[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 9, Chapter 27]
[Chapter 27. Amendments]
[E. Consideration and Voting]
[§ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------