[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 5, Chapters 18 - 20]
[Chapter 19. The Committee of the Whole]
[D. Consideration and Debate]
[§ 15. Generally]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[Page 3391-3405]
CHAPTER 19
The Committee of the Whole
D. CONSIDERATION AND DEBATE
Sec. 15. Generally
This division takes up the general rules relating to consideration
and debate in the Committee of the Whole.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. See 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5203-5256 and 8 Cannon's Precedents
Sec. Sec. 2548-2595 for earlier rulings. See also Ch. 29,
infra, for further discussion of particular rules on
consideration and debate in the Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When the House issues an order for the consideration of a
particular bill and the manner in which it is to be considered, it
absolutely binds the Committee of the Whole because the Committee does
not possess authority to modify such an order (6) or to set
aside a rule of procedure prescribed by the House.(7)
Consequently, the Committee of the Whole may not consider a different
bill after the House has agreed to a motion to go into the Committee to
consider
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 4712, 4713; 7 Cannon's Precedents
Sec. 786; and 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 2321, 2322.
7. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4713
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 3392]]
a particular revenue or appropriation bill.(8) Neither the
Chairman nor the Committee may entertain requests to alter such
orders.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4734.
9. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 2550-2552.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the rare instances when the House does not designate business to
be considered in the Committee of the Whole, business may be taken up
in regular order, or in such order as the Committee may
determine.(10)
In the absence of a rule to the contrary, the practice governing
debate in the House is followed in the Committee of the
Whole.(11) Since 1841, general debate by a Member has been
limited in the Committee to no more than one hour,(12) any
portion of which may be yielded to another (13) who in turn
may yield to a third with the consent of the Member originally holding
the floor.(14) Of course, if the first Member retains
control of the floor, but yields to a second Member for a question, it
is the first Member who would subsequently yield to a third. On the
other hand, where a bill is being considered under a typical special
order providing that time be controlled by the chairman and ranking
minority member of the committee reporting the bill, the first Member
may yield a block of time to a second Member, in which case the second
Member may yield to a third while remaining on his feet, and permission
of the first Member is not necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 Rule XXIII clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 869 (1979). See 4
Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4729, for a discussion of the origin of
this rule.
11. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2553.
12. Note to Rule XXIII clause 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. 870
(1979).
13. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2553.
14. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2553.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following the close of general debate by order of the House any
Member is allowed five minutes to explain any amendment he may offer
after which the Member who first obtains the floor is allowed five
minutes to oppose it.(15) A Member proposing an amendment
may, by unanimous consent, offer an amendment to such amendment during
the five minutes allotted him under the rule but may not thereby secure
additional time for debate.(16) Following five minutes of
debate on an amendment and five minutes in opposition, a Member may
obtain five minutes for debate by offering the pro forma amendment ``to
strike the last word'' where an actual amendment is not contemplated;
(17) but a Member who
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Rule XXIII clause 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. 870 (1979).
16. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2562.
17. Note to Rule XXIII clause 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. 873
(1979); 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5778. See Sec. Sec. 15.9,
15.10, infra, which relate to speaking twice on an amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 3393]]
has occupied five minutes on a pro forma amendment may not lengthen his
time by making another pro forma amendment.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Note to Rule XXIII clause 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. 873
(1979); 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5222; and 8 Cannon's
Precedents Sec. 2560.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only the Chairman may recognize Members for debate.(19)
When time for debate under the five-minute rule is limited in Committee
of the Whole without provision for its control, the Chairman divides
the time, where practicable, between those favoring and those opposing
the proposition,(1) or among all Members indicating a desire
to speak. Nonetheless, on one occasion, when no one claimed the floor
in opposition after a speech in favor of an amendment under the five-
minute rule, the Chairman recognized another Member favoring the
amendment.(2) In recognizing for debate on an appeal in the
Committee of the Whole the Chairman alternates between those favoring
and those opposing.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5003.
1. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2558. See also Sec. 16.6, infra.
2. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2557.
3. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3455. See also Sec. 15.13, infra,
relating to time and scope of debate on appeal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Member recognized in the Committee of the Whole to debate an
amendment under the five-minute rule may yield to another Member while
remaining on his feet, but may not yield designated amounts of time to
another Member.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Sec. 15.5, infra. See 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5035-5037.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee of the Whole by majority vote may close debate upon
any section or paragraph or amendments thereto anytime after reading
thereof has been completed and debate thereon under the five-minute
rule has commenced. A1though agreement to the motion to close debate
does not preclude further amendment, it does preclude further debate on
those amendments.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Rule XXIII clause 6, House Rules and Manual Sec. 874 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The motion to close debate is not in order until debate has
begun,(6) which means after one speech, however brief;
(7) the motion may be made before expiration of the full
five minutes.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Sec. 15.12, infra; note to Rule XXIII clause 6, House Rules and
Manual Sec. 874 (1979).
7. 5 Hind's Precedents Sec. 5226; 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2573.
8. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2573.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The House, as well as the Committee of the Whole, may close the
five-minute debate after it has
[[Page 3394]]
begun although it rarely exercises this right.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Note to Rule XXIII clause 6, House Rules and Manual Sec. 874
(1979); 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 5229,
5231.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consideration of Unfinished Business
Sec. 15.1 Where the Committee of the Whole rises before the time for
debate expires, a limitation of a certain number of minutes (rather
than by the clock) having been imposed under the five-minute rule,
debate continues when the Committees resume its deliberations.
On June 16, 1948,(10) during consideration of H.R. 6401,
the Selective Service Act of 1948, Chairman Francis H. Case, of South
Dakota, indicated that where time for debate has been fixed on an
amendment in the Committee of the Whole and the Committee rises before
the time expires, debate continues when the Committee resumes its
deliberations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 94 Cong. Rec. 8521, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Walter G.] Andrews of New York: Mr. Chairman, in view of
the fact that two or three Members who have time are not here, I
move that the Committee do now rise.
The Chairman: The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Andrews].
Mr. [George A.] Smathers [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I would
like to be heard on that.
The Chairman: That is not a debatable motion. It is always
within the discretion of the gentleman handling the bill to move
that the Committee rise.
Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Marcantonio: Mr. Chairman, under the arrangement entered
into limiting debate on this amendment, will the Members who were
scheduled to be recognized be recognized when the Committee resumes
its deliberations?
The Chairman: They will be recognized, if the Committee should
vote to rise, when the Committee meets again.
Mr. Andrews of New York: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Andrews of New York: My understanding is that all those
gentlemen whose names are on the list will be recognized
immediately tomorrow.
The Chairman: The statement of the gentleman from New York is
correct.
Sec. 15.2 A question as to the future day when the Committee will
continue the consideration of a bill is for the Speaker and the
House to decide and not the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole.
[[Page 3395]]
On Apr. 26, 1948,(11) during consideration of H.R. 2245,
to repeal the tax on oleomargarine, Chairman Leslie C. Arends, of
Illinois, declined to rule on the time a particular bill would again be
considered in the Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 94 Cong. Rec. 4873, 80th 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. August H. Andresen [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. August H. Andresen: Mr. Chairman, I understand that the
Committee will rise at 4 o'clock. It is also my understanding of
the rules that this Committee should meet tomorrow in order to have
continuous consideration of the pending legislation.
I would like to have a ruling of the Chair as to whether or not
the rules provide that a day may intervene so that this legislation
may be taken up on Wednesday.
The Chairman: The Chair may say that is a matter for the
Speaker of the House and the House itself to determine. It is not
something within the jurisdiction of the Chair to decide.
Debate on Point of Order
Sec. 15.3 Debate on a point of order raised in the Committee of the
Whole is within the discretion of the Chairman and must be confined
to the point of order.
On Apr. 13, 1951,(12) during consideration of S. 1, 1951
amendments to the Universal Military Training and Service Act, Chairman
Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, stated the rule governing debate on a point
of order raised in Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 97 Cong. Rec. 3909, 3910, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Antoni N.] Sadlak [of Connecticut]: Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment.
The Chairman: The Clerk will report the amendment, but the
Chair will state that all time for debate has been exhausted.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr.Sadlak:
Page 26, following the amendment offered by Mr. Walter,
insert the following: ``Any citizen of a foreign country who. .
. .''
Mr. [Carl] Vinson [of Georgia]: I make the point of order
against the amendment that it is not germane to the pending bill.
The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Connecticut desire to be
heard on the point of order?
Mr. Sadlak: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Sadlak: Mr. Chairman, how much time will be allotted to me
for that purpose?
The Chairman: That is in the discretion of the Chair. The
gentleman's argument must be confined to the point of order.
Yielding in Debate by Floor Managers
Sec. 15.4 Where general debate on a bill is under control of the
[[Page 3396]]
chairman and ranking minority member of a committee, they may yield
as many times as they desire to whom they desire.
On July 11, 1946,(13) during consideration of Senate
Joint Resolution 138, the British loan bill, Chairman William M.
Whittington, of Mississippi, made reference to the power to yield where
general debate on a bill is under the control of the chairman and
ranking minority member of a committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 92 Cong. Rec. 8694, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miss [Jessie] Sumner of Illinois: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary
inquiry?
The Chairman: The gentlewoman will state it.
Miss Sumner of Illinois: The gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Hays]
and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Patman] have spoken two or three
times on this bill during general debate. Is that permissible under
the rules of the House?
The Chairman: The time is within the control of the chairman
and the ranking minority member of the committee.
Miss Sumner of Illinois: May the same person speak two or three
times in general debate on the same bill?
The Chairman: General debate on this bill has been fixed at 16
hours, the time equally divided between the chairman and the
ranking minority member of the committee. They may yield, once,
twice, or as many times as they desire to whom they desire.
Yielding by Member Recognized to Debate
Sec. 15.5 A Member recognized in the Committee of the Whole to debate
an amendment may yield to another Member if he so desires while
remaining on his feet.
On June 22, 1945(14) during consideration of House Joint
Resolution 101, extending the Price Control and Stabilization Act,
Chairman Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, stated the rule authorizing a
Member recognized in Committee to debate an amendment to yield to
another Member. At the time, the Committee was operating under an
agreement limiting debate on amendments to one hour.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 91 Cong. Rec. 6548, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
15. Id. at p. 6543.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana
[Mr. Harness].
Mr. [Forest A.] Harness of Indiana: Mr. Chairman, I am in favor
of this amendment because I believe it will force a more common-
sense administration of this law. The distinguished gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Crawford] has just made a most forceful argument in
favor of the amendment, and I yield to him for his further
observations.
[[Page 3397]]
Mr. [Fred L.] Crawford: Continuing, Mr. Vinson said:
That condition has been met for war production, and that
condition will be met for reconversion peace production.
Mr. [Wright] Patman [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Patman: Mr. Chairman, I am not objecting to the gentleman's
talking, but I want to know what the policy will be. Can one Member
yield another Member this time?
The Chairman: The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Harness] was
recognized and he yielded to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr.
Crawford], which is certainly permissible.
Mr. Patman: That is all right with me, Mr. Chairman, but I just
wanted to know what the policy is.
The Chairman: Any Member can yield to another Member, or
decline to yield, as he desires.
Parliamentarian's Note: Mr. Crawford had consumed his allotted time
for debate; when Mr. Harness was recognized immediately thereafter, he
yielded to Mr. Crawford to complete his remarks. Mr. Harness stood
while Mr. Crawford continued.
Yielding by Member Recognized for Pro Forma Amendment
Sec. 15.6 A Member recognized to strike out the last word under the
five-minute rule may yield to another Member.
On Mar. 21, 1960,(16) during consideration of amendments
under the five-minute rule, Chairman Francis E. Walter, of
Pennsylvania, made reference to the authority of a Member recognized to
strike out the last word to yield to another Member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 106 Cong. Rec. 6162, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: The time of the gentleman from New York has
expired.
Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent to proceed for 5 additional minutes.
Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman of Michigan: I object, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. [Sidney R.J] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I move to
strike out the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Celler].
Mr. Celler: I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: Just a minute. I make a point of order
on this.
Mr. Celler: Mr. Chairman, deprivation of the State's ballot is
wrong.
Mr. Yates: Mr. Chairman, I am entitled to yield to the
gentleman from New York.
The Chairman: The gentleman from Illinois was recognized, and
he yielded to the gentleman from New York. The gentleman from New
York is continuing in order.
[[Page 3398]]
Extension of Time Under Hour Rule
Sec. 15.7 Where general debate in the Committee of the Whole is
proceeding under the hour rule, a request that a Member's hour be
extended is not in order.
On Mar. 24, 1947,(17) during consideration under the
hour rule of H.R. 2700, providing appropriations for the Department of
Labor and the Federal Security Agency, Chairman Clifford R. Hope, of
Kansas, declined to permit extension of time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 93 Cong. Rec. 2476, 80th Cong. 1 st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John J.] Rooney [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I yield the
balance of my time to the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs.
Norton].
Mrs. [Mary T.] Norton: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
proceed for 10 additional minutes.
The Chairman: The Chair regrets that the request is not in
order at this time, as the time is under the control of the
gentleman from New York and is restricted under the rules of the
House.
Mrs. Norton: Is it not possible to get that additional time by
unanimous consent? I have known it to be done in many, many other
cases.
The Chairman: That would be true under the 5-minute rule, but
we are proceeding now in general debate, and under the rules of the
House that is not permitted.
Speaking More Than Once in General Debate
Sec. 15.8 Members may speak in general debate on a bill as many times
as they are yielded to by those in control of the debate.
On July 11, 1946,(18) during consideration of Senate
Joint Resolution 138, the British loan bill, Chairman William M.
Whittington, of Mississippi, indicated that Members may speak as
frequently in debate as they are yielded to by those controlling the
floor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 92 Cong. Rec. 8694, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miss [Jessie] Sumner of Illinois: May the same person speak two
or three times in general debate on the same bill?
The Chairman: General debate on this bill has been fixed at 16
hours, the time equally divided between the chairman and the
ranking minority member of the committee. They may yield, once,
twice, or as many times as they desire to whom they desire.
Speaking More Than Once on Amendment
Sec. 15.9 While a Member may not speak twice on the same amendment, he
may speak in opposition to a pending amendment and subsequently
offer a pro forma amendment and debate that.
[[Page 3399]]
On June 30, 1955,(19) during consideration of S. 2090,
to amend the Mutual Security Act of 1954, Chairman Jere Cooper, of
Tennessee, stated that a Member may in effect speak twice on the same
amendment by opposing a pending amendment and subsequently offering a
pro forma amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 101 Cong. Rec. 9614, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [James P.] Richards [of South Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike out the last word. . . .
Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman
yield?
Mr. Richards: I cannot yield just now.
Mr. Gross: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order. Is the
gentleman from South Carolina speaking twice on this? The gentleman
has offered an amendment to the amendment.
Mr. Richards: I will yield to the gentleman in just a moment. I
have a few more minutes of time, and I would like to get an
agreement on time.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this
amendment and all amendments thereto, close in 10 minutes.
The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from South Carolina?
Mr. Gross: Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, do I
understand that the gentleman from South Carolina has offered an
amendment to this amendment; and, if so, has it been read?
The Chairman: The gentleman from South Carolina offered an
amendment to the amendment by moving to strike out the last word,
which is a very common practice in the House.
Mr. Gross: I thought the gentleman had moved to strike out the
last word on a previous occasion.
The Chairman: No, the gentleman from South Carolina rose in
opposition to the pending amendment and now has the floor on a pro
forma amendment, which is entirely in order.
Sec. 15.10 Although a Member may not speak twice on the same amendment
he may rise in opposition to a pro forma amendment after debating a
substantive amendment, and accomplish that result.
On July 20, 1951,(20) during consideration of H.R. 3871,
amendments to the Defense Production Act of 1950, Chairman Wilbur D.
Mills, of Arkansas, stated that a Member may in effect speak twice on
the same amendment by opposing a pro forma amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 97 Cong. Rec. 8566, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Jesse P.] Wolcott [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Wolcott: Mr. Chairman, is it in order for a Member to talk
twice on the same amendment?
The Chairman: A Member may rise in opposition to a pro forma
amend
[[Page 3400]]
ment and accomplish that result, if he desires to do so.
Time Limitation on Pro Forma Amendment
Sec. 15.11 A Member recognized for five minutes on a pro forma
amendment may not automatically extend his time by offering a
substantive amendment, because the Chair seeks to alternate
recognition and is constrained by other factors in his recognition.
On July 28, 1965,(1) during consideration of H.R. 77,
repealing section 14(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, Chairman
Leo W. O'Brien, of New York, refused to entertain an amendment sought
to be offered by a Member who was speaking on a pro forma amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 111 Cong. Rec. 18631, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [William H.] Ayres [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I move to
strike out the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for an
additional 5 minutes.
The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
Mr. Ayres: Mr. Chairman, I am most gratified at the assurance
of Chairman Powell that a complete committee investigation of
National Labor Relations Board election procedures will be held.
Mr. Powell's House floor statement to me, just prior to a vote on
the repeal of section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act, means that we
can now delve into a part of labor relations that could have great
impact on the establishment of a good climate for labor industry
relations. . . .
In order to have a cooling-off period, Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Chairman: The Chair has not recognized the gentleman for
that purpose.
Does any other Member offer an amendment at this time?
Mrs. [Edith S.] Green of Oregon: Mr. Chairman, I should like to
offer an amendment.
The Chairman: The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Oregon
[Mrs. Green].
Timeliness of Motion to Close Debate
Sec. 15.12 A motion to close debate on an amendment in the Committee of
the Whole under the five-minute rule is not in order until there
has been some debate on such amendment.
On Mar. 25, 1947,(2) during consideration of H.R. 2700,
the Department of Labor and the Federal Security Agency appropria
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 93 Cong. Rec. 2557, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 3401]]
tion bill of 1948, Chairman Clifford R. Hope, of Kansas, ruled on the
timeliness of a motion to close debate on an amendment.
Mr. [John J.] Rooney [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered hy Mr. Rooney: On page 2, line 6, strike
out ``$819,500'' and insert ``$1,190,000.''
Mr. H. Carl Andersen [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that debate on this amendment close in 10
minutes.
Mr. Rooney: I object, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. [Frank B.] Keefe [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I move that
all debate on the pending amendment and all amendments thereto
close in 10 minutes.
Mr. [Jere] Cooper [of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, I make the
point of order that the motion is not in order now, until some
debate is had on the amendment.
The Chairman: The point of order is well taken. The motion is
not in order at this time, since there has been no debate on the
amendment.
Debate on Appeal of Chair's Ruling
Sec. 15.13 An appeal in the Committee of the Whole is debatable under
the five-minute rule and such debate is confined to the appeal.
On Feb. 22, 1950, Calendar Wednesday,(3) during
consideration of H.R. 4453, the Federal Fair Employment Practice Act,
Chairman Francis E. Walter, of Pennsylvania, ruled on the time and
scope of debate on an appeal in the Committee of the Whole. The Member
in control of time, Mr. Adam C. Powell, of New York, had yielded one
minute to Mr. Howard W. Smith, of Virginia, for purposes of debate
only. Mr. Smith, however, attempted to offer a motion to rise during
that time. Following Mr. Powell's timely point of order, which the
Chair sustained, Mr. Smith then sought recognition to offer the motion
to rise on his own time, but the Chair advised him that he had no time,
as time was in the control of Mr. Powell and Mr. Samuel K. McConnell,
Jr., of Pennsylvania. After Mr. Hugo S. Sims, Jr., of South Carolina,
had been yielded four minutes of time for debate, Mr. Sims then in turn
yielded to Mr. Smith, who again tried to offer a motion to rise. The
following proceedings then took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 96 Cong. Rec. 2178, 2179, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: The gentleman from South Carolina was yielded 4
minutes time for debate. He in turn yielded to the gentleman from
Virginia but he cannot yield to the gentleman from Virginia for the
purpose of offering that motion (i.e., the motion that the
Committee rise).
Mr. Smith of Virginia: Mr. Chairman, I respectfully appeal from
the decision of the Chair.
[[Page 3402]]
The Chairman: The question is, Shall the decision of the Chair
be sustained?
Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I make a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Rankin: Mr. Chairman, is that appeal debatable?
The Chairman: Under the 5-minute rule; yes.
Mr. Rankin: Mr. Chairman, I would like to be heard.
The Chairman: The gentleman is recognized. The Chair will say
that the discussion is now on the appeal.
Mr. Rankin: Mr. Chairman, this is the first time that I ever
knew Members of the House to have to edge in in this way to be
recognized for a motion for the Committee to rise.
In my opinion that motion is privileged, and any Member has a
right to make it at any time.
I do not propose to discuss this monstrosity at the present
time. I will do that under the 5-minute rule. But I secured this
time to support the appeal of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Smith).
In the first place, we are going to be here all night, if this
goes on.
I am sure that Joe Stalin heard that applause, because you are
driving through here a piece of communistic legislation that Stalin
promulgated in 1920, and you could not pass it in a single county
in the United States by a popular vote, as was shown in California.
Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a point of
order.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Marcantonio: I make the point of order that the gentleman
from Mississippi must direct his remarks to the question of the
appeal from the ruling of the Chair.
The Chairman: The gentleman is correct. . . .
The question is, Shall the decision of the Chair be the
judgment of the Committee?
The question was taken; and the Chair being in doubt, the
Committee divided and there were--ayes 123, noes, 77.
Mr. Smith of Virginia: Mr. Chairman, I demand tellers.
Tellers were ordered, and the Chairman appointed as tellers Mr.
Powell and Mr. Smith of Virginia.
The Committee again divided; and the tellers reported that
there were-- ayes 148, noes 83.
So the decision of the Chair stands as the judgment of the
Committee.
Debate by Speaker
Sec. 15.14 The Speaker sometimes takes the floor in debate in the
Committee of the Whole.
As an example, on June 30, 1939,(4) during consideration
of House Joint Resolution 306, the Neutrality Act of 1939, Speaker
William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, took the floor in debate in the
Committee of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Cong. Rec. 8509, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Bankhead: Mr. Chairman, I have listened with very great
interest
[[Page 3403]]
to the remarks just made by the ranking minority member of the
Committee on Foreign Affairs, in which he seemed to conclude his
argument with the proposition that his opposition to the pending
bill would keep the United States of America out of war. . . .
After due consideration, one of the major reasons that I am
supporting the proposed bill in contradiction to the conclusions of
the gentleman from New York is that I honestly and fervently
believe that in adopting this law we will be making a great gesture
to keep the United States of America out of any world war. . . .
I want to say to you, after a very careful and, I trust,
prudent observation and investigation of this whole question of
neutrality, that we made a supreme and colossal mistake in policy,
in national policy, if you please, when we departed a few years ago
from the time-honored and time-tested constitutional principle of
leaving the management of our foreign and diplomatic affairs in the
hands of the President of the United States and of the State
Department of this country. [Applause.] it had been lodged there
securely and definitely for 145 years. Every incursion that we have
attempted to make by these various neutrality laws in the last 3 or
4 years does but serve to teach us that it is absolutely impossible
for the genius even of the Congress of the United States to enact a
statute that contains real neutrality. . . .
It is my earnest belief, and I assert it, after undertaking to
give to this proposition the sincerest and most earnest
consideration of which I am capable, that if we pass this law
tonight and lift this inhibition against the shipment of arms and
ammunition to those who need them-who need them, as the gentleman
from Texas pointed out--to defend their liberties, to defend their
homes, and to defend their principles of self-government and
personal liberty--and this is not a fight for the munitions makers,
although that argument has been made--I feel that the safest and
surest way for us to proceed is to remove the shackles and
impediments now resting on the President of the United States and
the Secretary of State and give them absolute freedom of action, as
the founders of our Constitution conceived they should have, to
govern from day to day and from hour to hour the incidents that may
occur in this storm-tossed and tempestuous world.
Sec. 15.15 The Speaker offered an amendment to a bill in the Committee
of the Whole and participated in debate thereon.
On Apr. 27, 1956,(5) during consideration of H.R. 10660,
the Federal Highway and Revenue Acts of 1956, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of
Texas, offered and debated an amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 102 Cong. Rec. 7212, 84th Cong. 2d Sess. See 101 Cong. Rec. 3204,
3205, 84th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 18, 1955, in which Speaker Sam
Rayburn [Tex.], offered an amendment proposing an additional
House building.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Rayburn: Mr. Chairman, offer an amendment.
[[Page 3404]]
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Rayburn:
On page 14, line 20, strike out ``Committee on Public Works
of the.''
On line 23, strike out ``on Public Works.''
On line 24, after the word ``Representatives'', insert ``to
which referred.'' . . .
On page 30, strike out lines 12 through 18 and insert
``furnish to the Congress such information, books, records,
correspondence, memoranda, papers, and documents which are in
their possession relating to the construction of the Interstate
Sys
tem. . . .''
Mr. Rayburn: Mr. Chairman, this amendment has been very
carefully drawn--I hope. Its purpose is not to rob anybody of any
authority which they think they should have. But a short while ago
there began to grow up in the House the practice of including
provisions in bills saying that the departments should report to
committees of Congress. The only thing this amendment does is to
provide that they shall report to the Congress. Then whoever may be
Speaker of the House will refer them to the proper place. I just
feel that it would be a little more dignified if these matters were
referred to 435 Members instead of 25 or 30. . . .
Mr. Rayburn: I might say also that before I offered this
amendment I conferred with the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Martin], the ex-Speaker, and it is agreeable to him.
Mr. [Jere] Cooper [of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. Rayburn: I yield.
Mr. Cooper: I merely want to point out that in title II of the
pending bill it is provided that reports are to be made to the
Congress.
The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Rayburn].
The amendment was agreed to.
Use of Exhibits in Debate
Sec. 15.16 Where objection is made to the display of exhibits in debate
in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair puts the question to the
Committee for its decision.
On Aug. 5, 1949,(6) during consideration of H.R. 1758,
amending the Natural Gas Act, Chairman Howard W. Smith, of Virginia,
put to the Committee of the Whole a question regarding display of a
chart after objection had been raised to such display.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 95 Cong. Rec. 10859, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Oren] Harris [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike
out the last word, and ask unanimous consent to proceed for five
additional minutes, in order that I may help to clear up the
situation here about which so many people have come to me and
asked, and in order that I may show you on a chart just what this
legislation will do. . . .
Mr. [Eugene D.] O'Sullivan [of Nebraska]: Mr. Chairman, a point
of order.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
[[Page 3405]]
Mr. O'Sullivan: Mr. Chairman, is it in order for an exhibit to
be presented to the Committee of the Whole or to the House of
Representatives? As I read the rules it is not in order to do so,
unless the permission of the Committee of the Whole or of the House
is first obtained.
The Chairman: If the gentleman from Nebraska objects to the use
of the exhibit, the Chair will put the question to the Committee of
the Whole. Does the gentleman object?
Mr. O'Sullivan: I object, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: The question is: Shall the use of the exhibit be
permitted?
The question was agreed to.