    in the Record, and open to amendment at any point. . . .
        There was no objection. . . .
        Mr. de la Garza: Mr. Chairman, further to facilitate and 
    expedite the debate of today, I ask unanimous consent that all 
    debate on title VIII on peanuts, and all amendments thereto on that 
    title, be limited to 1 hour, the time to be divided equally between 
    the proponents and the opponents. . . .
        There was no objection.
        Mr. de la Garza: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 
    debate on title XV and all amendments thereto, which is the food 
    stamps section, be limited to 1 hour, to be divided equally between 
    the proponents and the opponents, and further, that the debate on 
    the Petri amendment to title XXI be limited to 1 hour, the time to 
    be equally divided between the proponents and the opponents. . . .
        There was no objection. . . .
        Mr. de la Garza: Mr. Chairman, under the unanimous-consent 
    agreement on the time and on opening the bill for amendment at any 
    point, does the Chair intend to proceed title by title?
        The Chairman: It is the intention of the Chair to proceed title 
    by title for amendments.

Sec. 28.20 Where a special order adopted by the House limits debate on 
    an amendment to be controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and 
    prohibits amendments thereto, the Chair may in his discretion 
    recognize the manager of the bill if opposed, and there is no 
    requirement for recognition of the minority party.

    On June 18, 1986,(15) during consideration of H.R. 4868 
(16) in the Committee of the Whole, the situation described 
above occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 132 Cong. Rec. 14275, 14276, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
16. The Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (17) Under the rule, the gentleman 
    from California (Mr. Dellums) will be recognized for 30 minutes, 
    and a Member opposed to the amendment will be recognized for 30 
    minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17.  Bob Traxler (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Will those gentlemen who are opposed to the Dellums amendment 
    kindly stand so the Chair can designate?
        Is the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Bonker) opposed to the 
    amendment?
        Mr. [Don] Bonker [of Washington]: I advise the Chair that I 
    oppose the amendment.
        The Chairman: Then the Chair will recognize the gentleman from 
    Washington (Mr. Bonker) for 30 minutes in opposition to the Dellums 
    amendment.

[[Page 7145]]

        Does the gentleman from Washington wish to yield any of his 
    time or share any of his time?
        Mr. Bonker: Mr. Chairman, I would yield half the allotted time, 
    15 minutes, to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Siljander). . . .
        The Chairman: The time in opposition will be equally divided 
    between the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Bonker) and the 
    gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Siljander). . . .
        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, do I 
    understand that the process that has just taken place has given the 
    minority side one-quarter of the time.
        The Chairman: The Chair would counsel the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania in regard to his inquiry that the rule provides that a 
    Member will be recognized in opposition. The gentleman from 
    Washington (Mr. Bonker) was recognized in opposition, and he shared 
    his time with your side.
        Mr. Walker: In other words, the minority, though, was not 
    recognized for the purposes of opposition. Is that correct?
        The Chairman: The Chair would state that the procedures of the 
    House are governed by its rules, but more importantly in this 
    instance, by the rule adopted by the House as reported from the 
    committee.

--Member Not Allocated Time

Sec. 28.21 Where debate has been limited on a pending title and all 
    amendments thereto and the Chair has divided the remaining time 
    among Members desiring to offer amendments or to speak, a Member 
    not allocated time may not speak in opposition to an amendment.

    During proceedings on July 25, 1974,(18) relating to 
H.R. 11500, the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1974, the 
Chair indicated that a time limitation imposed in Committee of the 
Whole on debate on an amendment and all amendments thereto abrogates 
the right of a Member (19) to speak for five minutes in 
opposition to an offered amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 120 Cong. Rec. 25214, 25217, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
19. See Rule XXIII clause 5(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 870 (101st 
        Cong.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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. 11500, with Mr. (Neal) Smith of Iowa in the chair.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        The Chairman: When the Committee rose on yesterday, titles II 
    through VIII inclusive were subject to amendment at any point, and 
    there was pending an amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    California (Mr. Hosmer) to title II of the committee amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute. Before recognizing the gentleman from 
    California, the Chair will state for the information of the Com

[[Page 7146]]

    mittee of the Whole that there are 42 minutes remaining out of 50 
    minutes debate allocated to title II under the unanimous consent 
    agreement of Tuesday, July 23.
        Before the Chair recognizes the gentleman fron California, the 
    Chair will reiterate his announcement of yesterday that if listed 
    Members who have printed their amendments to title II in the Record 
    would agree to offer those amendments during the 42-minute period, 
    and to be recognized for 1 minute and 20 seconds, the Chair will 
    recognize both committee and noncommittee members for that purpose.
        The Chair will request that Members who have amendments printed 
    in the Record and who insist upon 5 minutes for debate defer 
    offering those amendments until the conclusion of the 42 remaining 
    minutes. . . .
        Mr. [John H.] Rousselot [of California]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Rousselot: In this time frame, when somebody might object 
    or support the amendment, how does he get time to do it? He does 
    not?
        The Chairman: Not unless he is on the list.
        Mr. Rousselot: In other words, if anyone wants to oppose the 
    amendment, he has no time; is that correct?
        The Chairman: Not unless the gentleman is on the list announced 
    by the Chair.

Control of Debate by Proponent of Amendment

Sec. 28.22 Where all time for debate on an amendment and all amendments 
    thereto is limited and, by unanimous consent, placed in control of 
    the proponent of the amendment and the chairman of the committee 
    (in opposition), the Chair first recognizes the proponent of the 
    amendment.

    On July 9, 1965,(20) the following statement was made by 
the Chair:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 111 Cong. Rec. 16207, 16217, 89th Cong. 1st Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 6400.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (1) When the Committee rose on 
    yesterday, there was pending the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Ohio [Mr. McCulloch] as a substitute for the committee 
    amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        It was agreed that all time for debate on the so-called 
    McCulloch substitute and all amendments thereto would be limited to 
    2 hours, such time to be equally divided and controlled by the 
    gentleman from New York [Mr. Celler] and the gentleman from Ohio 
    [Mr. McCulloch]. Under the unanimous-consent agreement, the Chair 
    recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. McCulloch] in support of 
    his amendment.

Pro Forma Amendment Offered by Proponent of Pending Amendment

Sec. 28.23 Under the five-minute rule the proponent of a pend

[[Page 7147]]

    ing amendment may offer a pro forma amendment thereto (for 
    additional debate time) only by unanimous consent.

    On Apr. 13, 1983,(2) The Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration House Joint Resolution 13,(3) the above-
stated proposition was illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 129 Cong. Rec. 8382, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
3. Nuclear Weapons Freeze.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Elliott H.] Levitas [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I move to 
    strike the requisite number of words.
        The Chairman: (4) without objection, the gentleman 
    from Georgia (Mr. Levitas) is recognized for 5 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Stratton: Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman from Georgia 
    (Mr. Levitas) have an amendment pending?
        The Chairman: The gentleman from New York is correct. The 
    gentleman from Georgia has an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute to the text pending.
        Mr. Stratton: Well, is it proper to strike the last word on 
    one's own amendment?
        The Chairman: The gentleman asked for recognition, and without 
    objection, he was recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Stratton: I just wanted to make sure the amendment was 
    still pending.
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.

Sec. 28.24 A Member who has been recognized for five minutes in support 
    of his amendment in Committee of the Whole may offer a pro forma 
    amendment to his amendment to gain an additional five minutes only 
    by unanimous consent.

    An example of the situation described above occurred on Mar. 18, 
1986,(5) during consideration of H.R. 4151.(6) 
the proceedings in the Committee of the Whole were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 132 Cong. Rec. 5257, 5260, 5261, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
6. The Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Anti-terrorism Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Walker:
            (1) in the section heading, strike out ``effective date of 
        entitlements'' and insert in lieu thereof ``special budget act 
        rules for entitlements''; and
            (2) strike out the period at the end of the section and 
        insert in lieu thereof the following: ``, and shall be

[[Page 7148]]

        effective for any fiscal year only to the extent or in the 
        amounts provided in appropriation Acts.'' . . .

        After Mr. Walker's initial remarks in support of the amendment, 
    the following proceedings took place:
        Mr. Walker: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
    of words.
        The Chairman: (7) is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Pennsylvania?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Gerald D. Kleczka (Wis.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Daniel A.] Mica [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, the normal 
    procedure is each individual is allowed to speak for one time, is 
    it not?
        The Chairman: By unanimous consent, the gentleman can be 
    recognized for another period of time.
        Mr. Mica: Mr. Chairman, I will not object at this time.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania?
        There was no objection

    Parliamentarian's Note: Occasionally, the proponent of an amendment 
has sought recognition as a matter of right ``in opposition to a pro 
forma amendment'' offered by another Member in order to gain an 
additional five minutes, on the assumption that in such case he is not 
amending his own amendment but is complying with the five-minute rule 
by speaking in opposition to another Member's amendment.

Putting Question Before Time Expires

Sec. 28.25 Where there is pending an amendment to a bill, an amendment 
    thereto, a substitute therefor and an amendment to the substitute, 
    and debate on those amendments has been limited to a time certain 
    but has not yet been consumed, the Chair may, at his discretion, 
    put the question on the amendment to the original amendment after 
    ascertaining that no Member previously listed to speak desires to 
    debate that amendment.

    On July 27, 1970,(8) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 116 Cong. Rec. 25813, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 17654.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Donald M.] Fraser [of Minnesota]: Would it be in order 
    that we might have a vote now on the Burke amendment?
        The Chairman: (9) If there are no other speakers on 
    the list that the Chair has that was taken down at the time of the 
    request of the gentleman from California (Mr. Sisk) to limit debate 
    then that would be in order. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Joe D.] Waggonner [Jr., of Louisiana]: The Chair means if 
    there are no further speakers on the Burke amendment; does he not?
        The Chairman: That is correct; on the Burke amendment. In order 
    to

[[Page 7149]]

    clarify the question, are there other speakers on the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Burke) to the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
    O'Neill)? Are there any other speakers on that amendment? If not, 
    the Chair at this time will put the question.

Debate on Amendments Printed in Record (Rule XXIII, clause 6)

Sec. 28.26 Where under a time limitation only five minutes of debate is 
    available in opposition both to an amendment and to a substitute 
    therefor printed in the Record, one Member cannot simultaneously be 
    recognized for 10 minutes in opposition to both amendments, but 
    must be separately recognized on each amendment, with preference of 
    recognition being accorded to members of the committee reporting 
    the bill.

    During consideration of H.R. 1872 (10) in the Committee 
of the Whole on June 27, 1985, (11) the situation described 
above occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. The Defense Department authorization bill, fiscal 1986.
11. 131 Cong. Rec. 17799-802, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Amendment offered by Mr. Markey: Insert the following new 
        section at the end of title X (page 200, after line 4). . . .

        Mr. [Vic] Fazio [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Fazio as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Markey: Insert the following new 
        section at the end of title X (page 200, after line 4). . . .

        Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I move to 
    strike the requisite number of words. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and the 
    amendment to the amendment. . . .
        Mr. [Robert E.] Badham [of California]: Mr. Chairman, at this 
    time, I would ask a parliamentary inquiry of the Chair.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (12) The gentleman will 
    state his parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Marty Russo (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Badham: My inquiry is that since there were two offerings, 
    an amendment and an amendment to the amendment in the form of a 
    substitute, would the opposition now be exercising its prerogative 
    in using 10 minutes in opposition to both?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: That is correct, except that the 
    gentleman from New York rose in opposition to the Markey amendment. 
    There would be 5 minutes of debate left in opposition to the Fazio 
    substitute.
        Mr. Badham: Then if I, at this time, ask to speak in opposition 
    to the Markey amendment, would that be in order and could time be 
    used consecutively?

[[Page 7150]]

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman from New York rose in 
    opposition to the Markey amendment.
        Mr. Stratton: Mr. Chairman, I rose in opposition to both 
    amendments, both the Markey amendment and the Fazio amendment.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair will state first the 
    gentleman can only rise in opposition to one amendment at a time, 
    and when he rose, the Chair understood him to rise first in 
    opposition to the Markey amendment. That leaves only 5 minutes in 
    opposition to the Fazio substitute amendment.

Sec. 28.27 Amendments printed in the Congressional Record are debatable 
    for 10 minutes after the expiration of a limitation on debate under 
    the five-minute rule in Committee of the Whole.

    The principle stated above was the basis of the following exchange, 
which occurred on May 31, 1984,(13) during consideration of 
H.R. 5167 (14) in the Committee of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 130 Cong. Rec. 14657, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
14. Defense Department authorization bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Melvin] Price [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I move that all 
    debate on the bill and amendments thereto be completed in 1 hour.
        The Chairman: (15) The question is on the motion 
    offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Price).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Berkley] Bedell [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Bedell: Is it correct that Members having amendments that 
    are printed in the Record will have 10 minutes?
        The Chairman: If they came after the limitation is imposed, 
    yes, the gentleman is correct.

Sec. 28.28 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, (16) during consideration of H.R. 2957 
(17) in the Committee of the Whole, the proceedings 
described above occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 129 Cong. Rec. 21678, 21679, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
17. International Monetary Fund Authorization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William N.] Patman [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: (18) Is the amendment printed in the 
    Record?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 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

[[Page 7151]]

        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, 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.

Sec. 28.29 Rejection by the Committee of the Whole or by the House of a 
    preferential motion 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,(19) the proposition described above 
was demonstrated during consideration of H.R. 2957,(20) in 
the Committee of the Whole. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 129 Cong. Rec. 21675, 21676, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
20. The International Monetary Fund Authorization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Trent] Lott [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Chairman: (1) The Clerk will report the 
    preferential motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 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 rec

[[Page 7152]]

        ommendation 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.

Sec. 28.30 The guarantee of 10 minutes of debate on amendments printed 
    in the Record inures to an amendment offered as a substitute for 
    another amendment, rather than as an original amendment, where 
    offered in the precise form printed.

    Although an amendment printed in the Record to assure debate time 
under Rule XXIII, clause 6 was not drafted as a substitute for another 
amendment, 10 minutes of debate was permitted on a substitute amendment 
offered to the precise point in the bill as previously printed in the 
Record. The proceedings of June 26, 1979,(2) during 
consideration of H.R. 3930, the Defense Production Act Amendments of 
1979, were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 125 Cong. Rec. 16681, 16682, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Udall: Page 8, after line 13 add the 
    following new subsection and renumber the subsequent sections 
    accordingly:
        (g)(1) The Secretary of Energy is hereby authorized to 
    designate a proposed synthetic fuel or feedstock facility as a 
    priority synthetic project pursuant to the procedures and criteria 
    provided in this section. . . .
        Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona] (during the reading): Mr. 
    Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered 
    as read and printed in the Record. . . .
        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, reserving the 
    right to object, I wish to make a point of order. Mr. Chairman, the 
    amendment which I had offered and had printed in the Record would 
    be an appropriate substitute amendment for the amendment

[[Page 7153]]

    offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Udall). Under the time 
    limitation, if I understand correctly, I have 5 minutes to offer 
    that amendment.
        The Chairman: (3) That is correct if offered in the 
    proper form. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Brown of Ohio: The question I would put to the Chair as a 
    parliamentary inquiry is: Does, then, my amendment become 
    appropriate to this amendment and give me the right to 5 minutes to 
    discuss my amendment?
        The Chairman: If the gentleman were to offer his amendment as a 
    substitute for this amendment in the form printed in the Record, he 
    would, indeed, have the 5 minutes guaranteed to him under the rule.

Sec. 28.31 To be guaranteed five minutes of debate on an amendment 
    printed in the Record under Rule XXIII clause 6, notwithstanding a 
    limitation of debate, the published amendment must properly 
    indicate the proposition under consideration to which such 
    published amendment is intended to be offered.

    On Sept. 28, 1976,(4) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 15,(5) motion to limit debate was 
agreed to which prompted parliamentary inquiries regarding the effect 
of that limitation on amendments which had been printed in the Record. 
The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 122 Cong. Rec. 33081, 33082, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
 5. Public Disclosure of Lobbying Act of 1976.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Walter] Flowers [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, I move that 
    all debate on the amendment in the nature of a substitute and all 
    amendments thereto be limited to 30 minutes.
        The Chairman: (6) The question is on the motion 
    offered by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Flowers). . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        [T]he motion was agreed to. . . .
        Mr. [Abner J.] Mikva [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, if any Member 
    has had an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    printed in the Record, that Member would, of course, be protected 
    by the rule and would be allowed to speak for 5 minutes?
        The Chairman: If the amendment had been printed in the proper 
    form, the gentleman is correct. . . .
        Mr. [Thomas N.] Kindness [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, to clarify 
    the previous parliamentary inquiry, if an amendment was published 
    in the Record as an amendment to be offered to H.R. 15 and not as 
    an amendment to the substitute, I take it that the Member offering 
    the amendment would not be protected at this stage of the 
    proceedings?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.

Sec. 28.32 Pursuant to Rule XXIII clause 6, only that Member who offers 
    an amendment

[[Page 7154]]

    which he has had printed in the Record is guaranteed five minutes 
    of debate notwithstanding a time limitation, and that right does 
    not inure to another Member who may offer the amendment.

    On June 1, 1976, (7) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 12169,(8) the above-described 
proceedings occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 122 Cong. Rec. 16044, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
 8. Federal Energy Administration extension.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I move that 
    all debate on all amendments to the bill and all amendments thereto 
    end at 5:30. . . .
        Mr. [Frank] Horton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman 
    from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) had to leave. I am going to offer an 
    amendment that he was going to offer. It was printed in the Record.
        Will I be permitted to do this?
        The Chairman: (9) The Chair will advise the 
    gentleman from New York that only those Members who have had their 
    amendments printed in the Record will be protected. Only those 
    Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Horton: It was in the Record, but it was not under my name. 
    It was an amendment of the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd). I 
    would offer it in his absence.
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman from New York 
    that the Member who places the amendment in the Record must offer 
    it for there to be debate on the amendment under clause 6 of rule 
    XXIII.

Sec. 28.33 Printing an amendment in the Record pursuant to Rule XXIII 
    clause 6 merely permits 10 minutes of debate thereon 
    notwithstanding a limitation of time if the amendment has been 
    properly offered, and does not permit the offering of an amendment 
    not otherwise in order under the rules.

    On Apr. 23, 1975,(10) during consideration of a bill 
(11) in the Committee of the Whole, an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute was offered and the following proceedings 
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 121 Cong. Rec. 11491, 11499, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
11. 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: 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.''

[[Page 7155]]

            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: (12) The question is on the motion 
    offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 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.

Sec. 28.34 An amendment must be offered in the precise form in which it 
    was printed in the Congressional Record to guarantee its proponent 
    time for debate notwithstanding a limitation imposed in Committee 
    of the Whole.

    On July 25, 1974,(13) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a bill,(14) the following 
proceedings occurred with regard to an amendment that was offered:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 120 Cong. Rec. 25253, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
14. H.R. 11500, the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1974.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Philip E.] Ruppe [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ruppe to the committee amendment 
        in the nature of a substitute: Page 282, line 14, after the 
        period insert the following words: ``The general elevation of 
        the overall mined area may be lower than its original 
        elevation. . . .

        The Chairman: (15) The Chair will ask the gentleman, 
    Was this printed in the Record?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Ruppe: Something was printed in the Record similar to it, 
    but I have changed the language somewhat.
        The Chairman: It must be identical. If the amendment was not 
    printed in the Record there can be a vote on the amendment but 
    there will be no time for debate.

[[Page 7156]]

        The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Michigan (Mr. Ruppe) to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute.

Sec. 28.35 While clause 6 of Rule XXIII permits any Member who has 
    printed an amendment in the Record five minutes of debate thereon 
    notwithstanding time limitations imposed by the Committee of the 
    Whole, the amendment must be offered in the precise form in which 
    it was printed in the Record to guarantee its proponent time for 
    debate, and an amendment printed in the Record to be offered to 
    original text is not protected by the rule when offered in 
    different form as an amendment to a pending substitute.

    On July 22, 1974,(16) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration the bill, H.R. 11500, the Surface Mining Control 
and Reclamation Act of 1974, an inquiry was addressed to the Chair 
regarding debate on amendments which had been printed in the 
Congressional Record. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 120 Cong. Rec. 24453, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Ken] Hechler of West Virginia: A parliamentary inquiry, 
    Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: (17) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hechler of West Virginia: If the substitute is adopted, 
    offered by the gentlewoman from Hawaii, would it be out of order to 
    have amendments to that section? . . .
        The Chairman: Once the substitute is adopted, then a vote would 
    be on the Hosmer amendment as amended by the substitute. Prior to 
    the vote on the substitute, however, there could be amendments to 
    the substitute. . . .
        Mr. [Craig] Hosmer [of California]: If that is the case, how 
    would one key in the amendments to the substitute, inasmuch as the 
    substitute is basically a Xerox copy of section 201, with its 
    original line numbers on some pages starting at line 18 and ending 
    on line 13 and at other pages going to other delineations?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the amendments must be 
    drafted as an amendment to the substitute, rather than to a section 
    of the committee amendment. . . .
        Mr. Hechler of West Virginia: What about those Members who have 
    had their amendments printed in the Record; would they then be 
    entitled to transfer the 5 minutes to which they are eligible under 
    the rules to amendments to the substitute?
        The Chairman: Debate on such amendments, assuming a limitation 
    of time, would only be in order if the amendments were properly 
    offered in the precise form in which they had been printed in the 
    Record, and if the amendments had not been printed in the Record as 
    amendments to the sub

[[Page 7157]]

    stitute, then debate would not be permitted.

    Later, in proceedings (18) relating to the same bill, 
H.R. 11500, Mr. Joseph M. McDade, of Pennsylvania, sought to offer an 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 120 Cong. Rec. 25232, 93d Cong. 2d Sess., July 25, 1974.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. McDade: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment 
    offered as a substitute for the amendment to the committee 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute. . . .
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. McDade to the amendment offered by 
        Mr. Ruppe as a substitute for the amendment offered by Mr. 
        Seiberling to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
        substitute: Page 249, strike out lines 15 through 16 and insert 
        in lieu thereof the following:
            (3) appropriations made to the fund, or amounts credited to 
        the fund, under subsection (d). . . .

        The Chairman: (19) The Chair will advise the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania that the time has been set. The 
    gentleman is not on the list.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. McDade: Mr. Chairman, may I say that I have this amendment 
    printed in the Record. It has been printed for about 10 days.
        The Chairman: This is an amendment drafted as an amendment to 
    the Ruppe substitute, whereas the amendment which the gentleman 
    caused to be printed in the Record was drafted as an amendment to 
    the committee amendment.

--Where Special Rule Limits Consideration

Sec. 28.36 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 Reform 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:

[[Page 7158]]

            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 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.

Scope of Debate on Pro Forma Amendment

Sec. 28.37 Debate in the Committee of the Whole under the five-minute 
    rule is confined to the subject and, if the point of order is 
    raised, a Member may not under a pro forma amendment discuss a 
    section of the bill not immediately pending. (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Pro forma amendments are those phrased to make some superficial 
        change in a bill--such as ``to strike the last word''--where 
        the underlying purpose is to obtain time for debate or to offer 
        an explanation, no actual change in the bill being 
        contemplated. Such amendments are discussed in Sec. 2, supra. 
        See, especially, Sec. 2.4, supra, discussing the scope of 
        debate on a pro forma amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 28.38 Debate on a pro forma amendment must be confined to the 
    portion of the bill to which the pro forma amendment has been 
    offered.

[[Page 7159]]

    On June 21, 1974, (3) during consideration of a bill in 
the Committee of the Whole, the Chair made the ruling described above:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 120 Cong. Rec. 20595, 93d Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 15472, agriculture, environment and consumer 
        appropriations, fiscal 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Pierre S.] du Pont [of Delaware]: Mr. Chairman, I move to 
    strike the requisite number of words. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I am taking this time now for fear that when we 
    get down to the end of the bill there will be a limitation of time, 
    and I will not have the opportunity to explain the amendment that I 
    intend to offer on the last page of the bill.
        Mr. Chairman, I intend to offer an amendment to set a maximum 
    limit on the appropriations under this bill to $12.7 billion. . . .
        Mr. [John E.] Moss [of California]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (4) The gentleman will state his point 
    of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Sam Gibbons (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Moss: Mr. Chairman, my point of order is that I must insist 
    upon the regular order, and the regular order is not being 
    observed. There has been no unanimous-consent request to proceed 
    out of order, and the House is now proceeding out of order. So I 
    call for the regular order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will proceed in the regular order.
        Mr. [H. John] Heinz [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, will the 
    gentleman yield?
        Mr. du Pont: I will be glad to yield to the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania.
        Mr. Heinz: I thank the gentleman for yielding.
        I am afraid the intent---
        Mr. Moss: Mr. Chairman, I insist on the regular order, and the 
    regular order is the point of the bill where we are now reading. It 
    is not a point to be reached at a later time. I insist upon the 
    regular order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct. The gentleman in the 
    well received permission to strike out the last word and then 
    proceeded to discuss an amendment to be offered to the last section 
    of the bill. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is not discussing a 
    part of the bill that is pending.
        The point of order is sustained.

Sec. 28.39 Where a special order adopted by the House permitted the 
    offering of a non-germane amendment which would then be subject to 
    both pro forma amendments for debate and to four designated 
    amendments (which in turn would also be subject to pro forma 
    amendments), the Chair indicated that pro forma debate on the 
    broader subject of the original amendment could be had although one 
    of the substantive amendments thereto might be pending.

    On Oct. 17, 1979, (5) The Committee of the Whole having 
under

[[Page 7160]]

consideration S. 832 (6) pursuant to a special order, the 
Chair responded to a parliamentary inquiry as described above. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 125 Cong. Rec. 28643-45, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
 6. Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 Amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (7) Pursuant to the rule, the Clerk 
    will now read the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    recommended by the Committee on House Administration now printed in 
    the reported bill as an original bill for the purpose of amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled, That 
        section 319 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
        U.S.C. 439c) is amended by striking out ``and'' after ``1977'' 
        and by inserting after ``1978'' the following: ``, and 
        $8,998,823 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1980''. . . 
        .

        The Chairman: If there are no amendments to the committee 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute, the Chair will recognize 
    the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] to offer the amendment made 
    in order by the rule. . . .
        Mr. [Bill] Frenzel [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, under the rule 
    is it possible to offer pro forma amendments on the bill proper 
    after the gentleman from Wisconsin and his friends have offered 
    their amendments?
        The Chairman: The Chair would like to advise the gentleman from 
    Minnesota [Mr. Frenzel] that pro forma amendments would be in order 
    at that time.

Sec. 28.40 While normally under the five-minute rule debate on a pro 
    forma amendment may relate either to a pending amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute or to a perfecting amendment thereto (as not 
    necessarily in the third degree), where a special rule permitted 
    the offering of both perfecting amendments in the second degree and 
    of pro forma amendments to the substitute when perfecting 
    amendments were not pending, the Chair permitted pro forma 
    amendments during pendency of perfecting amendments but, in 
    response to a point of order, required that debate be related 
    solely to the perfecting amendment.

    An example of the proposition described above occurred on May 26, 
1982 (8) during consideration of House Concurrent Resolution 
345, the first concurrent resolution on the budget. The proceedings in 
the Committee of the Whole were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 128 Cong. Rec. 12088, 12090, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Les] AuCoin [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike 
    the requisite

[[Page 7161]]

    number of words not because I intend to speak to the amendment of 
    the gentleman from Michigan, but instead to take this time in 
    concert with colleagues who care very much about what the Latta 
    amendment does to housing. Not for housing, but to housing. . . .
        Mr. [James H.] Quillen [of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    understood we were debating the Conyers amendment, and I did not 
    hear permission to speak out of order.
        Mr. AuCoin: Mr. Chairman, my remarks go to the Latta 
    substitute, and I believe that is pending before the committee.
        The Chairman: (9) The Chair will have to state that 
    the matter that is pending is the Conyers amendment, and that 
    debate should be germane to the Conyers amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Chairman insisted that debate proceed 
in an ``orderly fashion'', that once a perfecting amendment was 
offered, debate under the five-minute rule be confined thereto, and not 
to one of the three underlying substitutes pending simultaneously. 
Separate debate on those substitutes was to be permitted only between 
consideration of numbered perfecting amendments.

Sec. 28.41 Where a special order permits both the offering of specified 
    perfecting amendments in a certain order and pro forma amendments, 
    the Chair has discretion to recognize Members to offer pro forma 
    amendments to debate the underlying text between consideration of 
    perfecting amendments.

    On May 26, 1982, (10) The Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration House Concurrent Resolution 345, (11) 
the Chair responded to a parliamentary inquiry regarding the 
circumstances described above. The proceedings were as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 128 Cong. Rec. 12141, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
11. First concurrent resolution on the budget, fiscal 1983.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Henry A.] Waxman [of California]: At the appropriate time 
    after we have completed this amendment, I will seek to strike the 
    last word to make other comments that may be of interest to 
    Members.

        Mr. [Edward R.] Madigan [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (12) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Madigan: Is the procedure that has just been suggested by 
    the gentleman from California one that would be in order?
        The Chairman: The Chair will entertain pro forma amendments 
    between amendments.
        Mr. Madigan: Further pursuing my parliamentary inquiry, Mr. 
    Chairman,

[[Page 7162]]

    how would the gentleman from California be able to be recognized to 
    speak in behalf of something that he says he is not going to offer?
        The Chairman: Between amendments, no amendment is pending. That 
    is why a pro forma amendment presumably to one of the substitutes 
    will be allowed. It provides an opportunity for discussion between 
    amendments.

Pro Forma Amendments After Expiration of Time

Sec. 28.42 Where a limitation on debate under the five-minute rule on 
    an amendment and all amendments thereto has expired, no further 
    debate is in order and a Member may not gain time for debate by 
    offering a pro forma amendment ``to strike the last word.''

    On Aug. 2, 1978,(13) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 12514,(14) the above-stated 
proposition was illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 124 Cong. Rec. 23947, 23954, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
14. The International Security Assistance Act of 1978.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I move 
    that all debate on the pending amendment and all amendments thereto 
    end at 4 o'clock.
        The Chairman: (15) The question is on the motion 
    offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Zablocki).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Don Fuqua (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The motion was agreed to.
        The Chairman: Members standing at the time the motion was made 
    will be recognized for 1 minute and 20 seconds each. . . .

    After the time had expired, another Member sought recognition.

        The Chairman: For what purpose does the gentleman from 
    California (Mr. Lagomarsino) rise?
        Mr. [Robert J.] Lagomarsino [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    move to strike the last word.
        The Chairman: The Chair will inform the gentleman that no 
    further debate is in order at this time.

Limiting Debate Only on Substitute

Sec. 28.43 Where a substitute has been offered for an amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute, and the Committee of the Whole limits 
    debate on the substitute and all amendments thereto, such 
    limitation does not apply to amendments which may be offered to the 
    original amendment in the nature of a substitute.

    On Sept. 29, 1965,(16) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 111 Cong. Rec. 25426, 89th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 4644.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (17) . . . When the Committee rose 
    there was pending a

[[Page 7163]]

    substitute amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
    Sisk) for the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by 
    the gentleman from New York (Mr. Multer).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [B. F.] Sisk: Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a unanimous-
    consent request.
        Mr. Chairman, in order to expedite the business of the House--
    and after some 3 days of debate it seems to me the time has come to 
    move along--I ask unanimous consent that all debate on the Sisk 
    amendment and all amendments thereto close in 20 minutes. . . .
        Mr. [Abraham J.] Multer: Mr. Chairman, there is an amendment to 
    be offered to the Multer amendment. Would that come out of the time 
    reserved for the closing of debate on the Sisk amendment, if that 
    is offered--in other words, if someone offers an amendment to the 
    Multer amendment?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state to the gentleman from New 
    York that as the Chair understood the request of the gentleman from 
    California, it was that all debate on the Sisk substitute and all 
    amendments thereto close in 20 minutes and that, therefore, would 
    not preclude the offering of any amendments to the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from New York.

Debate on Amendment in Nature of Substitute or Amendments Thereto

Sec. 28.44 Where there was pending an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute for a bill and amendments thereto, the Chair indicated 
    in response to parliamentary inquiries: (1) that a motion to limit 
    debate on the amendment in the nature of a substitute and all 
    amendments thereto was in order although the bill itself had not 
    been read; (2) that amendments printed in the Record would be 
    debatable for 10 minutes notwithstanding the limitation; and (3) 
    that all Members would be allocated equal time under the limitation 
    regardless of committee membership but that Members seeking to 
    offer amendments could be first recognized.

    On June 10, 1976,(18) during consideration of a bill 
(19) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair responded to 
several parliamentary inquiries regarding a motion to limit debate. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 122 Cong. Rec. 17380, 17381, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
19. H.R. 13367, a bill to amend and extend the State and Local Fiscal 
        Assistance Act of 1972.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Frank] Horton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I move that all 
    debate on the Brooks amendment and all amendments thereto end by 6 
    p.m. . . .
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, is there 
    any reason for the Clerk to read? I do not remember the bill being 
    open at any point to amendment.

[[Page 7164]]

        The Chairman: (20) The motion of the gentleman from 
    New York, as the Chair understood it, was that all debate on the 
    Brooks amendment and all amendments thereto end at 6 p.m.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bauman: So that the motion is in order?
        The Chairman: The motion is in order. It is limited to the 
    Brooks amendment and amendments thereto. . . .
        Mr. [Clarence D.] Long of Maryland: Mr. Chairman, of course I 
    believe it is understood that this does not apply to any amendments 
    that are printed in the Congressional Record?
        The Chairman: Under the rules of the House, it does not apply 
    to those amendments. . . .
        Mr. [J. J.] Pickle [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, under the proposed 
    time limitation, would the Chair tend to recognize a Member who is 
    not a member of the committee? For instance, the gentleman from 
    Washington (Mr. Adams) has an important amendment, and if he is not 
    recognized within the time limitation, would the chairman of the 
    committee let the gentleman be recognized? . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that under limitation of 
    time committee members no longer have priority in seeking 
    recognition. Time is equally allocated.
        So the motion was agreed to.
        The Chairman: . . . The Chair would ask that Members with 
    amendments to be offered seek recognition first, and the Chair 
    would request that Members attempt to address themselves to the 
    amendments.

Sec. 28.45 Where there is pending an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute, a substitute therefor, an amendment to the original 
    amendment and an amendment to the substitute, a Member may be 
    recognized to debate the amendment to the substitute either prior 
    or subsequent to the first vote on the amendment to the amendment 
    in the nature of a substitute.

    On Oct. 1, 1974,(1) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration a resolution,(2) the Chair responded to 
a parliamentary inquiry as described above:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 120 Cong. Rec. 33338, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
 2. H. Res. 988, to reform the structure, jurisdiction, and procedures 
        of House committees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (3) The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Eckhardt: Mr. Chairman, do I understand correctly that the 
    Thompson amendment is to the Hansen substitute, and that no other 
    amendment would be in order to that amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute until the Thompson amendment is voted upon?
        The Chairman: The Chair would like to inform the gentleman that 
    he is correct. No additional amendments to the Hansen amendment in 
    the nature

[[Page 7165]]

    of a substitute are in order until the Thompson amendment is voted 
    on.
        Further, the Chair would like to advise the gentleman that no 
    additional amendments to the Martin substitute are in order until 
    the Sullivan amendment (thereto) is voted upon. . . .
        Mr. Eckhardt: Mr. Chairman, would I be protected in supporting 
    the Sullivan amendment if I should wait and postpone asking for 
    recognition until after the Thompson amendment has been disposed 
    of?
        The Chairman: The Chair would like to inform the gentleman that 
    he has a choice but that he can at this time debate the Sullivan 
    amendment, and the Chair would recognize the gentleman for that 
    purpose.

Sec. 28.46 Where there was pending an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute, a substitute therefor and an amendment to the 
    substitute, and debate had been limited on the substitute and all 
    amendments thereto but not on the original amendment or amendments 
    thereto, the Chair indicated that (1) further amendments to the 
    substitute or modifications of the substitute by unanimous consent 
    must await disposition of the pending amendment to the substitute; 
    (2) amendments to the original amendment could be offered and 
    debated under the five-minute rule and would be voted on before 
    amendments to the substitute; (3) amendments to the substitute 
    could be offered and voted upon without debate unless printed in 
    the Record pursuant to Rule XXIII clause 6; and (4) the question 
    would not be put on the substitute until all perfecting amendments 
    to it and to the original amendment were disposed of.

    On Feb. 5, 1976,(4) during consideration of H.R. 9464, 
the Natural Gas Emergency Act of 1976, there was pending an amendment 
in the nature of a substitute (the Krueger amendment); a substitute 
therefor (the Smith amendment); and an amendment to the substitute (the 
Eckhardt amendment). A unanimous-consent request was made to limit 
debate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 122 Cong. Rec. 2646-48, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to 
    strike the requisite number of words.
        Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on the 
    Smith amendment and all amendments thereto terminate immediately 
    upon the conclusion of consideration of the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Eckhardt). . . .
        There was no objection. . . .
        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, as I understood 
    it, the unanimous-consent request of the gen

[[Page 7166]]

    tleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) was that all debate on the Smith 
    substitute amendment cease after the disposition of the Eckhardt 
    amendment.
        The Eckhardt amendment would be the pending business then, and 
    immediately after the determination of the Eckhardt amendment, we 
    would vote on the Smith amendment. Is that not correct? . . .
        The Chairman: (5) Not necessarily, because there 
    could be an amendment to the Krueger amendment, which would be 
    debatable. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . Before we vote on the Smith substitute, amendments to the 
    Krueger amendment are debatable if offered. . . .
        The point that the Chair is trying to make, regardless of what 
    agreements are reached, is that until the Krueger amendment is 
    finally perfected to the satisfaction of the Committee, the Chair 
    cannot put the question on the Smith substitute.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: The Chair cannot put the question on the 
    Smith amendment?

        The Chairman: The Chair cannot put the question on the Smith 
    substitute until the Krueger amendment is perfected to the 
    satisfaction of the Committee.
        There has been no limitation of debate on the Krueger amendment 
    or amendments thereto. The basic parliamentary situation is that we 
    have a substitute amendment for the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute, the Krueger amendment. Both of those are subject to 
    amendment, but both must be perfected before the Chair can put the 
    question on the substitute for the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: With respect to the unanimous-consent 
    request of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the Eckhardt 
    amendment is still to be voted upon, and then there are to be no 
    other amendments to the Smith amendment?
        The Chairman: There is to be no further debate on such 
    amendments. . . .
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, if my time still applies, I 
    would like to ask the Chair to state the circumstances. If I may, 
    before the Chair does that, I would like to ask the question this 
    way: As the situation stands at this moment, the Krueger amendment 
    is still perfectable by amendments under the normal course of time, 
    and there is no limitation on the Krueger amendment.
        The Smith amendment, however, can be perfected only by the vote 
    on the Eckhardt amendment, and then if there are other amendments 
    to the Smith amendment there is no debate time remaining on those 
    amendments.
        Is that correct?
        The Chairman: Unless they are printed in the Record.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: And if they are printed in the Record, the 
    debate time is 5 minutes per side pro and con. Is that correct?
        The Chairman: That is correct. . . .
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, it is, however, a fact that the 
    gentleman may have an amendment at the desk and it may be voted on 
    without debate under the unanimous-consent request?
        The Chairman: That is correct.

[[Page 7167]]

        Mr. [Robert] Krueger [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Krueger: Mr. Chairman, there are still those of us who are 
    not certain of the parliamentary situation. I am among them.
        Mr. Chairman, my question is this: We will vote first on the 
    Eckhardt amendment to the Smith substitute?
        The Chairman: That is right.
        Mr. Krueger: Following that, there will then be a vote without 
    further debate on the Smith substitute, or no?
        The Chairman: The Chair cannot say, because if there were 
    amendments printed in the Record, there can be both an amendment 
    offered and debate on the amendment. If there were no amendments 
    that were qualified for debate by being printed in the Record, they 
    could not be offered and voted on without debate.
        But if they are offered to the Krueger amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute, they would both be considered and would be 
    debatable under the 5-minute rule. . . .
        The 5-minute rule applies only to amendments to the Smith 
    amendment which has been printed in the Record. Other amendments to 
    the Smith amendment do not have debate time; they are just voted 
    on. . . .
        Mr. [Benjamin A.] Gilman [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment to the Krueger amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute. My amendment has been printed in the Record.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Gilman to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Krueger immediately after 
        section 26 of the Natural Gas Act (as added by section 208) 
        insert the following:

        ``treatment of rates and charges for natural gas sold to senior 
                                    citizens

Sec. 25. (a) The Commission shall prohibit any natural-gas company from 
    selling or otherwise supplying natural gas to any local natural gas 
    company which increases the rates for natural gas sold to senior 
    citizens. . . .

        Mr. [Joe D.] Waggonner [Jr., of Louisiana] (during the 
    reading): Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.
        The point of order lies to the fact that the amendment now 
    being read is to the Krueger amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute and is not in order until there has been a disposition 
    of the Eckhardt amendment to the Smith substitute.
        The Chairman: The Chair has stated that any amendment to the 
    Krueger amendment in the nature of a substitute may now be offered 
    and is debatable.
        Mr. Waggonner: But, Mr. Chairman, the amendment is not in order 
    until there has been a disposition of the Eckhardt amendment to the 
    Smith substitute which is now under consideration.
        The Chairman: This amendment takes precedence. This amendment 
    takes precedence over the amendment to the substitute amendment. 
    That is what the Chair has been trying to say now, repeatedly. The 
    amendment that

[[Page 7168]]

    has precedence is an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute, and this is the amendment that is now before the 
    committee. . . .
        The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Texas (Mr. Eckhardt) to the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Iowa (Mr. Smith) as a substitute for the amendment in the nature of 
    a substitute offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Krueger).
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Eckhardt) there were--ayes 33, noes 35.
        So the amendment to the substitute amendment for the amendment 
    in the nature of a substitute was rejected.

--Limitation on Debate on Amendment in Nature of Substitute But Not on 
    Original Text

Sec. 28.47 Where there is a time limitation on debate on a pending 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute and all amendments thereto, 
    but not on the underlying original text, debate on perfecting 
    amendments to the original text proceeds under the five-minute rule 
    in the absence of another time limitation thereon; and even where 
    debate on the substitute was, under the limitation, to end at a 
    time certain, the time remaining for debate may, by unanimous 
    consent, be determined and reserved to follow disposition of the 
    perfecting amendments, without regard to the agreed upon time 
    certain.

    An example of the situation described above occurred on Apr. 13, 
1983,(6) during consideration of House Joint Resolution 13 
(dealing with nuclear weapons freeze). The proceedings in the Committee 
of the Whole were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 129 Cong. Rec. 8402-04, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Elliott H.] Levitas [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    perfecting amendment at the desk to section 2 of House Joint 
    Resolution 13.
        The Chairman: (7) the Chair will advise that 
    perfecting amendments to the underlying text are in order at this 
    time while the Levitas amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
    pending. But the Chair will also point out that if any Member is 
    recognized to offer a perfecting amendment at this time, debate 
    will not be limited on the perfecting amendment and the vote will 
    first come on the perfecting amendment and on any potential 
    amendments thereto before the question is put on the Levitas 
    substitute. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Henry J.] Hyde [of Illinois]: . . . (I)f the gentleman 
    from Georgia's motion is granted or his request is granted, the 
    limitation that has been set on debate would no longer prevail; is 
    that correct?
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman that the 
    limitation

[[Page 7169]]

    of debate applies only to debate on the amendment in the nature of 
    a substitute offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Levitas) 
    which is now pending. . . .
        Mr. Levitas: Mr. Chairman, I offer a perfecting amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows: . . .
        Mr. Levitas: Mr. Chairman, I will seek recognition for debate 
    on the amendment if I may ask a parliamentary inquiry before I do.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Levitas: My parliamentary inquiry is this. The perfecting 
    amendment which I have just offered is now available for debate 
    under the 5-minute rule without any time constraints?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Levitas: The time limitation that was originally agreed to 
    for termination of debate on the pending substitute to end at 3 
    o'clock, that was the focus of the time limitation.
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Levitas: My parliamentary inquiry is this: Would it be in 
    order to request unanimous consent to preserve the time of those 
    Members who had time allocated to them under the original 
    limitation so that their time would be preserved at the conclusion 
    of the disposition of the pending amendment?
        The Chairman: The gentleman or any other Member could request 
    unanimous consent for that purpose.
        Mr. Levitas: A further parliamentary inquiry: Would it be in 
    order after this amendment is explained to seek a time limitation 
    on debate of the pending amendment?
        The Chairman: That would be in order.
        Mr. Levitas: Well, under the circumstances, Mr. Chairman, I 
    will make a unanimous-consent request that after the question is 
    put on the pending amendment, that the time remaining under the 
    original time limitation on the substitute will be made available 
    to the Members who have such time allocated to them. . . .
        The Chairman: . . . Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Georgia?
        There was no objection.

Debate on Motion To Strike Out May Proceed Before Perfecting Amendment 
    Is Offered

Sec. 28.48 Although the motion to strike out and insert is in order 
    while a motion to strike out is pending, when a Member's motion to 
    strike out has been reported he is entitled to speak thereto before 
    another Member is recognized to offer a motion to strike out and 
    insert.

    On Sept. 30, 1965,(8) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 111 Cong. Rec. 25696, 89th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 10281.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James T.] Broyhill of North Carolina: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Broyhill of North Carolina: On 
        page 38,

[[Page 7170]]

        strike out line 9 and all that follows through line 5 on page 
        39. . . .

        Mr. [Robert J.] Corbett [of Pennsylvania]: I wish to propose a 
    substitute for the amendment. Shall I offer that now, or after the 
    gentleman is recognized to speak on his amendment?
        The Chairman: (9) the Chair will state that the 
    gentleman's substitute amendment (to strike and insert) will be in 
    order and may be offered after the gentleman from North Carolina 
    (Mr. Broyhill), has used his time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. John H. Dent (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 28.49 While a motion to strike a pending portion of a bill will be 
    held in abeyance until perfecting amendments to that portion are 
    disposed of, a Member who has been recognized to debate his motion 
    to strike may not be deprived of the floor by another Member who 
    seeks to offer a perfecting amendment; after the Member so 
    recognized has completed his five minutes in support of his motion 
    to strike, but before the question is put on the motion to strike, 
    the perfecting amendment may be offered and voted upon.

    On Oct. 31, 1975, (10) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration a bill, (11) the proceedings, described 
above, were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 121 Cong. Rec. 34564, 34565, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
11. H.R. 10024, Depository Institutions Amendments of 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John H.] Rousselot [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Rousselot: Beginning on page 10, 
        line 18, strike all that follows through page 188, line 10. . . 
        .

        Mr. [Fernand J.] St Germain [of Rhode Island]: I believe that 
    under the rules of the House since this amendment involves a motion 
    to strike the title, that perfecting amendments that are at the 
    desk take precedence over such a motion to strike a title. Is that 
    not correct?
        The Chairman: (12) That is true, if any are offered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Spark M. Matsunaga (Ha.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. St Germain: I believe there are amendments pending.
        Mr. [John Joseph] Moakley [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    might state that I was standing when the Chairman recognized the 
    gentleman from California (Mr. Rousselot), and I have a perfecting 
    amendment at the desk.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from California, Mr. Rousselot, is pending now, 
    and that the gentleman from California has been recognized. The 
    gentleman may offer his perfecting amendment after the gentleman 
    from California has completed his five minutes in support of his 
    amendment to strike.

[[Page 7171]]

Debate Where Amendment Is Offered, Withdrawn, and Then Reoffered

Sec. 28.50 Upon reintroduction of an amendment that has, by unanimous 
    consent, been withdrawn in the Committee of the Whole, the Member 
    is entitled to debate his amendment for a second five-minute 
    period.

    On May 3, 1956, (13) the following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 102 Cong. Rec. 7439, 84th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 10875, the Soil Bank Act of 1956.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Noah M.] Mason [of Illinois]: Under the rules of the House 
    does a man get two 5-minute discussions of the same amendment?
        The Chairman: (14) The gentleman withdrew his 
    amendment, and it has been offered again. The gentleman from Maine 
    is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. J. Percy Priest (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Debate After Adoption of Substitute to Amendment

Sec. 28.51 Under the five-minute rule, no debate may intervene after a 
    substitute for an amendment has been adopted and before the vote on 
    the amendment as amended, except by unanimous consent, since the 
    amendment has been amended in its entirety and no further 
    amendments including pro forma amendments are in order.

    An example of the proposition described above occurred on Oct. 18, 
1983, (15) during consideration of H.R. 3231.(1) 
The proceedings in the Committee of the Whole were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 129 Cong. Rec. 28185, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
 1. Export Administration Act Amendments of 1983.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Chairman Pro Tempore: (2) The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Bonker), as 
amended, as a substitute for the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Roth), as amended. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. George E. Brown, Jr. (California).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Toby] Roth [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I demand a 
    recorded vote.
        A recorded vote was ordered.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 
    240, noes 173, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 19, as follows. . 
    . .
        So the amendment, as amended, offered as a substitute for the 
    amendment, as amended, was agreed to.
        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
        Mr. [Edwin V.W.] Zschau [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I move 
    to strike the last word.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Without objection, the gentleman from 
    Cali

[[Page 7172]]

    fornia (Mr. Zschau) is recognized for 5 minutes.
        There was no objection.

Debate on Remaining Portions of Divisible Amendment

Sec. 28.52 Where the question has been put on the first portion of a 
    divisible amendment, further debate on the remaining portion may be 
    had under the five-minute rule before the Chair puts the question 
    thereon.

    On Aug. 4, 1983,(3) The Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 2230, (4) the above-stated 
proposition was illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 129 Cong. Rec. 23134, 23142, 23143, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
 4. The Civil Rights Commission Act of 1983.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Don] Edwards of California: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Edwards of California: Page 2, 
        line 2, insert ``(a)'' after ``Sec. 2''.
            Page 2, line 4, strike out ``1998'' and insert ``1988'' in 
        lieu thereof.
            Page 2, after line 4, insert the following:
            ``(b) Section 104(c) of the Civil Rights Act of 1957 (42 
        U.S.C. 1975c(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following: 
        ``During the period which begins on the date of the enactment 
        of the Civil Rights Commission Act of 1983 and ends on 
        September 30, 1988, the President may remove a member of the 
        Commission only for neglect of duty or malfeasance in 
        office.''.

        Mr. [James F.] Sensenbrenner [Jr., of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, 
    pursuant to the rule, I demand a division of the question. . . .
        The Chairman: (5) The Chair would point out to the 
    gentleman that the amendment really contains three parts, the 
    second being, on page 2, line 4, to strike out ``1998'' and insert 
    ``1988''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Morris K. Udall (Arizona).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The first part is, on page 2, line 2, to insert ``(a)'' after 
    ``Sec. 2''.
        Then the third part is the insertion of a new subsection (b) 
    dealing with the removal of commissioners before the term of 
    office.
        The Chair would propose to put the question first only on the 
    date change, and then on the remainder of the amendment which 
    constitutes in effect one proposition. . . .
        The question now is on that portion of the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from California (Mr. Edwards) dealing with the date 
    change from ``1998'' to ``1988.''. . .
        [The portion of the amendment dealing with the date change from 
    ``1998'' to ``1988'' was agreed to.]
        Mr. [Elliott H.] Levitas [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    understand the vote that was just taken was on the first part of a 
    divided question. My inquiry is: Is it in order at this time for 
    there to be any further debate on the second portion of the 
    question that has been divided?
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman that further 
    debate

[[Page 7173]]

    would be in order under the 5-minute rule until the Chair puts the 
    question.
        Mr. Levitas: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
    number of words.

Debate Under Reservation of Objection

Sec. 28.53 Unanimous consent is not required to adopt an amendment to a 
    pending amendment, and the Chair may decline to permit debate to 
    proceed under a reservation of objection to such unanimous-consent 
    request and require debate to proceed under the five-minute rule.

    On Feb. 24, 1977, (6) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 11,(7) an amendment was offered to 
a pending amendment. The proceedings, described above, were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 123 Cong. Rec. 5327, 5329, 5330, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
 7. Local Public Works Capital Development and Investment Act 
        Amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. [Parren J.] Mitchell of Maryland: Madam Chairman, I offer an 
amendment.

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Mitchell of Maryland: Page 2, line 
        23, insert ``(1)'' immediately before ``Notwithstanding.''
            Page 3, line 7, strike out the quotation marks and the 
        period immediately following the quotation marks.

            Page 3, immediately after line 7, add the following:
            ``(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no grant 
        shall be made under this Act for any local public works project 
        unless at least 10 per centum of the dollar volume of each 
        contract shall be set aside for minority business enterprise. . 
        . .

        Mr. [Robert A.] Roe [of New Jersey]: Madam Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland 
    (Mr. Mitchell) and ask unanimous consent that it be adopted.
        Mr. [William H.] Harsha [of Ohio]: Madam Chairman, reserving 
    the right to object, I would like to know exactly the language of 
    the gentleman's amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Roe to the amendment offered by 
        Mr. Mitchell of Maryland: In lieu of the Mitchell amendment 
        insert the following:
            Page 3, in lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted after 
        line 7, insert the following:
            ``(2) Except to the extent that the Secretary determines 
        otherwise, no grant shall be made under this Act for any local 
        public works project unless the applicant gives satisfactory 
        assurance to the Secretary that at least 10 per centum of the 
        amount of each grant shall be expended for minority business 
        enterprises. For purposes of this paragraph, the term `minority 
        business enterprises' means a business at least 50 percent of 
        which is owned by minority group members. . . .

        The Chairman: (8) Is there objection to the 
    unanimous-consent request of

[[Page 7174]]

    the gentleman from New Jersey to amend the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Maryland?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Barbara Jordan (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Harsha: Madam Chairman, reserving the right to object, I 
    want to try to clarify this. . . .
        The Chairman: Rather than proceed under the gentleman's 
    reservation of objection, the Chair will treat the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from New Jersey to the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from Maryland as pending and proceed under the 5-
    minute rule, so that debate can then take place in the proper way. 
    . . .
        Mr. Roe: Is it possible for others who desire to do so to 
    reserve the right to object?
        The Chairman: The Chair will put the question on the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from New Jersey to the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from Maryland, unless further Members desire to 
    debate the issue under the 5-minute rule.
        The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Roe) is recognized for 5 
    minutes on his amendment. . . .
        Mr. [James J.] Howard [of New Jersey]: Madam Chairman, I would 
    ask the Chair if unanimous consent was granted for the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from New Jersey to be before the House.
        The Chairman: That was not necessary. It is still an amendment 
    to an amendment which is pending business to be voted on by the 
    committee.

Separate Debate Time on Points of Order

Sec. 28.54 The proponent of an amendment against which a point of order 
    has been reserved may not reserve a portion of his time under the 
    five-minute rule to oppose any points of order if made, as separate 
    debate time is permitted on points of order at the discretion of 
    the Chair.

    When the Committee of the Whole is proceeding under the five-minute 
rule, debate on points of order against an amendment is within the 
discretion of the Chair and does not come out of the debate time 
allotted as to the merits of the amendment. Thus, on Aug. 1, 
1975,(9) the Chair (10) indicated that it was not 
necessary to reserve debate time to address a point of order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 121 Cong. Rec. 26945, 94th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 7014, Energy Conservation and Oil Policy Act of 1975.
10. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Brown of Ohio: Strike out Title 
        III, as amended, and reinsert all except for Section 301, as 
        amended.

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a 
    point of order against the amendment. . . .
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, the thrust of this amendment 
    is to strike from the bill the provisions of

[[Page 7175]]

    the Staggers pricing amendment, section 301, by revising title III 
    to strike the whole title and to reinsert all in the title, except 
    section 301.
        Mr. Chairman, may I speak on the amendment?
        The Chairman: The gentleman has been recognized for 5 minutes, 
    so the gentleman may proceed.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, may I reserve 2 minutes of my 
    time to speak on the points of order?
        The Chairman: The Chair will recognize the gentleman to speak 
    on the points of order at the appropriate time.
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I have not yet made the point of 
    order. I reserved it.
        The Chairman: The Chair has recognized the gentleman from Ohio 
    to speak on the gentleman's amendment for 5 minutes. Then the 
    gentlemen who reserved the points of order may press them or they 
    may not.

Unanimous-Consent Requests Charged Against Remaining Time

Sec. 28.55 Where debate is limited by motion to a time certain, 
    parliamentary inquiries and unanimous-consent requests made pending 
    the motion or after it is agreed to come out of the total remaining 
    time, and can be extended only by unanimous consent.

    The proposition stated above was the basis of the following 
proceeding, which occurred on Oct. 3, 1985, (11) during 
consideration of H.R. 2100 (12) in the Committee of the 
Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 131 Cong. Rec. 25986, 25995, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
12. The Food Security Act of 1985.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Walter B.] Jones of North Carolina: Mr. Chairman, I move 
    that, for all amendments introduced and those pending, all debate 
    on this particular section of cargo preference shall end at 4:45.
        The Chairman: (13) Is the gentleman moving to limit 
    debate on section 1141 and all amendments thereto?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. David E. Bonior (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Jones of North Carolina: Only those pertaining to cargo 
    preference, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: Would that include new sections following section 
    1141?
        Mr. Jones of North Carolina: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I am confining 
    my motion to cargo preference, the two amendments pending and those 
    anticipated, and I had in mind the gentleman's amendments when I 
    added 15 minutes to the original request. . . .
        Mr. [Doug] Bereuter [of Nebraska]: Since I have six or seven 
    amendments that would be covered by the chairman's motion, Mr. 
    Chairman, do I then have, outside of this time limit, 5 minutes for 
    discussion, or 10 minutes in the case of opposition? And the time 
    for votes, does that come outside of the 1 hour or within?
        The Chairman: If the amendments have not been offered within 
    the timeframe which the gentleman from North Carolina has 
    suggested, then the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) would 
    have 5 minutes in support of each amendment, if they have been 
    printed in the Congressional Record, and 5 minutes in opposition 
    also. . . .

[[Page 7176]]

        Mr. [Glenn] English [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, would it be 
    proper under the procedures of the House for a limitation upon the 
    English-Roberts-Smith proposals to end at, say, 4:30, and any other 
    amendments that may arise to end by 5:00?
        The Chairman: Overall time can be limited by motion. Allocation 
    of time may be made under a unanimous-consent request. . . .
        The gentleman can move to limit debate on the Smith amendment 
    and all amendments thereto.
        The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from 
    North Carolina (Mr. Jones).
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Bereuter) there were--ayes 39, noes 12.
        So the motion was agreed to.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Jones] 
    still has the time.
        Mr. [Eligio] de la Garza [II, of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, will the 
    gentleman from North Carolina yield?
        Mr. Jones of North Carolina: I yield to the gentleman from 
    Texas.
        Mr. de la Garza: Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentleman to yield for 
    the purpose of making a parliamentary inquiry as to how the time 
    will be apportioned.
        The Chairman: The Chair is unclear as to how many Members are 
    interested in speaking on this amendment, although he has an idea, 
    and will continue under the 5-minute rule unless there can be some 
    agreement reached that the time should be apportioned among those 
    Members who are standing as the Chair speaks. The Chair has the 
    authority to do that, and it would be, I think, fair to the 
    committee members that the Chair allocate that time to members 
    standing.
        Mr. [Edward R.] Madigan [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    unanimous-consent request.
        Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the time that has 
    just been allotted by the successful motion be divided equally 
    between the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee and the 
    Agriculture Committee, and that the time allocated to each be 
    divided equally between the majority and the minority.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Illinois?
        There was no objection.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza] and 
    the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Jones] will each have 15 
    minutes if they desire to control such time, and the gentleman from 
    Illinois [Mr. Madigan] and the gentleman from New York [Mr. (Norman 
    F.) Lent] will each have 15 minutes. . . .
        Mr. Jones of North Carolina: Mr. Chairman, it seems according 
    to the official timer that we are down to 3\1/2\ minutes. According 
    to my records, we have approximately 7 minutes. I understand that 
    during the debate on the time limitation, that that was charged to 
    me, to our side.
        The Chairman: The Chair would point out to his dear colleague 
    and friend, the gentleman from North Carolina, that what was 
    charged were these unanimous-consent requests. The reason they were 
    charged is that under the motion that the gentleman made,

[[Page 7177]]

    the time expires at 4:45. In order for us to fulfill the 15-minute 
    requirement, the Chair had to take the time out of that.
        If the gentleman asks to extend the time the Chair can do that 
    by unanimous consent.

Special Rule Providing for Five-Minute Vote on Amendments After 
    Recorded Vote Ordered

Sec. 28.56 Where a special order governing consideration of a bill in 
    Committee of the Whole provided that the Chairman could announce 
    after a recorded vote had been ordered that he would reduce to not 
    less than five minutes the period of time in which a recorded vote 
    by electronic device, if ordered, would be taken on any amendment 
    which was to be voted on without further debate immediately 
    following that 15-minute vote, the Chair indicated that, if Members 
    reserved debate time on such amendment, he would be unable to order 
    a five-minute vote on the amendment, since debate could intervene 
    between the votes.

    On May 4, 1983, (14) during consideration of House Joint 
Resolution 13, calling for a mutual and verifiable freeze on and 
reductions in nuclear weapons, there were pending an amendment to an 
amendment, and an amendment to a substitute therefor. The Chairman 
(15) stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 129 Cong. Rec. 11063, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
15. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the Members that with 
    respect to the time for voting, if any time is reserved on a second 
    amendment on which a recorded vote is ultimately ordered, the 
    Chairman does not have the discretion to order that to be taken 
    within 5 minutes unless all debate has been used.
        So the Chair would inquire of the gentleman from Illinois, with 
    respect to the second Zablocki amendment on which a . . . vote will 
    occur, does the gentleman choose to use at this time the 1 minute 
    remaining in opposition to that Zablocki amendment? . . .
        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I have 
    a parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Chairman, is my understanding correct that if the time that 
    is reserved is not yielded back, we cannot have a 5-minute vote on 
    the amendment?
        The Chairman: The Chair has discretion under the rule to order 
    a 5-minute vote on a subsequent amendment only if there is no 
    intervening debate, so the Chair would be unable to order a 5-
    minute vote on a subsequent amendment if a recorded vote is ordered 
    on the first amendment, if any Member has reserved his time on the 
    subsequent amendment which is pending, because then there would be 
    intervening debate.

[[Page 7178]]

        Mr. Zablocki: A further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
        After the vote, if there is a reservation of time and those who 
    have reserved their time have yielded back, could we then have a 5-
    minute vote?
        The Chairman: No; the Chair would have to order the 5-minute 
    vote in advance.
        Mr. Zablocki: Mr. Chairman, did I understand that the gentleman 
    from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) reserved his time?
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise that the gentleman from 
    Illinois (Mr. Hyde) has reserved his 1 minute remaining on the 
    second Zablocki amendment, that is, the Zablocki amendment to the 
    Courter substitute, which would be the second vote taken. So the 
    answer is, yes, he has reserved his 1 minute.

Offering Amendment in Time Yielded for Debate

Sec. 28.57 An amendment may not be offered in time yielded for debate 
    only.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See Sec. 13.1, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------